sold 310 -- now what?

[Cary Mariash]

After nearly a year away from the newsgroups, I am returning to seek the
wisdom and advice from the NG. After 7 years and 670 hours later, I have
sold my 1958 Cessna 310B and am looking for another plane. Although I
loved flying the 310, I could no longer tolerate the absence of deice
equipment and the absence of an autopilot. It got to be too tiring
flying in IMC as a single pilot and without an autopilot. Also, I've had
too many icing encounters in the upper midwest for me to remain
comfortable flying my 310 in IMC. Lastly, I am tired of paying about
$15K per year in annuals.

I have a down-payment on the new Diamond TwinStar DA42, but it is not
yet certified in the US and when this will occur is anyone's guess. They
were supposed to start delivering these last Oct, but we are all still
waiting. I will also need at least 1 more partner to be able to afford
this new plane.

I am not wedded to the need for a twin. I am looking for something that
can give me 200 KTAS, can seat 4 to 6, has recent avionics, weather
detection (i.e., WX-500), autopilot and deice. My partner and I can
probably put together about $250K (max) for this plane. Any suggestions
would be appreciated.

Cary

[Fly]

TN-A36?

"Cary Mariash" > wrote in message
...
> After nearly a year away from the newsgroups, I am returning to seek the
> wisdom and advice from the NG. After 7 years and 670 hours later, I have
> sold my 1958 Cessna 310B and am looking for another plane. Although I
> loved flying the 310, I could no longer tolerate the absence of deice
> equipment and the absence of an autopilot. It got to be too tiring
> flying in IMC as a single pilot and without an autopilot. Also, I've had
> too many icing encounters in the upper midwest for me to remain
> comfortable flying my 310 in IMC. Lastly, I am tired of paying about
> $15K per year in annuals.
>
> I have a down-payment on the new Diamond TwinStar DA42, but it is not
> yet certified in the US and when this will occur is anyone's guess. They
> were supposed to start delivering these last Oct, but we are all still
> waiting. I will also need at least 1 more partner to be able to afford
> this new plane.
>
> I am not wedded to the need for a twin. I am looking for something that
> can give me 200 KTAS, can seat 4 to 6, has recent avionics, weather
> detection (i.e., WX-500), autopilot and deice. My partner and I can
> probably put together about $250K (max) for this plane. Any suggestions
> would be appreciated.
>
> Cary

[nobody]

"Fly" > wrote in message
...
> TN-A36?
>

That DA42 is on my lust list too, 201kts @11.3 gph jetA and a glass panel to
boot!

The A36 '84 or later with the IO-550 instead of the IO-520. Bonanza is a
great machine as long as you're not looking for baggage capacity.

Ed

[[email protected]]

A Cessna Turbo 210 or P210 would easily fit your desires if you are willing
to settle for cruise speeds a shade under 190 kts. A Piper Malibu will
cruise at around 200 kts, but you might have trouble finding a nice one for
$250K. All of these models were available with known icing protection, and
most P210s and Malibus are so equipped.

I believe that there is an STC for a TKS anti-ice system for the A-36
Bonanza, but it's not approved for known icing

--
-Elliott Drucker

[markjen]

> I am not wedded to the need for a twin. I am looking for something that
> can give me 200 KTAS, can seat 4 to 6, has recent avionics, weather
> detection (i.e., WX-500), autopilot and deice. My partner and I can
> probably put together about $250K (max) for this plane. Any suggestions
> would be appreciated.

There is only one plane I know of that can meet these constraints: P210.

- Mark

[Denny]

The DA-42 is an unknown quantity, and what is known should give you
pause... The diesel engine overheats above 11,000 feet!!!!
It is not yet certified to Part 23... We don't know how it will carry
ice, if at all - those slippery airframes and laminar flow wing
sections do not take kindly to having their shapes distorted... I
suggest we wait a while to see how the DA-42 fares in the real world..
Denny

[Robert M. Gary]

markjen wrote:
> > I am not wedded to the need for a twin. I am looking for something
that
> > can give me 200 KTAS, can seat 4 to 6, has recent avionics, weather
> > detection (i.e., WX-500), autopilot and deice. My partner and I can
> > probably put together about $250K (max) for this plane. Any
suggestions
> > would be appreciated.
>
> There is only one plane I know of that can meet these constraints:
P210.

A 210 will spend more time down than flying. Most A&Ps think of the 210
as their kid's college funds.

A later model Mooney (Ovation, etc) would be a good choice. The rear
seats on the later models are much larger than the mid (201) models,
and certified known ice is avialable (TKS).
A Bonanza would be a great choice. I know they offer a complete TKS
(world's best deicing system) but I'm not sure if they're certified
known-ice or not yet.

