De-icing boots

[Flyboy-F33]

Can anyone answer this one?

Here's the scenario.... A light twin has de-icing equipment fitted, Boots, alcho props and alcho-screen. The boots are old and heavily patched but work. The new owner wants to remove the boots as they will cost about £15k to replace and they rob the plane of at least 5+ knots in the cruise, and he doesnt think he will (hardly) ever use them anyway.

Can they be legally removed and are there any other issues the new owner should consider?

GG

[Jetset41]

Flyboy ,
If the aircraft was build with the boots at the factory , then I guess he will be changing it's spec , so he might have to apply for minor\major mod . Either will cost money , especially large amounts with the major .
As for legalities , he'll have to check on that .

My thoughts are £15k seems very high price anyways .
Even if you could remove the boots , then he'll be respraying the wings , even maybe the aircraft if good paint match isn't achievable . The area under the boots isn't painted ,you know .
And as for getting 5 kts extra , he'd be better off giving the thing a damm good polish , clipped wings and a retractable tailwheel , ooops , sorry got carried away again .

I say leave the aircraft as the designers biult it and tell him to stump up the dosh , he can afford it , after all he has his own airplane !!!!

Jetset41

[bbbaldy]

Correct, His main issue would be to get his naa to approve this mod. Aircraft would also have to be re weighed as mod will affect c of g.

[Kanga767]

Would not have to reweigh aircraft.

The approval to remove said equipment, which should be from an Aeronautical Engineer, (or is in Oz), should contain any W+B change data.

K

[a is dum]

Know nothing much about light twins but...

Assuming these are not electrical boots.....

On larger aircraft the (pneumatic) boots are often recessed (joggled) into the wing L/E. Removing the boots will give you more drag than patched boots. On top of that all pneumatic air inlets need to be patched up=more drag, potentially.
De-icers are part of type certificate. Remove them officially and you will have to recertify/prove that the aircraft flies OK/safe in all "book" conditions.

On second thoughts, light twins must be way different from big transports otherwise noone in his right mind would suggest removing them.

The floor is to the lightaircraft experts, sorry I interupted....... :cool:

[Daysleeper]

Most light twin de-ice boots are a total waste of time.(IMHO) As for alcho prop (must be an old aircraft) they are worse than useless (certainly were on the DC-3!)
Pull the kit off if you can and (tell the owner) stay out of icing in light aircaft!

[Perrin]

REMOVED ALL BOOTS FROM TWO DC3'S WHICH WERE GOING TO MIDDLEEAST YEARS AGO. IT WAS A LOT OF WORK FILLING IN ALL THE A/N HOLES, PATCHED UP HOSE HOLES. THE TWO DAY JOB LASTED TWO WEEKS WITH LOTS OF OVERTIME. BUY THE BOOTS MY MAN THEY WILL BE THERE WHEN THE WEATHER COMES AT YOU OUTWITH THE FORECAST.

[chaulks]

yep airplanes AINT cheap!

[Lukeafb1]

Agree with a is dum.

Removing the boots could cause more problems than its worth, especially if the leading edges have to be modded to fill the indents where the boots were fitted.

[Ethel the Aardvark]

If your boots are really that bad and replacements are not required then a possible option would be to fit standard 1/8 rubber sheet in the same attachment method ie 1200l and proseal. you would have to get this approved and I would imagine w/b sould be the same. It would cover any problems with inflation tube holes. You would still have to icex it etc.
I have never needed to do this so is just ban idea.