sold 310 -- now what?

In many respects yes, but in a few no. As far as keeping ice off the
airframe TKS is the best, better even than heated leading edges (which can
suffer from "run-back icing"). TKS is clearly better in large droplet
icing, at least for the surfaces with TKS, everything else is still a
problem. The downsides of TKS are weight of the fluid and making a mess in
the hanger.

The disadvantages of boots are that they are subject to static discharges
which make pin holes and also deteriorate over time. I guess that thy have
weight too (!!!) but nobody thinks about it since it is part of the empty
weight. With recipricating engines, reliabliity of the vacuum pumps is also
an issue. A frequent misconception about boots is that they do not clear
all the ice. This is true on a "per cycle" basis but the ice is removed on
subsequent cycles (the little pieces of ice adhering to the boots are not
the same little pieces of ice that were there 30 minutes ago.

Both systems require maitenance, the main item with boots is renewing the
preservatives and silicone surface treatment.

I think that the reason that many people seem to have a low opinion of boots
is a function of flying with 30yr old leaking (maybe flapping too) boots
being inflated by a worn out vacuum pump. You never hear the Citation or
Pilatus guys complaining about their boot's effectiveness.

Mike
MU-2





"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
But a KI TKS system is better than a KI booted system.

When you fly in a Great Lakes icer that is layering an inch a minute of
impact ice on the airframe, I don't care what you are flying, you are
gonna die... Even the jumbo cattle tubes with heated wings don't fly
IN an icing layer of that magnitude, they use their power to climb or
descend through it at 6000 fpm... Take a GA aircraft into known icing
conditions and you are playing russian roulette...

Denny

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
How often do guys like us fly to airports that sell Jet-A though?

A hell of a lot more than to those that sell 80/87. :~)

Of the 10 airports within 65 miles of my base, seven have Jet-A, and the
ones that don't have like a dozen or less aircraft based there, are
unattended. Not always, but usually. Those that don't have it, typically,
just a few miles down the road (okay..."just over there").

Of the 3968 FBO's nationwide, 3871 have 100LL, 2481 have Jet-A, 29 have
80/87, and 234 have Mogas.
http://www.airnav.com/fuel/report.html

The
article that "Pilot" wrote up mentioned that most U.S. orders were for
the Cont. engine version. I guess in the E.U. jet-A is more common.

More common and less expensive. When you pay for fuel what they do, it
really adds up.

I'm looking for something with all-weather capability, but it damn sure
isn't going to be a twin piston-popper. Been there, done that, got fed up
(Baron 58...nine months and 250 hours was enough).

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow wrote:

Of the 3968 FBO's nationwide, 3871 have 100LL, 2481 have Jet-A, 29 have
80/87, and 234 have Mogas.
http://www.airnav.com/fuel/report.html

And I think that may still overstate the 80/87 availability.
It's been steadily becoming harder to get as you have to go further
and further away to get it. Our airport was the last holdout in the
area which would by a tanker car and then truck it in. However, the
"truck in" leg got progressively longer to make it unfeasible. It
was much more expensive than 100LL the last decade or so it was
available.

Those airport update surveys aren't updated very often or accurately.

Ron Natalie wrote:
Matt Barrow wrote:

Of the 3968 FBO's nationwide, 3871 have 100LL, 2481 have Jet-A, 29 have
80/87, and 234 have Mogas.
http://www.airnav.com/fuel/report.html

And I think that may still overstate the 80/87 availability.
It's been steadily becoming harder to get as you have to go further
and further away to get it. Our airport was the last holdout in the
area which would by a tanker car and then truck it in. However, the
"truck in" leg got progressively longer to make it unfeasible. It
was much more expensive than 100LL the last decade or so it was
available.

Those airport update surveys aren't updated very often or accurately.

All production of 80/87 ended some time ago.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Matt Barrow wrote:

Of the 3968 FBO's nationwide, 3871 have 100LL, 2481 have Jet-A, 29 have
80/87, and 234 have Mogas.
http://www.airnav.com/fuel/report.html

And I think that may still overstate the 80/87 availability.
It's been steadily becoming harder to get as you have to go further
and further away to get it. Our airport was the last holdout in the
area which would by a tanker car and then truck it in. However, the
"truck in" leg got progressively longer to make it unfeasible. It
was much more expensive than 100LL the last decade or so it was
available.

Those airport update surveys aren't updated very often or accurately.

The prices can be up to a year old or even longer, but I doubt that the mix
changes very much. If anything, I'd venture that more and more are carrying
Jet-A as the turbine fleet is proliferating.

Here's hoping that GAMI can get STC approval for it's PRISM system sometime
soon.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message


The prices can be up to a year old or even longer, but I doubt that the mix
changes very much. If anything, I'd venture that more and more are carrying
Jet-A as the turbine fleet is proliferating.

The mix is changing, 80/87 has all but disappeared in the last 5 years.

Matt Barrow wrote:

Of the 3968 FBO's nationwide, 3871 have 100LL, 2481 have Jet-A, 29 have
80/87, and 234 have Mogas.

I doubt that many of those actually have 80/87. It hasn't been made for some
time now.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

Denny wrote:

When you fly in a Great Lakes icer that is layering an inch a minute of
impact ice on the airframe, I don't care what you are flying, you are
gonna die...

It depends on how many minutes you stay there. I got into ice on the
lee side of Lake Erie several years ago in my Skylane. I picked up 1-2"
of ice in less than 5 minutes, but luckily a descent got be into lighter
icing and I was able to continue on to Elmira.

Shedding the ice on the approach was really interesting. I thought I'd
lost the tail after the windshield shed its load all at once. However,
post-flight inspection showed no damage of note.

I'm amazed at how much ice a Skylane will carry and still fly. I was at
full throttle (with the carb heat on as the intake iced over almost
instantly), flying at the top of the white arc and descending at 200
FPM, but the old girl flew fine and carried the ice for nearly an hour
until I descended into the warmer air on the approach.


Matt

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:43:09 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:


I'm amazed at how much ice a Skylane will carry and still fly. I was at
full throttle (with the carb heat on as the intake iced over almost
instantly), flying at the top of the white arc and descending at 200
FPM, but the old girl flew fine and carried the ice for nearly an hour
until I descended into the warmer air on the approach.

That reminds me of a flight I made when I was taking instrument
training (which I wasn't able to finish, lost my job) way back when.

We flew a 1892RG from San Jose (KSJC) to Reno (KRNO), through a storm.
We were picking up ice over the Sierra. There was ice all over the
place, and the plane was slowing down. As we descended into Reno, ice
was slushing off the plane. After we landed, big sheets were plopping
off. Looking back, we were lucky it was warmer in Reno.
John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT