[Username Protected]

Thanks for the info! Yeah, not looking to try, just curious if attempted or not (having an emergency drogue chute like other aircraft have done in testing). The emergency chute is the way to go in that situation indeed.

As for development and testing, it’s very fascinating watching the videos of all you folks did! Such a unique product, Thank you!

[Username Protected]

Sure, The Proof of Concept aircraft (POC) first tests had a rocket fired spin recovery chute mounted to the tail, it was never used. Len Fox was the test pilot on a lot of that testing too as he is pretty much the go to guy for spin testing aircraft. He has done so much unique testing over his career he is held is super high regard amongst the test pilot community.

The initial strategy was to make the aircraft spin recoverable but Jon Karkow thought it could make it spin resistant. He was right, and It was a worthy endeavor.

[Username Protected]

I too am somewhat perplexed by the placement of the new VGs behind the stall strip. I spent waaaay too many hours as an undergrad doing wind tunnel tests back in the days when VGs and stall strips really weren't that common. I was always amazing how such a little thing as a VG could make such a big difference in the boundary layer separation characteristics. But those new angles, along with the stall strip in front, have me scratching my grey hairs! Anybody ever come across their diagram of placement?

[Username Protected]

I would appreciate seeing the template as well. If anyone that’s had them installed wouldn’t mind getting a copy from the installer. This should be documented here for a couple of reasons. 1. As a backup copy for anyone that’s had one or more come off. 2. We are fortunate to have some experts in this forum, that could chime in with their opinions on the placement as well. Especially during a time of uncertainty with the future of the A5.

[Username Protected]

I’m looking for some vortex generators to increase my useful load. Does anyone know where I can purchase some? Icon is saying the factory won’t sell them any right now because of the current restructuring.

[Username Protected]

I’m looking for some vortex generators to increase my useful load. Does anyone know where I can purchase some? Icon is saying the factory won’t sell them any right now because of the current restructuring.

You can buy the same VGs from Aircraft Spruce, I think, as Icon uses, but without the template for their placement you'd be only guessing on how to apply the to get the desired results.

[Username Protected]

I’m looking for some vortex generators to increase my useful load. Does anyone know where I can purchase some? Icon is saying the factory won’t sell them any right now because of the current restructuring.

This is the link to the specific VG’s. As Gabriel mentioned, knowing where to place them is the real challenge right now.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catal...clickkey=11377

[Username Protected]

First if ICON didn’t supply you the Major Repair Alteration (MRA) document with the associated POH even if you knew where the VG’s went you wouldn’t be legally allowed to increase your gross weight. My understanding is the MRA is for both the 4 blades prop, VG’s and POH. It has to be that combo. although I disagree with the VG placement the only reason they put them on there is to lower the stall speeds with the added weight to stay under the 45 KCAS stall requirement to remain a LSA.

So if you are willing to just add the VG’s without the paperwork and roll the dice there for 60lb of useful load why wouldn’t you illegally fly you airplane over gross weight? I’m not advocating for that by the way, do it the right way and wait for the Chinese owners to get their shit together (if they ever do) and get the right paperwork and parts.

[Username Protected]

As far as I’m concerned, I wouldn’t want to fly the plane utilizing the weight increase, until the paperwork and requirements would be met. However, just knowing that your plane physically meets the requirements, is just peace of mind knowing it’s capabilities, even if I don’t intend to fly over gross.

[Username Protected]

Thanks all. I would never fly any airplane without everything being done legally. My ICON is being worked on at the Tampa ICON center and they have related to me that they will work on all paperwork, they were just having to wait on the VG though their normal supplier. I have sent them a message that I have found some that might work and they are going to get back to me, I have sent them the link that Ted sent me. They will be placing them on the ICON not me. And yes its costing me $6500. I already have the 4 prop. thanks again! D

[Username Protected]

Hello gang - I just heard back from ICON and they will not use the VG’s that Ted sent me. We have to use the ones they order. I’m trying to get the manufacturer and name.

[Username Protected]

Hello gang - I just heard back from ICON and they will not use the VG’s that Ted sent me. We have to use the ones they order. I’m trying to get the manufacturer and name.

