Hello,
My name is Steven and I am pleased to join this excellent forum. I obtained my PPL early this year and am based at Elstree (EGTR) and have decided given the limitations of renting I would like to purchase my first aircraft and progress towards CB-IR. After much available online research (thanks to Peter) and discussion with a TB20 owner what I have in mind is a TB20GT.
What I would like if I may is to seek views from the vast experience of the forum on the following; a subject I know has some of the longest threads!
Of a couple on the market of interest, one has full IFR equipment and certification but no prop TKS, the other has prop TKS, but not IFR equipped.
Peter’s excellent feature “IFR Flying in Europe” incorporates valuable information relating to icing and an approach (his own) when TKS de-iced prop only is available.
.
QuoteMy tactic (flying an aircraft with a TKS de-iced prop but no other anti-ice equipment) is to scrap any flight where the forecast or actual 0C level lies below the en-route MSA – unless there is clear information on cloud tops which enables the flight to be done VMC on top. This procedure does prevent many flights in the winter where the cloud layer is several thousand feet thick and the bases are below the MSA – that is just the price one pays for not having a turbocharged aircraft with all-over de-icing.
This approach would be fine if I had prop only TKS, however to help me determine the “value” (which I appreciate may be simply peace of mind!) of the prop TKS what I would like to ask the forum is:
If you are thinking of keeping the airplane long-term, then find yourself a nice TB-21: you’ll beat Peter to altitude while he slowly, if safely, fights his way on top using his expensive tks supply
Otherwise, IFR cert can be addressed at a number of avionics shops (unless the issue is not avionics) via one of the available STCs, but TKS is a major project few shops can do well.
I would not think IFR long term without some deicing or a turbocharger.
That is a very interesting thought Antonio. I suspect I would keep the aircraft for at least 3-5 years, possibly longer. The only likely reason to upgrade beyond a turbo if I went the route you suggest would be a pressurized aircraft. I just had a look and am surprised that the purchase price difference if I take into account upgrade costs and unknowns is not as much as I might have thought, and I recall one of Peter’s comments regarding running costs not being overly excessive related to the TB20GT. Wonder how the insurance company would feel (given my 163 hrs total time) – I’ll ask – presumably there would need to be specific turbo difference training?
To be certain I interpret your last sentence, are you suggesting either deicing or a turbocharger (on the basis the speed alone helps) for long term IFR or are you advocating both deicing and turbocharger combined, in which case would prop TKS and turbocharger be considered sufficient subject to keeping out of freezing rain.
My only other concern is I have read turbochargers can be rather easy to overheat and damage if not carefully managed – any feedback on that for the TB21 appreciated.
Specifically for the TB2x, the full TKS costs you ~40kg and the turbo costs you another ~50kg. So you end up with a 2-seater, albeit a very capable one.
Top overhaul at 1k hrs needs to be budgeted for, too, and I was never quite comfortable with the idea that the trigger for this is, ahem, cracks around the exhaust port 
I know of several people who tried to install the prop TKS and all encountered problems procuring the parts for it. It should be possible to order all of them from Socata but Socata stopped making the piston aircraft in 2002 and are gradually reducing parts support. I sold most of my old kit; only the control unit is left now. Also CAV should sell the whole kit, but they can take a year to deliver… It is hard to quantify the benefit of the prop TKS but I am pretty sure it does help a lot and the weight penalty is minimal.
Avionics upgrades are a totally different topic. They don’t give you any extra performance 
Also there are very few avionics shops that do good work. I hear disaster stories from every direction, particularly once the job gets beyond trivial, especially in functionality or required paperwork.
Steven_P wrote:
To be certain I interpret your last sentence, are you suggesting either deicing or a turbocharger (on the basis the speed alone helps) for long term IFR or are you advocating both deicing and turbocharger combined, in which case would prop TKS and turbocharger be considered sufficient subject to keeping out of freezing rain.
The main reason why I am advocating turbocharging for IFR is due to the freedom to pick altitudes which, in my opinion, is second only to the piece between your headsets’ earcups and GOLZE as a weather avoidance tool for light aircraft. Yes you get some extra speed as a bonus to offset some of the extra costs, but that is not the main reason: it is the ability to have excess climb performance at most altitudes.
Of course that has to come together with O2 (see here for O2 generators or here for O2 onboard in general) which is OK for pilots but not so OK for some pax, or otherwise pressurization.
I would call that level 1.
Even better if you have good deicing equipment. As a minimum I would say you need prop deicing so you can keep on using that excess power through icing layers. I do not know for certain but I would think few TB21’s would have left the factory without prop deicing , @Peter would probably know. I would call that level 2.
Level 3 would be full deicing.
With each level comes higher dispatchability: the ability to not cancel a flight in certain weather. In all cases you will want to leave any icing conditions soon. Each level buys you options to plan your flight:
-Level 1 is usually enough to fly outside the icing levels, but you cannot plan on climbing through a thick icing layer without deicing, so you have to pick your climb weather ensuring you are VMC or cloud layers at icing levels are thin. Same goes for descent. You can also climb to FL190 with a TB20 but it does take a while to get there and if you pick any unplanned ice on the way up you are definitely not getting there.
-Level 2 still means you have to avoid climbing through a thick icing layer, but if you encounter some unplanned weather, you will usually have the performance to climb through it quickly. This will not work through convective weather as the icing levels can be a wide range, but then a lot of the time you can pick a VMC routing for climb in convective wx.
-Level 3 means you can plan for a climb and descent through icing.