In general, I'd try to stick with TKS deicing system. Boots are always
troublesome because they can leak and only protect a very small amount
of the wing at the leading edge. The TKS system drips deicing fluid all
the way down the wing. There are several known-ice certified TKS
installations.
-Robert

[Juan Jimenez]

Did you read the article about the DA-42 flying from Canada to Portugal on
$200 worth of Jet-A? The DA-42 is an awesome aircraft, I got a chance to get
a close look at it at OSH, and those Thielert engines are very cool
technology. The fuel and maintenance savings ought to make it worthwhile to
spring for it rather than a more conventional twin.

"Cary Mariash" > wrote in message
...
> After nearly a year away from the newsgroups, I am returning to seek the
> wisdom and advice from the NG. After 7 years and 670 hours later, I have
> sold my 1958 Cessna 310B and am looking for another plane. Although I
> loved flying the 310, I could no longer tolerate the absence of deice
> equipment and the absence of an autopilot. It got to be too tiring
> flying in IMC as a single pilot and without an autopilot. Also, I've had
> too many icing encounters in the upper midwest for me to remain
> comfortable flying my 310 in IMC. Lastly, I am tired of paying about
> $15K per year in annuals.
>
> I have a down-payment on the new Diamond TwinStar DA42, but it is not
> yet certified in the US and when this will occur is anyone's guess. They
> were supposed to start delivering these last Oct, but we are all still
> waiting. I will also need at least 1 more partner to be able to afford
> this new plane.
>
> I am not wedded to the need for a twin. I am looking for something that
> can give me 200 KTAS, can seat 4 to 6, has recent avionics, weather
> detection (i.e., WX-500), autopilot and deice. My partner and I can
> probably put together about $250K (max) for this plane. Any suggestions
> would be appreciated.
>
> Cary

[Nathan Young]

On 4 Jan 2005 07:15:18 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>In general, I'd try to stick with TKS deicing system. Boots are always
>troublesome because they can leak and only protect a very small amount
>of the wing at the leading edge. The TKS system drips deicing fluid all
>the way down the wing. There are several known-ice certified TKS
>installations.

Do any of the aftermarket TKS installs have K-Ice approval? Last time
I checked (a while ago) they did not, which is a shame, because every
pilot I have talked to that has flown with TKS says the ice buildup is
non-existent and way better than boots.

[Peter MacPherson]

Their website shows that at least the Baron, 210 and Caravan can
be certified for known ice. There's probably others.

http://www.flightice.com/contact.html



"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 4 Jan 2005 07:15:18 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
> wrote:
>
>>In general, I'd try to stick with TKS deicing system. Boots are always
>>troublesome because they can leak and only protect a very small amount
>>of the wing at the leading edge. The TKS system drips deicing fluid all
>>the way down the wing. There are several known-ice certified TKS
>>installations.
>
> Do any of the aftermarket TKS installs have K-Ice approval? Last time
> I checked (a while ago) they did not, which is a shame, because every
> pilot I have talked to that has flown with TKS says the ice buildup is
> non-existent and way better than boots.
>
>
>

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:50:27 GMT, "Peter MacPherson"
> wrote:

>Their website shows that at least the Baron, 210 and Caravan can
>be certified for known ice. There's probably others.
>
> http://www.flightice.com/contact.html

Cool, thanks!

[Colin W Kingsbury]

Just out of curiosity, if the system works well, what is the added value of
being "known ice" certified? The only thing I can think of is, if you get
into an accident, they could say "you flew into known icing without being
equipped, blah blah." But if the scuttlebutt that TKS works better than
boots is to be believed (plausible, certainly) then odds are that you would
still have gotten into the accident with boots, and the FAA could still say,
"you should have gotten out of there the minute you realized how bad the ice
was" and ding you anyway.

Now I can understand the downside of a system like that on the Cirrus which
has only a 30-minute reservoir for the de-icing fluid, but if you have a
4-hour tank, then why should you really care? Up here in the Northeast in
the winter everybody files to fly through areas of known ice in planes that
can't be equipped for it (e.g. a Skyhawk) and unless you end up in an
emergency nobody appears to care, it's caveat aviator all the way.

And in any case, a non-known-ice TKS system would be a meaningful
improvement over his old 310 with nothing, at least until you run out of
juice.

-cwk.