My understanding, it’s the same manufacturer.

[Username Protected]

Ted - You’re right, I just found out it’s the same manufacturer, but they still have to go though there purchasing process.

[Username Protected]

Ted - You’re right, I just found out it’s the same manufacturer, but they still have to go though there purchasing process.

Good luck Domingo

[Username Protected]

This topic is a good illustration, but not the only situation this could apply to over time, of one example for those not familiar with the difference between LSA and certificated planes. The LSA rules as they are today aren't the same as with type-certificated airplanes. With MOSAIC coming probably next year, I am not sure how much this could change.

There is an STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) process on a type-certificated plane that allows for pretty much anyone that wants to submit an STC application can do so, with the requisite data to prove their case to the FAA, and upon getting their STC, it is theirs, it doesn't go back to the original type certificate and type certificate holder. Hence Raisbeck and Blackhawk and other modifications for many planes, for different engines, modifications to the airframe/airfoil, etc. MicroVG and a few others have STCs for their product on several dozens of other people's planes, and they sell the STC usage rights with the parts.

Icon does the same thing in situations like this, where they developed the higher gross weight setup. It's not an FAA STC, though, it's a manufacturer's MRA (Major Repair/Alteration) filing. Since there isn't an STC process for the LSA category planes, there is no way for anyone other than the manufacturer itself to conceptualize and implement a material change that is legal to put on the plane. For those that want the same effect of these extra VGs, if you have the installation template and buy the parts through Aircraft Spruce and not Icon, I am not certain of the legality of installing them and using them absent the MRA, I suspect the answer is that it depends on whether the FAA saw it as a major alteration. While not a lawyer, I also suspect that because there is an MRA for these, someone doing that without manufacturer permission under the MRA, if it ever got to an FAA review, would not be deemed legal, it would be non-conforming with the manufacturer's specs, which rule in LSA. If the manufacturer thought an MRA was needed to do this, the FAA I assume will say that proves it's a major alteration, and that's logical, if you put them on thinking they actually do really make a difference. It's a catch 22: if they don't make a difference nobody would put them on, if they do, they must be a major alteration because it changes the flying performance (here allows additional weight within the same flying envelope). That is a different "legality" issue than what Bret mentioned above. He points out that with these on but no MRA, you can't legally use the higher gross for loading. I'm pointing out that merely their installation that way at all probably makes your plane non-conforming and therefore illegal at any weight.

It's maybe frustrating here that the MRA is so expensive compared to other VG solutions for other planes. Icon is pricing this based on their engineering costs, and some internal projection on how many people would buy them to reimburse that, not based on being market-comparable in pricing per pound of increased gross weight allowance (or similar). It is what it is, though, in that the LSA rules don't give any options for solutions to this or any other creative ideas but for those that the manufacturer undertakes, and based on the price that they as the only legally eligible provider want to charge. Everyone just has to decide if it's worth that price point to them. While I understand the logic of putting the same things on the same way without the MRA, to gain the performance cushion even if you can't legally add the extra weight (as if you are going to get ramp checked ever for that?), there is probably some (a lot of) risk that if one ever had an incident with FAA and/or insurance people involved, IF anyone catches that those were installed without the MRA, that could be grounds for action against you, I would think.

Someone with knowledge to the contrary can tell me I'm wrong if that's not the case, but assuming I understand this correctly, keep in mind the question of legality may not just be in your loading weight, but about whether or not you have invalidated your airworthiness certificate entirely.

[Username Protected]

I agree with your assessment Gabriel and I believe firmly that Icon spent a ton of money re-testing the aircraft at the new gross weight and W&B shift. If you multiply the 5K per aircraft X 80 planes (Probably what Icon projected for MRAs), it probably does not cover their costs. I was surprised, happy and grateful for Icon to offer this GW increase to the original buyers. They could have easily made it available to new aircraft ONLY to boost new aircraft sales. This would also have really hurt used aircraft value/sales.

Thank you Icon.

[Username Protected]

Agreed. Thanks Gabriel and Michel.