PT6 operations

[boofhead]

I need advice from experienced PT6 (King Air E90 especially) operators on the use of windscreen anti ice and ice deflectors.
Is there a benefit in operating the windscreen heat in temperatures above freezing in order to improve birdstrike protection? Is there any adverse effect by doing this?
Is there a benefit in having the ice vanes open during a normal takeoff/landing on a gravel strip or on a sealed runway in temperatures above freezing?

[karl414ac]

IIRC having the ice vanes open reduces the engine power (14%on a C90A with -21 engines) so i cant see a advantage to having them open for take-off unless conditions such as freezing fog and snow covered runways. As for the windscreen heat keeping the glass above 0 degrees would probably reduce the chance of the screen shattering on impact. The only thing a can say is make sure you only turn the prop and windscreen heat on after take off .

414AC

[411A]

Having personally operated the first commercial PT-6A powered airplane on the US west coast, circa 1966, ice deflector vanes should be used only when absolutely needed.
To do otherwise is poor advice.

As concerning windscreen anti-icing heat...only necessary where the AFM recommends same, and....with NESA heated windshields, especially....referenced, F.27/FH227, DC6, DC7, Lockheed Constellation, Boeing Stratocruiser, CV340/440, (etc) aircraft.

Others?
Consult the applicable AFM for the correct information.

Do not make it up as you go along...problems otherwise.
RTFB.

[MungoP]

Sorry but I have to take issue with the comments made by 411A... I'm sure he has considerable experience but in this respect he's off centre. Point 1... they are not simply ice-vanes... think of them by the correct term "Inertial seperators"... Point 2....they do a superb job at keeping any gravel / FOD etc out of the engines and it's recommended by Raytheon/Beech and FlightSafety Int. that they're used for start and taxi... though the checklist may say optional. Having operated KingAirs from unmade strips in Africa and Afghanistan under extremely hot conditions when WAT limited due to runway length and trees my preferred method of operation was to have them on on the take-off roll until 40 knts (above which speed it's unlikely that you'll suck up grunge into the intakes) and then knock them off so as to achieve max Torque and Min ITT for the climb out.... That's just my system but whatever, don't underestimate the benefits of keeping grit out of the engines.

[411A]

...That's just my system but whatever...

Fully understand...make it up as you go along.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[boofhead]

I found the ice vanes (separators) open (handles pulled) when I went out to fly the airplane last week and asked the last pilot if he had done it and why and he gave me that excuse even though the runway is asphalt and generally clean. I had never heard of such a thing, which is why I seek advice here, since there must be a lot of experienced PT6 operators reading this. I am not necessarily against it but told him to stop doing it until I could research the subject. Same as the windscreen heat. I have lots of hours on Boeings, HS748, Herald, etc but not all experience transfers. Only a little on King Air.

[ahramin]

Beechcraft manuals now contain instructions to have the inertial separators open whenever the aircraft is being operated on the ground, regardless of the type of ground. The only caveat on this is to close them if the oil temperatures cannot be kept in the green. The before start and after landing checks have:

Engine Anti-Ice .............. On

The only time I have the Engine Anti-Ice off on the ground is when I am taking off and cannot make full torque with it on. I normally fly corporate King Airs ILS to ILS but right now I am at 68° 18' 15" N 133° 28' 58" W and 5 of the 6 landings I did today were on gravel. In both types of operations I follow the manufacturer's recommendation and have the vanes out on the ground.

As for windshield anti-ice, the Beechcraft reps I have spoken to state that the windshield will take a birdstrike fine without the heat on. I suspect they are talking about token 1 pound sparrows though, not 20 pound geese. I am sure that having the heat on will not hurt and it might even help.

One thing for certain though: To help windshield longevity, if you are going to need the windshield heat at any point, turn it on once after takeoff and leave it on the rest of the flight.

[MungoP]

411A ..Fully understand...make it up as you go along.

Yes... obviously what myself, many others and ... oh yes... Raytheon/Beechcraft and FlightSafety do....
Well.... at least I'm in good company :hmm:

Obviously being the first to operate Pt6's meant that you had no experience of others to fall back on. :ugh:

[SNS3Guppy]

Having personally operated the first commercial PT-6A powered airplane on the US west coast, circa 1966, ice deflector vanes should be used only when absolutely needed.
To do otherwise is poor advice.


