[Username Protected]

Hello Matt,

Have you been able to put one of your LamborghIcon 916s in the hands of a customer? I would love to hear how it is going. Also, when we talked at Oshkosh, you were working on a 40 gallon gas tank. I would love to hear how that is going.

Hello Michel,

All is going well here at Great Lakes Icon. We have been making a few refinements to the 916 project and we will be delivering 916 into customers hands this spring. I will be flying our demo 916 to Sun-N-Fun for anyone to come take a look. I will also be posting videos and performance data once the weather gets nicer up here in Northern Indiana / Southern Michigan. As for the fuel tank it is a 30 gallon tank not 40 gallons. The tooling for the tank is underway and the calibration and updated fuel gage process will be starting shortly.

[Username Protected]

Thanks for the update! Glad to hear things are progressing!

[Username Protected]

Looking forward to getting my engine upgrade!
Thanks Matt

[Username Protected]

Matt, can you tell all of us how MOSAIC will help with your endeavors? Would love an update on your progress and deliveries.

[Username Protected]

After July 2026, planes will be able to mod without the need to go experimental since they will still be considered a Light Sport plane. At that time, folks with RVs and such will start rolling their Experimental status over to Light Sport. I would assume that would help with insurance rates.

pretty exciting times…

Also could open door to factory teaming up with Matt to do a turbo version.

[Username Protected]

There is no reason to move an experimental amateur built airplane to light sport. You can utilize the new MOSAIC rules without doing that.

[Username Protected]

I heard people talking about doing it, but I thought it was for lower rates. Not sure.

[Username Protected]

There is no reason to move an experimental amateur built airplane to light sport. You can utilize the new MOSAIC rules without doing that.

The benefit of doing that are: 1) enable manufacturers to build yesterday's kit-planes as ready-to-fly airplanes at their factory (which will help owners immensely - most don't want to "experiment" - just want a quality modern aircraft without the absurd pricetag of a "modern" Cessna which is still 1970s tech!), and 2) enable professional aerospace engineers to modify aircraft and engines without the disgrace and marketing disadvantage of calling their products "amatuer-built". Many of these people are no less qualified or diligent, than engineers at say, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, or Lycoming. It's a spit in their face to call their products "amatuer-built", and it hurts their ability to market and sell quality products to customers who get spooked by this phraseology.

[Username Protected]

After July 2026, planes will be able to mod without the need to go experimental since they will still be considered a Light Sport plane. At that time, folks with RVs and such will start rolling their Experimental status over to Light Sport. I would assume that would help with insurance rates. pretty exciting times… Also could open door to factory teaming up with Matt to do a turbo version.

Not sure if existing Experimentals would be able to convert to LSA... But I imagine the 2026 and onwards Van's will be built as ready-to-fly aircraft at a factory, rather than delivered as kits for the buyer to meet the 51% rule? This should greatly improve the whole experience. I'm sure the quality and standardization of Van's will go up once they are built by the people who built dozens of them per year, have proper tooling etc, and not individually at someone's garage who, despite ample enthusiasm, is likely building an aircraft for the first and list time in thier life, and is possibly using whatever tools and machinery they borrowed from a car tinkerer's garage, rather than a toolset purpose-composed for building these airplanes!

[Username Protected]

I'm well aware of the benefits of MOSAIC. I am one of those Aerospace Engineers you reference, designer and tester of many components, and builder of multiple planes from my own personal plane an Experimental Amateur Built (EAB) Pitts Special, to experimental ICON A5's with several pretty wild changes from engines, to land based only, to avionics (I was the Chief Test Pilot, Served as Chief Engineer and Head of R&D at ICON for 6 years, I also have an A&P) and where I work now several Unmanned 550lb 23 ft wing span Blended wing Body Aircraft with full digital fly-by-wire control systems. I know the benefits and draw backs of the regulatory system. Just because my plane is categorized Amateur built doesn't mean a thing to anyone other than ill informed, plenty of systems and components from large manufactures are designed poorly even more part 23 aircraft that are certified are poorly maintained compared to EAB or because of regulatory requirements lack safety systems that experimental EAB, Exhibition, and Light Sport can easily adopt. There is a lots of goodness in the MOSAIC rules, companies like Vans Aircraft who do very legitimate and thorough design, testing, quality, and continued operational safety can nearly immediately offer certified assembled ready to fly aircraft such as the RV-10 and RV-14.

