All I can do is tell you what my experience has been. I was not expecting, but, pleasantly surprised at the performance change especially in the approach and landing phase of flight. The extension and winglets definitely combine to dramatically improve the performance of the Aerostar. The six puck brakes are like icing on the cake. Keep in mind, those six puck brakes are slowing down a NA 600A that is around 300 to 500 lbs. lighter than a "P" model.
By the way, the winglets are a chick magnet.

Tim,

Your statement that

"In the A* case, you will find a lot of anecdotal comments from before/after winglets about how they help. AAC will likely never make a claim about how much they improve because of FAA rules."

puzzles me greatly. First of all I would really like to see the rules. Secondly, AAC has definitely made claims of performance enhancements, only none come from controlled tests with 3rd party observance. Thirdly, the aircraft market has been inundated with such claims by aftermarket manufacturers FOREVER!

You can put me in the "doubters" column with every claim that is not backed up by legitimate test data. If the performance enhancements are real, why would you not want the endorsement of your product from legitimate tests? I guess the best answer to that question would come from the makers of Camguard.

As for "anecdotal evidence", well, I suppose you need to get something for your $20,000.

Jgreen

JG,

I should have been more specific. The real arbiter of independent performance data in theory are the performance charts. AAC, did not seek to update the performance charts due to FAA rules. The FAA rules stipulate the performance numbers are minimums, so as long as you do not degrade performance you do not have to go through the full regimen of testing and engineering data documentation.

Per your standards; which you have covered in other threads, you likely would only believe the FAA charts so I made the jump to that conclusion.

Tim

Tim,

Though I will readily and willingly challenge unsubstantiated claims for any product, "my standards" do not demand a revision of FAA approved charts. That being said, many after market products offered in aviation circles do indeed provide POH updates including the intercooler STC installed in my A*.

I don't like getting "ripped off" by false marketing claims and am insulted when I see claims that, for lack of documented evidence/test, attempt to. A few months ago, there was a thread endorsing Real Clean Soot Remover and how it would just magically whisk away exhaust stains. I bought a gallon, $90, with shipping. When I got it, the only magic I found was how artfully they removed $90 from my bill fold. I did a side by side test with multiple "generic" products, and found that it didn't work any better than the least of them for 5 times the cost.

Also, a few months ago, there was a query about the installation of intercoolers on a Piper Chieftain with published claims to performance gains by "the manufacturer". After 8 or 9 pages of input by some VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE engine people hereon, it was clear that most of the claims were pure bull %#$@.

I will again say that when a marketer does not provide any realistic test data for the performance of his product, I usually figure there is a good reason why. I've been involved with aviation and business too long to think otherwise.

Winglets have been an available STC for several piston aircraft for 30 years, and, to date, I have yet to see ONE claim backed up by any reliable test result. Thankfully, the hype ran its course and you do not see Barons being ruined by the installation thereof any longer.

So, to me, winglets on an Aerostar meet all my personal qualifications of "something to sell" as my daddy would say, and all the "anecdotal" and BS unsubstantiated marketing claims in the world won't change my standards.

I am, however, relieved to know that Tom got something for his expenditure other than ruining the appearance of an otherwise beautiful airplane: winglets attract chickens.

Jgreen

Just my opinion, but I don't think most GA airplanes fly enough to take advantage of the light performance increase/fuel decrease. A Boeing that flies 18+ hours a day on long flights especially can see a significant difference.

However, I love the looks of the winglets on the Aerostar. I'm not spending $29k (or whatever they are) on them for my SS700, but I love the looks!

Jason

Before I sold the A* I debated it. Although I liked the look and the potential performance increase, the one/two trips a year where I was pushing the range of the plane and ran LOP at 45% to get max range just did not pencil out.
Now if buying a plane, I would consider it a plus but would argue that they have no proven numbers therefore need to be discounted in terms of price. Therefor, winglets offer no value in terms of increase in price...

Tim

Ok John. You've got me convinced. I'm taking off the winglets and sending them back.

Tom,

Send them to me if you take them off because I have seen the new 737's with the upside down ones so I guess I need one on the top and one on the bottom. .

Tim,

Though I will readily and willingly challenge unsubstantiated claims for any product, "my standards" do not demand a revision of FAA approved charts. That being said, many after market products offered in aviation circles do indeed provide POH updates including the intercooler STC installed in my A*.

I don't like getting "ripped off" by false marketing claims and am insulted when I see claims that, for lack of documented evidence/test, attempt to. A few months ago, there was a thread endorsing Real Clean Soot Remover and how it would just magically whisk away exhaust stains. I bought a gallon, $90, with shipping. When I got it, the only magic I found was how artfully they removed $90 from my bill fold. I did a side by side test with multiple "generic" products, and found that it didn't work any better than the least of them for 5 times the cost.

Also, a few months ago, there was a query about the installation of intercoolers on a Piper Chieftain with published claims to performance gains by "the manufacturer". After 8 or 9 pages of input by some VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE engine people hereon, it was clear that most of the claims were pure bull %#$@.

