Jump to content

TN550 with TKS?


Garth Evans

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I'm new to this forum and know very little about Mooney Aircraft (sorry).

I have a Canadian registered Cessna P210 and just had a TN550 installed with a Hartzell prop in the US.  I then arranged for a CAV Ice TKS anti ice installation.  The problem I've run into is that the STC for the TKS system is for a McCauley prop.  CAV deals with the Hartzell under a field approval - problem is, Transport Canada will not accept field approvals so I'm in a real bind.  They cannot release the aircraft until i have an approval and i don't really fell like going down the STC road to create a one off STC.  

I'm told that the Mooney Acclaim has a TN550 with a Hartzell prop and also has a TKS option.  Does anyone have this combination and if so, can you tell me the model of the Hartzell prop and if you have an STC for this installation?  Any information would really be appreciated.

Garth Evans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard, Garth!

Mooney Acclaims are all born with a Continental TNIO550... The Hartzell TopProp is the typical prop for it... a three bladed aluminum prop with known specs (should be easy to look up)  thin blades...

Many of the Acclaims are full Fiki birds.

What part of Canada are you in?  Where is the bird at currently? We have a Mooney service center in the east end of Canada that is also familiar with the TNIO550 used in Cirri... not sure how helpful that can be...

See if @M20Doc can help... (this is a note sent to the doc)

was that of any help?

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response - this is helpful!  I'm right in the centre of Canada - Winnipeg, however the plane is in Columbus getting the FIKI TKS installed at a company called Airnet II.  (They install the CAV Ice TKS STC, then they have the STC to upgrade that installation to FIKI status for the 210)

I'll try and track down this prop combination.  I'm hoping its a Hartzell HC-J3YR-1RF but even if not, its not the end of the world.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this on the net.

Propeller:

  • Hartzell PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7498 or PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7498(B) for the Acclaim Type S
  • Hartzell PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7693DF-2 or PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7693DF(B)-2 for the Regular Acclaim

The "(B)" in the model number of the propellers listed above are the booted prop versions for TKS (ice protection system "deice")

I'll check into it further,.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy...so sorry...your installer should never stated the tks installation knowing a Hartzell was installed.My Mooney has tks known ice and a McCauley prop so I assume the original certification tests flown behind a water spraying tanker plane was done with a Mcauley.I assume ,certification tests on continental/ hartzell equipped Acclaims were done by the factory...the only quick solution is to see if you can get your install approved for inadvertant ice...i.e. Not fiki..good luck

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Piloto said:

Try the ($5.00) Rain-X for plastics on the leading edge. So far no ice on my plane here in FL neither in Pittsburgh, PA. 

José

There is a massive cost to Rain-X relative to TKS.

TKS cost is high in terms of dollars cost for acquisition and dollars cost to operate.  But the opportunity cost regarding acquired risk is relatively low since you are operating a product that works.

Rain-X is very low cost in terms of acquisition and operations.  But the opportunity cost is very high in terms of probability of death is dramatically higher if flying near ice and you think you have a product that works but does not.  

Just think of the lost income if you are dead.  Or think of the cost of carrying insurance as cheaper than not carrying cost if you think of the cost of risk and think like an actuary.

If this does not make sense to you then I have a very cheap bullet proof vest for you made out of silk, and it looks good and it is comfortable too.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Piloto - your technique seems to have some sceptics - I wonder if there is a way to test this.  Perhaps take a fiki plane into icing with something coated on a gopro mount to see how if it was protected from icing as well as the wing surface - I'm not recommending this just trying to figure how to compare the two in similar conditions.    

Honestly coating a plane in something from autozone sounds crazy - but hey crazy ideas sometimes work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, rpcc said:

@Piloto - your technique seems to have some sceptics - I wonder if there is a way to test this.  Perhaps take a fiki plane into icing with something coated on a gopro mount to see how if it was protected from icing as well as the wing surface - I'm not recommending this just trying to figure how to compare the two in similar conditions.    

Honestly coating a plane in something from autozone sounds crazy - but hey crazy ideas sometimes work.

I would not use this product whether or not it turns out to work, unless it is PROVED to work.  Period.

Yes I would use as a preflight fluid the actual de-ice fluid that you get from the fbo - that pink stuff they spray on - onto airplanes with boots before you fly into known ice.  IF I ALSO HAD BOOTS.

I would NOT fly into ice with any of the following fluids on my wings:  rain-x, or tri-flo or butter, or margarine, ant-jemima pancake fluid, or maple syrup, or preparation-h, or oragel, or talcum powder, or dessenex antifungel, or motion lotion, or hair styling gel, or gasoline, or avgas, or EVEN not tks fluid spritz onto my wings - and expect that it would stay and do the job (we had a local guy who used to do that).

