FIKI Cirrus

[jason]

So, I was talking to Jesse about which airplanes that I plan to purchase when I win the powerball. I was kind of on the fence regarding my traveling airplane. I was thinking a Cirrus with the perspective system...but I would always worry about ice. He told me that Cirrus makes a FIKI SR22 now. I looked it up and he's right!

http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/perspective/fiki.aspx

How did I miss this? This is HUGE for the single engine marketplace.

BTW, my second airplane would be the new G600 equipped Husky.

 

[bbchien]

"Available Q2 2009". I'd be waiting until they have one so certificated.

 

[jason]

I won't have my winnings in the bank until then anyway.

 

[Tristar]

Cirrus already had an icing system in it but it was more of an accidental flight into icing conditions time saver than a system for known icing. IMO the new FIKI aircraft look like they just added more fluid and maybe more holes.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yep, that happened maybe a month ago. I didn't start a thread here 'cuz I figured someone else would.

 

[TMetzinger]

And it HAS been certified, but deliveries of conforming models won't be until Q2 2009, as I understand it.

FIKI usually adds a greater reservoir for TKS, two-speed pump, redundant electrics (which the Cirrus already had), and greater TKS coverage on surfaces that were previously unprotected. I can't remember if any additional work on the pitot/static system is done.

When all is said and done - FIKI in a piston airplane is just a slightly more robust system to assist while you quickly work to get out of the icing conditions.

 

[Ted]

The previous icing system in the Cirrus wasn't certified, and was legally for accidental icing encounters only.

What does that mean to the pilot? Well, it depends on the system. A number of people I've talked to from manufacturers of various components for standard de-ice components (boots, hot props) say the difference in the physical components is just whether or not they've gone through the certification process.

That doesn't mean that a plane without FIKI is just as good, though, since a number of the ones I saw that had aftermarket components would only get part of what was required, not all of it. So you get hot props and wing boots, but not tail boots or the hot windshield. When I was looking at planes, a friend of mine was trying to sell me his 310Q that had aftermarket de-ice on it, which was just wing boots and hot props, but not the tail or the windshield. The "I'm sure it'll get you through whatever you hit" comment wasn't good enough for me. Plus, I like having the plane go through that testing to certify it for FIKI.

FIKI usually adds a greater reservoir for TKS, two-speed pump, redundant electrics (which the Cirrus already had), and greater TKS coverage on surfaces that were previously unprotected. I can't remember if any additional work on the pitot/static system is done.

Assuming that this is roughly the case for Cirrus, part of what I wonder is how much the previous system was good for (I've not known anyone who used it), and how much this is an improvement over it. What do they do about the windshield? Did the earlier planes have TKS on the tail surfaces as well or just on the wings?

And Jason, when you hit the Power Ball, you really need to get a twin.

 

[Trapper John]

And it HAS been certified, but deliveries of conforming models won't be until Q2 2009, as I understand it.

FIKI usually adds a greater reservoir for TKS, two-speed pump, redundant electrics (which the Cirrus already had), and greater TKS coverage on surfaces that were previously unprotected. I can't remember if any additional work on the pitot/static system is done.

When all is said and done - FIKI in a piston airplane is just a slightly more robust system to assist while you quickly work to get out of the icing conditions.

Interesting. I wonder what the installed weight of the TKS FIKI system with fluid is, and how that weight would compare to a conventional pneumatic system?

I've never been in a TKS-equipped plane. Is there some kind of quantity gauge for the fluid? It would really stink to run out when you need it most...


Trapper John

 

[KennyFlys]

In my own opinion, you've gotta be a loon to take such a small aircraft into known icing conditions. I can go for the ability to combat unexpected ice but that's the extent of it.

 

[Ted]

I've never been in a TKS-equipped plane. Is there some kind of quantity gauge for the fluid? It would really stink to run out when you need it most...

That's always been my issue. I don't like to depend on things that require refilling. Then again, if it has more quantity of fluid than you have hours of fuel, it's probably alright.

In my own opinion, you've gotta be a loon to take such a small aircraft into known icing conditions. I can go for the ability to combat unexpected ice but that's the extent of it.

It's not just about taking it into known icing conditions for the entire trip (which I'd agree isn't a smart move). You obviously don't want to take it into the worst weather out there, you wouldn't want to take any of the planes we fly into those conditions. It's also about having it there for the weather being worse than predicted or for popping through cloud layers that you can easily get on top of, but need to get through to get on top.

