23 Apr 2024, 17:46 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 08 May 2016, 12:50 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5233 Post Likes: +3026 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mike C.
We mostly agree, and stated the charts are misleading. But you call it fraud, I call it marketing and slimy (often the same thing).
Tim The question is if it is deceptive advertising or puffery based on a rare set of assumptions?
_________________ Allen
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 08 May 2016, 12:59 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/10 Posts: 11898 Post Likes: +2854 Company: Looking Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Mike C.
We mostly agree, and stated the charts are misleading. But you call it fraud, I call it marketing and slimy (often the same thing).
Tim The question is if it is deceptive advertising or puffery based on a rare set of assumptions?
I doubt it meets the deceptive advertising aspect from a legal standpoint. All the information was presented accurately. Just because the chart compares apples and oranges does not make it fraud.
Tim (not a lawyer)
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 08 May 2016, 13:51 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/09 Posts: 5233 Post Likes: +3026 Location: Northern NJ
Aircraft: SR22;CJ2+;C510
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I doubt it meets the deceptive advertising aspect from a legal standpoint. All the information was presented accurately. Just because the chart compares apples and oranges does not make it fraud.
Tim (not a lawyer)
Yup, so likely puffery that is often seen. cavet emptor!
_________________ Allen
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 03:20 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6359 Post Likes: +5543 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Twin & Turbine aircraft "tests" the active winglets. Seem to have rather impressive performance. As one owner says: “It’s the most cost-effective improvement you can make to an already great plane,” he said. “I have CJ2 range performance but the cost of the winglets is 20 percent of the cost to upgrade to the CJ2.”Article here: http://twinandturbine.com/article/jet-journal-active-approach-better-performance/If I was in market for a jet, I'd look really hard at the earliest CJ models with semi-steam that are easily upgradable to glass, and add a Tamarack system. That'd be a pretty bad-ass setup for less than $1million (in some cases)... Look how pretty they make the CJ3 look, like a little mini-G650:
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 14 Mar 2017, 10:19 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Twin & Turbine aircraft "tests" the active winglets. That article is marketing. No real test. There is no way the winglets save 20% on fuel apples to apples. The only way this is achieved is that they fly the non winglet airplane at max thrust and fly the winglet airplane at max range power. Thus most of the savings is the change in engine operating point. Flying the engine at the same power settings will NOT get you a 20% reduction in fuel on a trip. Absolutely no way. They fail to mention some issues. One, the landing distances increase by 67% per the STC supplement. This is due to using the stock airplane Vref numbers (the STC doesn't provide new landing distances) which cause the plane to float much further down the runway due to the larger wing span and area. Legally, this cuts out many airports. This is even worse for 135 operators who have a 60% runway requirement on top of that. This could mean that the book says a stock airplane needs 3,600 ft, but now the 135 guy needs 10,000 ft of runway (1.67 for the Tamarack, 1.67 for the 135 requirement, compounded). The mod is basically not workable for 135, which means the plane has lost market footprint if nothing else. Two, if the active winglet system fails, and there are a lot of complex parts here unlike a passive winglet, you have to reduce your speed substantially. If Tamarack goes out of business or has reliability problems, your plane is crippled and perhaps unflyable with the system INOP and maybe even unable to be returned to stock status due to cutting structure for installation. The owner has tied their airplane's value and utility to the existence and support of a one product start up company. That doesn't have a good track record in aviation. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 05:37 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/09/13 Posts: 911 Post Likes: +449 Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
|
|
Username Protected wrote: The owner has tied their airplane's value and utility to the existence and support of a one product start up company. That doesn't have a good track record in aviation. On this point only I do believe that Cessna will support the product. You can't Buy directly from Tamarack, only through a Cessna Service Centre. I'm certain there are planes on the production lines (M2s) having the winglets installed. Although it would be expensive I'm confident they will be supported. Andrew.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 08:48 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Although it would be expensive I'm confident they will be supported. Like adding ADS-B to an early glass panel Citation? Much $$$$. If I was interested in the winglets, I'd wait about 2 years to let the early adopters figure out the real story. See if there are problems, see exactly just how far they have been overpromised, learn the downsides, etc. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 16:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/09/13 Posts: 911 Post Likes: +449 Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Although it would be expensive I'm confident they will be supported. Like adding ADS-B to an early glass panel Citation? Much $$$$. If I was interested in the winglets, I'd wait about 2 years to let the early adopters figure out the real story. See if there are problems, see exactly just how far they have been overpromised, learn the downsides, etc. Mike C.
Unless of course it is covered on your pro-parts account. I'd imagine it would be if Cessna is installing the upgrade.
Andrew
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 16:44 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Unless of course it is covered on your pro-parts account. Which either means you already paid for it, or you will pay for it with further ProPart charges, or if you sell your plane soon afterward, you will owe a ProParts balance and pay for it then. In Proparts, you either pay money for parts you don't get, or they charge you if you use more parts than your balance. It is "no lose" for Cessna, and seemingly "no win" for owner. Quote: I'd imagine it would be if Cessna is installing the upgrade. My understanding is ProParts does not cover upgrades and non mandatory SLs/SBs. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 15 Mar 2017, 17:39 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/09/13 Posts: 911 Post Likes: +449 Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
|
|
Username Protected wrote: My understanding is ProParts does not cover upgrades and non mandatory SLs/SBs That's not correct. I did dual GTN750 upgrade in Oz. Pro-parts have them covered. Interesting originally they said no because they did not do the upgrade, when I pushed that Cessna dont have a service centre here they agreed. You are right there is no free lunch in jet ownership!! My point about pro-parts was if they agree to cover them they will support them. So if something happens to Tamarack they will continue the support. Andrew
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 17 Mar 2017, 00:09 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/03/14 Posts: 19252 Post Likes: +23622 Company: Ciholas, Inc Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: There may be puffery in the fuel savings, but this is amazing if accurate. The data I got was ISA+18, FL400, 36 minutes. The video lacks enough information to judge the performance increase. For example, takeoff weight, where ISA+18 was measured, and starting airport elevation. Assuming this is a straight CJ (not CJ1, CJ2, ...), the book climb numbers for some example situations are: ISA+10, FL390, 10400 lbs: 42 min ISA+10, FL390, 9500 lbs: 31 min ISA+10, FL410, 10400 lbs: 110 min (step climb) ISA+10, FL410, 9500 lbs: 41 min The book doesn't give numbers for greater than ISA+10. Adding wing area will improve climb, that is a well known effect. Without more detailed numbers, hard to say if this was a minor or major improvement. At this high altitude, small changes in weight and temperature make a huge difference in ability to climb, so time to climb numbers would be very sensitive to wing area increase. If you want to measure the time to climb to, say, FL350, the time to climb improvement for winglets is not very significant. The stock airplane does that in 26 minutes (ISA+10, 10400 lbs), so there just isn't a lot of time to be saved. Tamarack is very good about providing the impression of great performance increase, but always seems to never give you enough information to check it precisely. Mike C.
_________________ Email mikec (at) ciholas.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: CJ winglet certification obtained Posted: 17 Mar 2017, 01:57 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/31/10 Posts: 13101 Post Likes: +6970
|
|
He said "Mesa" service center. I'm assuming KIWA at 1300'msl.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|