high altitude single engine

[IO540]

I don't fly a de-iced plane but I don't think there is a connection between single-engine and icing conditions capability. A SE can be just as capable as a ME.

The difference is in systems redundancy, but even there the situation is clouded. For example a G-reg TB20 with full TKS is OK for icing but an N-reg TB20 with full TKS isn't, largely because the FAA require two alternators. But the backup alternator is nothing to do with icing capability. I am reliably advised that a TB20 with full TKS is exceedingly capable in icing conditions.

But nobody wants to spend a 4hr enroute sector in IMC collecting ice, which is where an additional operating ceiling comes in, and a turbocharged plane with a 25k ceiling will have a greater mission capability against icing conditions than a non-turbo one with say a 18k-20k ceiling. This is because typical stratus cloud tops are rarely above 16k so one needs to climb above it and then you (usually) have sunshine. If the tops are a lot higher than this, it is due to foul weather (e.g. frontal stuff) or lift up a mountain, and a decisively higher ceiling is required.

With a 20k ceiling, I estimate a 75% random-date despatch rate if not de-iced, and perhaps a 95% despatch rate if de-iced. To get beyond that, you need the capability to handle frontal weather not just enroute but also in the end bits, which needs more kit: radar and a higher ceiling, or (for the brave) just radar And the cost starts to rocket up.

Personally I am happy with my 75% rate, achieved with a TB20 with a TKS prop. If I wanted a decisive increment it would have to be a Jetprop - a Malibu Mirage with a proper motor up front. The piston Mirage has had (according to one report I've come across) a 10% in-flight engine failure rate which is a complete joke.

[scooter boy]

I am reliably informed that the inability for FIKI certification of the Columbia and Cirrus rests with their (ugly) fixed gear.
It accumulates ice fast and gets heavy and draggy.
You often hear of pilots describing loss of antennae and aerials after an icing encounter. Any protruberances freeze up fast.

For what it's worth, I would take a Mooney with TKS (same system as in the Hawker jet) over anything else out there. It wins in terms of systems redundancy, speed, (massively in terms of) efficiency, range and general ruggedness. Radar would be nice in addition to a stormscope for crossing fronts, but even my non-turbocharged Ovation 2 can get up to FL200 at max gross without too many problems. On one occasion in the last 12 months having a ceiling of FL250 (turbonormalised Acclaim) would have allowed me to slide over the top of a nasty front (dodging around the CBs
that were going up much higher) but only one occasion. I landed and spent the night in a hotel completing the journey the next morning.

Mooney have slowed production as have most other manufacturers, in anticipation of a tough year or two.
Unlike Cirrus and Diamond, Mooney have been through tough times before and survived - they will no doubt do the same again. The workforce will go back to their homes in Kerville and wait for things to get better. It has happen many times in the past.

Cirrus have massive advertising and marketing investments which they need to rationalise fast, I am certain that capacity will reduce to match market demand. As there will always be people out there who want a plastic parachute equiped car for the sky rather than a plane they will no doubt be fine.

Not sure about Diamond though - their problems are far more fundamental with the powerplant as well as the downturn. I hope they make it.

Eclipse is such a breakthrough product that someone will buy it and take it on even if is fails under the current ownership - it will not go away - the technology is just too good.

SB

[Cobalt]

I am reliably informed that the inability for FIKI certification of the Columbia and Cirrus rests with their (ugly) fixed gear.

If that is the case, why not just de-ice the struts and spats? Can't be too hard to put some TKS fluid there if that is the issue... or fit some fancy thermal-electric tape if that is your preference. Also, unlike antennae, the main gear struts are designed to take the forces of the entire airplane being slowed down by the wheel brakes.

Also can't see why, say, two metres of strut and 50-100 square inches of non-deiced front cross-section for the spats and wheels should be so much worse than the several metres of wing / fin leading edges and square METRES of fuselages, nacelles etc. that are not de-iced even on de-iced twins.

Look at a Seneca, for example - only slightly more than half of the fin leading edge has a boot, the wing inboard from the engine nacelles is not de-iced either, nor are the engine nacelles who have a cross section much larger than any fixed gear...

The primary reason Icing increases drag is not that the Ice is hugely draggy - yes it is, but it also ruins the L/D coefficient of these carefully designed wings, so you have to increase the AOA to maintain sufficient lift. In other words, drag increases, but lift decreases as well and even more so - hence the much higher stall speed of an iced-up wing compared to a clean one.

A good illustration of this is what happens with your tailplane - you will not fall out of the sky because of the drag the ice on it creates, but because you cannot create the aerodynamic forces (=lift) required to control your pitch. The available downforce reduces, while the need for downforce increases because you have to pitch up to maintain the lift of the main wings. This ends with you either running out of elevator authority or the tailplane stalling - both with very dire consequences.

The additional drag is not a major factor, compared to that...

[IO540]

I was advised by a Cessna rep recently that Cessna will not be backing the old Lancair 400 electric de-ice system. They don't think it is proven enough to be associated with the "Cessna" name, and there are anecdotal reports of weird problems with it, melting bits of wings or elevators. The reports are countered by more anecdotal reports of the problems having been caused by dealers mis-wiring the heating elements...

I think a major factor for performance degradation through icing is loss of prop efficiency. I have a TKS de-iced prop which works brilliantly; with some 10mm of rough ice on the wings I lose 5-10kt but the prop is spotless clean.