"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:DHACd.848205$8_6.586133@attbi_s04...
> Their website shows that at least the Baron, 210 and Caravan can
> be certified for known ice. There's probably others.
>
> http://www.flightice.com/contact.html
>
>
>
> "Nathan Young" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 4 Jan 2005 07:15:18 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>In general, I'd try to stick with TKS deicing system. Boots are always
> >>troublesome because they can leak and only protect a very small amount
> >>of the wing at the leading edge. The TKS system drips deicing fluid all
> >>the way down the wing. There are several known-ice certified TKS
> >>installations.
> >
> > Do any of the aftermarket TKS installs have K-Ice approval? Last time
> > I checked (a while ago) they did not, which is a shame, because every
> > pilot I have talked to that has flown with TKS says the ice buildup is
> > non-existent and way better than boots.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

Nathan Young wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2005 07:15:18 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
> wrote:
>
> >In general, I'd try to stick with TKS deicing system. Boots are
always
> >troublesome because they can leak and only protect a very small
amount
> >of the wing at the leading edge. The TKS system drips deicing fluid
all
> >the way down the wing. There are several known-ice certified TKS
> >installations.
>
> Do any of the aftermarket TKS installs have K-Ice approval? Last
time
> I checked (a while ago) they did not, which is a shame, because every
> pilot I have talked to that has flown with TKS says the ice buildup
is
> non-existent and way better than boots.

Mooneys with the TKS system installed by Mooney in the factory are
certified known ice. If you have TKS install the system later, its not
known-ice.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, if the system works well, what is the added
value of
> being "known ice" certified?

Legal is one reason. Another is that there is more to "Known Ice" than
deicing equipment. Once classic example was a Mooney 201 with full TKS
that crashed because its fuel vent froze over. The Mooney 231 (the
first year of known-ice cert) has a different fuel vent system.

> Now I can understand the downside of a system like that on the Cirrus
which
> has only a 30-minute reservoir for the de-icing fluid, but if you
have a
> 4-hour tank, then why should you really care?

Even the guys flying Citations don't hang around in the ice for 4
hours. Its just enough to get you through that altitude to another one.
Many of the known-ice planes are turbo'd. The known-ice is just a good
way to climb up through the ice into CAVU air above. The FAA send out a
letter to ownes of known-ice planes a couple years ago telling them not
to hang out in icing conditions. Many known-ice owners (like Richard
Collins and Mac McMillon of "Flying" rag) though it was funny the FAA
even mentioned that.


-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

How often do guys like us fly to airports that sell Jet-A though? The
article that "Pilot" wrote up mentioned that most U.S. orders were for
the Cont. engine version. I guess in the E.U. jet-A is more common.
-robert

[Mike Rapoport]

Non-known ice TKS does not nessesarily work better than a KI approved booted
system. The TKS covered portion of the airplane may be fine but there may
be other problems like fuel vents icing up. Known ice certification is
granted after testing not just installing a bunch of parts.

The advantage of having a KI appoved system in addition to being tested is
that you can take off into actual or forecast icing conditions legally.

Mike
MU-2


"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Just out of curiosity, if the system works well, what is the added value
> of
> being "known ice" certified? The only thing I can think of is, if you get
> into an accident, they could say "you flew into known icing without being
> equipped, blah blah." But if the scuttlebutt that TKS works better than
> boots is to be believed (plausible, certainly) then odds are that you
> would
> still have gotten into the accident with boots, and the FAA could still
> say,
> "you should have gotten out of there the minute you realized how bad the
> ice
> was" and ding you anyway.
>
> Now I can understand the downside of a system like that on the Cirrus
> which
> has only a 30-minute reservoir for the de-icing fluid, but if you have a
> 4-hour tank, then why should you really care? Up here in the Northeast in
> the winter everybody files to fly through areas of known ice in planes
> that
> can't be equipped for it (e.g. a Skyhawk) and unless you end up in an
> emergency nobody appears to care, it's caveat aviator all the way.
>
> And in any case, a non-known-ice TKS system would be a meaningful
> improvement over his old 310 with nothing, at least until you run out of
> juice.
>
> -cwk.
>
> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
> news:DHACd.848205$8_6.586133@attbi_s04...
>> Their website shows that at least the Baron, 210 and Caravan can
>> be certified for known ice. There's probably others.
>>
>> http://www.flightice.com/contact.html
>>
>>
>>
>> "Nathan Young" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 4 Jan 2005 07:15:18 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>In general, I'd try to stick with TKS deicing system. Boots are always
>> >>troublesome because they can leak and only protect a very small amount
>> >>of the wing at the leading edge. The TKS system drips deicing fluid all
>> >>the way down the wing. There are several known-ice certified TKS
>> >>installations.
>> >
>> > Do any of the aftermarket TKS installs have K-Ice approval? Last time
>> > I checked (a while ago) they did not, which is a shame, because every
>> > pilot I have talked to that has flown with TKS says the ice buildup is
>> > non-existent and way better than boots.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[Viperdoc]

