BeechTalk - BT - I'm sure glad this Cessna has no Corrosion.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jan 2015, 13:42

Username Protected wrote:

I think the problem is not necessarily how much of the horizontal span of the wing is covered, but how far the panels go back on the wing. The G2 Cirrus panel did not extended back far enough over and under the wing which allowed the fluid to separate from the wing instead of flowing back. I talked to some people that flew a TKS G2 through what I would call "light" icing and he said after 15 minutes of it the plane was nearly uncontrollable. He was over the mountains and could not descend and being N/A he did not have the power to climb above it. The TKS was primed properly and was flowing, but the ice was building above and below the panels.

Yeap, on some aircraft, like Mooney and Beech, there is no difference in panel coverage between FIKI and non-FIKI installs other than extra pump. Take a look at the new TTX that's FIKI vs the older one. Larger panels, both span and depth wise and covered vertical fin. I'd take a non-FIKI TKS Bonanza or Mooney thru moderate ice any day with a primed system and a full tank. No way would I do it in a TTX, G2 Cirrus or a Saratoga. The most effective TKS system I've ever flown behind is actually the one on a 206 and it's not FIKI.

The problem with all these new aircraft is that at $700K, throw another $200K at it, and buy yourself a nice, used Meridian. With probably more time left on the PT6 than TIO550 will ever be able to manage.

Todd,

Your finance folks are not pushing extended warranty and GAP coverage enough ;-)

There is your Meridian...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 20 Jan 2015, 14:10

Username Protected wrote:

I think the problem is not necessarily how much of the horizontal span of the wing is covered, but how far the panels go back on the wing. The G2 Cirrus panel did not extended back far enough over and under the wing which allowed the fluid to separate from the wing instead of flowing back. I talked to some people that flew a TKS G2 through what I would call "light" icing and he said after 15 minutes of it the plane was nearly uncontrollable. He was over the mountains and could not descend and being N/A he did not have the power to climb above it. The TKS was primed properly and was flowing, but the ice was building above and below the panels.

Yeap, on some aircraft, like Mooney and Beech, there is no difference in panel coverage between FIKI and non-FIKI installs other than extra pump. Take a look at the new TTX that's FIKI vs the older one. Larger panels, both span and depth wise and covered vertical fin. I'd take a non-FIKI TKS Bonanza or Mooney thru moderate ice any day with a primed system and a full tank. No way would I do it in a TTX, G2 Cirrus or a Saratoga. The most effective TKS system I've ever flown behind is actually the one on a 206 and it's not FIKI.

The problem with all these new aircraft is that at $700K, throw another $200K at it, and buy yourself a nice, used Meridian. With probably more time left on the PT6 than TIO550 will ever be able to manage.

Todd,

Your finance folks are not pushing extended warranty and GAP coverage enough ;-)

There is your Meridian...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 12:25

I considered this model a year ago and passed because the useful load was not enough. If I put my family and luggage in the airplane, I couldn't load enough fuel to really get anywhere. Also, the rudder has no TKS protection (maybe from the prop).

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 12:58

Username Protected wrote:

Also, the rudder has no TKS protection (maybe from the prop).

On a single engine airplane, deice on the fin is useless. If you are flying in so much ice that the deicing the fin is an issue, you have much bigger problems, particular on a fixed gear airplane. You will have gobs of ice hanging off from that.

All a TKS panel on the fin does is use up your TKS fluid a little faster.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 13:17

Username Protected wrote:

If you are flying in so much ice that the deicing the fin is an issue, you have much bigger problems, particular on a fixed gear airplane. You will have gobs of ice hanging off from that.

All a TKS panel on the fin does is use up your TKS fluid a little faster.

Mike C.

The panel on the vertical stabilizer prevents ice build to prevent drag. Not necessarily to maintain effectiveness of the rudder. Even a little bit of ice on the vertical stabilizer will cause a big loss of airspeed from drag.

I think the gear is close enough to the prop to get TKS fluid in the prop wash and keep it clear enough. The known ice Cirrus doesn't have TKS panels on the fixed gear.

Everybody is focusing on the "short" wing panel but I believe it's the missing panel on the vertical stabilizer that is the biggest weakness of this TKS system (aside regulation and formal FIKI status).

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 15:04

Username Protected wrote:

The panel on the vertical stabilizer prevents ice build to prevent drag. Not necessarily to maintain effectiveness of the rudder. Even a little bit of ice on the vertical stabilizer will cause a big loss of airspeed from drag.

I think you will find this is not really true. There are so many unprotected areas on the airplane that the little frontal area of the fin is a small percentage. Landing gear, antennas, wing tips, spinner tip, landing light, engine inlet lips, control horns, windshield areas, etc.

