Possible LSA weight exemption on certian legacy aircraft?

dstclair · Post by **dstclair** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:09 pm

It depends where you live, I suppose but I have a Rotax trained mechanic that flies/drives to my hangar for no extra charge. There's also a big Rotax iRC Independent Repair Center around 10 mins by air away with multiple certified mechanics. I can think of 3 others slightly farther away.

3Dreaming · Post by **3Dreaming** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:26 pm

zaitcev wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:7900, I want to know why your so thrilled with an airplane whose structure is going to be built by a chinese owned company powered by a Rotax engine that you can not get serviced anywhere? Also what does doc have to say about it?
I don't think the cheap FUD about Rotax helps your case. It's the engine that beat the pants of everything Lyc and Conti could do, for years and years. It is lighter, performs better, and more reliable than old "tried and true" powerplants. Or should I say obsolete ones? Rotax powers Predators and Reapers, remember. And finding a Rotax-qualified mechanic is not that much of a chore these days.

As for "Chinese-owned", then I suppose Bonanza is not for you anymore either, huh.

Note that if A5 comes out as pudgy as the exemption suggests, they'll need to find a different engine. 100 hp in a 1600 lbs airplane means performance of Cessna 150.

I'm sorry, I knew I shouldn't of posted that. I have no problem with Rotax. I own 2 and have factory training to work on them. Go back and look at some of 7900's old post and those of lightsportflyer and you will see why I said that.

VL Roberts · Post by **VL Roberts** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:15 pm

.
I have to disagree with you. The ROTAX is lighter, but the advantage ends there. It is not more reliable or performs better than the Conti or Lycs., it is in fact more maint heavy. Also, overhaul time for a ROTAX may be 2000 hours, but that is Hobbs time, not tach like a Conti, about a 20 percent difference. Yes, there are more ROTAX trained mechs around now, but not enough to eliminate the real possibility of being stranded.

VL Roberts · Post by **VL Roberts** » Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:00 pm

zaitcev wrote:.

Note that if A5 comes out as pudgy as the exemption suggests, they'll need to find a different engine. 100 hp in a 1600 lbs airplane means performance of Cessna 150.

1. Trailer airplane to lake or other body of water.
2. Launch plane into water, tether, so plane doesn't float away
3. Park vehicle with trailer.
4. Return to plane, start up, taxi, takeoff.
5. Fly around water, land, return to boat launch.
6. Tether aircraft, retrieve vehicle with trailer, put plane back on trailer.
7. Thoroughly clean acft, especially if it has been in salt water

The pilot is going to need increased performance, not the airplane.

Jim Stewart · Post by **Jim Stewart** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:38 pm

So I'm sitting here wondering why this thread had to degrade into name calling and ad hominem attacks. The discussion on the A5 has raised some very interesting questions and the ongoing Rotax vs Lyc/Cont discussion will never be settled. Concerning Icon, members should be free to discuss the history of deposit-financed aircraft development. Likewise the motivation for increasing the gross weight of the aircraft by 250 lbs. As to the Rotax, if you don't like it, fine. Many of us do and most of us have no problem keeping ours maintained.

CharlieTango · Post by **CharlieTango** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:03 pm

Jim Stewart wrote:So I'm sitting here wondering why this thread had to degrade into name calling and ad hominem attacks...

Jim,

There is nothing wrong with the subject matter of this thread. The assertions of at least one of the posters leaves me sitting here and wondering and in response I assert that:

1) Rotax doesn't pay people to post on web forums to defend their engines at all costs no matter the truth.

2) Rotax has many fans and expressing a positive opinion does not "clearly" make the poster bought and paid for by Rotax.

3) It is not "anit-American" to express opinions about a private company such as Icon.

7900 · Post by **7900** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:43 pm

Jim Stewart wrote:So I'm sitting here wondering why this thread had to degrade into name calling and ad hominem attacks. The discussion on the A5 has raised some very interesting questions and the ongoing Rotax vs Lyc/Cont discussion will never be settled. Concerning Icon, members should be free to discuss the history of deposit-financed aircraft development. Likewise the motivation for increasing the gross weight of the aircraft by 250 lbs. As to the Rotax, if you don't like it, fine. Many of us do and most of us have no problem keeping ours maintained.

Be glad to clear that up for you. I directly answered the OP posters question with info from reliable sources. And what do I get in return but another member who goes completely off topic soley to start trouble ( I dislike Rotaxes ??? ) and then accuses me of being someone else.

