will this fly?

ET wrote:
"Colin Kingsbury" wrote in news:XW4Ab.542
:


Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you.


My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out from
micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm certain
I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??


Yes. Even an anti-icing equipped light airplane is still a light
airplane and has neither the power nor the altitude capability to
withstand the ice that exists in much of the northern latitudes during
the winter.


Matt

(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
Especially since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to
mean any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even
if you have pireps of no icing.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't think it is.

We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur. If our best prediction methods say "there's likely to
be ice in clouds between 5000 and 12000", just because you fly into a
cloud at 8000 and don't pick up any ice doesn't mean the predicion is
any less valid.

Half an hour later, it could be half a degree colder and that could be
the difference between ice and no ice. Five minutes later, that exact
location could be in a downdraft instead of an updraft, and that could
be the difference. Maybe the conditions are such that your airspeed, or
the shape of your leading edge makes the difference. Maybe the guy
before you just took off and has warm skin while you're descending with
a cold-soaked airframe.

Let's say I told you "The flight plan shows 2.5 hours in the air and
you've got 2.6 hours of fuel on board". Would you think it safe to
attempt the flight? I assume you wouldn't. Now, if I told you some guy
just made the same flight in the same type aircraft with the same amount
of fuel when he started and got there just fine. You now have an
empirical observation that 2.6 hours of fuel is indeed sufficient.
Would this change your mind about whether it was safe to launch or not?

"ET" wrote in message
...
My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
from
micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm certain
I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??

Even when certified for flight into known icing, light planes are simply no
match for real icing conditions. Anti-ice or de-ice equipment is useful for
buying yourself more time in which to leave the icing conditions (climb,
descend, turn around) but they don't come close to matching the all-weather
capabilities of airliners.

Heck, even the smaller airliners (turboprops) can easily get out of their
depth.

The installation on your father's SR-22 is simply an escape route. It
doesn't provide him with anything near all-weather capabilities with respect
to icing.

Pete

The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop the
chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be comforting
when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice that
the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found it is
was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
would keep me on the ground otherwise.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"ET" wrote in message
...
My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
from
micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm
certain
I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??

Even when certified for flight into known icing, light planes are simply
no
match for real icing conditions. Anti-ice or de-ice equipment is useful
for
buying yourself more time in which to leave the icing conditions (climb,
descend, turn around) but they don't come close to matching the
all-weather
capabilities of airliners.

Heck, even the smaller airliners (turboprops) can easily get out of their
depth.

The installation on your father's SR-22 is simply an escape route. It
doesn't provide him with anything near all-weather capabilities with
respect
to icing.

Pete

The NTSB considers pilot reports to be "anectdotal" and relies solely on
government sources. The case law on this comes from a guy in upstate NY who
relied on pilot reports of no icing, took off into what they consider known
icing conditions, and....after a decent period...crashed.

Bob Gardner

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, ET said:
"Colin Kingsbury" wrote in news:XW4Ab.542
:
Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you.

My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
from
micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm
certain
I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??

The TKS system is to escape inadvertent ice, not to fly into known icing
conditions. So yes, it would be limited as Colin suggested. Especially
since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to mean
any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even if you
have pireps of no icing.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I didn't know it was impossible when I did it."

Once(!) is right.
Will your insurance company buy you a replacement SR-22 after you pop =
that chute?
Especially if you had to use it because of ice?
---JRC---

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message =
gy.com...
The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) =
pop the
chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be =
comforting
when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known =
ice that
the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found =
it is
was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights =
that
would keep me on the ground otherwise.
=20
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"ET" wrote in message
...
My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution =
out
from
micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm
certain
I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an =
SR-22 with
this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??

Even when certified for flight into known icing, light planes are =
simply
no
match for real icing conditions. Anti-ice or de-ice equipment is =
useful
for
buying yourself more time in which to leave the icing conditions =
(climb,
descend, turn around) but they don't come close to matching the
all-weather
capabilities of airliners.

Heck, even the smaller airliners (turboprops) can easily get out of =
their
depth.

The installation on your father's SR-22 is simply an escape route. =
It
doesn't provide him with anything near all-weather capabilities with
respect
to icing.

Pete


=20

Yes, in that they would pay the agreed value for the plane if it were, as I
assume it would be, totalled. But I wouldn't expect to be covered by them
or anyone else in a replacement.
"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
...
Once(!) is right.
Will your insurance company buy you a replacement SR-22 after you pop that
chute?
Especially if you had to use it because of ice?
---JRC---

"Dan Thompson" wrote in message
gy.com...
The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop
the
chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be comforting
when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice
that
the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found it
is
was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
would keep me on the ground otherwise.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"ET" wrote in message
...
My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out
from
micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm
certain
I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22
with
this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??

Even when certified for flight into known icing, light planes are simply
no
match for real icing conditions. Anti-ice or de-ice equipment is useful
for
buying yourself more time in which to leave the icing conditions (climb,
descend, turn around) but they don't come close to matching the
all-weather
capabilities of airliners.

Heck, even the smaller airliners (turboprops) can easily get out of
their
depth.

The installation on your father's SR-22 is simply an escape route. It
doesn't provide him with anything near all-weather capabilities with
respect
to icing.

Pete

The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop the
chute if the TKS couldn't keep up.


This is what scares me about Cirrus pilots.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Roy Smith wrote:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

Especially since the FAA is now regarding "known icing conditions" to
mean any time when there is a mention of icing in the forecast, even
if you have pireps of no icing.


You say that like it's a bad thing. I don't think it is.

We just don't know enough about icing to be sure when or where it's
going to occur. If our best prediction methods say "there's likely to
be ice in clouds between 5000 and 12000", just because you fly into a
cloud at 8000 and don't pick up any ice doesn't mean the predicion is
any less valid.

I think it is a bad thing. We don't know enough to know where it is
likely to occur as you say. This means that forecasting it is virtually
impossible, but the FAA will play it very conservative and forecast
anywhere that there is the slightest possibility of icing. This greatly
reduces the operational flexibility of many types of aircraft during
many parts of the country for a good portion of the year. I think it is
much better to let the pilot take a look and retreat if necessary.


Matt

Dan Thompson wrote:
The nice thing about a Cirrus is also you could always (i.e., once) pop the
chute if the TKS couldn't keep up. I would think this would be comforting
when choosing to fly through a what was believed to be little known ice that
the TKS system should be able to easily handle, just in case you found it is
was more ice than anyone would have expected and you ran out of other
options. I think the TKS/chute combo would allow a lot of flights that
would keep me on the ground otherwise.

Not me. I really doubt that the BRS chute has been tested in icing
conditions. I don't want to be the test pilot for it. I suspect a
parachute could pick up a LOT of ice in a hurry given its surface area.
You might come down a lot faster than you think.


Matt