banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 11:34 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 17:50 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 910
Post Likes: +449
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
Columbia Avionics has their 525 CJ STC approved, G700 + GTN + GFC 600. Probably saves ~ 200 lbs, though you can end up tail heavy and need ballast


Yeah I saw that, I’ve already got the JT for the GTN’s etc. As we buy the STC for use over here I a hoping I get a better deal thru them as opposed to Columbia. I might contact them and discuss now that you bring it up.

Thanks

Andrew


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 17:55 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Depending on which post of theirs you read, they took off with 3340 or 3440 lbs of fuel.

They aren't really numbers people, are they?

6850 lbs empty (using Vann's number, though he is a CJ).
3340 lbs fuel
10600 lbs gross

Leaves 410 lbs.

That would be 310 lbs if it really was 3440 lbs fuel.

And that assumes a CJ1 weighs empty what a CJ does, which I kind of doubt.

Not a max range 3 pax golf trip, in any case.

Quote:
I'm interested to see how it shakes out, but I predict this particular question will never be answered.

The CJ1 does have a 10600 lbs gross, so 200 lbs higher than the straight CJ. A lot of the time, that extra gross weight just covers increased empty weight for design changes of the new model.

The problem with Tamarack reported weights is that we don't have any way to verify them. The history has been that any number they do provide which is verifiable has usually been wrong.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Last edited on 28 Jan 2021, 18:00, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 17:55 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 910
Post Likes: +449
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
Is 6580 lbs your actual empty weight with winglets? How much did the winglet mod add to the empty weight?

Useful load with book fuel load of 3220 lbs: 600 lbs.

If you overfill, reduce that by the amount you overfill.


Correct, I didn’t get it reweighed so it was just the winglets increase. With the avionics work and Doc 10 coming up in March I will get it reweighed.

My wife and myself are the usual people on board and our combined weight is 275Lbs.

I don’t think I can get more then 100lbs over in mine, might be because it’s always warm over here..

Andrew


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 21:47 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/28/11
Posts: 1337
Post Likes: +588
Aircraft: V35A, B300
AOPA article. Said weather was huge factor. Not just marketing department. CEO says up to 33% savings.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... e-winglets


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 21:49 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/24/19
Posts: 9
Post Likes: +7
Company: Tamarack Aerospace Group, Inc.
Username Protected wrote:
it was realistic for a 3 pax golf trip or biz trip with these two planes and that city pair.

Jacob,

What was the payload of the Tamarack airplane after full fuel was added? Can you publish both EW and GW for that plane?


Hi Jim,
Both planes took off at their gross so 10,700 for the winglet plane (CJ1) and 10,500 for the stock plane (CJ). Both had 2 in the front + a journalist, plus some camera gear/luggage. The stock plane was slightly under max fuel, and the winglet plane was max fuel.

We thought we were tankering fuel on the winglet plane since the forecast at the time of the preflight was 27 on the nose and not a lot off of ISA, but we saw closer to 75 on the nose and up to +14 ISA. (Not quite as fun as the day before from E60 to KUSE!) Landed PBI with just over IFR reserves (700+ lb).

The forecast at the time of the preflight had bad ground conditions in the ideal place for the flat-wing plane to land, which pushed their route inland a bit. They stayed low to keep their TAS up even though they could have climbed up a bit more for fuel savings. They had the speed advantage without question, until the fuel stop!

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 21:52 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/16/09
Posts: 7087
Post Likes: +1955
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: BE-TBD
The CEO and the founder are the marketing department.

I think they would do themselves well to call up the aerodynamicists they no doubt had on contract in development so they can get straightened out. Their charts are silly, inaccurate and useless to anyone technical - and they know it.

_________________
QB


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 22:06 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/24/19
Posts: 9
Post Likes: +7
Company: Tamarack Aerospace Group, Inc.
Username Protected wrote:
Jacob what was the fuel burns on today’s flight of equal time? Or is that classified.


Hi Eric,
Block fuel burn for the winglet was 572 pph for the trip, and the flat wing saw block of 712 pph on the longer (first) leg. Total trip was 2,610 lb and 3,650 lb respectively.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 22:53 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/28/11
Posts: 1337
Post Likes: +588
Aircraft: V35A, B300
Username Protected wrote:
Jacob what was the fuel burns on today’s flight of equal time? Or is that classified.


Hi Eric,
Block fuel burn for the winglet was 572 pph for the trip, and the flat wing saw block of 712 pph on the longer (first) leg. Total trip was 2,610 lb and 3,650 lb respectively.

Your giving me the numbers from the “fly off”. The next day both planes flew PBI-FDK in the same amount of time 2:41. What are the burns from those flights. As in I want to see the numbers from a real fly off.

Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 22:57 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/16/09
Posts: 7087
Post Likes: +1955
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: BE-TBD
Exactly. Yesterday PBI-FDK was the real face-off.