To me, having FIKI doesn't mean take off into really bad weather, it means an extra tool that helps me complete my flights safely.

 

[Trapper John]

That's always been my issue. I don't like to depend on things that require refilling. Then again, if it has more quantity of fluid than you have hours of fuel, it's probably alright.

Exactly. There's something to be said for the old-tech pneumatic systems, as long as the vacuum pump is working, you can cycle as many times as you need...


Trapper John

 

[jason]

A lot of people here obviously didn't read the linked press release.

One of the major differences between this and the old system is that they take care of the windsheld and other surfaces. They added prism lights for detection and it's tied into the Perspective (G100) for flow rate information and fluid levels.

Also, here is the AvWeb article that discusses some more details of the difference between this system and the old system.

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AvWebInsider_CirrusKicksUpIcingProtection_199700-1.html

 

[KennyFlys]

Jason, I read the link in the OP. I still think it's an unwise move for a small aircraft. That's just on the surface. I won't get into the reasons that might apply to the pilots who tend to choose such planes even without this protection.

 

[jason]

Jason, I read the link in the OP. I still think it's an unwise move for a small aircraft. That's just on the surface. I won't get into the reasons that might apply to the pilots who tend to choose such planes even without this protection.

Oh, FUD. That's WAY too much of a blanket statement. light and severe icing are different beasts. You simply can't say that somebody is a loon for breaking through a known icing layer in a FIKI equipped aircraft without determining the specifics of the situation. Would it be stupid to go up and cruise along in an icing layer and trust this system to keep you safe? Of course! But, like almost everything in aviation, the devil is in the details. There are many many many many situations where I think this system would serve it's purpose well and help a prudent and knowledgeable pilot complete his/her mission.

 

[KennyFlys]

Oh, FUD. That's WAY too much of a blanket statement. light and severe icing are different beasts. You simply can't say that somebody is a loon for breaking through a known icing layer in a FIKI equipped aircraft without determining the specifics of the situation. Would it be stupid to go up and cruise along in an icing layer and trust this system to keep you safe? Of course! But, like almost everything in aviation, the devil is in the details. There are many many many many situations where I think this system would serve it's purpose well and help a prudent and knowledgeable pilot complete his/her mission.

I think there are enough NTSB reports regarding high performance aircraft in the hands of enough pilots to refute this argument. Yes, it would be a great tool for a proficient and knowledgeable pilot. The problem is, it's the more likely scenario of those whose hands it would end up in who do not fall into that category.

That being said, I sincerely think it's a bad move for even a very knowledgeable and proficient pilot to take a small aircraft and remain at levels with known icing.

 

[Everskyward]

There are many many many many situations where I think this system would serve it's purpose well and help a prudent and knowledgeable pilot complete his/her mission.

I agree. Of course there will be people who will push the limits of the system but there are people who do that with any airplane.

 

[Trapper John]

I think there are enough NTSB reports regarding high performance aircraft in the hands of enough pilots to refute this argument. Yes, it would be a great tool for a proficient and knowledgeable pilot. The problem is, it's the more likely scenario of those whose hands it would end up in who do not fall into that category.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying - are you inferring that people that buy FIKI-equipped singles have more money than sense?

That being said, I sincerely think it's a bad move for even a very knowledgeable and proficient pilot to take a small aircraft and remain at levels with known icing.

I don't think you'll find anyone that would disagree with that.


Trapper John

 

[Ted]

A lot of people here obviously didn't read the linked press release.

Why would you expect me to READ a press release?

Besides, I doubt I'll ever buy one of these planes. I'd love to fly one, but it's just not the kind of plane I like.

Ok fine I'll go read the links...

One of the major differences between this and the old system is that they take care of the windsheld and other surfaces. They added prism lights for detection and it's tied into the Perspective (G100) for flow rate information and fluid levels.

Yeah, they'll have to have something to allow for the windshield and other surfaces. I didn't see where it talked about the prop, I'm guessing that's still a conventional hot prop? It kinda surprise me that they're using the fluid on the windshield. I'd think that would be a good opportunity to just go for an electric, and that would reduce plumbing, increase available time, etc.

Now that I've read the links, it seems to me that it's definitely a great leap forward in protections available for single engine aircraft (figure that other than a P210 or a Malibu you really didn't have much in the way of known ice piston singles, certainly not in the affordable range). However, in reading this up, it definitely doesn't provide that same level of protection because of the time limitations. So long as pilots buying it realize it and use it accordingly, it's fine.

