Originally Posted by
mrmum
Genghis,
Not so sure that the majority of mainstream GA like flying around in aircraft which are particularly susceptible to carb. icing. While there's certainly an element of appreciation of the geriatric, I'd certainly buy a simple cure for carb. icing if it was available to retrofit. But it's not is it, and the reason for that isn't a lack of demand, or love of the black art of appropriate application of carb. heat, it's the onerous and outrageously expensive certification requirements for a solution.
Hmm, not sure you are right.
Look at the decision made by Cessna to switch from a 912 to a Continental in the C162. Not the only reason, but the preference amongst the market for "known technology" was a major factor.
There have been many disparaging comments here and in most flying club bars about aeroplanes that used newer technology (and far less carb ice prone) engines rather than the old reliable Lycontinentals.
At the same time - are the certification costs that bad? I recently certified an unapproved oil cooler with no paperwork on a CofA vintage aeroplane. It took a couple of days of my time, and a £62 CAA fee. The big issue isn't the cost - it's that virtually nobody understands the mod approval system. I'm lucky in having a professional education that means I can do this, which is the real issue: very few people do. You could argue that CAA and EASA should explain the process better, and they probably should - but it's lack of professional skills in mod application writing that is the real issue: doubtless if you don't know what you're doing, CAA will start charging a fortune to explain your failings.
G