flybubba
14th Nov 2005, 02:24
Those who fly the 80 know that engine anti-ice and airfoil anti-ice is recommended below 6C RAT in "visible moisture", even at much lower SAT's where all visible moisture is frozen out. So the question is: why is this different then the Boeing requirement which takes into account low SAT's.
I have heard several reasons given to me by check airman, and I'm not sure if they are valid. First, the elevator and horizontal stab: if any ice accreted on the leading edge of the horiz. stab which disrupted the airflow over the control tabs, the elevator would not be controllable. In an aircraft with a hydraulic powered elevator (Boeing), this wouldn't be a factor. So I guess they are being very conservative given this weakness in the control tab design.
The intake scoop on the tail takes in air for pack cooling; the s-duct, I have been told, changes the temp in such a way that ice could build up inside the duct. I frankly don't see how this could happen considering the adiabatic flow thru a duct (but maybe I'm missing something).
Anyone with more insight?
I have heard several reasons given to me by check airman, and I'm not sure if they are valid. First, the elevator and horizontal stab: if any ice accreted on the leading edge of the horiz. stab which disrupted the airflow over the control tabs, the elevator would not be controllable. In an aircraft with a hydraulic powered elevator (Boeing), this wouldn't be a factor. So I guess they are being very conservative given this weakness in the control tab design.
The intake scoop on the tail takes in air for pack cooling; the s-duct, I have been told, changes the temp in such a way that ice could build up inside the duct. I frankly don't see how this could happen considering the adiabatic flow thru a duct (but maybe I'm missing something).
Anyone with more insight?