aviatoreb Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Quote: KSMooniac Thanks for the clarification. I (erroneously) assumed that a 2nd alternator could be added to a Rocket to preserve FIKI certification if the donor airframe started that way. Perhaps someone with a friendly FSDO could get a 337 cert that way, but as you adroitly articulated it is likely an academic exercise anyway and shouldn't give the prudent pilot a license to make a dumb decision and launch into really bad weather. I'm a chicken with ice in my non-TKS J, and would be just slightly less so in a K with TKS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker_Woodruff Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Actually, not only is the 2nd alternator a requirement, but also CAV Aerospace explicitly told me that no airframe mods not approved by their STC can be present. The Rocket's engine and cowl are two of those unapproved mods. I do wonder what they'd say about my 252 converted to an Encore. Even though I live in FL, FIKI would still be nice when flying in the teens, especially if I make a lot of high alt X/Cs. Would I be willing to spend the money? I don't know. I do have an advantage in that I'd still have over 1000 lbs useful even after the FIKI install - as long as the system was dry or had less than a gallon of fluid or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlunseth Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Well, there is icing and then there is icing. In the winter here, cloud decks are not thick most of the time. An aircraft with a good rate of climb can be " on top" in a matter of minutes. Even a nonFIKI aircraft can get through it most of the time. But it is not legal, and "most of the time" is not good enough either. Certainly good to have equipment that let's you deal with it and find a safe landing spot. It's just flight planning. Stupid to put yourself in circumstances where SLD is possible, or where you will be in icing conditions for an extended period. Just like it is stupid to plan to do a 4:30 hour trip on 4:30 hours of fuel or stupid to fly into the core of a Tstorm. At some point, good judgment in the use of the equipment is called for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 252s are all business, with more complex operations. Ovations are more style and simple operations. How do you want to operate? Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 I was under the understanding any IFR below 5C to be "known icing conditions" is that not correct? Quote: RJBrown A Rocket with TKS is not FIKI. BUT in reality neither is a FIKI plane. A forecast that includes the possibility of ice is not Known ice. Reports of ice constitute Known ice. I would not fly a FIKI into Known Ice. For me any condition that would make dispatching illegal with just TKS are too bad for FIKI. Both serve the same purpose in protecting from inadvertent ice. The Rockets ability to climb out of ice makes it the safest one. A 252 with FIKI may not have the option to climb. At 20K they are under 500 fpm. A Ovation has no climb that high. A Rocket is still doing 1000 fpm or more at 26k at gross. Solo with half tanks (50gal) I have seen 1500 fpm at 26k. I also live in the West and never visit the North East. I flew a Rocket for about 800 hours without TKS. I would NOT choose it as an option because of cost (high) benefit (low) for my type of flying. Is there a real need to dispatch into known ice? Is it reasonable to take off in freezing fog/drizzle knowing the sun is shining 2000 feet up? I am of the opinion, one not based in experience, that the difference between plain TKS and FIKI is that with FIKI you can legally do something stupid. Is my opinion wrong or just too cautious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Byron, You probably need to add the "with visible moisture statement with that"? The one poster asked can you get ice at 15k, if it is already god awful cold at ground level... We know that it should get even colder as you go higher, but god made things unsteady. He sends tropical weather up north and sends arctic cold down south. So the answer magically appears as "it all depends" If known ice is a popular weather issue at your home drome, consider FIKI and a turbo for best results. Select you battles wisely.... If cruising in big style is popular at your home drome, consider an Ovation. Two completely different expressions of the same m20 genes... Your mileage will vary... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSMooniac Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 I know the FAA released some official verbiage stating something along those lines, but I think it was revised or retracted a year or so later in order to leave more up to pilot judgment. IMO that is a good thing because the black or white interpretation will needlessly keep many flights on the ground... but then again there are always going to be folks exercising poor judgment. Quote: jetdriven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshill Posted October 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Re: carusoam's post: Anderl Meier: You're very good. I have really enjoyed climbing with you.Dr. Jonathan Hemlock: We'll make it.Anderl Meier: I don't think so. But we shall continue with style. The Eiger Sanction - Great Eastwood film! I'd have to agree w you about the Ovation appearance - they are beautiful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnggreen Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 JS, Two comments. Deicing on any single engine piston is for one thing: getting out of ice that you didn't foresee. It is imperative to recognize the limitations of single engine piston, single pilot IFR unless you are just "dying" to become a statistic. That's my philosophy and it guides the peronal limitations I set for myself. I don't try to impress anyone with my bravado in an airplane. At 62, I'm still pretty impressive in the gym though. Second comment. If you ever get to experience the versitility of turbo charging for cross country flight, you will find it almost impossible to forego. Turbos are not about speed. Averaged out, you will hardly know the difference, but it is surprising how much weather 18,000' will avoid. Jgreen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlunseth Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 I would disagree just a little on the speed. If you are going west and winds aloft are adverse, then neither aircraft, the NA nor the turbo, are going to want to go very high. NA suffers the same penalty from adverse winds, but does not get the payback on the trip back, not to the extent turbo does. Completely agree about the weather though. Makes a big difference in the summer just to get above the cloud tops at 12k on "popcorn cumulus" days and get out of the low level turbuluence. You find you can overtop most overcast layers if you can get to 18 or 19. Usually, the only weather higher than that will be cells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnggreen Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 jlundseth, Don't recall the exact number, but the last time I looked at the log on my 430's I was a little taken aback at my average speed. I didn't say so, but in saying that turbos are not about speed, I was being a little Mooneyish. Comparing the Bravo and the Ovation, most Ovations (there are some dogs) will give about 10-15 knots better than my Bravo at or below 8,000'. Give me 10,000 and I'm easing off and at 15,000 I'm gone. I suppose it largely depends on one's average flight profile, but even with mine which is usually over 500 nm, I just don't see a big difference in average speed. Jgreen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted October 27, 2011 Report Share Posted October 27, 2011 Someone should do a study, turbo 231 or 252 vs 201 wirth repeated flights east and west. All of them take headwinds going west. The turbo airplnes climb high and rocket away eastbound at high altitude. Of course plenty of fuel too. But has anyone averaged out the speed and fuel burn for a roundtrip? Quote: jlunseth I would disagree just a little on the speed. If you are going west and winds aloft are adverse, then neither aircraft, the NA nor the turbo, are going to want to go very high. NA suffers the same penalty from adverse winds, but does not get the payback on the trip back, not to the extent turbo does. Completely agree about the weather though. Makes a big difference in the summer just to get above the cloud tops at 12k on "popcorn cumulus" days and get out of the low level turbuluence. You find you can overtop most overcast layers if you can get to 18 or 19. Usually, the only weather higher than that will be cells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlunseth Posted October 27, 2011 Report Share Posted October 27, 2011 Yes, I agree a turbo probably gives up a little speed to a comparable NA mooney below 8,000 . That is true between the J and the 231. Also usually gives up some useful load. True also that icing equip is to help you get through ice, not stay in it for protracted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.