Jason, I read the link in the OP. I still think it's an unwise move for a small aircraft. That's just on the surface. I won't get into the reasons that might apply to the pilots who tend to choose such planes even without this protection.

Yeah, the magenta line of death is especially bad in clouds. Clearly we should just remove technology that has the capability to improve safety because we need to safeguard the idiots who will go out and do stupid things regardless of whether or not these technologies exist.

Why are you such a luddite about this stuff, Kenny? Technological progress is a good thing. Yes, there are pilots out there who are stupid and will insist on being stupid, but they insisted on being stupid with every plane and technology that was ever and will ever be in existence. I see this as a leap forward in safety for those who use it properly. There will always be people who use technology improperly.

I do agree that using this plane in the same manner that you'd use a twin with boots is not a smart move. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in production. If I were to buy a Cirrus (which I don't believe I would, but that has to do with a number of other reasons), I would absolutely want this.

 

[jason]

I think there are enough NTSB reports regarding high performance aircraft in the hands of enough pilots to refute this argument. Yes, it would be a great tool for a proficient and knowledgeable pilot. The problem is, it's the more likely scenario of those whose hands it would end up in who do not fall into that category.

More FUD. There are also thousands of NTSB reports on accidents caused by fuel starvation. Yet people still find ways to try to stretch those last few gallons. The great thing about America is that everybody has the right to exercise their God given ability to be stupid.

That being said, I sincerely think it's a bad move for even a very knowledgeable and proficient pilot to take a small aircraft and remain at levels with known icing.

I would agree with that statement applied to ANY airplane....but that's not how FIKI should be used.

 

[jmaynard]

I think there are enough NTSB reports regarding high performance aircraft in the hands of enough pilots to refute this argument. Yes, it would be a great tool for a proficient and knowledgeable pilot. The problem is, it's the more likely scenario of those whose hands it would end up in who do not fall into that category.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying - are you inferring that people that buy FIKI-equipped singles have more money than sense?

He's referring to the "fork-tailed doctor killer" reputation of the V-tailed Bonanza, and the similar reputation the Cirrus has developed. Hie perspective has likely been reinforced by giving flight reviews to folks who fly approaches in their A36 at 145 KIAS.

For me, I'll simply observe that a pilot who's more concerned with image than actual proficiency will kill himself in any airplane, and it's not the tool, but the hand that holds it, that needs correcting.

That being said, I sincerely think it's a bad move for even a very knowledgeable and proficient pilot to take a small aircraft and remain at levels with known icing.

I don't think you'll find anyone that would disagree with that.

I'd suggest that for any aircraft to remain at levels with known icing for any length of time is not the wisest course of action, no matter the size or proficiency of the crew.

 

[Ted]

Oh, FUD. That's WAY too much of a blanket statement. light and severe icing are different beasts. You simply can't say that somebody is a loon for breaking through a known icing layer in a FIKI equipped aircraft without determining the specifics of the situation. Would it be stupid to go up and cruise along in an icing layer and trust this system to keep you safe? Of course! But, like almost everything in aviation, the devil is in the details. There are many many many many situations where I think this system would serve it's purpose well and help a prudent and knowledgeable pilot complete his/her mission.

I think there are enough NTSB reports regarding high performance aircraft in the hands of enough pilots to refute this argument. Yes, it would be a great tool for a proficient and knowledgeable pilot. The problem is, it's the more likely scenario of those whose hands it would end up in who do not fall into that category.

That is a horrible argument. Based on your theory, we should all be flying 172s. Should we abolish instrument ratings, as well?

A poor mechanic blames his tools. Stop blaming the tools for the mechanic's problem. This is not the sort of attitude that we should be having towards new technology, and certainly not the sort of attitude that is good to give to students. In many ways, it's just as bad as giving them the impression that dependence on these tools is a substitue for good piloting abilities.

That being said, I sincerely think it's a bad move for even a very knowledgeable and proficient pilot to take a small aircraft and remain at levels with known icing.

On this we are in complete agreement.

When I was in Ames for Tony's party, we were talking about the instrument rating as something that makes the go/no-go decision that much more difficult. It's the same for FIKI, multi engine, etc. in any airplane. It's an extra tool and you need to know its strengths and weaknesses in any airplane. To a competent pilot, more tools are good things. To an incompetent pilot, it will just get you to the grave faster. Incompetent pilots are NOT reasons to restrict tools that makes those of us who are competent safer.