I have a Baron with the known-ice TKS installation (non Known Ice
installation was not available as an option)

The stuff works as advertised- you simply do not accumulate ice, although I
had an encounter near Lake Michigan where the windshield iced over
completely. Even with the spray bar and max defroster it still picked up ice
and got covered. I was thinking about how to land the Baron like a tail
dragger by using peripheral vision and looking out the sides, but the ice
fell off and I was able to see fine.

Without the deice equipment I would have been in big trouble. The known ice
certification includes redundant pumps on the wings and windshield, and
requires a heated pitot and stall warning vane, along with an ice light. It
works great, but in my opinion is not a good reason to go droning along in
icing conditions for hours at a time. Rather, it gives you more time to
consider options like climbing, turning, descending, or otherwise leaving
the icing conditions.

Overall, it has really expanded the comfort level for using my plane in the
winter, particularly living on Lake Michigan, which I would never cross
unless I was in a twin or a kerosene burner and had ice protection.
"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:DHACd.848205$8_6.586133@attbi_s04...
> Their website shows that at least the Baron, 210 and Caravan can
> be certified for known ice. There's probably others.
>
> http://www.flightice.com/contact.html
>
>
>
> "Nathan Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4 Jan 2005 07:15:18 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In general, I'd try to stick with TKS deicing system. Boots are always
>>>troublesome because they can leak and only protect a very small amount
>>>of the wing at the leading edge. The TKS system drips deicing fluid all
>>>the way down the wing. There are several known-ice certified TKS
>>>installations.
>>
>> Do any of the aftermarket TKS installs have K-Ice approval? Last time
>> I checked (a while ago) they did not, which is a shame, because every
>> pilot I have talked to that has flown with TKS says the ice buildup is
>> non-existent and way better than boots.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

But a KI TKS system is better than a KI booted system.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> How often do guys like us fly to airports that sell Jet-A though? The
> article that "Pilot" wrote up mentioned that most U.S. orders were for
> the Cont. engine version. I guess in the E.U. jet-A is more common.
> -robert

Virtually every airport I fly to has Jet-A. All the towered airports in the
caribbean have it, and many non-towered have it as well. Besides, how far do
you have to go to find Jet-A? And considering the price difference, it sure
is worthwhile.

[Frank Stutzman]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> How often do guys like us fly to airports that sell Jet-A though? The
> article that "Pilot" wrote up mentioned that most U.S. orders were for
> the Cont. engine version. I guess in the E.U. jet-A is more common.
> -robert

Considering that the vast majority of the non-training helecopter fleet is
turbine, I would say that Jet-A is actually very common. Guys like us may
not notice much though as we don't use it.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Mike Rapoport]

In many respects yes, but in a few no. As far as keeping ice off the
airframe TKS is the best, better even than heated leading edges (which can
suffer from "run-back icing"). TKS is clearly better in large droplet
icing, at least for the surfaces with TKS, everything else is still a
problem. The downsides of TKS are weight of the fluid and making a mess in
the hanger.

The disadvantages of boots are that they are subject to static discharges
which make pin holes and also deteriorate over time. I guess that thy have
weight too (!!!) but nobody thinks about it since it is part of the empty
weight. With recipricating engines, reliabliity of the vacuum pumps is also
an issue. A frequent misconception about boots is that they do not clear
all the ice. This is true on a "per cycle" basis but the ice is removed on
subsequent cycles (the little pieces of ice adhering to the boots are not
the same little pieces of ice that were there 30 minutes ago.

Both systems require maitenance, the main item with boots is renewing the
preservatives and silicone surface treatment.

I think that the reason that many people seem to have a low opinion of boots
is a function of flying with 30yr old leaking (maybe flapping too) boots
being inflated by a worn out vacuum pump. You never hear the Citation or
Pilatus guys complaining about their boot's effectiveness.

Mike
MU-2





"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> But a KI TKS system is better than a KI booted system.
>

[Denny]

When you fly in a Great Lakes icer that is layering an inch a minute of
impact ice on the airframe, I don't care what you are flying, you are
gonna die... Even the jumbo cattle tubes with heated wings don't fly
IN an icing layer of that magnitude, they use their power to climb or
descend through it at 6000 fpm... Take a GA aircraft into known icing
conditions and you are playing russian roulette...