Now just because any one or several of the above fluids might actually end up doing the job, does not make it a good idea because it needs to actually be tested instead of blissfully flying into ice thinking you are good to go until that day that you actually find yourself in ice and turns out you were not.  Or SOMEONE ELSE who actually listened to you.

You have continually suggested that your idea is a good idea, and I will not say I have any right to suggest that you can't jump off a bridge if you want to, but please stop posting here dangerous information that might get someone else killed, someone who might actually take you seriously.  Luckily I think most people here have an appropriate level of general skepticism.  You are doing this community a terrible disservice by spreading this false narrative.  It is false whether true or not, until PROVEN to be true. You of all people know the STC process - so set up some test pilots, file the paper work, and design some icing test flights and get an STC to use the product as you wish.  Prove it is sufficient.  

Until then at the very least please include with your suggestion something that sounds like the warning label on a box of cigarettes: "WARNING: THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THAT CIGARETTE SMOKING IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH." 

Edited by aviatoreb
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rpcc said:

@Piloto - your technique seems to have some sceptics - I wonder if there is a way to test this.  Perhaps take a fiki plane into icing with something coated on a gopro mount to see how if it was protected from icing as well as the wing surface - I'm not recommending this just trying to figure how to compare the two in similar conditions.    

Honestly coating a plane in something from autozone sounds crazy - but hey crazy ideas sometimes work.

We (MooneySpace) already did test it. One of our members with a FIKI airplane put some Rain-X on the landing light lens.  It did not repel any ice, either because it wore off or was simply ineffective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a video of Rain-X on ice. The ice is gently removed by hand but a wind of 150mph will do the trick quicker. A 40mph speed will keep the windshield and hood clear during freezing rain with no wipers as tested at Plum, PA.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=rain-x+on+ice&qpvt=rain-x+on+ice&view=detail&mid=3291E77C545D9A86A3D43291E77C545D9A86A3D4&&FORM=VRDGAR

Even though I always check for icing conditions before departure using Rain-X gives me an added safety margin sense in the event I encounter ice. 

Prestone also makes similar products for the automotive market.

Unlike planes cars have no provision for de-icing so drivers have to rely on these products.

José

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude - I have a wife and kids.  I live in the northeast. Please do not screw with me.  I get you live in florida, but many of us do not. 

I've read many of your posts and they are great.  Your instance that rainx is somehow safe does not seem responsible.  

God be with you.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rpcc said:

Dude - I have a wife and kids.  I live in the northeast. Please do not screw with me.  I get you live in florida, but many of us do not. 

I've read many of your posts and they are great.  Your instance that rainx is somehow safe does not seem responsible.  

God be with you.

 

I am not imposing my ideas on anyone. Is up to you to decide what is best for you. Like others I am just merely expressing my findings and ideas.

José

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andy95W said:

We (MooneySpace) already did test it. One of our members with a FIKI airplane put some Rain-X on the landing light lens.  It did not repel any ice, either because it wore off or was simply ineffective.

Yeah - I figure.

But even if it worked for you - in your for-fun experiment - and thank you for doing that - it is still just for fun and beside the point if rain-x or any other stuff should be used as a renegade de-ice fluid- still it would be really stupid for someone to use the stuff in pretense that it is a de-ice for aviation substance meaning to fly into ice expecting that they are somehow better off.  It would need to be tested, in ice wind tunnel, in certification tests, for de-ice capability, and tenaciousness/how well and long it sticks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Piloto said:

I am not imposing my ideas on anyone. Is up to you to decide what is best for you. Like others I am just merely expressing my findings and ideas.

José

"WARNING: THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THAT CIGARETTE SMOKING IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2018 at 12:29 AM, Garth Evans said:

I found this on the net.

Propeller:

  • Hartzell PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7498 or PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7498(B) for the Acclaim Type S
  • Hartzell PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7693DF-2 or PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7693DF(B)-2 for the Regular Acclaim

The "(B)" in the model number of the propellers listed above are the booted prop versions for TKS (ice protection system "deice")

I'll check into it further,.....

Garth, this information is correct, except for the “B” designation, which they really don’t use.  The model number is the model number regardless of whether the slinger rings and boots are installed.  The respective model doesn’t change as a result.  Are you looking for the specific STC identifiers for either/both of these props?  If so, let me know and I can provide.  I also have a couple of contacts at Hartzell who can give guidance, so send me a PM if you want to explore that option and I’ll share their contact info as well as any other info to help you out.

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Erik- it seems like you didn't read my post very closely- the peron who did the test (not me) showed pictures that said it did not repel any ice.

Hi Andy I’m sorry I had read your statement clearly  but I wasn’t clear what I was trying to say.  

I was trying to say great it didn’t work but even if it had worked in a fun experiment for myth busters it alone would not be justification enough to rely on the stuff.

sorry again!

 

Edited by aviatoreb
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.