sold 310 -- now what?

I have a Baron with the known-ice TKS installation (non Known Ice
installation was not available as an option)

The stuff works as advertised- you simply do not accumulate ice, although I
had an encounter near Lake Michigan where the windshield iced over
completely. Even with the spray bar and max defroster it still picked up ice
and got covered. I was thinking about how to land the Baron like a tail
dragger by using peripheral vision and looking out the sides, but the ice
fell off and I was able to see fine.

Without the deice equipment I would have been in big trouble. The known ice
certification includes redundant pumps on the wings and windshield, and
requires a heated pitot and stall warning vane, along with an ice light. It
works great, but in my opinion is not a good reason to go droning along in
icing conditions for hours at a time. Rather, it gives you more time to
consider options like climbing, turning, descending, or otherwise leaving
the icing conditions.

Overall, it has really expanded the comfort level for using my plane in the
winter, particularly living on Lake Michigan, which I would never cross
unless I was in a twin or a kerosene burner and had ice protection.
"Peter MacPherson" wrote in message
newsHACd.848205$8_6.586133@attbi_s04...
Their website shows that at least the Baron, 210 and Caravan can
be certified for known ice. There's probably others.

http://www.flightice.com/contact.html



"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
On 4 Jan 2005 07:15:18 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

In general, I'd try to stick with TKS deicing system. Boots are always
troublesome because they can leak and only protect a very small amount
of the wing at the leading edge. The TKS system drips deicing fluid all
the way down the wing. There are several known-ice certified TKS
installations.

Do any of the aftermarket TKS installs have K-Ice approval? Last time
I checked (a while ago) they did not, which is a shame, because every
pilot I have talked to that has flown with TKS says the ice buildup is
non-existent and way better than boots.

Nathan Young wrote:
On 4 Jan 2005 07:15:18 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote:

In general, I'd try to stick with TKS deicing system. Boots are
always
troublesome because they can leak and only protect a very small
amount
of the wing at the leading edge. The TKS system drips deicing fluid
all
the way down the wing. There are several known-ice certified TKS
installations.

Do any of the aftermarket TKS installs have K-Ice approval? Last
time
I checked (a while ago) they did not, which is a shame, because every
pilot I have talked to that has flown with TKS says the ice buildup
is
non-existent and way better than boots.

Mooneys with the TKS system installed by Mooney in the factory are
certified known ice. If you have TKS install the system later, its not
known-ice.

-Robert

The DA-42 is an unknown quantity, and what is known should give you
pause... The diesel engine overheats above 11,000 feet!!!!
It is not yet certified to Part 23... We don't know how it will carry
ice, if at all - those slippery airframes and laminar flow wing
sections do not take kindly to having their shapes distorted... I
suggest we wait a while to see how the DA-42 fares in the real world..
Denny

Did you read the article about the DA-42 flying from Canada to Portugal on
$200 worth of Jet-A? The DA-42 is an awesome aircraft, I got a chance to get
a close look at it at OSH, and those Thielert engines are very cool
technology. The fuel and maintenance savings ought to make it worthwhile to
spring for it rather than a more conventional twin.

"Cary Mariash" wrote in message
...
After nearly a year away from the newsgroups, I am returning to seek the
wisdom and advice from the NG. After 7 years and 670 hours later, I have
sold my 1958 Cessna 310B and am looking for another plane. Although I
loved flying the 310, I could no longer tolerate the absence of deice
equipment and the absence of an autopilot. It got to be too tiring
flying in IMC as a single pilot and without an autopilot. Also, I've had
too many icing encounters in the upper midwest for me to remain
comfortable flying my 310 in IMC. Lastly, I am tired of paying about
$15K per year in annuals.

I have a down-payment on the new Diamond TwinStar DA42, but it is not
yet certified in the US and when this will occur is anyone's guess. They
were supposed to start delivering these last Oct, but we are all still
waiting. I will also need at least 1 more partner to be able to afford
this new plane.

I am not wedded to the need for a twin. I am looking for something that
can give me 200 KTAS, can seat 4 to 6, has recent avionics, weather
detection (i.e., WX-500), autopilot and deice. My partner and I can
probably put together about $250K (max) for this plane. Any suggestions
would be appreciated.

Cary

How often do guys like us fly to airports that sell Jet-A though? 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.
-robert

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

Virtually every airport I fly to has Jet-A. All the towered airports in the
caribbean have it, and many non-towered have it as well. Besides, how far do
you have to go to find Jet-A? And considering the price difference, it sure
is worthwhile.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
How often do guys like us fly to airports that sell Jet-A though? 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.
-robert

Considering that the vast majority of the non-training helecopter fleet is
turbine, I would say that Jet-A is actually very common. Guys like us may
not notice much though as we don't use it.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

"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.