Icing Airmets

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:XKARb.132385$nt4.579289@attbi_s51...
Any time air is accelerated, as it is when passing over a small-radius
surface, its temperature drops...so it is entirely possible to accrete
ice
when the temp is above zero.
first...OAT guage, struts, lower edge of windscreen where there is a lip
rather than a flush surface, etc. That is also why tail feathers begin
to
accrete ice before the wing's leading edge does.

Bob Gardner


While small radius objects do collect ice better than larger redius
objects,
temperature drop has nothing to do with it. Small radius objects have a
higher "collection efficiency" meaning more of the droplets in their path
will impact the surface. They have a higher collection efficiency because
they don't project a "bow wave" as far in front of them as larger. You
NEED
supercooled water for airframe icing.

Not exactly. Small objects and small water lead to the best conditions,
from a statistical standpoint, for gathering ice.

If you say so John but you never present any evidence or reference to back
up your assertions. Small droplets are not a major icing hazard because
they freeze right at the leading edge..

Mike
MU-2

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:XKARb.132385$nt4.579289@attbi_s51...
Any time air is accelerated, as it is when passing over a small-radius
surface, its temperature drops...so it is entirely possible to accrete
ice
when the temp is above zero.
first...OAT guage, struts, lower edge of windscreen where there is a
lip
rather than a flush surface, etc. That is also why tail feathers begin
to
accrete ice before the wing's leading edge does.

Bob Gardner


While small radius objects do collect ice better than larger redius
objects,
temperature drop has nothing to do with it. Small radius objects have a
higher "collection efficiency" meaning more of the droplets in their
path
will impact the surface. They have a higher collection efficiency
because
they don't project a "bow wave" as far in front of them as larger. You
NEED
supercooled water for airframe icing.

Not exactly. Small objects and small water lead to the best conditions,
from a statistical standpoint, for gathering ice.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
If you say so John but you never present any evidence or reference to back
up your assertions. Small droplets are not a major icing hazard because
they freeze right at the leading edge..

I'll take Brownlee's FAA flight test over you any day, Rapport.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:XKARb.132385$nt4.579289@attbi_s51...
Any time air is accelerated, as it is when passing over a
small-radius
surface, its temperature drops...so it is entirely possible to
accrete
ice
when the temp is above zero.
first...OAT guage, struts, lower edge of windscreen where there is a
lip
rather than a flush surface, etc. That is also why tail feathers
begin
to
accrete ice before the wing's leading edge does.

Bob Gardner


While small radius objects do collect ice better than larger redius
objects,
temperature drop has nothing to do with it. Small radius objects have
a
higher "collection efficiency" meaning more of the droplets in their
path
will impact the surface. They have a higher collection efficiency
because
they don't project a "bow wave" as far in front of them as larger.
You
NEED
supercooled water for airframe icing.

Not exactly. Small objects and small water lead to the best conditions,
from a statistical standpoint, for gathering ice.

Why don't you post some data from Mr. Brownlee then. Or even his opinion.

Mike
MU-2


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
If you say so John but you never present any evidence or reference to
back
up your assertions. Small droplets are not a major icing hazard because
they freeze right at the leading edge..

I'll take Brownlee's FAA flight test over you any day, Rapport.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:XKARb.132385$nt4.579289@attbi_s51...
Any time air is accelerated, as it is when passing over a
small-radius
surface, its temperature drops...so it is entirely possible to
accrete
ice
when the temp is above zero.
first...OAT guage, struts, lower edge of windscreen where there is
a
lip
rather than a flush surface, etc. That is also why tail feathers
begin
to
accrete ice before the wing's leading edge does.

Bob Gardner


While small radius objects do collect ice better than larger redius
objects,
temperature drop has nothing to do with it. Small radius objects
have
a
higher "collection efficiency" meaning more of the droplets in their
path
will impact the surface. They have a higher collection efficiency
because
they don't project a "bow wave" as far in front of them as larger.
You
NEED
supercooled water for airframe icing.

Not exactly. Small objects and small water lead to the best
conditions,
from a statistical standpoint, for gathering ice.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Why don't you post some data from Mr. Brownlee then. Or even his opinion.

Call Joe on the telephone and ask him yourself, Rapoport, he is one hell of
a nice guy.

So you really don't have anything that supports your position which
contradicts all published information from all sources.

Mike
MU-2


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Why don't you post some data from Mr. Brownlee then. Or even his
opinion.

Call Joe on the telephone and ask him yourself, Rapoport, he is one hell
of
a nice guy.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
So you really don't have anything that supports your position which
contradicts all published information from all sources.

All I have is my conversation with Brownlee and his flight test pilot staff.
At the standrdization seminar's conclusion they all gathered around me while
Joe made the small droplet statement and they wanted soemthing from me on
probabilities. The FAA flight test pilot staff that flew the actual flights
of the large droplet study were there. Their conclusion was that the
original assumption of lthe large droplet icing study was completely wrong
and I made the comment that perhaps they could get new funding to study
small droplets; everyone laughed.

I believe the results of the flight test are published, but I am not going
to search it up for you.


"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Why don't you post some data from Mr. Brownlee then. Or even his
opinion.

Call Joe on the telephone and ask him yourself, Rapoport, he is one hell
of
a nice guy.