All I was saying is there is no reason to move an already flying experimental EAB aircraft into E-LSA. All the benefits are already there calling it Experimental Light Sport isn't going to help anything.

[Username Protected]

I've been involved in production, kit built, and scratch built aircraft by professionals to amateurs. you cannot generalize any of these things. I have seen amazing work in all these areas by all walks of life, I have also seen blood curdling work in all these areas by all walks of life (specifically production). I disagree with your general sentiment. All aircraft need to be evaluated on condition. Simply having a factory produce one doesn't mean its good, the light sport world is simply declaring they followed a process, only digging into the that process on that airplane will ever uncover the quality. Just the same on the EAB world someone that has never built an airplane before could produce a stunning really well built airplane, equal to that end it could be quite scary as well.

[Username Protected]

In my opinion, the European manufacturers of light but high-performance complex sport aircraft look to upcoming MOSAIC LS category certification mostly as a marketing tool for US buyers who imagine any kind of certification other than Exp has advantages. (But note that LS Category will still be a Special certification and not Standard Airworthiness.)

I'm not sure those advantages are real.

Insurance, for example. In my experience, underwriters look at the actual retrospective experience and loss history of a particular aircraft with its operators and aren't so concerned how it was manufactured. They will quote conservative high premiums until there is both an aircraft and operator history which justifies lowering rates. Or not, if losses remain high even with a growing fleet. Prospective risk control measures such as FOQA are wonderful, but the underwrites still say "show me," and won't bet on the future.

New LS Category aircraft will require production with ASTM validation. And then FAA defers to ASTM to set operating limitations. In my case, today, with an aircraft properly equipped for IFR operation, EXP is a huge advantage because ASTM prohibits S-LSA operation in IMC. The ONLY disadvantage I face as EXP with current FAA and FSDO policies is I can't land at the primary airport for Class B, or fly on "congested airways" whatever they are. Not a problem with GPS RNAV direct that we all have. Oh, and I email an annual boilerplate Program Letter to the FSDO and they don't bother to reply (or care, apparently). Now the ASTM working group is supposed to be coming up with a new policy for IMC, but has not happened yet and I understand why--our very light aircraft have no business being anywhere near ice or turbulence, yet an official "Light IMC" does not exist and is hard to implement in regulation.

Sorry to veer so far off topic. But MOSAIC aircraft certification, what advantages it offers, whether it will in any way make aviation more affordable (it won't), whether it will spur innovation (I doubt it), how it will influence the ASTM committees... remains to be seen.

[Username Protected]

.... The ONLY disadvantage I face as EXP with current FAA and FSDO policies is I can't land at the primary airport for Class B, or fly on "congested airways" whatever they are. Not a problem with GPS RNAV direct that we all have. Oh, and I email an annual boilerplate Program Letter to the FSDO and they don't bother to reply (or care, apparently). Now the ASTM working group is supposed to be coming up with a new policy for IMC, but has not happened yet and I understand why--our very light aircraft have no business being anywhere near ice or turbulence, yet an official "Light IMC" does not exist and is hard to implement in regulation.....

In my experimental amateur built plane I can fly in Class B, Land at any airport a certified plane can land, fly along airways, over populations. The only limitation I have on this topic is:

"The pilot in command of this aircraft must notify air traffic control of the experimental nature ofthis aircraft when operating into or out of airports with an operational control tower. When filing IFR, the experimental nature of this aircraft must be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan."

You should get new operating limitations your sound really old.

As for the Light Sport and IMC. They are developing design standards for aircraft that can be operated in IMC conditions, there is a lot of things to think about in the design standards for this topic. People seem to forget when S-LSA aircraft came out they weren't originally allowed to fly at night because the design standards had not been created yet. Once they were, manufactures could design, develop, and test to those standard and declare compliance. If you are passionate about helping develop the design standards for the S-LSA and IMC flight they need motivated people to join the committee I'm happy to put you in touch, there needs to be public/users, manufacturers and regulators in the process.

[Username Protected]

You should get new operating limitations your sound really old.

Brett, thanks for your comments and I'm delighted you have less restrictive operating limitations.

