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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I have a known ice installation on my B-55 Baron, and it works great. A twin
has the built-in redundancy of two electrical systems, and the other requirements include a high heat pitot and stall warning vane, along with an ice light. There are two pumps each for the windshield as well as the flying surfaces. It definitely increases the dispatch rate in the icing season, which in the Midwest is from October through May (or longer). Several months ago I encountered moderate ice over Michigan, and the commuters as well as other GA aircraft were all calling looking for different altitudes. Luckily I was able to descend out of the clouds, and the TKS completely protected all of the flying surfaces. On landing, the nose, spinners, and even the landing lights were covered with around 3/8ths inch of mixed ice, but the wings and tail were fine. I believe that most users would agree that TKS is superior to boots, hot props, and alcohol for ice protection. The downsides a the initial installation is expensive, but should last a lifetime. It does not require routine maintenance and doesn't slow you down like boots, and won't need replacement. A full tank takes away nearly 100 pounds of useful load, and the stuff is expensive. I recall a 55 gallon drum costing around $450.00. I never take off in the winter unless the tank is full, and also carry several extra jugs around for longer trips. I also collect the overflow and use it in a garden sprayer or spray bottle to deice the plane if I think I will encounter icing conditions shortly after take off It also makes a terrible slippery slimy mess on the hangar floor which lasts forever. It will drip for several weeks after use, and this means doing a pre-flight invariably will either get your back dripped on, or you will kneel in the stuff on the floor or slip. However, all things considered, it is the only way to go to get ice protection in the winter. It is not a ticket to drone on for hours in freezing precip, but it will get you through or away from an icing layer safely. It has been a great investment and has certainly increased the usefulness of he plane. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What you say is true about propellor planes. Airline jets on the other hand
are designed to fly through most icing conditions all day long. This is because excess hot bleed air from the compressor sections is routed through the wings and empennage, the so-called "hot wing" system. Nacelle inlets and other critical areas are heated also. It is a matter of degree (pun intended). Enough heat is available and provided to deice a jet in all but the most extreme conditions. No one has figured out how to deice a prop plane to the same degree. "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Bob Gardner" wrote in message ... No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions when encountered Really? I had been under the impression that airline systems did allow continued flight in icing conditions. That's not true, eh? Okay...well, in any case, I think that there are pilots out there that don't understand that de-ice doesn't mean you can just bomb on through icing conditions as if they weren't there. If not, so much the better. But if so, it might be helpful to dissuade someone of that idea. Pete |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
... I'd be interested to read your go/no go parameters. What kinds of summer conditions keep you on the ground? I stay on the ground when my flight would need to penetrate more than scattered storms, i.e. I don't fly in situations when I can get boxed in behind me or if I need to cross frontal thunderstorms. Often that means if I have a 1-day business trip returning in late afternoon, I drive intead of flying because it isn't worth the worry/risk that the afternoon storms will be too difficult to penetrate. I don't think I'm any different than other experienced IFR pilots. When pilots are scheduled to fly to me for IFR recurrent training who have well-equipped airplanes, arrival delays are more common due to summer thunderstorms than to winter icing. When I conducted a group "IFR Survival Weekend" class a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore about 15 out of 20 drove instead of flying. -------------------- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
I stay on the ground when my flight would need to penetrate more than scattered storms, i.e. I don't fly in situations when I can get boxed in behind me That would keep me grounded much of the summer down here if I were very picky about the definition of "scattered." Using satellite NEXRAD requires me to be much more discriminating about the nature of the storms. Are they numerous but developing and moving slowly? In that case I might go if I "need" to (Angel Flight) and I see a route with plenty of outs available. Are they popping up everywhere and moving fast? No go. Sometimes the pattern of development is very obvious -- sea breeze storms, for instance -- and the NEXRAD will keep me assured after takeoff that the route I've chosen is still good. or if I need to cross frontal thunderstorms. That's what stopped us short of Jackson, MS. The pilot of the next leg had to drive out to Laurel in his car and pick up the patient, drive her back to Jackson and wait for the line to pass. Often that means if I have a 1-day business trip returning in late afternoon, I drive intead of flying because it isn't worth the worry/risk that the afternoon storms will be too difficult to penetrate. Yeah, I used to cancel a lot of business flights to Dothan for just that reason. I haven't since I got the weather link, though. When I conducted a group "IFR Survival Weekend" class a few weeks ago, pilots were concerned about thunderstorms but wanted to be present for the whole course and therefore about 15 out of 20 drove instead of flying. Don't get me wrong, thunderstorms still scare the crap out of me. It's just that now I know where they are and what they're doing: it was the fear of flying blind that used to keep me on the ground a lot more often. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Gardner wrote:
