They offer an interesting explanation why hydrophobic coatings oftentimes don’t repel ice:
“Rough and particles containing superhydrophobic surfaces effectively repel water but do not always repel ice. The problem is the mechanism of action of superhydrophobic coatings. Superhydrophobic coatings capture air within the surface creating high greater than 140° water contact angles. In humid and cold conditions, water droplets can form within the rough superhydrophobic coating by condensation. After condensation, water droplet nuclei create water-loving and ice-loving patches. Under certain high humidity cold conditions superhydrophobic surfaces become neither hydrophobic nor icephobic. The IceSlip coatings and additives provide a smooth, slippery and low surface tension surface that is ice repellent.”
Might explain Peters observation that the ice actually took longer to melt on the treated surface than on the normal paint.
Looks good, but it’s interesting they reckon they can mix 10% of this stuff into those paints without affecting their properties.
Multiple threads on same topic merged. One of the products was tested further back and didn’t do anything, even though it repelled water beautifully on the ground.
Here is yet another family of icephobic coatings. Unlike the products already discussed here, they are to be added to the paint itself rather than applied on top of it.
It depends on how you define “works”. As I wrote, I’m not aware of a solution that works on its own. In this regard, it’s pretty much useless. IIRC, one paper mentioned formation of frost as an example and after that it’s useless. However, when you add heating (be that electrical or bleed air), efficiency is increased. In that paper, energy required to keep a specified section of a wing clean was reduced to one fifth (in wind tunnel tests), IIRC, that is five-fold increase in efficiency. That might be interesting.
I don’t think any of the stuff works on an aircraft.
This (coatings preventing ice accretion) is researched and from what I remember it doesn’t work on its own (yet). It can, however, increase efficiency of heating based systems. And there might be a drag penalty, but I know little about this. If you look around, you will find some papers.
PS: It’s not just the leading edge you want clean.
http://www.neverwet.com/anti-icing.php
http://www.ultraeverdrystore.com/
Would something like this work on a leading edge as anti-ice protection?
I think the reason that magazine writer was avoiding mentioning (writing under his real name) that he flew with it is because there is little point in testing it on a FIKI aircraft, because the test must involve not using the de-ice gear (boots or TKS) which contravenes the certification.
I don’t know why they bother writing about it, in that case. Of course it will work on the ground. I suppose you can’t print a 
in a printed magazine which is so serious that they even write “airframe & powerplant mechanic with inspection authorisation” instead of “A&P/IA”. Also doing that makes the mag fatter.
mdoerr – I am sure you are right. However There are some reports of another “nanotechnology” coating which does work. I think it was reported here, with a photo of a piston twin nose cone.
I had the discussion with Peter about he difference of resting drops or droplets impacting at some speed.
The hydrophobic properties are based on the surface tension of water and to create a surface where the angle of contact is low or the ‘free’ angle is high.
We have a different situation in flight. The droplets impact the leading edge and deform on impact. The forces involved are much higher than the surface tension, so the contacting surface is much higher. I have serious doubts that this kind of surface treatment will have any impact on airframe icing in flight. It will have a positive effect on ground icing but that is it.
The laws of physics is against us.
