• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Oops, darn it...

As mike said, and I tend to vocalise, the marketing plan is everything. Nothing backs up the marketing and until someone revamps the board of directors nothing will change.
The scary thing is the “oh wow, gotta have one” reaction from newbies that have never flown in their life.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
350K, & a three year waiting list,I would say their marketing plan was extremely successful!
The airplane does everything they said it would do. All NTSB reports have pointed to Pilot errors or weather conditions, which I consider to be a pilot judgement error.
They never advertised it as a tree top trimmer.




Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Perhaps it does what they said, but it’s performance does not match my perception. The searey outperforms it all day.

Discussed before, but so far a majority are owned/operated by Icon, with very few in personal ownership, after years of fanfare, investors and re-investments by more investors. With a re-organisation or two in the middle.



Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
I just got back from OSH. One guy in our group went on a demo flight in the ICON. He was not impressed by the plane and was frightened by the company pilot. His flight was on a cooler day right after the storms passed but said the plane felt like the DA was very high.
 
The crash shown looks all wrong, from the crosswind run up and take off to the quick turn. What’s the point in not pointing it into the wind at the start. Seems like pilot problem to me.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
JeffP said:
The crash shown looks all wrong, from the crosswind run up and take off to the quick turn. What’s the point in not pointing it into the wind at the start. Seems like pilot problem to me.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
Click to expand...

Turning takeoffs are fairly common in seaplanes. Hard to tell the exact direction of the wind, but velocity didn’t look to be that high. He made the turn easily enough. Looked to me that he got into a rotor off the tree line after he turned parallel to it.

MTV
 
You thinking some turbulence off the tree line. I agree, but his taxi route looked like it would have been a better choice for take off. I think he played to the camera and might have lost.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
The parked sailboat indicates wind direction. There's always a wind shadow and maybe a top rotor in the sheltered lee of trees.

Gary
 
Regarding the Icon incident -
I'm recently familiar with attempting to fly downwind at full power and not being able to climb, but it does seem a bit overconfident to even attempt that takeoff from the origin spot, in that aircraft.

That said, something I noticed in the video made me zoom in and take a better look at it close up. While it was obviously mushing, the AOA the pilot was pulling trying to clear the trees was a lot. In the heat of the moment and now in that situation, not sure there's much choice.

But the next frame shows the right wing catches the tree and spins the aircraft sideways. In doing so, it _appears_ that the tail simply snaps off, meaning, it _looks_ like the force of being thrown sideways in the air is enough to snap the empennage off the fuselage.

While it could be the tail caught something as well, what's the structural history of T-tails in a bad situation like this? It wouldn't have changed the outcome, but if it was purely the force of the air that snapped it, is it cause for concern regarding the empennage structure?

 
Farmboy said:
Regarding the Icon incident -
if it was purely the force of the air that snapped it, is it cause for concern regarding the empennage structure?
Click to expand...

To my eyes there was no strike to the tail, it was acceleration and air loads due to the rotation causing the fuselage failure. To my mind, yes it is cause for concern about the structural integrity of that aircraft.
Many aircraft withstand unexpected accelerations which they structurally withstand. Changes to the fiber orientation in this plane would do it well.
 
CharlieN said:
To my eyes there was no strike to the tail, it was acceleration and air loads due to the rotation causing the fuselage failure. To my mind, yes it is cause for concern about the structural integrity of that aircraft.
Many aircraft withstand unexpected accelerations which they structurally withstand. Changes to the fiber orientation in this plane would do it well.
Click to expand...
To my mind the impact loads on the wing tip caused the twisting loads on the fuselage to far exceed the design requirements. The abrupt stopping of the wing tip along with the moment arm from the tip to the center of mass of the tail combined caused the fuselage boom structure to fail. The loads at the failure point would have been extreme. Airplanes are not designed not to fail when a wing hits something.
That being said there was still no reason for the accident which could not be attributed to pilot error.
 
To me, looked like one thru the prop and one under the gear. The guy in the helicopter tried to lift off, never saw him get out. That was not a good day over there. The turbines seemed to stay running a long time, I expect the pilot of the plane must not have been in good shape be it physically or mentally, before or after? I expect I will look this one up when I am done with work today.
 
The fatalities in that one were two police officers and the Co-Pilot in the plane. There were no passengers in the plane at the time. The plane and one helicopter were destroyed, the second helicopter was still operational. The helicopter pilot was injured and airlifted along with one of the police officers to a hospital in Kathmandu.
 
omg. I am absolutely sick right now . This was is a great friend of mine. 7402D . I had her at my hangar for a year. we installed a 406 and replaced alot of stuff on the plane.
 
Pretty sad deal into the mountain in a tri pacer. Not sure at 5000' with 4 aboard how well a tripacer can really perform?
Clear sky at the time, so not weather?
John
 
john schwamm said:
Pretty sad deal into the mountain in a tri pacer. Not sure at 5000' with 4 aboard how well a tripacer can really perform?
Clear sky at the time, so not weather?
John
Click to expand...

pacer(-20) conversion if you google the N-number... not that that matters much..

was gusty at other end here in eagle river.....
 
No idea what went so wrong here. That's a fun little flight see route. Gotta do climbing 360s to gain altitude to clear the saddle. Tom Warleigh took me there on my initial mountain flying lesson with him. We cleared the ridge by about 50' and the mountain fell away. Stunning. Tom lit up like a kid. Said no matter how many times he'd done it he never got tired of it.

Godspeed to those lost. Condolences to those they left behind.
 
I suppose straight and level flight preceding CFIT in solid IFR wouldn’t be so bad. You wouldn’t suffer the terror of falling helplessly and your end would be quick.

But it is horrifying to think of some of the often easily avoidable ways people suffer in the moments before taking their last breath “doing what they love (not).”

Hasten, Angels of the Lord, to receive their souls and bring them into the sight of the Almighty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alex Clark
I wonder what the deal is with this J-5 ?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Dough Head
Dough Head
rcsimpson
A real "Bush" plane?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Alex Clark
Alex Clark
G
Wonder if a Cub was the sling load?
Replies
11
Views
3K
mvivion
mvivion
FlipFlop
You'all be careful out there, ya hear?...
23 24 25
Replies
740
Views
252K
aktango58
aktango58
Ruidoso Ron
Lost a great friend yesterday.
Replies
13
Views
4K
Carbon Cub Chick
Carbon Cub Chick
Back
Top