![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 26, 10:14 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I wouldn't think there's much difference. I've had a few airplanes in ice, but not a Bonanaza. It's hard to quantify since each accretion is unique. I've been in a 172 in fairly bad ice, IMC and completely lost my ability to hold alitutde in just a few seconds. I was fairly high. 9,000 maybe? it was pretty warm below and I told ATC I needed descent and needed it now. they said "we'l have it for you shortly", and I had to reply that it didn't matter, I was coming down anyway at that stage. I've flown Mooneys in ice and they seem to be better at just plain not picking it up than most airplanes. Again, hard to quantify, I could just possibly have been lucky with the conditions. Cessna singles seem to suffer worst with is. Struts, long gear legs and what not, I guess. It's a complete non-event in jets, though. Most types rarely even get airframe icing and even if they do the hot wings blos it off quickly. The engines are more of a worry, but the anti-ice on them works well. Bertie I don't plan on trying it in the Bonanza -- at least not this A36 and certainly not the straight 35.. There are a few out there with TKS and other systems, but it seems if you have that need you should be flying a twin or a turboprop, not a normally aspirated Bonanza. I haven't flown a 172 that I would want to fly any length of time in IMC -- you're in it too long as you're so slow, the big wing catches every bump, and the climb performance is anemic (unless you have the 180 HP conversion). Dan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 27, 2:45 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
I haven't flown a 172 that I would want to fly any length of time in IMC -- you're in it too long as you're so slow, the big wing catches every bump, and the climb performance is anemic (unless you have the 180 HP conversion). Flown smaller and slower than that IMC! you get used to it.. Bertie Now what would that be?? A Tri-Pacer? Not much slower that's IMC-capable than a 172 with a whopping 105 TAS. :-) Dan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 27, 4:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Not much slower that's IMC-capable than a 172 with a whopping 105 TAS. A 150. Quite a few times. Bertie Now what were you doing that you had to fly a 150 IMC? Dan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 1, 2:39 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
" wrote in news:8d789731-cc44-4bda- : On Feb 27, 4:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Not much slower that's IMC-capable than a 172 with a whopping 105 TAS. A 150. Quite a few times. Bertie Now what were you doing that you had to fly a 150 IMC? Ferrying one. Did a bunch of light singles at one time. Depending on what you call IMC, I've done it norod in needle ball and airspeed aripalnes as wel, buto only for short trips outside controlled airspace, but in the system, I've done it in a 150/ Bertie Not too many places left outside of radar coverage, these days. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Make Microsoft angry! | [email protected] | Piloting | 1 | June 30th 06 12:52 AM |
Angry | Hilton | Piloting | 227 | January 5th 06 08:33 AM |
Angry [More Info] | Hilton | Piloting | 74 | January 3rd 06 09:55 AM |
Aircraft Spruce: Abused Customers and Fourteen More Angry Comments -- More to Come | jls | Home Built | 2 | February 6th 05 08:32 AM |
If true, this makes me really angry (Buzzing Pilot kills 9 year-old son) | Hilton | Piloting | 2 | November 29th 04 05:02 AM |