October 1, 2013 at 7:58 pm #84499
OK y’all….I just got thru doing the de-ice boot clean and seal….YUCK ! That was messy. I’m gonna pose a question here and see what everybody thinks. My 310 is NOT known Ice. I’m trying to decide why I should keep the boots or have them removed to get that weight back as useful load. My thought is that if I fly into icing then I did a poor job of a weather pre-flight. When the time comes that they need some repair I’m thinking of just removing them. Here’s the question…..why should I keep them ?
I live and fly mostly in Texas and the south. I think A/C would be a better choice than de-ice boots. That would be useful about 6 months a year.
Lets hear what you think.October 1, 2013 at 11:50 pm #100874quote JHarlow1:
Personally, I would not remove them. If nothing else, having boots will help resale value I suspect.
RobertOctober 2, 2013 at 12:31 am #100875
I agree 100% with Robert. It is easier to find a buyer for a de-iced airplane.October 2, 2013 at 1:33 am #100877
I would not remove them because once you remove them, they are pretty much impossible to replace. For someone like me, de-ice (FIKI or not, really doesn’t make much of a difference to me) is a requirement. I simply won’t buy a plane without it given our current needs. I don’t think I’m alone.
However, they are expensive to maintain when they break, and the resale value on these planes is small, with or without de-ice (I really don’t think it increases value any, just appeal). They do cost several knots worth of cruise speed. Boots are expensive and add weight as well as drag. I’m not sure where you live, but if you live in the south and typically don’t venture north to icing territory, plus plan on keeping the plane for a long time, maybe you could have a good option for removing them. Personally, I’d love to get the extra few knots cruise speed. But the reason I’d love it is because we fly on long trips all over the continent, and for that reason we need them. 🙂October 2, 2013 at 2:10 am #100878
Absolutely a requirement for me. Imagine buying an airplane, no matter where you live, and telling your wife, kids, family “sorry, we need to scrub the vacation because their predicting a chance of icing 400 miles away, along our route.” I played that game for about 8 years. Now, I want de-ice or better to escape where I live towards warmer climates, because living where I do, ice can occur at some level or in some direction, nearly year around. Heck, I had ice at 10k several weeks ago crossing Lake Michigan, in a rented non-ice twin. It quickly reminded me why I want at least de-ice.October 2, 2013 at 11:34 am #100884
I think the real relevant question for the Captain is where he lives, where he flies, and his preferences/needs when flying GA.
Jim, Tom, and I all live in icing areas. Robert flies to icing areas, and our Twin Cessnas handle those areas well. So, we’re probably a bit biased. 🙂October 2, 2013 at 1:56 pm #100889
JMHO, Given my location, I won’t have a twin without deice and turbos. 🙂October 2, 2013 at 3:23 pm #100891
Well I can see I’ve stirred up a hornets nest ! :). I hadn’t thought much about the airspeed part of the equation……I was looking mostly at ongoing maintenance and useful load issues. Most of my flying is in the southern half of the country. Mostly Texas ( Where I live) and the surrounding states. If I venture north, it will probably be in the non icing months anyway. I’m still a firm believer that if you are going somewhere and ice is forecast, then you either have an aircraft certified for that or don’t go. Mine is not, even with the boots it’s not legal for me to knowingly go where no man has gone before…..(sorry for the Star Trek comment 😕 ). I’m not fully convinced the re-sale value would be that much better. Beauty (boots) is in the eye of the beholder……a good clean low time airframe with good radios and engines I think would be more attractive to a lot of folks. If I was in a 340 or larger, then I would definitely have full anti ice/de ice equipment. My 310 has been perfect so far.October 2, 2013 at 4:47 pm #100895
Jack, you’re probably a good candidate for removing the boots based on what you said here, and I figured that might be the case. If you’re living in non-ice territory and mostly flying there, they probably don’t represent a good benefit to you. Even for us, we probably only need them for a handful of flights a year. But for those handful, they’re worth the cost.
Regarding the FIKI/not, that’s another debate, and you need to be comfortable with your equipment. If your comfort level requires FIKI for icing and your plane doesn’t have it, then I tend to agree getting into it is a result of poor planning.October 2, 2013 at 7:52 pm #100901rwelshParticipant
Jack, if you remove the boots, leave the plumbing and wiring in place as I doesn’t weight much, and it would allow someone in the future to just glue on new boots if they want them. Remove the pressure lines from the vacuum pump as that will relieve the backpressure from the pumps. and they will last longer and run cooler.October 2, 2013 at 8:18 pm #100902
Dick, although I agree with you to a point, with the cost of buying new boots vs. a different airplane, everyone will choose to buy a different plane. The resale value difference and number of good planes out there just doesn’t make it economical to buy a plane with the intention of adding boots later. Different 20-30 years ago maybe (our 310 had boots added by the previous owner when he bought it in the mid-80s). Meanwhile, you probably have 10-20 lbs you could add to your useful load. So it’s a consideration.
Personally, if I was going to remove boots, I’d remove them all and take the weight savings.October 3, 2013 at 10:58 pm #100909
I can tell this is going to require a lot of “thinking” to decide…..For sure nothing will happen til at least my next annual in April. If I decide to take them off I’ll probably leave the plumbing and switches in case the next owner wants them. I might put VG’s on if I remove the boots. I here that will help my useful load and low speed handling.October 4, 2013 at 12:51 am #100912
VGs and boots are the two “go slow” mods for the 310. Between the two of them, it wouldn’t surprise me if it cost 5 kts of cruise speed (we have both). So if you have boots and swap them for VGs, then your cruise speeds will be about the same. Of course, it doesn’t sound like that bothers you. I’m out to get more speed. 😀
I’ve never flown a 310 without VGs, but there’s no question that with them the plane has good low-speed handling and stall characteristics. You get a gross weight increase with them. In fact, trying to do Vmc demos with the plane is difficult with the VGs installed. It sort of mushes the nose back down and keeps on flying, doesn’t ever run out of rudder. Of course, I don’t attempt those with a plane at gross weight…
Since we’re based at a 2800 ft strip and are often near gross weight, we are happy with the VGs. If those two items weren’t part of the mission, I’d be pretty tempted to ditch them and get the few knots of speed back.October 4, 2013 at 3:23 am #100917
Ted, every time you mention this -> “Since we’re based at a 2800 ft strip and are often near gross weight” I get puckered up; That must look very short coming and going.
JimOctober 4, 2013 at 1:39 pm #100936
The plane spent 25 years with the previous owner at a 2900 ft strip with obstacles before we got it. The Colemill conversion makes a big difference, and I’ll add that we’re rarely near gross when leaving, but are often near gross on trips themselves. Remember our mission is usually fly somewhere, pick up dogs, fly elsewhere to drop them off, then go home. So we are 2900 ft strip or gross in most cases, important clarification.
That said, like anything else in flying it comes to skill, comfort level, and contingencies. I typically take off and land south. There are no obstacles to the south, so in the event of an engine failure at a bad time I’m better off. We only take off with full tanks when we need full fuel. 300 HP up from 260 helps, and obviously I’m comfortable with short field procedures and stabilized approaches. I took the plane into a 1900×25 strip in Belize. Wouldn’t do it every day, but it was fine for one day. There is a 5500 ft runway nearby I can divert to, and have when the weather warranted it. We aren’t based there because fuel costs $1/gallon more, hangars cost $100/month more, and the MX on field we don’t like as much. If hangars and fuel were the same, we’d probably move.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.