sold 310 -- now what?

john szpara wrote:
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.

Avoiding ice is best, but luck is good to have on your side if you don't
avoid it.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
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.

This is one of those areas where slower seems to be better. Those big,
thick, old-fashioned airfoils you find on Cessnas lose less performance for
each unit of ice versus the laminar-flow jobs. I read in one magazine that
Cirrus says you can expect to lose 10kts the minute you get even a trace of
ice. Combine this with the Skylane's decent power and useful load and you
have a regular popsicle stick.

-cwk.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
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.

Sorry...I was referring to the 100LL/Jet-A mix. In that vein, would you
agree that more places are carrying Jet-A? A few years ago it was (to my
recollection) only larger city airports that support airlines. Now, with the
bizjets and turboprops, it seems even backwater airports carry the stuff.
That, though, might be an artifact of he turbine powered crop dusters.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


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.

They advertise it, I'd hope them have it. Probably are some rather old
stocks?

I wonder how many are carrying mogas as a more recent inventory item.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm watching GAMI's PRISM system. They've been
claiming "STC is coming soon" for over two years now. If it does what they
say it will, I'd love to be an investor in their operation.


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

"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
k.net...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
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.

This is one of those areas where slower seems to be better. Those big,
thick, old-fashioned airfoils you find on Cessnas lose less performance
for
each unit of ice versus the laminar-flow jobs. I read in one magazine that
Cirrus says you can expect to lose 10kts the minute you get even a trace
of
ice. Combine this with the Skylane's decent power and useful load and you
have a regular popsicle stick.

Much the same with a Bonanza. Picked up 1/2 to an about an inch once and
other than it getting nose heavy, it hardly flinched.


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

Matt Barrow wrote:

They advertise it, I'd hope them have it.

I agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't take a list compounded by Airnav as
an indication that these airports are advertising that they have 80/87. I
suspect that Airnav's info is somewhat out-of-date for many fields.

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

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:

They advertise it, I'd hope them have it.

I agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't take a list compounded by
Airnav as
an indication that these airports are advertising that they have 80/87. I
suspect that Airnav's info is somewhat out-of-date for many fields.

And they say so regarding fuel prices. Each FBO has a date of the last time
the information was updated. Many are fairly current (a couple weeks
(appropriate when prices are fairly stable), up to over a year or more.

On the other hand, the airport data is a current as the FAA data 9with a lag
for processing and updating it seems (currently, Nov.25 th).

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

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
...
I have a Baron with the known-ice TKS installation (non Known Ice
installation was not available as an option)

[snip]

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.

Indeed!! Same here "down in the valley...the valley so low..." in the heart
of the rockies. Fortunetely, our work tapers off during the worst months of
the year.

Didn't have anti-ice on our Baron , but we damn sure will have it on the
next aircraft. And right now it's 99 sure it's going to be a kerosene
burner. :~)


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

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

Isn't it also a bit of a hassle finding replacement fluid?


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

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

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.


This is one of those areas where slower seems to be better. Those big,
thick, old-fashioned airfoils you find on Cessnas lose less performance for
each unit of ice versus the laminar-flow jobs. I read in one magazine that
Cirrus says you can expect to lose 10kts the minute you get even a trace of
ice. Combine this with the Skylane's decent power and useful load and you
have a regular popsicle stick.

-cwk.



Yes, that all helps. I don't recommend flying a Skylane into ice, but
it certainly isn't instant death as the OP suggested, even on the lee
side of lake Erie in December.

Matt