After inquiring directly with MT, it appears the clean blades deicing system never made it beyond prototyping.
However, any difference in speed for a given fuel flow can’t be accounted for by internal construction. If, as has been said, the plane is lighter, then it will go faster. Not much faster (because at typical GA speeds most of the drag is parasitic, not induced) but a little bit.
I am not surprised if the rubber mouldings stuck to a propeller (whether for heating or for TKS fluid channelling) cost some performance.
I am still looking for the metal tubes in the DR400 fuselage 
Flyingfish wrote:
I just bumped into this. Always wondered why propeller manufacturers tolerate the horrible electrical de-icing boots on the blades.
If this can save even 5% fuel by improving prop efficiency, it may well be a genius idea…https://www.ldi.aero/userfiles/file/propeller_test_flight_comparison.pdf local copy
I did not know about this, but very promising. Also interesting is the data shown on propeller performance loss with different configurations.
I don’t know how much and what shape ice they used for this dataset, but with such performance loss with boots, similar to loss with ice, what would you want a boot for? Just take the ice and enjoy the same performance, but only in icing….something does not add up.
HK-36R wrote:
In the seat frames and an additional one connected to the tow hook ?
And, speaking of important structure, the engine mount, right?
Ah yes I made that up, it’s a complete wooden construction with fabric skin. I thought it’s a tubular frame construction.
Ha yeah you’re right🙂
Quote Where are the metal tubes in the DR400?
In the seat frames and an additional one connected to the tow hook ?
I just bumped into this. Always wondered why propeller manufacturers tolerate the horrible electrical de-icing boots on the blades.
If this can save even 5% fuel by improving prop efficiency, it may well be a genius idea…
https://www.ldi.aero/userfiles/file/propeller_test_flight_comparison.pdf local copy
