Aviation Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for aircraft pilots, mechanics, and enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I am researching into deicing technologies for the future, but apart from Boeing with Ultra/GKN, no one seems to be picking this technology up and being competitive. Any one know why this is? Is it an expensive development? Risky?
Is it on any aircraft manufacturer's roadmaps?
I fail to see what is exactly new in the B787 de-icing system, except for the way it is manufactured (spraying metallic layers onto the composite structure).
Electric heating is the most obvious and straightforward method of de-icing, and the least energetically efficient at that. It is much more efficient to break the ice rather than to melt it - in terms of the energy required. Even B787 with its sheer electric supply can't afford anti-icing (that is, constant heating to prevent ice formation), and de-icing power consumption is 45-75 kW.
Perhaps most Russian (larger) aircraft had electrical wing de-icing system: from Tu-95 (1952) to Il-18 (1957) to Tu-154 (1968) (I could give specific links but they are in Russian). Typically, they work in sections to reduce power demand, and consist of heating wires (rather than layers like on 787) that melt the ice.
Later aircraft such as Il-86 (1976) and -96 had a more advanced electric impulse system, which creates mechanical impulse on the leading edge with induction coils. This deforms the skin for a very brief moment to break the accumulated ice.
The F-35 and V-22 also use the same kind of blended electric heating pads as an anti/deice method. According to this article the conductive material that is used to make the heating units is applied during layup of the composite material for the wing. Thus it might not work on metal wing aircraft as most modern airliners are.
There is also the consideration of certification, which in aviation is a very important factor. Once an airframe is certified in a given configuration it may not be financially logical to certify some new part for a system that is already well in place and working.
Also as noted in this question, the 787 lacks the bleed air system needed to drive a classical anti-ice system so another solution is needed. But it still uses engine bleed for engine cowl and nacelle anti-ice.
Apparently electrothermal anti-ice systems are more energy efficient – about 35% better efficiency – than using HP compressor bleed air channeled through pipes to the leading edges of the lifting surfaces. See this article.
I was not aware that Boeing was using electrothermal anti-ice systems on the 787. They have been common in general aviation for sometime. Some examples are the Kelley ThermaWing used on some singles and light twins. But yeah that’s the first time I’ve ever heard of such a system being used on an application that large.
This I believe goes back to the use of a uniform electrification in the aircraft. Just about everything on the airplane is powered by its generators, including the flight controls hydraulics and other systems. If you start off with that plan for an aircraft like that it would make more sense to install electrothermal anti-ice systems on the wings as opposed to a separate, and dedicated bleed air system.
Fokker 28 MK 100 has leading edge electrical anti ice system.
