Icon in Flight has no flaps.

[LHookins 3,118]

Stock Goose water rudder. The fourth parameter, -6.0, is how far it sticks out below the plane. Change it to -2.0 so you don't suddenly jerk to one side while trying to land while holding a lot of rudder. No, you didn't dip a wing float into the water. It's the water rudder.point.9= 5, -6.5, 0.0, -6.0, 0, 0, 0.0, 20, 0.00, 0.0, 1.00, 0.0, 0.0, 0, 0, 0This is my modified version:point.9= 5, -6.5, 0.0, -2.0, 0, 0, 0.0, 20, 0.00, 0.0, 1.00, 1.0, 1.0, 0, 0, 0//point.9 is the water rudder (control-w to lower/raise) I know the default FSX Goose very well too. :DHook

[socalguy85 0]

This is one of serveral reasons why I don't care for the Icon. I don't fly it much at all; well the one good thing is you can land on water with it. And, it's so slow, I could see the point that, with a good approach, if you manage your airpseed correctly, you won't need flaps, especially on the long, hard surface runways. I don't care for the cockpit either...looks more like you're driving a Nissan or something. No mixture? really? Icons in r/l have no mixture? The engine just runs the same at say, 7,000 feet as it does at 1,500?I guess I'm spoiled, but that cockpit...can't deal with it. I like my vertical speed indicator, attitude indicator, etc. And it;s SO SLOW. I only fly it if the mission/adventure whatever requires it. Otherwise for the $100 burger and that stuff, I prefer the RV6-A. For the freight/charter/medevac stuff, the Maule is fine; since I spend most of my time doing those missions, it's the plane I fly the most.Instead of the Icon, I wish we could have started with the good old 172. But, again, that's just me.

[Great Ozzie 101]

No mixture? really? Icons in r/l have no mixture? The engine just runs the same at say, 7,000 feet as it does at 1,500?

I reckon you would be :Shocked: to learn the Mooney PFM had no mixture control either...

[LHookins 3,118]

I don't care for the Icon. I don't fly it much at all; well the one good thing is you can land on water with it. And, it's so slow,

I guess you don't care for the Stearman for all the same reasons. Except while the Rotax engines on the Icon are auto-mixture, you get to adjust the mixture manually in the Stearman. Neither has a VSI, neither has an attitude indicator. With a little practice you can learn to fly without a full complement of instruments, etc etc etc.Wanna know how fast you're climbing or descending? Watch the hundreds hand on the altimeter. As it passes a number, look at a clock and count off 6 seconds. Look back at the altimeter, and multiply the amount the hundreds hand moved by 10.Wanna know more abou the Icon, and why it is the way it is? http://www.iconaircraft.com/Hook

[socalguy85 0]

@ Great Ozzie: I did not know that about the Mooney. I just ASSumed, I guess, that aircraft engines needed mixtures. My only r/l flight hours were in a Cessna 152 (shows you how many years that's been; 152 used to be the trainer).@LHookins: Nope I enjoy the Stearman a lot (except for the instruments I'd rather have of course It flies better than the Icon, is FASTER, and, well so many things. I'll fly the Icon if it's required; otherwise I'll pass: the RV6 and Maule are more to my tastes.

[LHookins 3,118]

The Stearman is only a few knots faster than the Icon. That air speed gauge is calibrated in MPH, not knots.Some real world pilots have compared the Icon's handling to the Cessna 152. It seems close enough to me, too, but my C152 time is from the early 70's.Hook

[Juicehead 16]

No mixture? really? Icons in r/l have no mixture? The engine just runs the same at say, 7,000 feet as it does at 1,500?

The Rotax 912s has altitude compensating carbs. They are a I TRIED TO USE A PROFANITY HERE - AREN'T I STUPID! to tune but work very well. The new 912iS will be fuel injected and have and ECU.

Instead of the Icon, I wish we could have started with the good old 172. But, again, that's just me.

the 172 is played out. It is now relatively speaking, a "classic aircraft". I think MS did a great job bringing in something different...

[Dillon 2,208]

 

The Icon A5 is based off of a CAD model provided by Icon itself. The problem with modeling prototypes is things change, and often. I found that out when I modeled the SF-50! Icon released news that they were including flaps in all models about 3 weeks before Flight was released. Not nearly enough time to modify the aircraft, test it, and get it out. Im not sure if MS even considers the flaps a priority right now. Considering what all is on there place (I.E. being demanded) Im sure its not on the top of there "to do" list.

I happened to look through the pictures going back to 2008 on Icon's website and the Icon has always had flaps... :huh:See for yourself http://www.iconaircr...nture-2008.html

 

[Gibbage 199]

I happened to look through the pictures going back to 2008 on Icon's website and the Icon has always had flaps... :huh:See for yourself http://www.iconaircr...nture-2008.html

That's the prototype. The production model eliminated flaps in exchange for the wing folding system. Trust me on this.as for the Goose water rudder, it may have one jn the flight model, but there is no suck thing in the visual model.

[Great Ozzie 101]

as for the Goose water rudder, it may have one jn the flight model, but there is no suck thing in the visual model.

I reckon the water rudder was an aftermarket mod.One for sale in this Seabee newsletter that has a water rudder.http://www.republicseabee.com/BrucehindsNL/Brucehinds_Dec11.pdf

[n4gix 4,969]

I happened to look through the pictures going back to 2008 on Icon's website and the Icon has always had flaps... :huh:See for yourself http://www.iconaircr...nture-2008.html

Dillon, the Icon A5 during the years of Flights development had had the flaps removed for several reasons, one of which was that they eliminated quite a bit of weight. It wasn't until just before Flight's release that we were informed that a decision to put flaps back on the production models.

[Arwen 289]

I happened to look through the pictures going back to 2008 on Icon's website and the Icon has always had flaps... :huh:See for yourself http://www.iconaircr...nture-2008.html

Icon Aircraft Feb 16, 2012 Press Release: "The rigorous flight-testing regimen validating this result was flown by Len Fox, a globally recognized test pilot and one of the world’s leading experts on spin testing. Fox tested over 360 test cases with a wide range of control positions, power settings, and centers of gravity. The wing design is unique, with cuffs on the outboard panels and multiple proprietary airfoils across the span of the wing. Additionally, these specialized airfoils used for spin resistance were not suited to the no-flap wing design ICON had previously planned to use on the A5, so ICON engineers chose to reintroduce wing flaps to preserve takeoff performance on the water."

[LHookins 3,118]

as for the Goose water rudder, it may have one jn the flight model, but there is no such thing in the visual model.

Agreed. I don't know if they were ever fitted to the real Goose, but I doubt it. Never saw one in all the pics I've seen.Hook

[Gibbage 199]

They do exist as a non-standard item that can be installed (wing tip floats are non-standard). But it adds about 30 pounds for very little benifit. I can see the need for single engine floaters, but not multi-engine floaters when you can use your engines better then any rudder. From what the pilot said, he just needs to drop the main and he can hold is course just fine in a cross wind on the water. (floaters dont like cross wind in the water, and water ruddres help negate that). I have not tried this technique in FSX to see if it works or not.

[LHookins 3,118]

The Goose water rudder in FSX is extremely effective. If you make those changes to the aircraft config that I suggested, you'll be able to raise the water rudder with control-W and test without it. Two places 0.0 needs to change to 0.1 and without that change you can't raise the rudder.The Flight Icon's "water rudder" seems very effective. I can turn sharper on the water than I can on land.Hook