Having been the director of maintenance for a King Air operation using both the 90 and 200 series airplanes, as well as an instructor and line pilot in the same, as well as having operated the PT6 in fractional, agricultural, firefighting, and other operations...you're quite wrong. Of course, one needn't be the first to operate the airplane, or hold a management or line position in order to read the aircraft flight manual and understand it.

The ice vanes are inertial separators intended for use not only in ice, but in any ground operating conditions where engine contamination and FOD is a threat. Furthermore, if the aircraft is equipped with Raisebeck ice vanes, there's no loss in power with their use, and they may be used continuously, as required.

The thread asks about PT6 operation, and the ice vanes are a customer option, not a Pt6 installation; they're actually airframe (nacelle) installations, and not actually directly part of the PT6.

Actual ice protection is provided by either an electrical boot or a bleed heated inlet lip, depending on the model. Ice vanes do not prevent icing, but simply deflect inlet contamination from ice removed from the inlet area, as well as preventing fodding of the engine by gravel, dust, or other contaminates.

Ice vanes should be extended in visible moisture below +5 degrees C, or if in doubt as to icing potential or presence...per the aircraft flight manual. Ice vanes should also be extended when inertial separation is needed, which may include operations from loose chips or gravel coated runway, or airborne contamination such as flying in ash or other contamination.

As concerning windscreen anti-icing heat...only necessary where the AFM recommends same, and....with NESA heated windshields, especially....referenced, F.27/FH227, DC6, DC7, Lockheed Constellation, Boeing Stratocruiser, CV340/440, (etc) aircraft.


Many aircraft with NESA windscreens recommend their use for bird protection at lower altitudes...but then what a Convair, Douglas, Lockheed, Boeing, or Fokker recommend or do really has nothing to do with what one should do in a King Air. Again, posting one's resume does very little to address the direction provided by the aircraft flight manual. You're correct that one should observe the aircraft manufacturer recommendations. In this case, Raytheon (Beechcraft) procedures...not Convair, Douglas, Lockheed, or Boeing.

You're certainly better off having the heat on than waiting until the windshield is cold soaked and turning it on.

[411A]

You're correct that one should observe the aircraft manufacturer recommendations.

Of course, I'm correct...use of ice vanes (inertial separators) is nonsense, unless the runway surface is contaminated....gravel, dirt, loose snow, etc....especially, when maximum performance is necessary off of shorter runways and/or obstacles.
Positively confirmed via discussions recently with a senior FAA ops inspector.

And yes, it ain't changed in many years.

[Miles Magister]

I am sure that the AFM for the B200 I used to fly (but do not have it to hand) specifically required the ice vanes closed for T/O as a limitation. Check your own AFM.

Putting the windscreen heater on in the pre take off checks is likely to prolong the W/S life. It has been not un-common for exec jets to suffer shattered winscreens from time to time. My own research has indicatefd that with W/S heat on the winscreen is slightly more flexible and less likely to shatter, maybee due to fuselage movements. Manufacturer's advice I have received right back to flying the Comet is to have it on to keep it slightly more maleable for a variety of reasons.

MM

[SNS3Guppy]

Of course, I'm correct...use of ice vanes (inertial separators) is nonsense, unless the runway surface is contaminated....gravel, dirt, loose snow, etc....especially, when maximum performance is necessary off of shorter runways and/or obstacles.
Positively confirmed via discussions recently with a senior FAA ops inspector.


Actually, no. That's the part you're wrong about. You're correct about adhering to manufacturer recommendations...but then you branch off and try to support antique understanding not with current manufacturers recommendations...but with a "discussion" with an operations inspector.

You're apparently not familiar with the Raisebeck separators, either, with which much of the King Air fleet today is equipped, which produce no loss of torque and do not interfere with oil cooling...and for which there is no restriction on operation.

So far as asking a FAA inspector...who has no authority to interpret regulation (and doesn't represent the aircraft or engine manufacturer), it's a nonsensical reference. You might as well have asked Fred Flintstone. The inspector is not the aircraft flight manual, and the inspector is not the aircraft type certificate data sheet. With this in mind, you've already tried to establish your authoritative stance based on having "flown the first commercial king air on the west coast," and now it's based on having had a "discussion with a senior FAA ops inspector."

Why not simply turn to actual material (AFM limitations, for example) instead of ancient history and a talk with an irrelevant source?

Intertial separation is also useful in flight in conditions other than icing, such as the previously mentioned flight in ash, heavy smoke, and debris.