Denny

[Matt Barrow]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> How often do guys like us fly to airports that sell Jet-A though?

A hell of a lot more than to those that sell 80/87. :~)

Of the 10 airports within 65 miles of my base, seven have Jet-A, and the
ones that don't have like a dozen or less aircraft based there, are
unattended. Not always, but usually. Those that don't have it, typically,
just a few miles down the road (okay..."just over there").

Of the 3968 FBO's nationwide, 3871 have 100LL, 2481 have Jet-A, 29 have
80/87, and 234 have Mogas.
http://www.airnav.com/fuel/report.html

>The
> article that "Pilot" wrote up mentioned that most U.S. orders were for
> the Cont. engine version. I guess in the E.U. jet-A is more common.

More common and less expensive. When you pay for fuel what they do, it
really adds up.

I'm looking for something with all-weather capability, but it damn sure
isn't going to be a twin piston-popper. Been there, done that, got fed up
(Baron 58...nine months and 250 hours was enough).

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Of the 3968 FBO's nationwide, 3871 have 100LL, 2481 have Jet-A, 29 have
> 80/87, and 234 have Mogas.
> http://www.airnav.com/fuel/report.html
>
And I think that may still overstate the 80/87 availability.
It's been steadily becoming harder to get as you have to go further
and further away to get it. Our airport was the last holdout in the
area which would by a tanker car and then truck it in. However, the
"truck in" leg got progressively longer to make it unfeasible. It
was much more expensive than 100LL the last decade or so it was
available.

Those airport update surveys aren't updated very often or accurately.

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:

> > Of the 3968 FBO's nationwide, 3871 have 100LL, 2481 have Jet-A, 29 have
> > 80/87, and 234 have Mogas.
> > http://www.airnav.com/fuel/report.html
> >
> And I think that may still overstate the 80/87 availability.
> It's been steadily becoming harder to get as you have to go further
> and further away to get it. Our airport was the last holdout in the
> area which would by a tanker car and then truck it in. However, the
> "truck in" leg got progressively longer to make it unfeasible. It
> was much more expensive than 100LL the last decade or so it was
> available.

> Those airport update surveys aren't updated very often or accurately.

All production of 80/87 ended some time ago.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > Of the 3968 FBO's nationwide, 3871 have 100LL, 2481 have Jet-A, 29 have
> > 80/87, and 234 have Mogas.
> > http://www.airnav.com/fuel/report.html
> >
> And I think that may still overstate the 80/87 availability.
> It's been steadily becoming harder to get as you have to go further
> and further away to get it. Our airport was the last holdout in the
> area which would by a tanker car and then truck it in. However, the
> "truck in" leg got progressively longer to make it unfeasible. It
> was much more expensive than 100LL the last decade or so it was
> available.
>
> Those airport update surveys aren't updated very often or accurately.

The prices can be up to a year old or even longer, but I doubt that the mix
changes very much. If anything, I'd venture that more and more are carrying
Jet-A as the turbine fleet is proliferating.

Here's hoping that GAMI can get STC approval for it's PRISM system sometime
soon.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Ron Natalie]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message

>
> The prices can be up to a year old or even longer, but I doubt that the mix
> changes very much. If anything, I'd venture that more and more are carrying
> Jet-A as the turbine fleet is proliferating.
>
The mix is changing, 80/87 has all but disappeared in the last 5 years.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Of the 3968 FBO's nationwide, 3871 have 100LL, 2481 have Jet-A, 29 have
> 80/87, and 234 have Mogas.

I doubt that many of those actually have 80/87. It hasn't been made for some
time now.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Matt Whiting]

Denny wrote:

> When you fly in a Great Lakes icer that is layering an inch a minute of
> impact ice on the airframe, I don't care what you are flying, you are
> gonna die...

It depends on how many minutes you stay there. I got into ice on the
lee side of Lake Erie several years ago in my Skylane. I picked up 1-2"
of ice in less than 5 minutes, but luckily a descent got be into lighter
icing and I was able to continue on to Elmira.

Shedding the ice on the approach was really interesting. I thought I'd
lost the tail after the windshield shed its load all at once. However,
post-flight inspection showed no damage of note.

I'm amazed at how much ice a Skylane will carry and still fly. I was at
full throttle (with the carb heat on as the intake iced over almost
instantly), flying at the top of the white arc and descending at 200
FPM, but the old girl flew fine and carried the ice for nearly an hour
until I descended into the warmer air on the approach.


