banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 09:29 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 17  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 15:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2213
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
More misinformation:
Username Protected wrote:
Once again - Explain exaclty how a stock CJ would reach FL410 with nearly 3000 lbs of fuel at the top of the climb.

After having your numbers questioned, you then explained the winglet CJ can't do that, either.

There is no way to get a CJ, winglets or not, under its own power, with stock tanks, from sea level to FL410 with 3000 lbs of fuel left at top of climb.

Mike C.

So the video is a fake? Is that what you are saying. And let's clarify - you can clearly see 2900 lbs at FL410. How much range would you get with that fuel? Explain how to get to FL410 with the fuel remaining shown on the video under any circumstance with a stock CJ?

How far could you go with 2900 lbs, 360 ktas and 560 pph fuel burn (MCT)?

What if you throttled back to LRC?

BTW - I'm still waiting to see your math...

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: 24 Jan 2021, 15:27 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Another is a rougher ride in turbulence (the active part doesn't become active until G forces get quite high, it doesn't actively counteract turbulence in general).
Actually the opposite is true.

More wing area is lower wing loading is rougher ride in turbulence.

That's basic aerodynamics.

Tamarack has you believing the opposite.

Is this brilliant marketing by Tamarack, or lack of critical thinking by the customers?

Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 15:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2213
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
That's basic aerodynamics.

Tamarack has you believing the opposite.

Is this brilliant marketing by Tamarack, or lack of critical thinking by the customers?

Mike C.
Spin... You have not flown or demoed either airplane in rough conditions and continue to argue using one little nugget of information and fail to see the whole.

Yet you continue to avoid questions which discredit your bias and refuse to do the math.... or is this an example of a lack of critical thinking by someone so obfuscated with bias he can’t accept he is wrong?

:popcorn:

Still waiting.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 15:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 6225
Post Likes: +3728
Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Alex, does the winglet STC have a modification of the AFM performance numbers? Does it have a revised time/fuel/distance to climb table?

Would it fit in my T hangar (with or without winglets)? It’s hard to get an answer about whether the back of the wings would contact the corners of the T area. :)
Attachment:
C047B286-E5F0-4CB4-94D7-A3B89167B73D.png


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

_________________
-Jon C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 15:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2213
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
Alex, does the winglet STC have a modification of the AFM performance numbers? Does it have a revised time/fuel/distance to climb table?

Would it fit in my T hangar (with or without winglets)? It’s hard to get an answer about whether the back of the wings would contact the corners of the T area. :)
Attachment:
C047B286-E5F0-4CB4-94D7-A3B89167B73D.png

Jon - the CJ I have flown that has them installed had updated climb and cruise performance tables up to FL410 as part of the performance manual supplement.

I don't know if it would fit in your hangar, but the winglets are definitely a drawback if your T-hangar is a concern. The stock CJ is 46.38 feet + 6 feet for the WL which would make it tight or a no-go. We keep the two CJs we own in the same hangar with two Legacy 600s, a G650 and other bigger iron.


Last edited on 24 Jan 2021, 15:49, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 15:49 
Online




User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/12/07
Posts: 7771
Post Likes: +3091
Location: Dallas, TX (KADS)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
So much drama!

I note that the marketing materials do not claim a 33% savings in direct fuel burn, and I'm a little surprised no one has snapped to that. The words "fuel savings" do appear, and I assume that's a best-case scenario based upon an amalgam of lighter required fuel loads for many missions, faster climbs in all missions, and fewer stops (or no stops) in longer-distance missions.

One supposes you could add to the number by factoring-in an amount for savings based upon being able to tanker, rather than buying at more-costly stops, but I'd figure those savings would be mostly illusory with the different facility charges applied to non-fueling stops.

They could make some hay about related savings by quantifying the savings resulting from fewer hours and fewer cycles - those are real (but they aren't "fuel" savings.

In any event, without the drama, I look forward to seeing the fly-off results and the inevitable hand-wringing and garment-rending that will follow. Fun to watch, purely academic to me, because (y'know), I will never have the financial stroke to own any of these beautiful aircraft, of whatever equipage.

_________________
PP, ASEL, Instrument Airplane, A&P
Texas Construction Law: http://www.TexasConstructionLaw.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 16:07 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
So much drama!

People get animated when their belief system is challenged. Physics doesn't care. All the ad hominem stuff is annoying and just an indication of lack of logical argument. Calling others "haters", "angry", etc, none of that matters to the results.

Quote:
I note that the marketing materials do not claim a 33% savings in direct fuel burn

They pretty directly do:
Attachment:
tamarack-claim-1.png

"Active Winglets generate fuel savings of up to 33%"

It will be amusing to see how Tamarack rigs the test and whether they release enough raw data to verify it.

Mike C.


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

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 16:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 6225
Post Likes: +3728
Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
I don't know if it would fit in your hangar, but the winglets are definitely a drawback if your T-hangar is a concern. The stock CJ is 46.38 feet + 6 feet for the WL which would make it tight or a no-go.

I think I’ve asked this before, since I get interested whenever it comes up, and bottom line is I can’t get it to fit. :( But hope springs eternal and it makes me forget I’ve asked before. :)

_________________
-Jon C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 16:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2213
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
Duplicated


Last edited on 24 Jan 2021, 19:17, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 17:06 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2213
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
All the ad hominem stuff is annoying and just an indication of lack of logical argument.