The prop-only TKS system is quite cheap (1/10 of the full system and hardly any weight penalty) but is not certified for anything whatever, and when the plane was delivered new, the CAA inspector insisted on an INOP sticker being stuck over the ON/OFF switch . That was after he required EXIT stickers on the doors which in turn was after he demanded that the IFR GPS has the IFR features disabled, even though the DGAC type certificate covers BRNAV and the plane was delivered with "approved for enroute IFR" factory stickers

But having seen how well is keeps the prop and the front window clean, I think a lot of people blame wings etc for loss of perf when actually they are getting some prop icing which is robbing them of thrust.

[Dimbleby]

Glex, the SR22 is most defenitely NOT certified to fly into icing, as the TKS it possesses is inadvertent icing only. As far as I am aware the Mooney Acclaim or Ovation are the only aircraft (new) with FIKI in this class.

[AC-DC]

Any aircraft that can take full fuel and fill all seats has tanks that are too small .

Not true.
Mine will fly full tanks, 4 av. adults and about 50lbs. in the back and it is only a 4 seater.

[Cobalt]

Should have added a ... but this is a half-serious point. What is your endurance and range on full tanks?

Especially IFR with reserves (holding, alternate, final reserve fuel, additional fuel for adverse winds/dodging CBs) you very quickly find your radius quite constrained - even 4 hours endurance can mean an effective 2 hours radius of action at cruise speed - won't get you that far...

However, if your tanks give you, say, 5 endurance / 1000NM + range full up at 200kt (and I mean without exceeting MTOW and/or MLW), please let me know what you fly...

[scooter boy]

But how many journeys are made with all seats full?
I have never had 4 in my aircraft, rarely 3, occasionally 2 but usually 1.

The best option is the Mooney ovation 2 with long range tanks.
I has a greater range than most executive jets and cruises faster than most twins burning far less fuel.

If there are 2 of us then we can top the tanks. If there are 3 than we can fill to three quarters, If there are 4 then I would fill to half tanks.

Half tanks in the Mooney means I have the range of a Cirrus.
SB

[Ovation]

Put the Mooney Ovation at the top of your list if high altitude flight is a priority. Once I took my Ovation to FL200 (22,000 ft density altitude) to get over weather.

Being normally aspirated, it doesn't have the (potential) operational and maintenance issues associated with turbocharged engines.

Try this link to goflying.org to see how high, fast and far you can go.

Track Log | GPS Track Log Viewer | goFLYING

[glexdriver]

Hi all,
thanks for alle the infos. Me to I'm considering the mooney, but my wife is still looking at the cessna 400 or the SR22, as these 2 have side stick and she is a scare-bus driver.

[scooter boy]

Ovation,
welcome to the thread,
Great to have somebody else beating the Mooney drum.
That is quite a journey that you linked to.
If you have the Monroy tanks (as you probably do if the aircraft was ferried across the Pacific to Oz) and started with them full to the brim, running LOP then you probably landed still carrying plenty of fuel after 1200 miles!

Glexdriver,
your wife wanting a Cirrus is definite grounds for divorce ;-)
It would be a fairly straightforward case of intolerable cruelty.

SB

[IO540]

Nice trip, Ovation

6hrs19. My longest is 6hrs50 (TB20).

Judging from the GS reaching 225kt, you must have had quite some tailwind - otherwise that is an impressive TAS!

[glexdriver]

I was doing some planning simulation, and it look like really difficult to fly in these time of the year without a FIKI certified aircraft. So I think that the option is reduced to Mooney or the TB-20.

[IO540]

really difficult to fly in these time of the year without a FIKI certified aircraft

It depends on whether you need the ability to depart/arrive in thick cloud conditions, say 5000+ ft of icing conditions.

[dirkdj]

Have you looked at the Beech G36? It can be ordered from the factory with FIKI TKS, can be turbonormalized (with gross weight increase to 4000lbs), tiptanks can be added. Its handling is one of the nicest, it's well built, can go to major airports maintaining 150 kts on the glide or it can slip into small grass strips.
It has a large cargo door, excellent visibility.
You could also pick up an older A36 and fit all these goodies.

[IO540]

I recall looking at an A36 back in 2002 when I was in the market. Don't remember the details now, but think that fuel flow might have been a factor. What does an A36 draw, LOP, for 140kt IAS, say 5000ft, ISA?

[dirkdj]

IO,

I usually run about 46lph, LOP at 2200 RPM, WOT. Mine is normally aspirated, Saturday flew to EDNY and return on standard fuel, One hour plus remaining on landing. FL090 going and FL100 return. Dropped off my friend's A36TN to be fitted with TKS at Air-Plus (official TKS installer for this area). He flew at FL190, burning 15 US GPH and over 200 KTAS (go-far mode at 2200RPM). He burned more fuel than I did.

When retrofitting TKS to the BE36 you have a choice of FIKI or non-FIKI, the difference is in the paperwork, price and second fluid pump.

[IO540]

Dirk,

46LPH in which conditions and what IAS?

[mm_flynn]

In my TNA36, I would typically see 175 knots TAS on 14 gph @ 10k and say 3-5C. The TB20 has got to have better economy given you aren't dragging around a true 6 place aircraft.

[IO540]

175kt TAS at 10k on 14GPH is not bad for a substantially bigger plane. My best economy cruise at 10k (wide open throttle, 25LOP) is 9.0GPH which gives 140kt TAS which is 1.24 times better MPG. But at 140kt TAS you would be doing better MPG anyway.

Back in 2002 I was comparing data sheet figures and thought the A36 was about 1.5x worse than the TB20. But clearly that was wrong.