 

[Ted]

I'd suggest that for any aircraft to remain at levels with known icing for any length of time is not the wisest course of action, no matter the size or proficiency of the crew.

In my Aztec (with properly functioning FIKI) the first move in case of ice is "Where is there not ice? Let's go there." So, I agree. So does every other pilot of FIKI aircraft I talk to.

So far, those boots have just been there for looks.

 

[Trapper John]

More FUD. There are also thousands of NTSB reports on accidents caused by fuel starvation.

And the most reliable way to prevent fuel exhaustion accidents would be to never put any fuel in the tanks!

We could also make a whole lot of progress on the en-route, approach, and landing accident problems if we never take off...


Trapper John

 

[gismo]

Jason, I read the link in the OP. I still think it's an unwise move for a small aircraft. That's just on the surface. I won't get into the reasons that might apply to the pilots who tend to choose such planes even without this protection.

I suspect that there's a valid motivation for potential customers of a FIKI Cirrus. Given that the FAA has on various occasions indicated that they pretty much consider flying a non-FIKI airplane in the winter months (or anytime in the flight levels) is a potential violation, having a plane that makes this legal opens some reasonably safe opportunities to use the airplane. Assuming that the pilots are willing and able to recognize and accomodate the limitations of a single piston engine airplane (yes that's a big leap for some pilots) I believe that something like a TKS Cirrus really makes sense.

No aircraft is totally immune to ice, and almost every one can be flown safely when the chance of ice exists if the appropiate limitations are adhered to. Certainly a Gulfstream has a wider envelope of acceptable icing scenarios than a FIKI Cirrus (or even a King Air or Bombardier Q400) but all that means is the accepable range of conditions where safe flight in the presence of potential ice is smaller with the Cirrus. Stay within that smaller range and you can be as safe WRT ice as the Gulfstream is in it's range.

 

[AcroBoy]

I own and fly a TKS equipped Baron, with KI certification. The requirements are for dual redundant pumps, ice light, and heated stall warning. Since there's no spray back from the prop as in a single, the windshield de-ice is important. There are no specific volume requirements.

The fluid is expensive, as I recall around $500 for a drum. It makes a slimy and slippery mess that always gets on you when draining the sumps. It is also heavy, with a full tank adding around 80lbs. Since it is not always readily available, or super expensive when bought by the gallon, I always keep a few jugs in the plane as well. However, most of my trips are well under gross with full tanks, it is usually not an issue.

Bottom line is that it works extremely well, but still requires some common sense. In the case of the Cirrus, it concerns me that a parachute, expensive panel, and now KI certification, will tempt pilots to take more risks instead of using sound judgement.

 

[gismo]

Bottom line is that it works extremely well, but still requires some common sense. In the case of the Cirrus, it concerns me that a parachute, expensive panel, and now KI certification, will tempt pilots to take more risks instead of using sound judgement.

Does the KI TKS on your Baron tempt you to take more risks instead of using your sound judgement? Do you yield to that temptation?

I ask that somewhat tongue in cheek, but what I'm really trying to point out is that as long as "sound judgement" is available FIKI on a Cirrus makes every bit as much sense as it does on your Baron. Use it wisely and it expands the operational envelope a bit, consider it a total solution to ice and you're dreaming. Now I know there's a perception that Cirrus pilots are more prone to unsound judgement and it might be justified statistically, but I'm dead certain that there are plenty of Cirrus pilots who are just as safety conscious and have just as much "sound judgement" as the rest of us.

 

[jason]

Does the KI TKS on your Baron tempt you to take more risks instead of using your sound judgement? Do you yield to that temptation?

I ask that somewhat tongue in cheek, but what I'm really trying to point out is that as long as "sound judgement" is available FIKI on a Cirrus makes every bit as much sense as it does on your Baron. Use it wisely and it expands the operational envelope a bit, consider it a total solution to ice and you're dreaming. Now I know there's a perception that Cirrus pilots are more prone to unsound judgement and it might be justified statistically, but I'm dead certain that there are plenty of Cirrus pilots who are just as safety conscious and have just as much "sound judgement" as the rest of us.

+1000

 

[Ted]

Does the KI TKS on your Baron tempt you to take more risks instead of using your sound judgement? Do you yield to that temptation?