I will again say that when a marketer does not provide any realistic test data for the performance of his product, I usually figure there is a good reason why. I've been involved with aviation and business too long to think otherwise.

Winglets have been an available STC for several piston aircraft for 30 years, and, to date, I have yet to see ONE claim backed up by any reliable test result. Thankfully, the hype ran its course and you do not see Barons being ruined by the installation thereof any longer.

So, to me, winglets on an Aerostar meet all my personal qualifications of "something to sell" as my daddy would say, and all the "anecdotal" and BS unsubstantiated marketing claims in the world won't change my standards.

I am, however, relieved to know that Tom got something for his expenditure other than ruining the appearance of an otherwise beautiful airplane: winglets attract chickens.

Jgreen

Tom,

Seriously, I appreciate your taking my jibes in good humor.

My "position" on "things for sale" is nothing new as Tim referenced.

I would love to be proved wrong. When I poke, it can draw two responses from the marketer, be it Camguard, Real Clean, winglets for a piston, or Snyder speed mods for my C-180. They can "prove" me wrong with some semblance of a controlled test, or keep quiet. I will draw my on inferences from that.

If it makes you and Tim fell better, I am seriously tempted to try some of Snyder's speed mods on the 180 and they come with nothing but marketing claims and "anecdotal" evidence.

But again, you are a gentleman in your responses and if you are ever around KGNF, I keep good wine and good whiskey close by and cook a mean steak; though the last statement comes with no controlled substantiation.

Fly safe.

Jgreen

John-

I have no A* and no dog in the fight. I'm telling you what I saw because I wanted to see the difference in hard numbers. I'd already bought them, I just got sick of hearing anecdotal comments and decided to look into it myself. I ran tests at the same weights at the same temps back to back; I just removed the winglets and put on the old tips for the second run, takes 10 minutes.

- time to climb to FL180 at 155KIAS- within one minute either way, who cares
- speed at 65% was no different either way
- VMC was 3-5 KIAS lower with the winglets
- SE CLIMB WAS ~200FPM better with winglets; not simulated zero thrust bullshit, I caged it

Worth 20k? I think so. And I think the things are ugly, but you'll wish you spent the 20k if you pop a motor, especially in that wheezy 601P you're rolling in.

that was a great report on winglets on the bonanza and mirrors data throughout the years... winglets have performance gains... the question that most ask is are the gains worth the cost to install... It seems the answer is no to John... others are happy with the result. Reminds me of the argument of intercoolers...

Craig,

Interesting and the closest anyone has come to some documentation. You had the benefit of the 350 HP engines whose greatest benefit, to me anyway, is the single engine rate of climb. And you are correct, from lift off to blue line, the 601P is wheezy. I control that with discretion in my weights and runways and except when going to my mechanics shop, rarely operate out of less than a 6,000' strip.

All that being said, it would take a lot more benefit than what you listed for me to install them. I know my airplane's limitations (and my own) and stay within them.

Jgreen

John,
The American Aviation Intercooling system for the Navajo does for that airplane, most of what the Aerostar intercoolers do for your Aerostar. They increase the cruise climb performance by an average of 200 ft/min. They increase the true airspeed of the airplane at the same cruise power MAP setting by 10 to 12 mph. They increase the critical altitude of the engines by about 3,000 ft. They increase the detonation margins of the engines allowing leaner mixtures without fear of damaging an engine. They also reduce CHT’s when operating at altitudes above 12,000 ft.
I think you are happy with the Intercooling system on the 601P but if not you could take them off and test the performance of the airplane without them. I am sure you would find the rate of climb would decrease by about 300 ft/min. and your critical altitudes would decrease by 5,000 ft. and your single engine ceiling would decrease by 3,500 ft. At altitude the same manifold pressure and RPM would result in a true airspeed decrease of about 15 knots on the same fuel flow. The American Aviation intercooling system does the same thing for the Navajo as your intercoolers do for your Aerostar, for all the same reasons.
Best regards,
Jim

John,
The American Aviation Intercooling system for the Navajo does for that airplane, most of what the Aerostar intercoolers do for your Aerostar. They increase the cruise climb performance by an average of 200 ft/min. They increase the true airspeed of the airplane at the same cruise power MAP setting by 10 to 12 mph. They increase the critical altitude of the engines by about 3,000 ft. They increase the detonation margins of the engines allowing leaner mixtures without fear of damaging an engine. They also reduce CHT’s when operating at altitudes above 12,000 ft.
I think you are happy with the Intercooling system on the 601P but if not you could take them off and test the performance of the airplane without them. I am sure you would find the rate of climb would decrease by about 300 ft/min. and your critical altitudes would decrease by 5,000 ft. and your single engine ceiling would decrease by 3,500 ft. At altitude the same manifold pressure and RPM would result in a true airspeed decrease of about 15 knots on the same fuel flow. The American Aviation intercooling system does the same thing for the Navajo as your intercoolers do for your Aerostar, for all the same reasons.
Best regards,
Jim