safetypee
good, we got rid of that unworkable blunt vs thin leading edge explanation and now we have got down to
fineness ratio 
411A
I never heard of the Tristar and a KC135 Ice machine, but I am familiar with the DC10 and its localized boom to form ice in a single engine inlet, which of course never gets to the tailplane.
I would have some serious doubts about trying to simulate icing on an airframe in anything other than a large cloud.
Mad Scientist I don't see how assumed ice shapes are acceptable means of showing compliance. I was aware that the presumption was continuous ice acretion throughout the whole flight and that the demonstration had to show that any acretion up to a natural shed point had to be shown as not detrimental.
I don't see how one can assume the actual shed vs acretion characteristics without an in-flight test.
Do you have a particular aircraft certification program for reference?