For an example of the sort of convective wx, see the 2012 trip report to EDNY.
Probable embedded TCUs and CBs, and IMC below 0C. A great mix.
But, on the day, one can look at the IR image and get a good idea of what is out there. The MSLP charts are good for general planning.
All my more detailed trip writeups describe how I work the weather versus a/c performance. It is a very solid process which has always worked, but I won't drill holes in IMC with life threatening stuff in it. Many pilots do, and not all of them are still here.
Currently, tomorrow and the following 2 days all look similar i.e. OK if the IR image looks OK. GRAMET forecasts tops close to FL200 on all 3 days but one can't trust that forecast to better than plus or minus a few k feet.
Today we have Emir - another TB20 owner - visiting 
That looks very doable to me.
The cloud top values on that image are way off. The actual tops are IME about 5k to 10k higher. I think they are using totally wrong data for the temperature scale or for the altitude.
Thinking about this, I strongly suspect that the web developer made the obvious "non pilot programmer" mistake which is to google for the temperature lapse rate and use that i.e. ISA.
Currently, we are having very warm air. On the way EGKA-LDLO I saw 0C at FL150 which is ISA+15. If you use this to generate the colour coding on that chart, you will end up with cloud tops understated by 7500ft - which is about right if I use my several years' experience of relating the shade of grey to actual tops seen.
Using actual temps aloft would be a significant challenge. You would need to download GFS data, and map the EUMETSAT greyscale-versus-temperature calibration (which, they told me, they don't want to release openly for free because they are required to make money) onto the GFS temps, in reverse, to get the altitude at which the temperature appears in the model. Not hard, but I can see why somebody knocking up a free website might not bother.
We are at Pula now, for a few days.
Just got back, after an epic 7:10 (airborne time) flight from Pula LDPL to Le Touquet LFAT.
Could not make it back to Shoreham due to a ~65kt headwind component most of the way. The forecast was ~45kt total wind...
Landed at LFAT with 19 USG which is 2hrs' cruise.
Never seen so much wind - at FL180/190 which was where we had to fly to stay above the ice. In the brief descent into LFAT we picked up ~4mm of ice in a minute or two.
There is a lot of nasty unstable wx about right now. Anybody who thinks he can fly in IMC enroute without full deice is welcome to it...
Just got back, after an epic 7:10 (airborne time) flight
yuck, I don't like anything longer than 4h...
In the brief descent into LFAT we picked up ~4mm of ice in a minute or two.
Just out of interest, how did you do the descend? Do you try to descend rapidly when there is ice buildup? You said you had to stay at FL180/190 but the descend was just 1-2 minutes and LFAT is at sea level so I'm wondering. Was it convective and bumpy? How much of a concern is icing during the approach to you? Not an issue at all when the 0C line is sufficiently high or can it be a concern? What about winter, would you generally not do an approach where you have to fly through clouds when it's sub zero on the ground?
I had a 40kt push to Paris just now. What is the distance LFAT to Pula? (Edited as I realise why you had to stay high)
Just out of interest, how did you do the descend? Do you try to descend rapidly when there is ice buildup? You said you had to stay at FL180/190 but the descend was just 1-2 minutes and LFAT is at sea level so I'm wondering. Was it convective and bumpy? How much of a concern is icing during the approach to you? Not an issue at all when the 0C line is sufficiently high or can it be a concern? What about winter, would you generally not do an approach where you have to fly through clouds when it's sub zero on the ground?
I am happy with ice pickup potential during a descent if it's obvious that the stuff will melt off long before one gets anywhere near the MSA, and there is no chance of being asked to hold in it. In the latter possibility I would ask ATC to make any hold above the cloud.
By the time we got near LFAT, the tops lowered suddenly and were c. FL070. That was the main reason for choosing LFAT and not taking the earlier-requested diversion of Lille LFQQ which was a bit nearer but had both high tops (c. FL180) but also big TCUs/CBs sticking up in the vicinity. The 0C level was about FL050 so the ice was picked up in those 2000ft, between about -3C and 0C. I find that if you enter cloud from flying in sunshine, the OAT drops by about 3C immediately.
If the 0C level is below the MSA then I consider that a real problem. I would climb up through IMC only if it was dead obvious it is a thin layer and one is going to be able to climb above it for long enough to sublimate it away (which in UK airspace usually means an IR and a Eurocontrol flight plan). And same on the way down. That is the price one pays for having paid only 200k for a plane and not a lot more
All the time the 0C level is well above the MSA, you have the escape route. And you need only one escape route... but if you cut off that one, you are taking on a big risk.
A TB20 (or perhaps anything short of a Russian tank, or something with a TAS of > 350kt so it can never get iced up due to aerodynamic heating) would be unflyable and out of control after say 30 mins in that cloud above LFAT.
Funnily enough a lot of people at LDPL have excellent taste in aircraft. There were three TB20s, and next to mine was another 2002 GT but with full TKS.
I will do a decent writeup on this trip, but need a bit of time to do it.
Reminds me on various trips with my former [plane](
but I never flew 7 hours because my tank had only 72 USG. But I know the icing and circumventing CB/TCU in the upper levels stuff quite good. One reason why I sold that plane was its very poor climb rate of approx. 500 fpm, may be 600 fpm at sea level on a cold day. This is not enough to climb through icing layers.
What is the size of your tank? Must be something around 100 USG...
The TB20 is normally aspirated therefore at FL180/190 there isn't much power left, i.e. fuel consumption is relatively small.
