sold 310 -- now what?

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:50:27 GMT, "Peter MacPherson"
wrote:

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

Cool, thanks!

Just out of curiosity, if the system works well, what is the added value of
being "known ice" certified? The only thing I can think of is, if you get
into an accident, they could say "you flew into known icing without being
equipped, blah blah." But if the scuttlebutt that TKS works better than
boots is to be believed (plausible, certainly) then odds are that you would
still have gotten into the accident with boots, and the FAA could still say,
"you should have gotten out of there the minute you realized how bad the ice
was" and ding you anyway.

Now I can understand the downside of a system like that on the Cirrus which
has only a 30-minute reservoir for the de-icing fluid, but if you have a
4-hour tank, then why should you really care? Up here in the Northeast in
the winter everybody files to fly through areas of known ice in planes that
can't be equipped for it (e.g. a Skyhawk) and unless you end up in an
emergency nobody appears to care, it's caveat aviator all the way.

And in any case, a non-known-ice TKS system would be a meaningful
improvement over his old 310 with nothing, at least until you run out of
juice.

-cwk.

"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

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if the system works well, what is the added
value of
being "known ice" certified?

Legal is one reason. Another is that there is more to "Known Ice" than
deicing equipment. Once classic example was a Mooney 201 with full TKS
that crashed because its fuel vent froze over. The Mooney 231 (the
first year of known-ice cert) has a different fuel vent system.

Now I can understand the downside of a system like that on the Cirrus
which
has only a 30-minute reservoir for the de-icing fluid, but if you
have a
4-hour tank, then why should you really care?

Even the guys flying Citations don't hang around in the ice for 4
hours. Its just enough to get you through that altitude to another one.
Many of the known-ice planes are turbo'd. The known-ice is just a good
way to climb up through the ice into CAVU air above. The FAA send out a
letter to ownes of known-ice planes a couple years ago telling them not
to hang out in icing conditions. Many known-ice owners (like Richard
Collins and Mac McMillon of "Flying" rag) though it was funny the FAA
even mentioned that.


-Robert

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

Non-known ice TKS does not nessesarily work better than a KI approved booted
system. The TKS covered portion of the airplane may be fine but there may
be other problems like fuel vents icing up. Known ice certification is
granted after testing not just installing a bunch of parts.

The advantage of having a KI appoved system in addition to being tested is
that you can take off into actual or forecast icing conditions legally.

Mike
MU-2


"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
k.net...
Just out of curiosity, if the system works well, what is the added value
of
being "known ice" certified? The only thing I can think of is, if you get
into an accident, they could say "you flew into known icing without being
equipped, blah blah." But if the scuttlebutt that TKS works better than
boots is to be believed (plausible, certainly) then odds are that you
would
still have gotten into the accident with boots, and the FAA could still
say,
"you should have gotten out of there the minute you realized how bad the
ice
was" and ding you anyway.

Now I can understand the downside of a system like that on the Cirrus
which
has only a 30-minute reservoir for the de-icing fluid, but if you have a
4-hour tank, then why should you really care? Up here in the Northeast in
the winter everybody files to fly through areas of known ice in planes
that
can't be equipped for it (e.g. a Skyhawk) and unless you end up in an
emergency nobody appears to care, it's caveat aviator all the way.

And in any case, a non-known-ice TKS system would be a meaningful
improvement over his old 310 with nothing, at least until you run out of
juice.

-cwk.

"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.

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.

But a KI TKS system is better than a KI booted system.

"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