As far as I'm concerned, all light aircraft in this category with "FIKI" should be for inadvertent only.

The CAV TKS can be either inadvertent or FIKI.

http://www.cav-systems.com/tks/

We should do away with FIKI.

And replace it it with FTKI. Flight through known ice.

FIKI piston powered airplanes should not be flown in ice, only through ice.

^^^This^^^

Best ice protection gear for a piston powered aircraft?

Turbos.

As far as I'm concerned, all light aircraft in this category with "FIKI" should be for inadvertent only.

The CAV TKS can be either inadvertent or FIKI.

http://www.cav-systems.com/tks/

I love the concept of the Cirrus. I have threatened to buy one for years. So much to like including chute, really nice handling, TAT system on earlier models, TKS, and bonanza speeds with a fixed gear.

Two things I dislike

1). Lack of utility-friend and I tried to load his SR22 with just two pairs of skis. It simply would not work without tips aimed at expensive avionics. He would not chance it. We proceeded to Piper Archer. Skis between backseats and launched. My 182 has had 4 adults, 3 pairs of skis, and one snowboard. Not a problem. The A36TC does even better. Try 3 full size mountain bikes. Tight but doable.

2). Trying to move thing on snow. Those midget tires are great for airspeed but are terrible when trying to move airplane. Watched same friend take 1.5 hours with SUV trying to put plane away. Frustrating to say the least.

How true is that! They definitely made a huge impact!

Someone on the COPA forums claimed to have fit 3 MTBs in the back of Cirrus with one seat folded down, leaving room for 3 pax. Pedals, wheels, forks had to come off to do it.

On the Bo I loaded bikes in through the baggage door. In the Cirrus they have to go in through the passenger door.

I have a vague memory of you and I get into a bit of a disagreement over this topic many years ago (I’m pretty sure it was you). I was trying to explain that the SR22 was a pretty compelling airplane for some pilots who don’t fit the stereotype of “more money than brains, button pushers who couldn’t fly themselves out of a paper bag” that was popular back in the day.

IIRC you were not sold at all so I’m glad you have adjusted your thinking. I don’t fly a Cirrus any more (fly a C510 now) but I still think it hits a real sweet spot of utility, practicality and safety for a small family that is a really nice way to integrate GA into daily life where the entire family can happily get on board.

^^^This^^^

Best ice protection gear for a piston powered aircraft?

Turbos.

Mountain bikes, jet skis, motorcycles, operations in three or more inches of snow? Yes, the Bonanza kicks the Cirrus' butt, but seriously, let's look at the target market. The Bonanza in this context is a small SUV. The Cirrus is a 3 series. You don't pack mountain bikes in your BMW, kick on the AWD and take to the trail.

Both the 20 and 22, but especially the 22 are traveling machines targeted at two people, with maybe up to two kids and traveling with suitcases. They're going to Disney or the Grand Canyon, or the beach. They're not packing like Michael Penman. Meanwhile they love that the plane looks and feels like the car that they just stepped out of. The non-flying passenger(s) like the safety of the parachute that doesn't require a functioning pilot to activate. They're going to go to a paved runway and when they return they will land on a paved and plowed runway. If they want to ski they'll rent at the hill, or if there are three or fewer they'll fold a seat down. There is up to 170 cm of room between the back of the baggage compartment and the front seat, more on a diagonal. Clubs? Same deal. Compromises? Yes, but not so different than trading fuel for cabin load, which every manufacturer does. Most four seat airplanes fly with at least two empty seats and Cirrus knows this.

The 182 and Bonanza are capable of so much more, so is my Baron, but Cirrus doesn't care because that's not the market they're trying to capture. The folks flying into some back country strip to go snowmobiling with Mike Grommet and Scott Newpower aren't interested in a Cirrus, but they're not the same market and Cirrus isn't worried about compromising their design to accommodate them.

The point is that you have to compare the right fruit, and when looking for an airplane it is critical to know not just what you want, but why you want it, and just as important; what you don't need. For the SR target market it's a great airplane, and sales back that up.

When I see late model SR-22s, I think of what an awesome A*star I could get for that kind of money

Tim

FunnE you should mention that Tim,

I purchased SR-22 G5 to fly a bit while my Aerostar was in paint shop last year.
Great airplane but no Aerostar.
A few weeks ago I fell off the krazE wagon and bought a differnT A*....so
Aerostar needZ a good new home

Brad you have excellent taste in airplanes. Geez.

As far as I'm concerned, all light aircraft in this category with "FIKI" should be for inadvertent only.

The CAV TKS can be either inadvertent or FIKI.

http://www.cav-systems.com/tks/[/quote]

CAV TKS has some systems for specific airframes which are FIKI, including A36, G36, Baron, etc. Some airframes which CAV has developed TKS systems are specifically not FIKI, such as the C182 and others. You do not simply specify that you want to order a FIKI vs inadvertent system for your bird. It’s either certified FIKI or it’s not.

In the SR series, as an example, there is a substantial difference between the FIKI system and inadvertent system. I’ve flown both systems in actual icing conditions and can tell you firsthand that there is a massive difference between the two. I would NOT fly an inadvertent SR into known icing as the system cannot keep up with even light icing. This holds true for most other CAV TKS systems which are non-FIKI.

The FIKI system is easily dispatchable into moderate icing conditions and can easily clear significant amounts of icing so long as it’s primed and running before entering icing conditions. I fly in one of the highest icing environments in the US and have probably only cancelled one or two flights in my SR due to icing concerns.

From a systems perspective the system improvements between the inadvertent and FIKI system on the SR platform includes:

-Higher TKS capacity (roughly 4-5 gal on inadvertent system vs 8 gal on FIKI system)
-Dual redundant pumps (single pump on inadvertent system)
-Higher flow rates (normal, high and max modes for FIKI and only normal for non-FIKI)
-Vertical tail protection
-Dual TKS spray bars on windshield (inadvertent system relies solely on prop slinger for windshield protection which I can tell you is NOT sufficient)
-Fluid level indicators (inadvertent system provides no indication of fluid remaining)[/quote]


I know you have a lot of experience in the Cirrus Don. Assume in icing too. I had an Ovation with TKS. Flew in some weather. Had a TBM which is much more capable than either of the pistons. Escape is the name of the game even in the SETP in my opinion.

When you mentioned Moderate icing I hear the airliners definition for MOD ice and we can’t fly any of the above planes in that kind of icing. ESCAPE. TBM in New Jersey is the perfect example of that.

I do not believe my definition of MOD is what you intended but where ice is concerned the uninitiated might fail to understand enough to escape if we aren’t clear in our explanations.

I think FIKi for small pistons is a nice to have to quickly exit. There have been a few crashes (TBM in NJ, Cirrus in RNO) of fiki planes being overwhelmed.

A great feature if you are inadvertent hoping to stay alive while you exit, but I wouldn’t have a FIKI piston and take it through storms where SLD was forecasted