Wing De-Icing Question

On Feb 14, 9:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
K l e i n wrote :





On Feb 13, 3:36*pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Feb 13, 1:44*pm, "Robert11" wrote:

Hello,

I guess de-icing is going to be a popular subject.

Question, please: *On commercial jet airliners like, e.g., a 767 or
7
57, is
there any in-flight deicing system for the wing and tail surfaces,
othe
r
than a leading edge pneumatic boot ?

What about the "main," large upper surfaces ?

How in general is wing de-icing accomplished on these new, modern
jets
?

Thanks,
Bob

Jets don't typically have boots. Most use hot air stollen from the
engines to heat the leading edges. Some use a "leak" system to drip
anti-freeze like solution on the tail surfaces to avoid having to
plumb the hot air to the rear, although this is less common. I'm not
sure that I woudl call the type of plane that crashed less modern
than a 767 considering by-pass jet engines (the type in a 767) have
been around longer than turbo prop engines that were involed in this
recent crash.

-Robert

The more I hear about this, the more it sounds like tailplane icing.
Take a look at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...60735779946for a NASA
produced video on the subject.

Note that this flight started its plunge right at or after the outer
marker. *The outer marker is where you normally lower gear and flaps.
Lowering flaps is the thing that causes the tailplane stall if the
tailplane is iced up.

Rubbish.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The NASA study on tail stall notwithstanding?

cavedweller wrote in
:

On Feb 14, 9:12*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
K l e i n wrote
innews:2d099c70-cb73-40be-a62e-feb3015f5
:





On Feb 13, 3:36*pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Feb 13, 1:44*pm, "Robert11" wrote:

Hello,

I guess de-icing is going to be a popular subject.

Question, please: *On commercial jet airliners like, e.g., a 767
o
r
7
57, is
there any in-flight deicing system for the wing and tail
surfaces, othe
r
than a leading edge pneumatic boot ?

What about the "main," large upper surfaces ?

How in general is wing de-icing accomplished on these new,
modern jets
?

Thanks,
Bob

Jets don't typically have boots. Most use hot air stollen from the
engines to heat the leading edges. Some use a "leak" system to
drip anti-freeze like solution on the tail surfaces to avoid
having to plumb the hot air to the rear, although this is less
common. I'm not sure that I woudl call the type of plane that
crashed less modern than a 767 considering by-pass jet engines
(the type in a 767) have been around longer than turbo prop
engines that were involed in this recent crash.

-Robert

The more I hear about this, the more it sounds like tailplane
icing. Take a look at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...60735779946for a
NASA
produced video on the subject.

Note that this flight started its plunge right at or after the
outer marker. *The outer marker is where you normally lower gear
and flaps. Lowering flaps is the thing that causes the tailplane
stall if the tailplane is iced up.

Rubbish.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The NASA study on tail stall notwithstanding?

Well, OK not impossible, but Wing if anythng..


Bertie

In article ,
says...




The NASA study on tail stall notwithstanding?


In this case I think Gezellig is right.
After the high-profile Roselawn (ATR) accident a few years ago, and the Vickers
Viscount accidents dating back to 1954, we have had ample time to improve our
icing awareness, particularly for the most vulnerable aircraft/mission
profiles, and if the truth be known we don't have much to show for it . . .

On Feb 17, 3:23*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...



The NASA study on tail stall notwithstanding?

In this case I think Gezellig is right.
After the high-profile Roselawn (ATR) accident a few years ago, and the Vickers
Viscount accidents dating back to 1954, we have had ample time to improve our
icing awareness, particularly for the most vulnerable aircraft/mission
profiles, and if the truth be known we don't have much to show for it . .

In article ,
says...


On Feb 17, 3:23*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article
,
says...



The NASA study on tail stall notwithstanding?

In this case I think Gezellig is right.
After the high-profile Roselawn (ATR) accident a few years ago, and the
Vickers
Viscount accidents dating back to 1954, we have had ample time to improve
our
icing awareness, particularly for the most vulnerable aircraft/mission
profiles, and if the truth be known we don't have much to show for it . . .