The original poster asks:

Is there a benefit in having the ice vanes open during a normal takeoff/landing on a gravel strip or on a sealed runway in temperatures above freezing?


Yes, there is a benefit, primarily found on the gravel strip. However, one should remember that ice isn't simply found below freezing. One may be departing in conditions above freezing and still encounter engine induction icing and airframe icing, especially when temperatures are near freezing, standing water or slush is on the runway, or one departs into visible moisture (such as low clouds or fog).

The PT6 uses a large screen over the inlet (which is at the back of the engine), which is only useful for stopping debris big enough to have it's own part number. For this reason, many PT6 installations use inertial separation prior to air reaching the engine inlet screen...far easier to simply separate debris, ice, moisture and contamination, than block it with a screen. Some installations also use filters or additional screens prior to the engine in order to prevent compressor contamination or engine damage. This is more commonly found on aircraft which operate in an environment that is at a high risk for contamination (common on ag and firefighting aircraft, for example), but not on aircraft such as the King Air.

Some PT6 installations don't use the vanes at all.

When operating the ice vanes, one needs to be cognizant of the changes in engine parameters while moving the vanes...both when extending, and retracting them. In some installations, the vane moves a door under the nacelle, which opens much like a cowl flap and causes drag. In other installations this is not the case. In some installations a slight reduction in torque and sometimes an increase in temperature will occur, but in other installations this is not the case. One should know what to look for to verify the position of the deflectors beyond the primary indications. I have experienced separation of the deflector door which caused a partial blockage of the air induction and required completing the flight (a divert to a maintenance base) on partial power. No primary cockpit indication occurred of this event, which happened shortly after takeoff and entry into weather. My indication first by watching changing engine parameters, and then by a low hooting which developed from an incipient compressor stall.

[rigpiggy]

As far as the ice vanes go, on the ground open at all times except during T/O where performance limited. using the electric vanes B200/1900 we would turn the vanes off just before advancing power to avoid Fod'ing and get max torque, lower itt's.


As far as the windows, I have had 5 break and they only happened to me with windscreen heat on. Normal breakage pattern was along the outside electric elements radiating inward, with a box pattern outside of the high heat section.

YEV, my old stomping grounds

[604guy]

Some interesting comment, opinion and urban myth…..as is often the case.

First off, I don’t have an E90 manual or checklist available nor have I ever flown an E90. Therefore, procedures specific to that airframe may differ from the following

I have however flown many a PT6A powered heavier than air contraption in the last 40 years including many of Mrs. Beech’s products. I have looked through all my various manuals and checklists (C90, C90A/B, C90GT, F90, 200, B200, B200GT, 300 and 350) and all state in the BEFORE TAKEOFF (FINAL ITEMS) checklist, ENGINE ICE PROTECTION……….AS REQUIRED.

This of course is a follow on to the BEFORE START checklist item that says ENGINE ANTI-ICE SWITCHES….ON.

Ma Beech does provide a “CAUTION” note in the AFM that says “The engine anti-ice system should be on for all ground operations to minimize ingestion of ground debris. Turn engine anti-ice off, when required, to maintain oil temperatures within limits”

Take-off performance charts are also provided for both ice vanes extended and ice vanes retracted.

All of the above says what….
- there is no prohibition against taking off or landing with ice vanes extended
- it is advised that ice vanes be extended for all ground ops ( it can be argued that both take-off and landing do have some rather fundamental ground operation aspects to them)

In various ground schools over the years, Beech, FSI, Simuflite and even P&WC have strongly advised to have ice vanes extended for all ground ops including take-off and landing.

Regarding windshield heat, Beech provides the following in their BEFORE TAKEOFF (FINAL ITEMS) checklists: WINDSHIELD ANTI-ICE (if required)……..NORMAL/HI

There is also a “CAUTION” note here that states “The practice of turning the windshield anti-ice on early in the flight is recommended if it is anticipated that it will be required later in the flight after the windshield has been cold-soaked. Activating the windshield anti-ice after the windshield has been cold-soaked may cause the windshield to crack”

Both Beech and PPG have advised that with regards to affording better bird strike protection, all their certification data is done with no windshield heat. I think you will find there are two distinct camps almost equally split with regards to any merit in having a “warm” windshield vs a “cold” windshield when it comes to a bird strike.

[411A]

The applicable part of the original question..

