It’s only intelligent to do that… Up there where you are i wouldn’t want to go swimming either
Jacko wrote:
Also, maybe, having six cylinders instead of four.
Now that’s an interesting remark: Is 6 cylinders more reliable than 4 ?
Me, I think not: 50% more stuff that could fail. Then again one could argue that in certain cases, clogged injector, bad plug/lead on a single cylinder for instance, having 5 good versus only 3 would allow one to soldier on.
Jacko wrote:
I have to admit, I’m scared of flying SE over sea.
And with the North Sea there is perfectly good reasons for it too. I’d probably do it if I had an imersion suit and really good confidence in the engine. But clearly, a twin feels better over water.
Actually, a dutch pilot I once met flew his M20C to Oskosh and back, lovely trip report here: Martin Endemann D-EDDN
On my bucket list but somehow I’d hope that it doesn’t include the bucket….
Mooney_Driver wrote:
10 kts for the C400 is the widely communicated figure. Quite a lot… and the TKS for the C400 is still not EASA certified.
It is wrong.
I flew the exact same aircraft before and after the TKS was installed. Speed drop was around 3 kt at FL180 (my normal cruise altitude).
3 Knots is the widely accepted number for many aircraft types for which TKS is available.
I see. I first read the number in trip reports of a zrh based columbia. So much the better. 3 kts is quite acceptable.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
the TKS for the C400 is still not EASA certified.
Retrofit or factory new? Both? I think it’s standard equipment on TTx.
Martin wrote:
Retrofit or factory new? Both? I think it’s standard equipment on TTx.
Good question. We have a Columbia 400 here which had the retrofit done by Columbia in Germany as when they bought it, the TKS was not yet offered from the factory. It is N-Reg.
They now wanted to move it to Swiss registration in order to let more people fly it, as next to nobody has the US licence in that group. But they were told they have to remove the TKS or deactivate it, because it is not EASA certified. They have been fighting since 2 years to get the plane immatriculated in Switzerland, without any luck, all because of the TKS. I don´t know what the consequence will be, but probably they will have to sell it as there are not enough pilots to fly it under N-Reg. The last communication I saw in this was about two months ago.
The other question is, is the Cessna 400 with TKS EASA certified? I have not seen any EU registered ones so far, only those without it.
Personally I think this is a facre and a dangerous one too. How anyone can refuse certification (just the system, never mind FIKI) which obviously is a safety relevant feature in an environment where anti icing is necessary to fly IFR in almost all seasons is totally beyond me.
The farce is actually that the same thing gets treated in a different way due to political reasons. There is no technical reason not to recognize technical work done by someone else with good reputation. I don’t get why FAA/EASA certifications of any kind are not recognized by both organizations since a long time ago.
The reason is that EASA is packed with ex Part 21 DOA people 
