Last time I checked if you take wings off the fuselage, it doesn't create lift and falls like a rock. Nor is the fuselage heated to prevent ice buildup, yet airplanes are flying around just fine in ice. How many years has the mighty 200 been flying without full type 4? Suddenly we need to create heavy work load in horrible weather conditions, destroy a bunch of apu's after they injest fluid, and pop everyone's ear drums in the process.

 

Maybe this is just the whiskey talking after a long 5 day trip but this has to be a colossal misfire on the part of the FAA. Adding unnecessary inflight workload and further convoluting procedures that have worked for many years seems to be classic governmental red tape. As was said earlier, if the fuselage is such a critical surface, why don't we have anti-ice ability for those prolonged downwind vectors at 4,000 while accumulating moderate rime?

Pretty fun to have a surplus of green type 4 sludge oozing down the windshield right at V1, turning an already challenging departure into a 0/0 takeoff. Abort? Yeh that'll help, considering the runway's an unplowed mess and I already can't see to begin with.

Click Click Boom, your wisdom is coveted here...

 

Aircraft are tested for flight into known icing, not taxing into known icing. Snow and ice can build up on the top of a fuselage when the aircraft is on the ground, but a fuselage will not pick up that much ice when the aircraft is in flight. If you really think wings are the only things that matter aerodynamically, then I guess aircraft designers should just stop wind tunnel testing the entire airplane and just worry about the wings. Also, the weight of ice is another factor.

People working the anti-ice guns are trained not to spray APU intakes and our job is not to worry about the life of an APU. And ear drums are not a factor either. ERJ have been doing unpressurized departures for years. If you wait to turn the packs on until 10,000 feet, then that will be an issue, but turning them on just after takeoff really isn't that different than turning them on after closing the cabin door.

 

200 is a Hooptie, as such it is a miracle that it flys, proof, that with enough thrust, even pigs will fly. This is a confluence of logic, legal, manufacturer, practical experience and the manditory FAA witchcraft factor. Type 4 is designed to shear off the surfaces at aprox 100 kts, Type 1 just drips off. Type 4 is just Type 1 + cornstarch. Not much magic involved. My question is since the wing is the representative surface and the roof is not visible, my bet is that the unlucky pilot on reserve will be stationed at the threshold in a exposed tower, to provide visual contamination clearance fot T/O. Add blowing snow and roll the dice. This is just the FAAs version of the infamous water bottle memo. Who cares, I am trying to decide, on boat or plane for the next toy.....

 

You're an embarrassment. Please, just stop talking. Additional workload? Type 1 "oozing" down the windshield at 130kts? Ice accumulating on the side of the fuselage in flight?

Geezus man, how'd you ever pass a type ride? It's scary you fly airplanes....

 

Give it enough thrust and it creates lift just fine. Ever see the cross-section of a fuselage? Looks very much like a wing right? Give it a positive AOA and thrust and you bet it creates lift.

Now, whether it creates "significant" lift is debatable. For some aircraft, this was absolutely true, for others, not so much.

The entirety of the aircraft is important for drag though.

 

Sounds like you fly an erj. In our crj we don't simply push two pack buttons back on after takeoff.

The specialist that spray the airplanes also shoot it directly into the apu, and depending on the station fail to remove any ice all together! As has been the case every ice season at least once with a memo that followed.

Very familiar with aerodynamics, thrust, parasitic drag, and critical surfaces. I'm also well versed in common sense and practicality.

 

Packs off take offs are no big deal. Been doing them for years in a 767. Course, it's a Boeing so things just work.

 

There are currently discussions going on with all of the USA CRJ200 operators to try and get the FAA to approve no type 4 on the fuselage. Bombardier has even written a paper stating that the upper part of the fuselage does not need type 4 but the FAA and I think even Transport Canada are the ones holding all of this up. Taking off depressurized isn't that big of a deal, the EMB145 operators have been doing it for 17 years now without any issues. I think this all originates from Bombardier labeling the fuselage as a critical surface so until they change that in all of the manuals nothing will change.

 

All this whining about no-bleed takeoffs makes me laugh. Spent years flying 1900s and Saabs, always did bleeds-off in the 1900 until 400' AGL, and the Saab was frequently bleeds-off until 1000' AGL. You want to talk about ears popping? Even with the bleeds both on and working, you still had to yawn or chew gum all the way up and down on the Beech.

Even on the 145, packs-off takeoffs in ice are normal. APU shut down, engine bleeds open, packs off is the normal config for icing takeoff. And it's full-body for both 1 and 4, no half-measures. Just glad I'm not paying the bill for fluids!