Matt

[john szpara]

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:43:09 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:


>I'm amazed at how much ice a Skylane will carry and still fly. I was at
>full throttle (with the carb heat on as the intake iced over almost
>instantly), flying at the top of the white arc and descending at 200
>FPM, but the old girl flew fine and carried the ice for nearly an hour
>until I descended into the warmer air on the approach.

That reminds me of a flight I made when I was taking instrument
training (which I wasn't able to finish, lost my job) way back when.

We flew a 1892RG from San Jose (KSJC) to Reno (KRNO), through a storm.
We were picking up ice over the Sierra. There was ice all over the
place, and the plane was slowing down. As we descended into Reno, ice
was slushing off the plane. After we landed, big sheets were plopping
off. Looking back, we were lucky it was warmer in Reno.
John Szpara
Affordable Satellite
Fiero Owner 2-84 Indy Pace cars, 86 Coupe, 88 Formula 3.4, 88 Coupe, 88GT

[Matt Whiting]

john szpara wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:43:09 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm amazed at how much ice a Skylane will carry and still fly. I was at
>>full throttle (with the carb heat on as the intake iced over almost
>>instantly), flying at the top of the white arc and descending at 200
>>FPM, but the old girl flew fine and carried the ice for nearly an hour
>>until I descended into the warmer air on the approach.
>
>
> That reminds me of a flight I made when I was taking instrument
> training (which I wasn't able to finish, lost my job) way back when.
>
> We flew a 1892RG from San Jose (KSJC) to Reno (KRNO), through a storm.
> We were picking up ice over the Sierra. There was ice all over the
> place, and the plane was slowing down. As we descended into Reno, ice
> was slushing off the plane. After we landed, big sheets were plopping
> off. Looking back, we were lucky it was warmer in Reno.

Avoiding ice is best, but luck is good to have on your side if you don't
avoid it.


Matt

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> >>I'm amazed at how much ice a Skylane will carry and still fly. I was at
> >>full throttle (with the carb heat on as the intake iced over almost
> >>instantly), flying at the top of the white arc and descending at 200
> >>FPM, but the old girl flew fine and carried the ice for nearly an hour
> >>until I descended into the warmer air on the approach.

This is one of those areas where slower seems to be better. Those big,
thick, old-fashioned airfoils you find on Cessnas lose less performance for
each unit of ice versus the laminar-flow jobs. I read in one magazine that
Cirrus says you can expect to lose 10kts the minute you get even a trace of
ice. Combine this with the Skylane's decent power and useful load and you
have a regular popsicle stick.

-cwk.

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > The prices can be up to a year old or even longer, but I doubt that the
mix
> > changes very much. If anything, I'd venture that more and more are
carrying
> > Jet-A as the turbine fleet is proliferating.
> >
> The mix is changing, 80/87 has all but disappeared in the last 5 years.

Sorry...I was referring to the 100LL/Jet-A mix. In that vein, would you
agree that more places are carrying Jet-A? A few years ago it was (to my
recollection) only larger city airports that support airlines. Now, with the
bizjets and turboprops, it seems even backwater airports carry the stuff.
That, though, might be an artifact of he turbine powered crop dusters.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > Of the 3968 FBO's nationwide, 3871 have 100LL, 2481 have Jet-A, 29 have
> > 80/87, and 234 have Mogas.
>
> I doubt that many of those actually have 80/87. It hasn't been made for
some
> time now.

They advertise it, I'd hope them have it. Probably are some rather old
stocks?

I wonder how many are carrying mogas as a more recent inventory item.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm watching GAMI's PRISM system. They've been
claiming "STC is coming soon" for over two years now. If it does what they
say it will, I'd love to be an investor in their operation.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Colin W Kingsbury" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >>I'm amazed at how much ice a Skylane will carry and still fly. I was
at
> > >>full throttle (with the carb heat on as the intake iced over almost
> > >>instantly), flying at the top of the white arc and descending at 200
> > >>FPM, but the old girl flew fine and carried the ice for nearly an hour
> > >>until I descended into the warmer air on the approach.
>
> This is one of those areas where slower seems to be better. Those big,
> thick, old-fashioned airfoils you find on Cessnas lose less performance
for
> each unit of ice versus the laminar-flow jobs. I read in one magazine that
> Cirrus says you can expect to lose 10kts the minute you get even a trace
of
> ice. Combine this with the Skylane's decent power and useful load and you
> have a regular popsicle stick.

Much the same with a Bonanza. Picked up 1/2 to an about an inch once and
other than it getting nose heavy, it hardly flinched.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[G.R. Patterson III]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> They advertise it, I'd hope them have it.

I agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't take a list compounded by Airnav as
an indication that these airports are advertising that they have 80/87. I
suspect that Airnav's info is somewhat out-of-date for many fields.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Matt Barrow]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > They advertise it, I'd hope them have it.
>
> I agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't take a list compounded by
Airnav as
> an indication that these airports are advertising that they have 80/87. I
> suspect that Airnav's info is somewhat out-of-date for many fields.

And they say so regarding fuel prices. Each FBO has a date of the last time
the information was updated. Many are fairly current (a couple weeks
(appropriate when prices are fairly stable), up to over a year or more.

On the other hand, the airport data is a current as the FAA data 9with a lag
for processing and updating it seems (currently, Nov.25 th).

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> I have a Baron with the known-ice TKS installation (non Known Ice
> installation was not available as an option)
>
[snip]
>
> Overall, it has really expanded the comfort level for using my plane in
the
> winter, particularly living on Lake Michigan, which I would never cross
> unless I was in a twin or a kerosene burner and had ice protection.

Indeed!! Same here "down in the valley...the valley so low..." in the heart
of the rockies. Fortunetely, our work tapers off during the worst months of
the year.

Didn't have anti-ice on our Baron , but we damn sure will have it on the
next aircraft. And right now it's 99 sure it's going to be a kerosene
burner. :~)


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> In many respects yes, but in a few no. As far as keeping ice off the
> airframe TKS is the best, better even than heated leading edges (which can
> suffer from "run-back icing"). TKS is clearly better in large droplet
> icing, at least for the surfaces with TKS, everything else is still a
> problem. The downsides of TKS are weight of the fluid and making a mess
in
> the hanger.

Isn't it also a bit of a hassle finding replacement fluid?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Whiting]

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>I'm amazed at how much ice a Skylane will carry and still fly. I was at
>>>>full throttle (with the carb heat on as the intake iced over almost
>>>>instantly), flying at the top of the white arc and descending at 200
>>>>FPM, but the old girl flew fine and carried the ice for nearly an hour
>>>>until I descended into the warmer air on the approach.
>
>
> This is one of those areas where slower seems to be better. Those big,
> thick, old-fashioned airfoils you find on Cessnas lose less performance for
> each unit of ice versus the laminar-flow jobs. I read in one magazine that
> Cirrus says you can expect to lose 10kts the minute you get even a trace of
> ice. Combine this with the Skylane's decent power and useful load and you
> have a regular popsicle stick.
>
> -cwk.
>
>

Yes, that all helps. I don't recommend flying a Skylane into ice, but
it certainly isn't instant death as the OP suggested, even on the lee
side of lake Erie in December.

Matt

[Viperdoc]

I've never had a problem getting TKS fluid. It comes in 55gal drums, and I
keep the tank in the plane full in the winter and also keep some extra jugs
in the nose in case I need a refill on the road. A lot of FBO's carry it as
well, since some jets such as Challengers also use TKS.

It does make a slimy slippery mess on the hangar floor.Using a mop only
pushes it around. I catch the overflow from filling in a garden sprayer and
then spray it on the plane to deice as added protection.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> In many respects yes, but in a few no. As far as keeping ice off the
>> airframe TKS is the best, better even than heated leading edges (which
>> can
>> suffer from "run-back icing"). TKS is clearly better in large droplet
>> icing, at least for the surfaces with TKS, everything else is still a
>> problem. The downsides of TKS are weight of the fluid and making a mess
> in
>> the hanger.
>
> Isn't it also a bit of a hassle finding replacement fluid?
>
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>

[Dave Butler]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>>They advertise it, I'd hope them have it.
>
>
> I agree with the sentiment, but I wouldn't take a list compounded by Airnav as
> an indication that these airports are advertising that they have 80/87. I
> suspect that Airnav's info is somewhat out-of-date for many fields.

Here's some data from the ATA-100 APT.txt file dated 11/04/2004. This appears to
be the source that airnav.com uses. For 20329 APT records in the file, the
number of airports reporting selling each kind of fuel is as follows:

80 - GRADE 80 GASOLINE (RED): 275
100 - GRADE 100 GASOLINE (GREEN): 348
100LL - GRADE 100LL GASOLINE (LOW LEAD BLUE): 3524
115 - GRADE 115 GASOLINE: 23
A - JET A - KEROSENE, FREEZE POINT -40C: 2051
A1 - JET A-1 - KEROSENE, FREEZE POINT -50C: 52
A1+ - JET A-1 - KEROSENE, WITH ICING INHIBITOR,
FREEZE POINT -50C: 213
B - JET B - WIDE-CUT TURBINE FUEL,
FREEZE POINT -50C: 18
B+ - JET B - WIDE-CUT TURBINE FUEL WITH ICING INHIBITOR
FREEZE POINT -50C: 51
MOGAS - AUTOMOTIVE GASOLINE: 413

Note that many airports sell more than one kind of fuel.
No distinction is made among AIRPORT, GLIDERPORT, STOLPORT, etc.