Umm...I was questioning Bertie....Gezellig's post was down thread.
Attribution, attribution.......

Sorry - I dont receive "Bertie" or "Mxsmanic" or any responses to these
self-styled, self-sufficient spammers. The filters I have developed leave me in
ignorant bliss with regard to these intellectually impoverished ignoramuses.
Don't know how your's got through. If you are involved in discussion with
same, frequency change is approved - go away.

On Feb 17, 4:53*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Feb 17, 3:23*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article

,



says...

The NASA study on tail stall notwithstanding?

In this case I think Gezellig is right.
After the high-profile Roselawn (ATR) accident a few years ago, and the
Vickers
Viscount accidents dating back to 1954, we have had ample time to improve
our
icing awareness, particularly for the most vulnerable aircraft/mission
profiles, and if the truth be known we don't have much to show for it .. . .

Umm...I was questioning Bertie....Gezellig's post was down thread.
Attribution, attribution.......

Sorry - I dont receive "Bertie" or "Mxsmanic" or any responses to these
self-styled, self-sufficient spammers. The filters I have developed leave me in
ignorant bliss with regard to these intellectually impoverished ignoramuses.
Don't know how your's got through. *If you are involved in discussion with
same, frequency change is approved - go away.

I don't indulge with Bertie much either but in this thread I was
curious about what his reaction to a previous poster hence my question
to him. I didn't realize I needed your permission to do that . I
haven't seen your 'nym on here much in the past, and that's been
without benefit of filters.....just lucky, I guess.

In article ,
says...




I don't indulge with Bertie much either but in this thread I was
curious about what his reaction to a previous poster hence my question
to him. I didn't realize I needed your permission to do that . I
haven't seen your 'nym on here much in the past, and that's been
without benefit of filters.....just lucky, I guess.



OK I apologize.
I admit I'm a bit peeved about what some self-indulgent guys have done to
normal exchange and discourse here. . .

On Feb 17, 6:38*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article ,
says...



I don't indulge with Bertie much either but in this thread I was
curious about what his reaction to a previous poster hence my question
to him. *I didn't realize I needed your permission to do that . *I
haven't seen your 'nym on here much in the past, and that's been
without benefit of filters.....just lucky, I guess.

OK I apologize.
Roger that........
..

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 01:53:42 -0800, VOR-DME wrote:

In article ,
says...


On Feb 17, 3:23*am, VOR-DME wrote:
In article
,
says...



The NASA study on tail stall notwithstanding?

In this case I think Gezellig is right.
After the high-profile Roselawn (ATR) accident a few years ago, and the
Vickers
Viscount accidents dating back to 1954, we have had ample time to improve
our
icing awareness, particularly for the most vulnerable aircraft/mission
profiles, and if the truth be known we don't have much to show for it . . .

Umm...I was questioning Bertie....Gezellig's post was down thread.
Attribution, attribution.......

Sorry - I dont receive "Bertie" or "Mxsmanic" or any responses to these
self-styled, self-sufficient spammers. The filters I have developed leave me in
ignorant bliss with regard to these intellectually impoverished ignoramuses.
Don't know how your's got through. If you are involved in discussion with
same, frequency change is approved - go away.

Yessir and that means you fukk up and post AssClown reponses to the
wrong peoples.

AssClown.
--
Austin Whitten, President; Geeks-In-Route, Inc;
3808 Gunn Hwy Ste C Tampa, FL 33618 866-661-GEEK Ext 701
813-480-0103 Mobile 813-388-4902 Fax
www.geeks-in-route.com

On Feb 17, 12:43*am, Austin "The Geeker" Whitten ©¿©¬ aus...@geeks-
in-route.com wrote:


Yessir and that means you fukk up and post AssClown reponses to the
wrong peoples.

AssClown.
--
Austin Whitten, President; Geeks-In-Route, Inc;
3808 Gunn Hwy Ste C Tampa, FL 33618 866-661-GEEK Ext 701
813-480-0103 Mobile 813-388-4902 Faxwww.geeks-in-route.com

Such a sterling contribution..............not.