I believe with respect to (only) my Experimental Exhibition aircraft that I am expert in understanding my unique operating limitations as specified per FAA Order 8130.2J recent issuance of its (3-page!) Special Airworthiness Certificate with Conditions and Limitations (composed by an individual DAR who had some leeway with specifics); CFR 14 91.319(c ) (including MOSAIC amendatory instruction 71. becoming effective July 24, 2026); my Program Letter to my FSDO--both of which demonstrate wide variability in common practice and enforcement; and my understanding and compliance with "densely populated area" and "congested airway" which the FAA once again declined to define further in the MOSAIC NPRM.
God bless the USA where generally we operate with impunity unless caught doing something stupid, damaging property or persons, or busting our policy requirements and voiding coverage.
Standard Airworthiness for a TCed airplane and rules for its operation and maintenance are clearly delineated and pretty simple to understand. Everything else requires many hours of research and lawyer-level comprehension of specifics. S-LSA was almost straightforward prior to MOSAIC. Again, I think it will be years before common pilots, flight instructors and FSDOs fully understand and correctly apply the new regulations.
And folks who are flirting with "Experimental" (one of eight categories of Special Certification, with eight specific and restrictive sub-categories within Experimental) unfortunately have a lot of homework to do to fully know what it means for them.

[Username Protected]

You should get new operating limitations your sound really old.

These are completely negotiable. I inherited a good set when I bought our (former) turbine Lancair IV-P. After a very significant set of modifications we had to get a new AW cert and the FSDO started with the same, more restrictive language, that Warren referenced, but after weeks (or more) of negotiation, aided by having language that had already been accepted by other FSDOs for that plane and same make/models, similar high performance experimentals, etc., I got the favorable language again. It just took time and determination and knowing I could get it even when I was initially told no. I operated from underneath a Bravo in NYC airspace for years, and if I couldn't use the NYC arrivals, etc. I think both I and ATC would have gone bonkers. Being restricted or barred from that was not an option!

[Username Protected]

This horse is dead, rendered, and already glue attaching the last instructor endorsement to your logbook.
Gabriel, fantastic for you. Every operator, non-Standard aircraft, DAR, FSDO policy, inspector, and written document is unique. Effort invested in modifications may be productive, or not. It worked out for you.
Underneath (i.e. outside) the Bravo isn't the issue, landing at the primary CL B airport is. Individual controllers don't really care, when you identify as Experimental as required on your initial call they may deny entry to CL B and don't need to explain themselves. Your IFR flight plan with required Experimental in Remarks may be declined unless you choose a different destination.
A bigger can of worms, for which I am grateful and do not wish to open, is the de facto farcical category label Exhibition and/or Racing. If your honest intention and primary purpose for flying the IV-P are truly those, and your proficiency flights (and extensive personal travel) are only incidental, super! Me, I fly for pleasure, learning, continual skills improvement, local visiting and occasional X-C personal travel. Ex Ex is the only category in which I can operate my foreign factory built plane, and thank goodness current FAA and FSDO policy is to not examine that so closely.

[Username Protected]

I don't know when the last time you got an airworthiness certificate but I can assure you that all people issuing, DAR, or FAA ASI's only have drop down boxes with cann'd language anymore from the FAA. There is no more really super unique language. I have in the past 15 years received airworthiness certificates for 6 Experimental Research and Development Aircraft, and 1 experimental amateur built aircraft. From Washington DC FSDO ASI to a DAR delegated from the Seattle MIDO (now called CMS) and large 520 lb UAS in the SAC-EC R&D from an ASI of the LA CMS (formerly MIDO). I watched every last issuer use the new airworthiness system and select canned language from drop down boxes. The only unique thing now a days is what and how many drop downs they use.

I can promise you that you can get more favorable Ops Limits for the Experimental Exhibition aircraft that doesn't need a yearly program letter anymore and would have more favorable and clear limits that never expire.

If you want to DM me your tail number I can take a look at your current ops limits and let you know if I think they could be improved with the new system. I can also set you up with DAR or several if you wanted that could could explain the current situation to see if your life would be improved or not.

I just want to help a brotha out, if you want it.

[Username Protected]

Thanks, Brett. My soda-straw view is of one Ex Ex plane under jurisdiction of the Tampa FSDO, and I can easily live with what I’ve got. Also accepting what their Inspectors tell me without going to war. Every FSDO is their own kingdom. My only point in starting this tangent was to share with Forum members who think there is one thing called “Experimental” that they have a lot of research, hours and paperwork ahead if they wish to understand and comply with their aircraft’s rules in their region. And MOSAIC offers nothing to streamline that.