Assuming this is a recent install would the temps around Mesa ever be ISA+18 at FL400, looks ISA-6 today. I doubt anywhere is ever that....

Shame they didn't take it to 410, that last 1000 is the slow bit for me.

The numbers from Cessna for ISA+10 are a bit bogus to, I can climb to FL410 in about 50 mins without a step climb. It would never take 110mins. So if the savings are based off book figures my plane certainly performs much better then book.

Andrew

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.

Isn't there a little precedent for these performance gains if u look at the sierra long wing mods on earlier citations?

That results in some pretty impressive gains, by increasing wing area and reducing drag, seems like you could get some pretty good gains with these wing tips.

It doesn't take much extra lift at fl400 to lower aoa, right? The associated reduction in thrust makes me thing there published numbers are plausible.

They're talking about doing the AW on other airframes down the road. Maybe the Commanders will get the treatment one day?

I doubt it. Not a big enough fleet or high enough value. Look at the planes they are starting with.
Cirrus: proof of concept and initial certification. 6K aircraft....
Cessna Citation...

Tim

So they can fit even fewer hangars?

The Commander is one of the least needy airframes when it comes to winglets. You already have so much wing.

Mike C.

Sexy looking wings!

This sure isn't your uncle's KA winglet mod. With the Tamarack system which includes increasing the wingspan by 13% and the wing area by 6.5%, people are now reporting 25-33 minute climbs from SL to FL410 in hot conditions (TOW dependent), speed increases of 10 kts, and close to 10% fuel savings. Maybe not what the marketing "best numbers under best conditions", but quite the steroids shot in the arm for this great aircraft.

Can't wait to get a set for my CJ.

Alex - is that the Tamarack demo airplane? I parked next to it last week and was asking the line guy about it. Looked great!! I saw a few people pull out on Tuesday mid-afternoon (when we were heading out), maybe it was you?

Longer and erect...

Which perhaps explains the willingness to excuse false claims among many.

Mike C.

Ha ha ha hah!

Got my plane back from install today.

Andrew

Andrew,

Very pretty. Can you provide any performance numbers?

Tim

What used to be on your nose gear?

Is that a gravel spin up kit?

Mike C.

Very cool Andrew! Eager to hear your next long trip pirep!

Winglets really add to the visual appeal of an airplane, don't they?