What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Deicing , Parachute, 2 v’s 3 blades

R

roxiedog13

Member
I’m thinking about building or buying the aircraft which will be equipped, possibly used at latitudes where icing can be a problem. This is why I’m asking about the possibility of adding deicing, whether or not somebody has done this, any references or contacts to supply the parts. Similarly for safety, I’m thinking about a parachute, while I’m at it, options for oxygen. Lastly, I’m wondering what are the major differences between two and three blade Propeller options, pros and cons. Any and all of the feedback provided would be much appreciated.
 
You can get de-ice or a parachute, but having all becomes a weight issue, especially if dealing with winter operations. 3 bladed props on our light aircraft are slightly slower but a little quieter.
 
Oxygen is the easy one to solve - a few vendors sell what you need in a complete kit, except the actual gas. I bought mine from Mountain High - the tank has a carrying case that straps to a seat and can be removed when not needed. It weighs about 12 pounds in a 4 person configuration and comes with on-demand flow controls to make the gas last longer.

I've heard the same thing as the prior poster for 2 vs 3 blades - 3 bladed planes are quieter but maybe 5 knots slower in an RV-10. They do look cool, though.

I built a BRS parachute into my plane, and you will find differences of opinion on this website about that.

I looked into de-ice briefly, but there aren't a lot of great options. Prop de-ice is hard to install on an RV. Weeping wing and weeping tail probably are impractical. You could do a heated leading edge pad thing, but I've heard it requires a second alternator / generator, so now you are losing more power. Flying a small, moderately powered plane into FIKI conditions is probably inadvisable no matter what you install on it.
 
Desert Rat said:
Honestly, instead of trying to make all that stuff happen with an experimental plane that wasn't designed for it from the get go, you might be better served to just buy a Cirrus.
Click to expand...
A Cirrus SR22 is definitely being considered, DA40 also various other aircraft. I’m also looking at a 60’s era Beachcraft V35, it was never designed for deicing but was incorporated. The owner flies this aircraft mostly in IFR often IMC conditions, it provides another layer of safety. In my opinion, if this could be added safely and without a significant weight penalty, it could
Simply provide an extra layer of safety, but definitely avoid these conditions first without question . Maybe a parachute is enough, but if the penalties are not severe, why not consider all of the safety options that could provide both expanded operational use and additional safety? The RV-10 Power to weight ratio is significantly better than most of the competition, giving up a little, may add more safety than what it takes away from capability. Doesn’t hurt to explore I suppose.

Appreciate your comments, thank you.
 
Probably a better bet to look at aircraft that suit your mission more closely, than to try and mod a -10 to go where it really shouldn’t. Also, the parachute option may be available for the -10 but it hasn’t actually been tested and it takes up most of the baggage area. It will also cost you around 80 lbs.
 
roxiedog13 said:
A Cirrus SR22 is definitely being considered, DA40 also various other aircraft. I’m also looking at a 60’s era Beachcraft V35, it was never designed for deicing but was incorporated. The owner flies this aircraft mostly in IFR often IMC conditions, it provides another layer of safety. In my opinion, if this could be added safely and without a significant weight penalty, it could
Simply provide an extra layer of safety, but definitely avoid these conditions first without question . Maybe a parachute is enough, but if the penalties are not severe, why not consider all of the safety options that could provide both expanded operational use and additional safety? The RV-10 Power to weight ratio is significantly better than most of the competition, giving up a little, may add more safety than what it takes away from capability. Doesn’t hurt to explore I suppose.

Appreciate your comments, thank you.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with asking and looking. Also the search function can be your friend here as there are already threads on each of the things you asked about. In many, if not most instances since the aircraft is E-AB anything is possible. However, even though possible it may not be practical so you need to take a hard look at any performance issues, cost and the time to implement (which could be significant) compared to what you are gaining. IOW is the juice really worth the squeeze? For example, unless you pursue FIKI, maybe adjusting your mission expectations and go/no criteria accordingly. Finally, If you are really more interested in flying than building, the oft stated advise is go buy (meaning an already flying aircraft) and build only if you really are looking forward to getting your hands dirty.
 
I did a prepurchase inspection on an RV-14A last year that had a thermal deicing system installed.
The weight penalty was significant. I think it might have been on the order of 80 lbs. or more.
Add to that the many large (1 1/4”) holes that were made in the leading edges of the wings and emp., I was not impressed with the systems design.
The electrical system was also very complex and could be a challenge to maintain.
A detail often overlooked is that certified aircraft with deice/anti-ice go through a pretty extensive flight test program just for that system. Just slapping some parts on an airplane and considering it ready for icing conditions is pushing the extremes of experimental… I am not aware of any system where the mfr has done any in-depth flight testing on specific experimentals.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
A detail often overlooked is that certified aircraft with deice/anti-ice go through a pretty extensive flight test program just for that system. Just slapping some parts on an airplane and considering it ready for icing conditions is pushing the extremes of experimental… I am not aware of any system where the mfr has done any in-depth flight testing on specific experimentals.
Click to expand...
I made a similar observation in one of the other RV-10 de-icing FIKI threads. Of all the RV-10 mods out there, this is the only one that I'm completely 100% against.
 
Auburntsts said:
I made a similar observation in one of the other RV-10 de-icing FIKI threads. Of all the RV-10 mods out there, this is the only one that I'm completely 100% against.
Click to expand...
I agree. The argument is then, “It’s only if I get caught in icing.” That’s just a rationalization, though. What really happens is they think that just because they have a system, an untested one at that, that FIKI is now part of the flight plan, and they will push the limits and knowingly get into conditions where these airplanes really shouldn’t be.

In all my decades of flyIng, I can count, on one hand, the number of times I have gotten “caught” in those conditions.

PPPPPP. If you know, you know.
 
rocketman1988 said:
In all my decades of flyIng, I can count, on one hand, the number of times I have gotten “caught” in those conditions.
Click to expand...

In all my decades of flyIng, I can count, on one hand, the number of times I have gotten “caught” in those conditions.

.....don't "gear" up for it....just stay on the ground....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top