Is there a benefit in having the ice vanes open during a normal takeoff/landing on a gravel strip or on a sealed runway in temperatures above freezing?

Looking through type certificate 3A20 (which includes the E90 model), ice deflectors/vanes are not mentioned.
As to their use on gravel runways, recommended generally speaking, on sealed/clean runways, closed/retracted.

Flight Safety/Simuflite etc only has their recommendations, which are not regulatory.

STC's were not mentioned by the original poster, so they are of no consequence to the present discussion.

Then we have...So far as asking a FAA inspector...who has no authority to interpret regulation...

Wrong, they do it all the time, and have for many years.

Going further, and with the referenced B200, it is noted...I am sure that the AFM for the B200 I used to fly (but do not have it to hand) specifically required the ice vanes closed for T/O as a limitation.

Yup, my manual says the same.

And finally, we have...Some installations also use filters or additional screens prior to the engine in order to prevent compressor contamination or engine damage. This is more commonly found on aircraft which operate in an environment that is at a high risk for contamination (common on ag and firefighting aircraft, for example), but not on aircraft such as the King Air.


That is about the only reasonably correct statement that particular poster has made so far.
All the rest from the same source is generally nonsense.:rolleyes:

[SNS3Guppy]

Take-off performance charts are also provided for both ice vanes extended and ice vanes retracted.


BINGO!!

You'll note, perhaps with some apprehension, that the performance charts are manufacturer data...not offhand comments made by an operations inspector, and not what you remember as the "first commercial operator of King air's on the west coast." The real data...the stuff you apparently don't remember or know...supports takeoff with the ice vanes extended. Go figure.

All the rest from the same source is generally nonsense.


Apparently not. Further, your statements were in error before, and are still wrong...as are you.

Looking through type certificate 3A20 (which includes the E90 model), ice deflectors/vanes are not mentioned.
As to their use on gravel runways, recommended generally speaking, on sealed/clean runways, closed/retracted.

Flight Safety/Simuflite etc only has their recommendations, which are not regulatory.

STC's were not mentioned by the original poster, so they are of no consequence to the present discussion.


You'll not find the use of the ice vanes in the TCDS, nor will you find operating recommendations there for gravel runways. It is, after all, a type certificate, not an operating instruction.

FSI and Simuflite base their guidance quite strictly on the manufacturer data and recommendations, not their own. The issue of whether they are "regulatory" or not is irrelevant. The manufacturer data isn't regulatory either, as it's not a regulation. Compliance with manufacturer data, however is mandatory...and let's not forget that the manufacturer provides guidance, operating data, and instructions for takeoff with the vanes deployed...STC or no. The only restriction is such circumstances where the minor torque loss incurred with vane deployment cannot be tolerated for reasons of performance...otherwise, one is not prohibited from taking off with the ice vanes deployed.

Why else do you suppose the manufacturer presents data for takeoff with the vanes deployed?

As for the efficacy of the Raisebeck inlet vanes...it's quite applicable seeing as they're widely used. Further, the original poster inquired about the PT6, not just the King Air...and whereas the PT6 doesn't employ ice vanes, but they're a customer application, then each application of vanes is very much appropriate here...both the Raytheon installation and the common Raisbeck installation are each equally applicable...and neither one comes with a prohibition against use during takeoff. Again, go figure.

Wrong, they do it all the time, and have for many years.


Actually, no. Interpretation of the regulation is not, and has never been within the scope of authority of an inspector at the FSDO level. The FAA Regional and Chief Legal Counsel are authorized to interpret the regulation. An inspector is not. You make a common mistake...but you're still in error. Many airman make that mistake and it costs them their certification and even their career...when they try to rely upon the spoken or written word of someone at the FSDO level in what they believe is an interpretation of the regulation...only to find out later that it can't be relied upon, and is NOT defensible in enforcement action. Clearly you've made the same mistaken assumption in your belief that your inspector friend (even a "senior" inspector) can interpret the regulation. He cannot.

Going further, and with the referenced B200, it is noted...

Quote:
I am sure that the AFM for the B200 I used to fly (but do not have it to hand) specifically required the ice vanes closed for T/O as a limitation.

Yup, my manual says the same.