_________________
QB


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 29 Jan 2021, 03:30 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 910
Post Likes: +449
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
Can you summarize what you’ve done there Andrew? It’s confusing.


The top FF snap shot shows the route in a CJ that I fly with Tamaracks.

The second shows the same flight, same weights, same day in a CJ I fly without Tamaracks.

Both planned at FL410, the bottom required step climb to get to 410.

The main point was to show the fuel required and to demonstrate the calculation of 9%.

Hope that makes sense.

Andrew


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 29 Jan 2021, 12:40 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4410
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
Hi Jim,
Both planes took off at their gross so 10,700 for the winglet plane (CJ1) and 10,500 for the stock plane (CJ). Both had 2 in the front + a journalist, plus some camera gear/luggage. The stock plane was slightly under max fuel, and the winglet plane was max fuel.

Thanks!

What's the EW on the winglet plane? It seems like a rare bird that can add winglets, take overfilled tanks, and 3 people plus gear. The specific airframes I've been looking at do not have that payload capacity.

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 29 Jan 2021, 14:25 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/13/18
Posts: 214
Post Likes: +174
Quote:
Your giving me the numbers from the “fly off”. The next day both planes flew PBI-FDK in the same amount of time 2:41. What are the burns from those flights. As in I want to see the numbers from a real fly off.


He isn’t going to answer questions like this. He’s bobbed and weaved all over this thread, selectively addressing the more “favorable” concerns/questions.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 29 Jan 2021, 16:22 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 6227
Post Likes: +3728
Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
Both planes took off at their gross so 10,700 for the winglet plane (CJ1) and 10,500 for the stock plane (CJ). Both had 2 in the front + a journalist, plus some camera gear/luggage. The stock plane was slightly under max fuel, and the winglet plane was max fuel.

So, just to clarify:

- Not specified, but kind of implied, there is a similar payload between them
- Winglet plane is a CJ1 which has 200lb higher gross
- Stock plane is a CJ (200lb less gross)
- Stock plane was not fully fueled while winglet plane was

So you're saying that leaving off fuel and flying at a lower altitude the stock airplane couldn't complete a longer route and therefore had to land and take more time and fuel.

Question: Would a straight CJ with winglets and the same payload have been able to take full fuel? (hint: probably not) If not would it have been able to make the flight nonstop? (hint: probably not). So you're really comparing Cessna's original CJ1 upgrade to the CJ which enabled you to carry more fuel. That's really all.

It's a fascinating thing to see the marketing on this. :scratch: Because truly, a legitimate 9% gain in fuel efficiency by being able to climb more consistently or cruise a little more efficiently is significant and probably worth the investment over time. It's a decent achievement as a retrofit! But instead they're trying to BS everyone into thinking it's some kind of miracle, which it can't possibly live up to. Are enough CJ buyers really so gullible? Or maybe so cynical that a 9% gain is not enough?

_________________
-Jon C.


Last edited on 29 Jan 2021, 16:24, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 29 Jan 2021, 16:23 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
He isn’t going to answer questions like this.

I doubt he will.

If he does, given the burned fuel, reserve fuel at end, and cabin load, he will be indicating they flew over gross, most likely.

10600 lbs gross
-2610 lbs burned fuel (2710 lbs was indicated at one time)
-710 lbs reserve fuel left
-600 lbs 3 people and gear

6,680 lbs empty weight
-80 lbs winglet mod

6,600 lbs pre mod empty weight

That would be the lightest CJ1 I know of. They are usually 6800-6900 lbs.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 29 Jan 2021, 23:20 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/24/19
Posts: 9
Post Likes: +7
Company: Tamarack Aerospace Group, Inc.
Username Protected wrote:
Your giving me the numbers from the “fly off”. The next day both planes flew PBI-FDK in the same amount of time 2:41. What are the burns from those flights. As in I want to see the numbers from a real fly off.


My mistake Eric. I've been heads down on other things after the big event. I'll talk to the pilots and see if I can get numbers fuel burn for that trip.

As you point out they made the trip in the same time. You've probably already seen the winglet plane climbed to FL410 in the same time the flat wing climbed to FL370, as the first step. There will be about 3.2% increase in specific range per 1,000 ft altitude.

I know there are folks here waiting with a bat to hit me in the head about 33%, but I don't expect any jet pilot to think our max fuel savings applies to a hop like this trip to FDK. We certainly aren't promoting that as true, as you can see in our flight planning guides, which are linked directly on the product pages.

We've done what we can to educate folks that fuel savings are much less for short hops or low altitude trips. It's first principles, not magic, as many have pointed out in this thread.

The whole object of the winglet is to expand the capability of the plane so that's what we're going to shout about. It's really cool to make a 3 hour plane into a 4 hour plane!

Guys buying the winglets want to use the fuel savings to get more range/ save themselves time by avoiding fuel stops. Time is a non-renewable resource!


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next




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

Jump to:  

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

.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.