No guarantee of accuracy, of course, but I know of no better data. Many of the
numbers seem low to me.

Dave

[Ron Natalie]

Dave Butler wrote:

> 100 - GRADE 100 GASOLINE (GREEN): 348

This number alone should be highly suspect. When was
the last time you saw 100/130?

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Dave Butler wrote:
>
> > 100 - GRADE 100 GASOLINE (GREEN): 348
>
> This number alone should be highly suspect. When was
> the last time you saw 100/130?

About 7 months ago. Holman Aviation in Great Falls, MT has been
selling it for as long as I can remember. Apparently, there's a local
refinery that makes it.

That said, I argree that 348 is a suspect number. Aside from Holman,
I haven't seen green gas available at any airport for years.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Matt Barrow]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> I've never had a problem getting TKS fluid. It comes in 55gal drums, and I
> keep the tank in the plane full in the winter and also keep some extra
jugs
> in the nose in case I need a refill on the road. A lot of FBO's carry it
as
> well, since some jets such as Challengers also use TKS.

Is there a list of those FBO's somewhere?

>
> It does make a slimy slippery mess on the hangar floor.Using a mop only
> pushes it around. I catch the overflow from filling in a garden sprayer
and
> then spray it on the plane to deice as added protection.

How do you clean up the spills, though?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Viperdoc]

I would suggest calling ahead at FBO's if you plan to stop and think you
might need some TKS fluid.

The TKS fluid slowly drips out of the panels with time, and this can
continue for several weeks after its last use. I anticipate getting slimed
every time I crawl under the wings during a preflight.

A friend has an autoscrubber, which I borrowed and worked great on my floor.
Also, a wet mop with full strength simple green works reasonably well.

I just live with it, since once it gets on the floor it will last forever
due to the low vapor pressure of the glycol. I just can't get too excited
about pulling the plane out in the middle of winter just to swab the floor,
and so far I haven't been able to convince my wife to do the job either.

Still, the bottom line is that TKS works better than boots, requires no
maintenance, and doesn't slow you down like boots.

Good luck.



"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I've never had a problem getting TKS fluid. It comes in 55gal drums, and
>> I
>> keep the tank in the plane full in the winter and also keep some extra
> jugs
>> in the nose in case I need a refill on the road. A lot of FBO's carry it
> as
>> well, since some jets such as Challengers also use TKS.
>
> Is there a list of those FBO's somewhere?
>
>>
>> It does make a slimy slippery mess on the hangar floor.Using a mop only
>> pushes it around. I catch the overflow from filling in a garden sprayer
> and
>> then spray it on the plane to deice as added protection.
>
> How do you clean up the spills, though?
>
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>

[David Lesher]

"Robert M. Gary" > writes:

>How often do guys like us fly to airports that sell Jet-A though? The
>article that "Pilot" wrote up mentioned that most U.S. orders were for
>the Cont. engine version. I guess in the E.U. jet-A is more common.

But....Jet A will be around in 10 years. Leaded avgas....?


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Newps]

David Lesher wrote:

> "Robert M. Gary" > writes:
>
>
>>How often do guys like us fly to airports that sell Jet-A though? The
>>article that "Pilot" wrote up mentioned that most U.S. orders were for
>>the Cont. engine version. I guess in the E.U. jet-A is more common.
>
>
> But....Jet A will be around in 10 years. Leaded avgas....?

Yes.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> David Lesher wrote:
>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > writes:
>>
>>
>>>How often do guys like us fly to airports that sell Jet-A though? The
>>>article that "Pilot" wrote up mentioned that most U.S. orders were for
>>>the Cont. engine version. I guess in the E.U. jet-A is more common.
>>
>>
>> But....Jet A will be around in 10 years. Leaded avgas....?
>
> Yes.

Maybe. But at what price? At this rate the $100 hamburger will have morphed
into a $250 White Castle burger.

[Matt Barrow]

> "Robert M. Gary" > writes:
>
>How often do guys like us fly to airports that sell Jet-A though?

Checked my logs against AirNav: during 2004, we landed at 43 separate
airports and Jet-A was available at all but four (RPX, AZ82, 00V, & F14).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO