Peter wrote:
There is also an issue with mounting the controller unit. I dont have room.
I’m sure I’ve seen a TB20 advertised with TKS. I wonder where their controller was
Neil wrote:
I’m sure I’ve seen a TB20 advertised with TKS. I wonder where their controller was
I’ve flown one in icing conditions :-) But I don’t remember where the controller was.
Peter wrote:
Performance is much better than boots but has various negatives e.g. messy, limited duration, heavy.
As what_next said, this is only ever said by those with TKS or those looking to justify installing it. Boots work very well, don’t cover the plane in cr@p and don’t need to be refilled.
JasonC – yes, that was my thinking. TKS does have some advantages, as do boots, on balance boots win the day I suspect.
My experience of FIKI piston twins with boots is that an encounter with moderate ice will want you getting bleed air leading edge de ice ie why didn’t we go commercial? emphasis on moderate. Anything more than light/moderate in GA terms, will overwhelm your typical 1960’s boot design. Have not flown TKS in anger in ice, but my impression is TKS for light GA may actually provide better insurance.
Boot design for modern light jets is no doubt of a different order of effectiveness.
A TKS prop, which presumably doubles in providing a means of anti ice on the windscreen, plus a turbo charger, may cover most scenarios.
Robert, I disagree. I regularly fly a PA31-350 in moderate icing; the boots are just fine. The secret is to allow ice to build before operating the boots.
In the same role, I also fly a weeping-wing DA42. You MUST be ahead of the game here. Firstly, if the leading edge is frozen and you then operate the system, at best, you will get an uneven distribution of deicing fluid and the reality is that moderate ice will not clear. The solution is to pre-emptively use the system, almost like an anti-iceant, of which you have limited capability before the tank runs dry.
A TKS prop will not throw any fluid onto the windscreen.
While I think bleed air leading edge deicing is always going to be better, Robert as you say the modern boots on Phenom/Mustang are very effective even in moderate icing.
My TKS prop is amazingly effective. With 3cm ice on the wings the windscreen is clean enough to see through.
The boot debate is moot since no type of aircraft has TMK had both options.
However boots can have bridging. There is a famous GA personality who IIRC got phots of a bridge on his twin, disproving widespread claims that this phenomenon does not exist.
The TBM seems to also suffer from this, not made easier by automatic boot sequencing which is probably an attractive mode for many owners.
Whereas TKS seems to totally prevent ice formation on both the leading edges and the runback area. Big jets avoid this by heating the leading edges enough to vapourise the water.
Enough has been written here by TKS owners to highlight the negatives.
On the tb20 you lose about 50kg payload if you keep it full. It lasts about 1hr on max so is no good for enroute icing protection. In that respect boots are better.
Off-forum info suggests that a lot of TKS owners rarely use it and find it clogged up. I reckon maybe half the prop-only systems are inop because the pump is buggered due to lack of use. Search for the thread on the €7000 pump… I have just my phone now.
But then I know of boots with holes.. One Seneca fatal involved inop boots on which the company refused to sign off the Annual so rather than spend the money the pilot went elsewhere.
The sad thing is that a lot of IR holders fly below 50hrs a year and mostly in the summer so a lot of these systems dont work anyway.
A TKS prop will not throw any fluid onto the windscreen
On a twin, sure.
The boot debate is moot since no type of aircraft has TMK had both options.
You brought it up.
However boots can have bridging. There is a famous GA personality who IIRC got phots of a bridge on his twin, disproving widespread claims that this phenomenon does not exist.
These obscure “famous personality” comments are lost on most of us. Older boots were apparently prone to it. Modern FAA guidance is that bridging is not problem and indeed more problems come through not continuously cycling boots.
The TBM seems to also suffer from this, not made easier by automatic boot sequencing which is probably an attractive mode for many owners.
What evidence is there of this? All modern boot systems involve automatic cycling. If you have moderate icing I can assure you the automatic mode is appreciated.
But then I know of boots with holes.. One Seneca fatal involved inop boots on which the company refused to sign off the Annual so the pilot went elsewhere.
Well of course they can fail but this is very rare. Far rarer in fact than clogged TKS systems.
Peter wrote:
One Seneca fatal involved inop boots on which the company refused to sign off the Annual so rather than spend the money the pilot went elsewhere.
Yeah, but then no system can fix stupidity or maintenance neglect.