No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions when encountered...they provide a safety margin while escaping from the conditions. That's how I use it. The problem is that the TKS system is so effective when functioning, there might be a moment when it is difficult to know whether the aircraft is picking up ice or not. -- Peter ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Luke wrote:
Don't get me wrong, thunderstorms still scare the crap out of me. It's just that now I know where they are and what they're doing: it was the fear of flying blind that used to keep me on the ground a lot more often. All our aircraft (including the 182s subject to the potential addition of de-ice) have strikefinders. However, one of the options I'd entertain as an alternative to the de-ice is weather download. - Andrew |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine-powered transport category airplanes are a different kettle of
fish...but even they are prohibited from flying into forecast severe icing. In my brief experience flying Part 91 corporate jets we took icing very seriously in spite of having all the goodies...a chunk of ice can put a turbine out of action. The regs I cited all say something to the effect of "..except for those meeting Appendix C of Part 25...", but those regs were written back in the 40s, when supercooled liquid droplets had not yet been discovered. Forty microns is less than the size of a pencil lead; the many turboprop ADs that followed the Roselawn accident tell pilots that any precip that runs back on side windows are far larger and exceed Part 25 certification standards. Bob Gardner "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Bob Gardner" wrote in message ... No de-icing system allows a pilot to continue flight in icing conditions when encountered Really? I had been under the impression that airline systems did allow continued flight in icing conditions. That's not true, eh? Okay...well, in any case, I think that there are pilots out there that don't understand that de-ice doesn't mean you can just bomb on through icing conditions as if they weren't there. If not, so much the better. But if so, it might be helpful to dissuade someone of that idea. Pete |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Gideon wrote:
One of the members of my club has proposed that we add TKS de-ice to our two 182s. Apparently, such a system is to become available later this year. My reaction at first was negative. After all, in our near-NYC location, the utility of such a tool is limited to a few months a year. Surely we could spend money better (ie. on upgades that would be useful year round). His reply to this reasoning is that our aircraft utilization is much lower in the cold months than in the summer. If we can increase winter use, then we get better value from our investment. It's a good point. Of course, when I mentioned this to my wife, she asked how much of the lower use was due to the threat of ice, and how much was due to our lack of love for preflighting in subzero weather. Another good point grin. But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing" compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm curious what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply. Without "known icing" certification, I don't think it buys you much at all from utilization perspective. It is insurance if you get caught in ice, but that is it. And if if DOES increase utilization it means that you have pilots flying in conditions they likely shouldn't be in anyway. And, I know from a hairy personal experience, a Skylane will carry a lot of ice and still fly pretty well. I'd invest the money and weight into something more useful. Matt |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Peter R. wrote:
Andrew Gideon wrote: But it does have me wondering. The system would not be "known icing" compliant. So...what difference in utilization would it make? I'm curious what others - esp. that fly with de-ice - would reply. Andrew, I am flying a Bonanza with a "not known icing" TKS system out of Syracuse, NY. From what I understand about the system, the difference between the not known icing and the known icing TKS system has to do with redundancy, not functionality. In other words, known ice TKS system has a backup pump and, IIRC, requires backup electrical. During flights this past winter when I have encountered unplanned ice, the system was extremely effective. I thought the biggest difference was legal, not functional. :-) Matt |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Richard Kaplan" wrote: I stay on the ground when my flight would need to penetrate more than scattered storms, i.e. I don't fly in situations when I can get boxed in behind me That would keep me grounded much of the summer down here if I were very picky about the definition of "scattered." Out west (I've only flown twice east of the Mississippi in 15 years flying) it means leaving at sunrise and being back before about 3:00PM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force issues ‘stop movement’ for Patrick, Cape Canaveral | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 25th 04 09:30 PM |
Back issues of Naval Aviation News | Steve Tobey | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 23rd 04 09:50 PM |
Article: GPS Vehicle Tracking System Issues for the Buyer | Johann Blake | Military Aviation | 0 | January 16th 04 11:26 AM |
How much could I get for these back issues? | Aaron Smith | Home Built | 8 | December 15th 03 12:07 PM |
ISO back issues Combat Aircraft magazine | mark e digby | Military Aviation | 0 | August 12th 03 05:39 PM |