If so, call the PoA help desk at...

The pilots who will be tempted to do stupid things with these additional safety features will push the limits no less than they would in any other plane. The same can be said about any other feature.

I ask that somewhat tongue in cheek, but what I'm really trying to point out is that as long as "sound judgement" is available FIKI on a Cirrus makes every bit as much sense as it does on your Baron. Use it wisely and it expands the operational envelope a bit, consider it a total solution to ice and you're dreaming. Now I know there's a perception that Cirrus pilots are more prone to unsound judgement and it might be justified statistically, but I'm dead certain that there are plenty of Cirrus pilots who are just as safety conscious and have just as much "sound judgement" as the rest of us.

Lance, you stated it perfectly.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That's always been my issue. I don't like to depend on things that require refilling. Then again, if it has more quantity of fluid than you have hours of fuel, it's probably alright.

Only if every airport where you purchase fuel also has the TKS fluid available for sale, which I can state without a doubt would not be the case for me. I've heard of others having difficulty finding the fluid as well. John's idea of carrying a few jugs along is probably a good one.

 

[sba55]

As has already been pointed out, there's usually no systems differences between certified and non-certified ice protection - other than maybe some additional redundancy. In a light single or twin, that difference to me is immaterial.

Also, a lot of people, including in this thread, just talk about FIKI vs non-FIKI. While a useful distinction, it's not _that_ important. A much more important distinction lies in the aircraft's 1) climb capability and 2) cruising altitude. This is often misunderstood, and it's not understood by many pilots who fly FIKI airplanes.

For example - unlike Tim, I have no problem flying my airplane though light to moderate icing. Yes, it is a piston aircraft, but that doesn't matter much since it has virtually the same de-ice systems as a King Air and it will climb very well on one engine with the weights I usually use and it will maintain an altitude higher than any terrain in the continental U.S. What makes all the difference between a light single or twin (like a SR22, Piper, etc.) and a plane you can use in just the same way as a regional jet are the the same two factors:

- Climb capability: Can the aircraft climb _above_ the ice quickly? My airplane can, the SR22 (non-turbo) or other NA singles or twins can't.

- Cruise altitude: Can the aircraft safely cruise above the ice? Again, the light twins or SR22s, even the turbo'd models, won't routinely cruise in the flight levels.

If you fly a FIKI plane and you can answer yes to both questions, congratulations, you're at the airline level in terms of wx capabilities. If you can't, you're not quite there. Bottom line - what's the point of a FIKI SR22? I don't see one, and if anything, we'll see more accidents because more pilots will fly FIKI planes without understanding factors 1 and 2 from above. FIKI won't make those pilots any safer because it is a matter of certification (with the same components and part numbers) and not systems.

-Felix

 

[Walt]

I have a TKS system on my Mooney. It works well allows me to travel without concern when using just a pitot heater would be risky. It is an aid that when linked with experience makes your flying safer. It is costly, requires at least annual maintenance and monitoring during use. It is not a system for everyone or a system that you need very often. 99.1% of the time the TKS hardware causes a loss of aircraft performance without being useful. About .7% of the time it is helpful, and .2% it is REALLY NECESSARY.
Unfortunately, you never know when you are going to fly into the .2% weather.

 

[PittsDriver]

Many aircraft have had available both certified and non-certified versions of ice protection. Late model Mooney's come to mind. The difference in price is substantial and I wouldn't fly a certified airplane into anything I wouldn't fly the non-certified version. Richard Collins has espoused the same view in the past as well. And, with the latest clarifications from the FAA on the legal issues of "known icing" and "icing conditions", I just can't see that the certified system is worth the difference.

 

[jesse]

and a plane you can use in just the same way as a regional jet

Your P-Baron is as capable as a regional jet in icing conditions?

you're at the airline level in terms of wx capabilities.

A P-Baron is not in the "airline level" of weather capabilities.

I still find those statements alarming--and this time--you can't delete me from your Facebook for saying so.

 

[Ted]

FIKI vs. non-FIKI is important when the non-FIKI actually includes a reduction in capabilities. I don't care what your climb rate or cruise altitude is if the de-ice equipment on your plane misses any of the key components that then get iced up, or if the equipment on there is actually not up to the task. Looking at the difference between the standard TKS and FIKI Cirrus, there is definitely a change, and on a number of twins it's similar. Saying the difference is immaterial is wrong.