Of course if you have full deicing without turbocharging you can still plan to climb through icing, but your choice of altitudes will be less and depending on wx you may not have enough climb performance to outclimb the icing levels, so, analog to level 2, you still have to do a detailed wx analysis to find out whether you can climb to non-icing levels avoiding any icing. Again @Peter would know better.
I used to fly a C177 non-turbo which I could operate at 140KTAS all the way to FL170, but climb performance at FL150 was like 200fpm depending on weight…without any ice. Add some ice and you are going down, perhaps slowly, but down nonetheless. This is not a situation you want to be in when you have thick icy clouds just below you, specially if the MEA is not below freezing levels.
I am not saying level 3 means you do not have to do a wx analysis: it just means you can consciously dispatch accepting to climb through icing layers.
In ALL cases, you do not want to stay in icing conditions: you want to avoid it as much as possible: the equipment just gives you tools:
Level 1 means you can fly over icing wx enroute (not take/off or land)
Level 2 means you are better prepared to change altitude if needed after encountering unplanned ice
Level 3 means you can plan to climb and descend through icing conditions at the start /end of your flight
Freezing rain is to be avoided in all cases.
For a practical example see a recent trip report here: trip to LEBZ
You can read a lot more in this icing thread
Steven_P wrote:
My only other concern is I have read turbochargers can be rather easy to overheat and damage if not carefully managed – any feedback on that for the TB21 appreciated.
You are right that turbos are more difficult to operate and maintain. You have more power at altitude so you can overheat them more easily than normally-aspirated (NA) In all cases you want a good multi-cylinder engine monitor and you want to stay on top of your temps, a NA is just more tolerant to misuse. No big deal if you are willing to learn and apply procedures. A lot has been written on engine management and if you are inclined , you will also enjoy all the engine management.
Another aspect is that you will be using more fuel (a lot more if you cannot fly lean-of-peak or LOP in cruise) . Some Lycoming engines are not happy LOP but I do not know if the TB-21 is one of them.If you can fly LOP then you can still use a similar amount of fuel as a NA by flying slower or else use more fuel and get there quicker.
Last, maintenance is trickier: no matter how you use it, most people flying behind turbocharged engines plan to replace/OH cylinders some time midway through engine OH life. The exhaust is also suffering much higher pressure and temps with all the attendant excess maintenance.
No matter how good your airplane maintenance shop is, you end up having to involve yourself, perhaps a bit less if NA. I would say if not mechanically inclined, you could minimize the hassle by going NA, but then you need to get deicing like @Peter or plan your flights accordingly: your winter dispatch rate will be low.
Some thing you may want to factor, a very important aspect for me, is whether you are planning to fly frequently with non-pilots. In that case you do not want to find yourself in any weather situation you are uncomfortable with: this should affect dispatch in combination with weather and your own/aircraft’s capabilities.
Hopefully I have helped you get a better picture. The people in this forum are usually very helpful so do not hesitate to keep on asking and do let us know your flying stories!
Well done Peter and Antonio for some of the most informational posts I have read in a long time. A friend has just bought a turbo Mooney an M 20K I think. I shall certainly be passing on some of this information as I am sure it is very useful for anyone thinking of buying any aircraft for all year IFR usage. I’ll also be suggesting he subscribe to Euroga.org.
I could write a cheque for a TB21GT anytime (assuming I found one, which is another matter since they are rare, especially good ones) but would still not buy one, because I prefer the near-100% uptime of my TB20. Of the TB21 owners I know, downtime has been a large factor, and of course it rarely gets posted. You get engine work, turbo work, exhaust work…
What you get with mine is +1000fpm at sea level, reducing more or less linearly to 0fpm at 20000ft. With a TB21 you also get +1000fpm at sea level but it is maintained to something like 15000ft, after which it tails off towards 25000ft. So at say 10000ft mine is doing +500fpm whereas a TB21 would be doing +1000fpm. If you are then in substantial icing, the rate of climb could make a difference between continuing the flight and having to abandon it (assuming the TB21 has a TKS prop) but the TB21 will still end up carrying a lot of ice when it breaks out (which will take for ever to sublimate away) while the TB20 with full TKS will be clean. Actually I think the biggest benefit of the turbo is in getting and staying VMC on top in typical summer ISA+15 conditions, when the ceiling of the TB20 is significantly impacted. Re temperature management, TB21 owners have reported they are TIT limited and “cannot” fly peak-EGT or LOP; something I cannot comment on since I have never AFAIK flown in one.
To update the original topic, I am trying to get a replacement fluid level sender. The one which came in the fluid tank appears to return a rather varying figure, and it isn’t just the dependence on the aircraft pitch which is amazingly heavy; of the order of 1.5x between climb and cruise. This is proving to be difficult, with a lot of chasing involved. So anyone doing this installation must (obviously) get all the bits together and (less obviously) test everything which can be tested, before commencing the work. The stock turnover is very low, with a lot of parts 15-20 years old, as noted earlier.
Concerning to exchange one form of non uptime (weather) for another (mechanical) and not helped by the availability of TB21 at https://europeanaircraftsales.com/aircraft-for-sale/2003-socata-tb21-gt-tc-trinidad/
I suspect there will be enough to concentrate on learning how to manage the cockpit in IMS without worrying about overheating the engine!
That seems to leave me with my initial question re the “uptime” impact of either having or not having prop only TKS (assuming all mechanics etc are ok ) Any thoughts greatly appreciated.
This is a subject for another thread (I suggest you start one under Aircraft if desired) but that aircraft has a curious history.
Are you referring to the available TB21 or the TKS prop matter for the new thread Peter?