Does your manual really say this? Do you have a BE-20 AFM? I do, but I don't think you do. Your recollection is antique, as having operated the "first commercial PT-6A powered airplane on the US West Coast." As that took place in 1966, it wasn't a BE-20 now, was it? Of course not. The poster you quoted indicated that he's not looking at his AFM either...he simply thinks that the ice vanes are required to be closed as a limitation. The truth is, you're both wrong. No such limitation exists.

You've asserted that the ice vanes must be used "only when absolutely needed," and that "to suggest otherwise is poor advice." Of course, this isn't true, and neither Raytheon (BeechCraft), the FAA, or the FAA and Manufacturer-Approved training courses, and the FAA-Approved aircraft flight manual agree with you or your assertion...but as you said, fully understand, make it up as you go along. Right?

[411A]

Our misinformed previous poster, SNS3Guppy, is clearly unable to actually read and understand the original post....here it is, the applicable part....

I need advice from experienced PT6 (King Air E90 especially) operators on the use of windscreen anti ice and ice deflectors.


Looks like the gentleman wants specific information on the E90 King Air..
The referenced TCDS was noted, and ice deflectors are not mentioned.
That performance data might exist for their use is not an issue...the original poster asked for advice...not a disertation about other aircraft, PT-6 engines in general, or their use on other aircraft.
Modifications by STC?
Nope, he didn't ask about those, either.

IE: RTFQ.

Now, about FAA inspectors.
Interpretation of the regulation is not, and has never been within the scope of authority of an inspector at the FSDO level.

Wrong again.
I will give an example.
An applicant applies for a large aircraft type rating.
The FAA Inspector examines the applicant and finds him lacking in ability.
The Inspector issues a notice of disapproval.
Therefore, the inspector has clearly interpreted the specific regulation and issued a denial.
Done all the time...in many other areas FAA Inspectors are concerned with, as well.

Our friend, SNS3Guppy, appears to be unable to answer a specific question, then argues with those who can.

Similar to...being asked 'what time is it', then going on to describe how a clock works.:ugh::ugh:

[SNS3Guppy]

That performance data might exist for their use is not an issue...the original poster asked for advice...not a disertation about other aircraft, PT-6 engines in general, or their use on other aircraft.


Yes, the original poster did indeed ask this advice and counsel...which you incorrectly provided based on ancient information. This is no longer 1966, as you may not be aware.

The title of the thread, of course is "PT6 Operations," which you may have missed in passing. You're correct that the introduction of numerous other irrelevant aircraft has no place here, as you attempted to do with Convair, Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

Whereas the standard, original installation ice vanes in the King Air 90 aircraft have no limitations or restrictions prohibiting their use on takeoff, your assertions and counsel, while entertaining, have been in error, and wrong.

That the FAA approved aircraft flight manual data includes takeoff data for the vanes deployed, is very significant. That you might not think so is somewhat puzzling, but also irrelevant. Truth is, there's no limitation on taking off with the ice vanes deployed, and the manufacturer recommendation is that they be used as required...which includes takeoff.

Again, your counsel has been in error...just as your assertion that your own copy of a BE-20 manual contains a limitation against taking off with the ice vanes deployed...is in error.

Our friend, SNS3Guppy, appears to be unable to answer a specific question, then argues with those who can.


Really? Thus far you've provided counsel contrary to the regulation, looked in sources from which the information isn't to be had, claimed limitations from books you don't own and to which you cannot reference, cited as authority for King Air operating practice the talks with your "senior inspector" friend, and used to establish your authority in the matter the fact that you flew "the first commercial PT6A installation on the US West Coast" in 1966, to say nothing of invoking irrelevant makes and models of aircraft ranging from Convairs to Lockheeds and beyond...and have still been unable to answer the question correctly. Yet you elect to point fingers at someone other than yourself? Quite remarkable.

I will give an example.
An applicant applies for a large aircraft type rating.
The FAA Inspector examines the applicant and finds him lacking in ability.
The Inspector issues a notice of disapproval.
Therefore, the inspector has clearly interpreted the specific regulation and issued a denial.


No. Legal Interpretations for and on behalf of the FAA Administrator are done and authorized only by the FAA Regional Legal counsels, and the FAA Cheif Legal Counsel's office. Period.

An inspector at the FSDO level is never authorized to interpret the regulation. Only to apply it.

That application is always subject to review, adjudication, and change...and is never final.

Further, if an inspector (even a "senior inspector") at the FSDO level attempts to provide an interpretation of the regulation, even one in writing, that "interpretation" will never be defensible in administrative court. Why? The inspector doesn't hold that authority.

The inspector has only the authority to apply the regulation, and even then must do so within the bounds of the legal interpretations provided by the FAA Regional and Chief Legal Counsel. This is not new...just something you (and many others) fail to grasp.

What you receive from your "senior inspector" friend isn't defensible in the presence of an Administrative Law Judge. If your friend provides you a letter, on FAA letterhead, giving you an "interpretation" of the regulation and you're subsequently violated for following this interpretation, you can't use it in your defense, because that letter has no authority...that inspector is not authorized, nor enpowered to interpret the regulation...only to apply the regulations within the narrow confines of his or her job. Period.

If the inspector applies the regulation incorrectly, it's certainly subject to review and change by a superior or an Administrative Law Judge...but at now time does the inspector have the authority to interpret or provide an interpretation of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (perhaps better known to you as the "FAR's).

[411A]

Yes, the original poster did indeed ask this advice and counsel...which you incorrectly provided based on ancient information. This is no longer 1966, as you may not be aware.



It makes no difference.
The information is as valid today on the referenced aircraft as it was when it was manufactured.
STC's notwithstanding...which were not asked about nor referenced in the original question.

Is there a benefit in having the ice vanes open during a normal takeoff/landing on a gravel strip or on a sealed runway in temperatures above freezing?

My advice and councel, as stated previously...
On a gravel strip? Yes.
On a sealed runway in temperatures above freezing?
None whatsoever, and will present an unnecessary takeoff performance penalty, if used.

[john_tullamarine]

We have the same sort of thing in Australia where the Regulatory folk hold varying delegations under the Regulations. However,

If your friend provides you a letter, on FAA letterhead, giving you an "interpretation" of the regulation and you're subsequently violated for following this interpretation, you can't use it in your defense, because that letter has no authority.

rather surprises me as it would infer that the member of the public needs to "know" precisely what delegation the Regulatory representative holds. I would have expected that the opinion might well be set aside by a Court but that the member of the public relying on an apparently valid opinion would not, as a direct consequence, suffer a penalty.


So far as the spirited discussion above is concerned, I am taking the view that both SNS3Guppy and 411A are senior Industry folk with broad shoulders and well able to withstand a little professional criticism from each other. I am sure that neither will overstep the bounds of reasonable, if spirited, constructive criticism.

Meanwhile the rest of us can read and take in the detail from the discussion.

[SNS3Guppy]

I am sure that neither will overstep the bounds of reasonable, if spirited, constructive criticism.


John, you may rest assured that this is indeed the case.

[His dudeness]

4000+hrs in KingAirs, mainly 200s but some time in 90s.

Use of Ice vanes is sound and good advice. On ANY surface.

If you have Raisbeck, then there is no penalty.
If you don´t, you have to stick to the manual, if the A/I on tables allow your departure, fine if not, don´t use the ice vanes on that particular takeoff. To use them as often as possible will save on maintenance.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hisdudeness

A most constructive and sensible post. To any readers just now reading this thread save yourself from wasting 10 mins of your life you will never get back and skip posts 2 through 21 :ugh:

[411A]

To use them as often as possible will save on maintenance.

This might (qualified) be correct, however, IMO, safety overrides savings on maintenance.
One must remember that 90-series KingAir aircraft are certificated under 14CFR23 which absolutely does not guarantee the performance margin that a 14CFR25 aircraft would, in the event of an engine failure on takeoff...IE: you need all the performance margin you can get with these airplanes, in the event of the unfortunate happening.
I have had an engine failure in two BE99 aircraft just after takeoff (200 agl, approximately) and even with autofeather fitted, the climb rate was very marginal, as we were heavy.

I say...safety first, possible maintenance costs savings, second.

[boofhead]

I appreciate seeing the reasoning. Thanks to all.
My AFM does not have any guidance on takeoff performance with anti ice on. It has no guidance on the use of the ice vanes on the ground, and has nothing on the use of ice vanes on gravel surfaces.
We generally operate at ISA or below, even in the summer, and are never temperature limited on takeoff, always Torque.
I do see a significant effect on torque and ITT when I open or close these ice vanes after takeoff with climb power set, so the increase in temperature is something to keep in mind since engines generally last longer if they are operated at lower temps.
Here is another question: would the engine temps be higher if they were started with the ice vanes open (handle pulled out)?

[ahramin]

No effect on start.