I've yet to see a piston single or twin that will climb like its turbine counterpart. There's simply no comparison. A few weeks back we were flying in the Cheyenne, and seeing 2000 fpm climb rate at 150 kts. Yes, this was at low altitude and we weren't at gross, but the Cheyenne is able to maintain that climb rate higher. Compare it to its piston counterpart (the Navajo) and you'll see a significant difference - and the Navajo is no slouch. Just looking at the designation from Piper: PA-31-310 (Navajo) vs. PA-31T-625 (Cheyenne). One of the Cheyenne's engines has as much power as both of the Navajo's engines. I realize that those are Pipers, but there's a lot more to the equation than the Beechcraft emblem on the yoke.

Where I see the Cirrus (and a lot of FIKI) really shining is for a day like today here, where we've got a nice icing layer pretty much from the surface to about 9,000 ft. Get up to altitude where you're above the ice, stay there for your flight, get back down on the ground (hopefully in better conditions). Obviously having pressurization (or O2) and turbos help for this since it allows you to go higher and get there faster (I know the Aztec was feeling it climbing from 7,000 to 11,000 ft at gross on Sunday), but it doesn't make planes without those features useless. It still comes down to knowing the capabilities of your aircraft and being responsible with it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In my own opinion, you've gotta be a loon to take such a small aircraft into known icing conditions. I can go for the ability to combat unexpected ice but that's the extent of it.

If it's certified for "known icing conditions" then even the FAA agrees that it's OK, which means you're probably not a loon. It does, however, mean that you have a more difficult go/no-go decision, as some types of ice are not suitable for any airplane to fly into.

I think there are enough NTSB reports regarding high performance aircraft in the hands of enough pilots to refute this argument.

Let's see them, then. Find me NTSB reports of high-performance, known-ice equipped light aircraft that were brought down by ice while attempting to break through a layer.

That being said, I sincerely think it's a bad move for even a very knowledgeable and proficient pilot to take a small aircraft and remain at levels with known icing.

Kenny,

Your entire argument here is bogus. A "knowledgeable and proficient pilot" WILL NOT "remain at levels with known icing" in *any* size aircraft. FIKI systems allow you to climb and descend through icing layers, period. They are NOT meant for you to loiter at an altitude with ice for as long as you want. For that reason, turbos are an excellent addition to a small known-ice aircraft as they give you more outs in the upward direction.

 

[sba55]

Your entire argument here is bogus. A "knowledgeable and proficient pilot" WILL NOT "remain at levels with known icing" in *any* size aircraft. FIKI systems allow you to climb and descend through icing layers, period. They are NOT meant for you to loiter at an altitude with ice for as long as you want. For that reason, turbos are an excellent addition to a small known-ice aircraft as they give you more outs in the upward direction.

Thanks, Kent. That's exactly what I think about the issue, too. FIKI or non-FIKI, climb (and cruise) capabilities are much more important.

 

[Ted]

Your P-Baron is as capable as a regional jet in icing conditions?

A P-Baron is not in the "airline level" of weather capabilities.

No, but it is at "airline level" in terms of required ground roll for takeoff and maintenance costs.

 

[sba55]

No, but it is at "airline level" in terms of required ground roll for takeoff and maintenance costs.

It's neither. Just goes to show that neither Jesse nor you know the airplane. Where's that ignore button..

 

[Ted]

It's neither. Just goes to show that neither Jesse nor you know the airplane. Where's that ignore button..

It seemed pretty obvious that I was making a joke, although seeing as you've been making jabs at me for the past few months, I can see where you would think that I was actually trying to insult you. Believe me, if I was, I'd be a lot more direct.

However to your point: from your statements, I'm not very well convinced you know the plane yourself, at least not to the level you think you do. Say what you want about the rest of us with our lesser planes, I really couldn't care less. But if you're going to go off on about how capable your plane is, at least have the decency to do it in an environment where people are either similarly delusional or are smart enough not to believe you.

 

[jmaynard]

Cruise altitude: Can the aircraft safely cruise above the ice? Again, the light twins or SR22s, even the turbo'd models, won't routinely cruise in the flight levels.

Okkay, I'm missing something. My (now former) boss tells me he routinely cruises in the low flight levels (up to about FL230 or so) in his turbonormalized A36, and prefers to be there, since nobody else is: they're either lower or higher. I would assume a turbocharged light twin or SR22 would have the same capability. Where does that analysis go wrong?