I don’t think so. For example one of the most prolific posters was flying a turbo 182 with a carb (then bought a TBM850 which doesn’t have carb icing). However it may be that the bigger engines have a different intake arrangement than the small ones, and the carb sucks in pre-warmed air, and the performance loss is tolerated because you have plenty of power anyway. Whereas on say a C150 care would be taken to suck in fresh cold air.
More here
Cobalt wrote:
Yet, a lots of people still say “must have been carb icing”.
They just mean anything that blocks fuel from hitting the engine whatever the physics behind….
172driver wrote:
Because most here fly behind fuel injected engines ? Just a thought.
I thought so, too… That said, I have about 600 hours flying behind carburated engines. I have encountered carb icing two or three times. I’ve noticed that some engines/installations are considerably more prone to carb icing than others.
I would second Airborne Again’s comments, the Robin DR400 is far more prone to carb ice than the PA28.
The engine and carb are identical so it can only be air intake box design that makes the difference, I suspect that the DR400 with the intake directly behind the prop gets air at a higher velocity than the PA28 that picks up air from just inside the lip of the cooling duct requiring a number of changes in direction before the air enters the carb.
The DR400 system has the air going directly to the carb with only one change of direction, it is logical that the higher the velocity of the air entering the carb the bigger the pressure and temperature drop.