It will be amusing to see how Tamarack rigs the test and whether they release enough raw data to verify it.
Exactly - a perfect example of an ad hominem attack without providing a logical answer to questions which discredit a belief system.

Let’s put personal attacks aside - show me your math and answer the questions from a technical perspective.

How far could you go with 2900 lbs, 360 ktas and 560 pph fuel burn (MCT)?

What if you throttled back to LRC? Is it closer to 33% or 4%?

Numbers don’t have opinions.


Last edited on 24 Jan 2021, 18:48, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 17:20 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/30/17
Posts: 198
Post Likes: +159
Let’s make this more fun - what if Cirrus decides to buy Tamarack? Talk about a merger of marketing geniuses! *laughing*

I am possibly interested in a straight CJ with the winglets and the full Garmin panel upgrade (which would free up 200 lbs of load, more than offsetting the winglet weight). The 200-300 nm range increase on the winglet-equipped CJ would make a big difference for my missions so it’s something I am actively considering. Wish I could afford a CJ2 but alas it’s not in the budget (without a partner). The winglets push the CJ2 range out to close to 1800 nm.

In any case, I do agree with Mike that the marketing seems a bit puffy. I’m shocked - SHOCKED!!! — to hear that marketing types tend to overstate things! *laughing*

I also think “fuel savings” doesn’t mean “fuel burn,” however, and I don’t read it that way. I’m guessing they came up with some mission profile that gives a hypothetical owner a 33% annual fuel savings. I doubt that’s realistic but hardly a crime for a marketing campaign.

I don’t see how winglets changes how many pounds per hour that FJ44 burns at any given altitude and temp. What they can do is reduce induced drag and AOA at altitude (and hence increase cruise speed by a little), and reduce climb time to altitude. The net effect of which is to reduce overall fuel consumption for a trip from points A to B under certain circumstances. And as a result they extend the max range. The revised charts are on the Tamarack page. They also lower the landing speeds and reduce landing distance, which is a net safety advantage from my perspective.

Whether its worth the 200k is up to an individual owner and their missions, of course, and YMMV. I don’t think we have to accuse owners who have installed the winglets of being zombies blinded by their purchase decisions, however, They are all intelligent and successful pilots who made their own cost/benefit decisions. Simply saying “you can’t believe these people because all they are doing is defending their purchase decision” doesn’t really advance the ball.

I belong to the CJOPA to learn about the 525 series, and it’s pretty clear on that board that the CJ owners like their winglets. And their PIREPs seem credible to me and are treated with respect by other CJOPA owners. But not all of them think it’s worth the $$ for their missions and not all have installed them. But I personally think it is worth it if you have max range missions and don’t want to upgrade airframes.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 17:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2213
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
Let’s make this more fun - what if Cirrus decides to buy Tamarack? Talk about a merger of marketing geniuses! *laughing*

:rofl:
That is hilarious!

In all seriousness, I now have two G1000 equipped CJs in my company - both of them without winglets. With the G1000 you not only gain one “normal” passenger, but it is game changer in terms of workload reduction and reliability. OTOH you could also consider the G700 conversion STC with the GFC600 AP which I believe does most of what you would want for less than the G1000 - just a thought.

I have been on the sidelines on pulling the trigger on the winglets for business reasons, the Chapter 11 period Tamarack went through, and other considerations. The only thing that has given me pause until now that I would agree is a concern that needs to be addressed is seeing what happens if Tamarack disappears. My understanding up to now is that this would not be as dramatic as described by the naysayers.

As opposed to all the noise in this thread, I have seen what the winglets can do and see a lot of merit in them, and will possibly convert my original CJ this year. When I do, I will not only compare all of the flight data I have been meticulously collecting over the past 5 years of flying the CJ, but will also have a similarly equipped CJ sans the winglets in our fleet to compare with. The conversion has gone through several price promotions and I am hoping for one in the coming months to pull the trigger. If you would like to discuss, send me a PM and I’d be happy to chat.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 20:33 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/17/15
Posts: 530
Post Likes: +502
Location: KSRQ
Aircraft: C510
I have a 1000nm mile commute that I have successfully accomplished non stop 100% of the time in my Mustang. Unfortunately that record is going to come to an end this week with an anticipated 80 knots on the nose. Plugging in the tamarack straight CJ into ForeFlight shows that it would make this trip non stop. I really don’t give two $hits about the 33% argument on here. For consistently long legs, and for the climb to altitude in + ISA, is where the tamarack’s really shine. I strongly believe that a tamarack equipped straight CJ, with the jet tech cockpit, is a huge bang for the buck. If it weren’t for hangar restrictions for that long wingspan, I would be all over that bird.

_________________
Tony


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 20:51 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 910
Post Likes: +449
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
Plugging in the tamarack straight CJ into ForeFlight shows that it would make this trip non stop..


I use the FF tamarack profile and reduce fuel consumption on the slider bar by 4% to reflect my real world results FYI.

Andrew


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 21:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/17/15
Posts: 530
Post Likes: +502
Location: KSRQ
Aircraft: C510
[/quote]I use the FF tamarack profile and reduce fuel consumption on the slider bar by 4% to reflect my real world results FYI.

Andrew[/quote]

Even better.
I have played and played with that wingspan and just can’t get it to fit on paper. Maybe that’s a good thing I suppose.


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

_________________
Tony


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 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

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