When they do simulated ice shapes flight testing, that is, gluing on styrofoam shapes to the airplane to simulated ice build up, you can put monstrous shapes on the fin and have only minor impact on drag.

Quote:

I think the gear is close enough to the prop to get TKS fluid in the prop wash and keep it clear enough.

If that's true, then there is still fluid in the slip stream at the fin.

Quote:

The known ice Cirrus doesn't have TKS panels on the fixed gear.

FIKI does NOT mean you are invincible to ice, it just means you can handle SOME amount of ice for SOME amount of time. If you are in a the very narrow situation where the fin drag is make or break, YOU WENT TOO FAR.

Quote:

Everybody is focusing on the "short" wing panel but I believe it's the missing panel on the vertical stabilizer that is the biggest weakness of this TKS system (aside regulation and formal FIKI status).

Honestly, the lack of the fin panel is so insignificant to the icing performance of the airframe that I doubt you could tell the difference between two planes which differ in only that respect.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 20:55

What's the consensus on the Thermawing system found on some of the Cessna 400's?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 21:52

Username Protected wrote:

FIKI does NOT mean you are invincible to ice, it just means you can handle SOME amount of ice for SOME amount of time. If you are in a the very narrow situation where the fin drag is make or break, YOU WENT TOO FAR.

I'm not saying that TKS makes you invincible. It's a terrible idea to linger in ice. What I am saying is that in looking at this TKS setup, the place that is going to pick up the most ice IMO is the vertical stabilizer because it has zero protection. If I'm going into ice, I want to know that I have the best chance possible and that means protection on the vertical stabilizer.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 21:54

Username Protected wrote:

What's the consensus on the Thermawing system found on some of the Cessna 400's?

The original thermawing system failed FIKI certification because of runback icing. The leading edge panels would melt the ice, allowing water to run back with airflow and refreeze elsewhere on the wing.

I recently looked at the thermawing for non-certified aircraft. The new design has a lip that allows the airflow to pick up the melted water and remove it from the aircraft.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 22:55

Username Protected wrote:

:coffee: If it did have corrosion it would be the first:

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 324205.htm

What is the scoop on these planes? Has TKS. Anyone put one in the ice?

This looks like the plane a neighbor has for sale at Van Bortel, shortly after building here he switched to a Lancair Super ES, pressurized I think. Same model year and equipped but I don't know if his had TKS. They have had it for about a year, he's not happy they haven't sold it. He felt ra___d when they did a recent annual.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 23:26

Lancair Super ES with TAT TN and thermawing driver checking in here

Do it, you will not regret

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2015, 18:03

Username Protected wrote:

The Cirrus is certified in the NORMAL category, the Cessna 400 is in the UTILITY category, which requires the plane to be able to survive higher G-load, so the C400 is certified to be structurally stronger than the Cirrus.
When Lancair put the wing in a jig to put huge loads on the wing to see when it would break, they broke the TESTING JIG rather than the wing! Oops!

But that is just the structure, what about all the structural SYSTEMS? While a Cirrus has wound up grinding down into a field because one pin was left off of one aileron by one careless mechanic, when you pre-flight a C400, you look at (for example) the aileron attach-point and say: "Wow, That is some pretty heavy duty hardware. That could NOT feasibly break!" Then you see ANOTHER attachment just like it 2 feet out along the aileron. And then a THIRD after that!!! The mechanic could forget to assemble any one of these COMPLETE linkages and the plane would be UN-AFFECTED: The two remaining attach-points would easily do far, far more than hold the surface in place.

Not only is the C400 PHYSICALLY STRONGER, but the C400 can withstand failures that the Cirrus can not. You look at the trim tab actuator: and then right next to it you see a back-up. You look at the aileron actuator: and then right next to it see a back-up. Not so on the Cirrus.

Not disagreeing - and I really don't know, but I would be cautious making observations about how an aircraft is certified as to relative strength. There may have been other reasons to certify one in normal and one in utility that are outside the scope of the "strength" of the airframe.

That all being said, it does appear the Columbia is more redundant and solid, but looks can be deceiving.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Jan 2015, 18:49

Username Protected wrote:

Lancair Super ES with TAT TN and thermawing driver checking in here

Do it, you will not regret

Talk to me about the Therma-Wing. RDD says they can make a system for my Glasair for $35k.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2015, 01:02

Never flown a cessna 400 with TKS. The G2 cirrus does fine in the ice unless you try to climb over big rocks or go too fast.

The vertical fine issue is a small deal. If you are concerned about ice on the vertical stab you got bigger problems to focus on. The aerostar I believe holds the record for the smallest vertical stab boot. Almost funny how small it is.

And yes I agree, the Columbia would have sold like crazy if it had a chute.

When are we going to get BRS to make a chute for the bonanza? We need to push for a group buy.