Yeah pardon me but I have no obligation to take that - and neither would you. It comes right back at him.

Like I said, stay on topic and we'll all be the better off and leave the personal attacks out.

3Dreaming · Post by **3Dreaming** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:43 pm

In case you didn't see it, I already said I'm sorry. No cheap shots, I was just curious why you had a sudden change of heart from your old point of view of hating anything related to being foreign.

Rotax doesn't need any protection from me. They have a great product that can stand on it's own accord. BTW I'm still waitng on that paycheck from Rotax that you keep talking about.

No cheap shots at Icon were intended. It was dirrected at you because of your previous stance on anything foreign. I never said that the Icon or any parts would be made in China. What I said is it is going to be built by a Cirrus, which is a Chinese owned company. TCM and Beechcraft are in the same boat, and I don't like it one bit. I find it sad when our US born companies have to be sold to foreign financial groups because they can't find funding within our own country to keep them going. I'm not a US hater like you implied.

As for hoping that Icon fails that couldn't be farther from the truth. I hope they can sell every one of those 1,000 airplanes. That means 1,000 more Rotax engines here in the US. Maybe I will get to work on one, putting some US dollars in my US pocket to spend on US grown food. After all I'm a Rotax man according to you.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:58 pm

Ladies and gentlemen,

Enough of these insults, already! If the sniping does not end immediately, I will be forced to delete this entire thread. (I'd really hate to do that, because both sides on several issues have raised interesting points. But I will not let these forums degenerate into name-calling.)

This post was "bought and paid for" by the Sport Pilot Talk.com domain owner, when he appointed me volunteer moderator.

deltafox · Post by **deltafox** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:03 pm

Thanks Paul...you reminded me very much of "I'm going to stop this car right now if....!" Kids.

3Dreaming · Post by **3Dreaming** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:40 pm

To the forum members I am sorry I took the discution off topic. I sometimes forget that what I type is up there for the whole world to see. I shouldn't have poked the bear so to speak. I will try to do better next time.

3Dreaming · Post by **3Dreaming** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:58 pm

I think Icon may have some competition. Take a look at the Akoya from Lisa Airplanes. They have a really nice looking airplane.
http://www.lisa-airplanes.com/en/akoya/ ... enter.html

3-333 · Post by **3-333** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:07 pm

Thanks Doc, this is a great way to have an enlightened discussion.

As for deposit financed development what are your thoughts? The first company that I personally came across that does not take deposits was Independent Aircraft, this was a few years ago and I have a lot of respect for company that stands behind their product breaking the status quo and I have been keeping an eye on them ever since, granted according to their web site it doesn't look like they are any closer to producing an amphibious LSA than Icon. But they haven't taken a dime for a customer either.

Since then I have came across Ion aircraft, not to be confused with Icon who doesn't take deposits either. These seem to be the exception to the rule, when I hear deposits before production begins I shy away.

Do you know of any other aircraft company/s who follows this model? Irene Donier with his S-Ray, not the Sea Rey, took deposits but when they canceled they sent out refunds with interest, just as Cessna did with their Skycatcher. That was the right and honorable thing to do, but that was Cessna and Donier, they can afford to do this.

Icon has the Icon 100, the first 100 positions were reserved for $100,000 NON-Escrowed, but their other orders/deposits of $5,000-$2,000 are escrowed. My point is that $10 million that's not held in escrow, sure they say that it is refundable, but is it really?

Your thoughts?

jnmeade · Post by **jnmeade** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:22 pm

3Dreaming wrote:I think Icon may have some competition. Take a look at the Akoya from Lisa Airplanes. They have a really nice looking airplane.
http://www.lisa-airplanes.com/en/akoya/ ... enter.html

Akoya went into receivership, whatever that means.

3-333 · Post by **3-333** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:23 pm

3Dreaming wrote:I think Icon may have some competition. Take a look at the Akoya from Lisa Airplanes. They have a really nice looking airplane.
http://www.lisa-airplanes.com/en/akoya/ ... enter.html

I don't think the Akoya posses any threat to Icon, upon returning to France from Oshkosh the company was place in what we would consider Chapter 13 Bankruptcy (restructuring) please see the the following link
https://www.google.com/search?q=lisa-ai ... 80&bih=582

I like the plane, its pretty cool and they have been working on it since 2004. If they cant find more investors I believe that they are out. I hope not but we will see.

Possible LSA weight exemption on certian legacy aircraft?

Enough is enough!