Scudrunners

http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/misce ... e_0409.php


Came across this article the other day, pretty neat development for GA even if it's from 2009.

This is truely a step forward. I recall seeing this or something very similar and Oshkosh in 2015.  Lets hope it works well and an STC gets awarded for certified aircraft. 

75 volts and 100 amps. And look at the size of those wires. They're not wires, they're welding cables in disguise.
In a metal airplane.
I want to be able to plow through clouds without watching the OAT more than any other gauge, just like we all wish to.
Any airplane without the ability to detect and avoid embedded convective activity and deal with icing is more a toy than a reliable transportation tool. The first problem is pretty much a non-issue now.
While this method has boots and weeping wings beat, it is not without its own issues.
For true peace of mind  and to continue to a destination where the temperature is below freezing, we still need a heated windshield, propellor blades and static ports.

[size=9pt][font=Courier]It looks like they finally are getting it right. De-icing and anti-icing technology is as old as almost the first aero plane. Boots were always a very marginal system and we have suffered through so many years of really [/font][/size][size=10pt][font=Courier]inefficient systems. Weeping wing was actually one of the most efficient systems but limited due to fluid consumption. Boots are boots and not that efficient as well. Hot wings are the best but anything except a jet or a very large turbine did not have enough surplus air to make them work well. The CV640 went to the extent of trying janitrol heaters to heat the wing. Likely the worst, the CV44 used hot exhaust off the augmenter tubes and wasn’t much better.[/font][/size] [size=10pt][font=Courier]AC power, while not new to the “big” aircraft it is almost unknown in small aircraft. Small efficient alternators will open up the modernization of electrical systems for general aviation. If this new anti-icing/de-icing system works as advertised it’s a significant step forward. [/font][/size]

[quote]For true peace of mind  and to continue to a destination where the temperature is below freezing, we still need a heated windshield, propellor blades and static ports[/quote]

I guess.  My father flew a T-33 - which didn't have
any of that fancy equipment, just an ADF - like a
pickup truck all over Europe and Canada in any
weather, and he said if he kept the speed up over
300 knots (+12C temp rise from adiabatic compression)
in the descent, it wasn't a problem.

But he was a [b]BAD PERSON[/b], I suppose, like Jake
Mulhall (below) so that doesn't count.

[img width=320 height=500][/img]

PS  I'm not too bright, but you probably don't
want your fuel tank vents or oil breather tube
to ice up, either.

No, Andy; your father wasn't a bad person.  He was just flying one of the many jets the military flew that had minimal anti-icing capability.

The ones that only had pitot-tube anti-icing were (AFAIK):

Tutor
T-33
F-86
CF-5 
CF-104 (Not sure, but I think only pitot tube also...)

I never flew the CF- 101 nor the CF-18, but I'm guessing the same minimal protection.

One of the reasons we got away with that is because the time spent in cloud in the real bad icing regime was minimal; the only time icing became a problem was having to hold for an extended period of time in the 10m - 20m levels. 

And you're right about the speed; if you picked up a passel of ice on the way up, you could watch it slowly ablate once you leveled off  high level and got the mach up...

Another interesting thing you mentioned about your father was the minimal navigation equipment with which we swanned all over Europe and North America compared to what we have today.  My amateur built aircraft (VFR only!) has a panel mounted Dynon Skyview with synthetic vision, panel mounted Garmin 496, and an iPad with Foreflight installed that can be cockpit mounted on an articulating arm.  (To answer the unasked question...  "Because I can!")  (;>0)

To further exacerbate your father's problem was that fact that if the weather went below ADF limits, he had no ILS to depend upon.  Only precision radar.  Limits were the nominal 200 - 1/2 but with an excellent controller and Sydney Smoothhand in the cockpit, you could crack 100 - 1/4.    (PS  Where was he based?)

I don't know if he was still in the Force when TACAN started to appear in our aircraft...  What a joy!  (;>0)

[quote]having to hold for an extended period of time[/quote]

When someone tried to issue my father a hold
clearance, he would reply, "Where do you want
me to eject?"

You're sure he's not a BAD PERSON?


[quote]no ILS to depend upon.  Only precision radar[/quote]

Of course.  GCA, PAR, whatever they call it these
days.  More than one 0/0 landing on the east coast.
After a while, runway edge lights start to go by, on
both sides.

When I was teaching IFR, decades ago, I used to
take the kids to Trenton and have them watch a
real pro fly an ILS.  From the ground. 

It was generally a humbling experience for them,
to see a non-pilot on the ground, so smoothly fly
their airplane, with no PIO'ing.

[quote author=Trey Kule link=topic=5486.msg14255#msg14255 date=1485323828]
This is truely a step forward. I recall seeing this or something very similar and Oshkosh in 2015.  Lets hope it works well and an STC gets awarded for certified aircraft.
[/quote]


absolutely agree, only issue is for some of the schmucks out there who will strap them to their machine and think "well I got anti ice im good" and then head off into conditions they shouldn't, kind of like the parachute on the Cirrus.


For those with lets say a Mooney or any other light GA IFR machine it would be a good to have mod just in case you encounter unforeseen condition[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=1].[/size][/font]

[quote]I don't know if he was still in the Force when TACAN started to appear in our aircraft[/quote]

Nope.  I see you flew the Sabre.  I'm told it was a really
sweet airplane, but the short igniter versions were prone
to flameout and could not be restarted.

This was annoying when you were on top of a cloud deck
and had to quickly invent a deadstick instrument approach
to an airport you'd never been to.

[img width=444 height=500][/img]

The longer igniters were a great improvement in this regard.


PS  Ever do a no-BLC landing in the -104?  You needed a lot
of runway for that, I was told.

I am well aware that the de-icing control in the TeaBag and the Sword, etc., was a lever on the left side that moved fore and aft, with a sliding switch on top labelled "Speed Brakes". As the aircraft that we fly can't go half- fast enough to generate sufficient compression of the air to effect a rise in the RAT/TAT, I felt there was no point in mentioning that.
And, for those times when they couldn't push the throttle forward to heat up the airframe through friction, like during an instrument approach, we can remember when they passed over the beacon outbound at twenty-thousand feet to do a procedure turn.
If I may be permitted a bit of thread drift while on the topic of ram rise: the Concorde stretched visibly during its Mach 2.0 cruise. On the last flight of one of them, the Flight Engineer wedged either the logbook or his hat(can't recall which) into the gap between his panel and the wall. As the airplane slowed and cooled, the gap closed and this item was lodged there forever more.