banner
banner

10 Aug 2022, 02:07 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Stevens Aerospace (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2021, 16:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2207
Post Likes: +2121
Location: Queretaro / Houston / Fort Worth
Aircraft: C525 BE400 D1K Waco
AOPA and Tamarack Aerospace will be holding this simultaneous side by side flight on January 26 - it will be interesting to see the result.


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: 23 Jan 2021, 16:58 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 14573
Post Likes: +13425
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
:popcorn:

I'm so glad Mike C is back.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2021, 18:12 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15241
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
AOPA and Tamarack Aerospace will be holding this simultaneous side by side flight on January 26 - it will be interesting to see the result.

Plenty of ways to bias this event. They provided no details, no route, no altitudes, no payload in the announcement. There's no details except the date.

Tamarack says active winglets can save you 33% on fuel.

One wonders why they are doing this now? Why wasn't this done years ago? Did they only recently find a particularly sick CJ to compare with?

Will the winglet airplane do better? Yes. Will it do it for 33% less fuel? No way, if the comparison is fair.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2021, 18:26 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7068
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Where is Tom Haines, he'll make sure it's fair!
I'm with Mike C on this one, seems way to good to be true.

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2021, 19:15 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2207
Post Likes: +2121
Location: Queretaro / Houston / Fort Worth
Aircraft: C525 BE400 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
AOPA and Tamarack Aerospace will be holding this simultaneous side by side flight on January 26 - it will be interesting to see the result.

Plenty of ways to bias this event. They provided no details, no route, no altitudes, no payload in the announcement. There's no details except the date.

Tamarack says active winglets can save you 33% on fuel.

One wonders why they are doing this now? Why wasn't this done years ago? Did they only recently find a particularly sick CJ to compare with?

Will the winglet airplane do better? Yes. Will it do it for 33% less fuel? No way, if the comparison is fair.

Mike C.

I don’t know if it will extend range by 33% (have not seen that claim), but for someone who has NEVER flown either a flat wing or winglet equipped CJ you seem to have pretty strong opinions and biases against Tamarack.

I have flown the winglet equipped CJ at MTOW out of KFTW during the summer with full fuel - it took us 29 minutes to reach FL410 and burned a tad over 200 lbs to do so. That is incredible - that left us 3000 lbs of fuel which at 600 pph and considering a 45 minute reserve, is 4 hours of flying and more than 1400nm of range - something that would be unthinkable otherwise.

Here is the video - so yes - I don’t know if 33% is accurate, but extending the endurance from less than 3 hours to 4 hours at 410 is at least 25% which if I recall you said was a “fraudulent” claim and BS. In fact if I remember correctly, you claimed no more than 3-4% was possible - which of course is BS.

http://youtu.be/7ZQtmnzaNoQ


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2021, 23:15 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 14573
Post Likes: +13425
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
I’m wondering where AOPA’s sudden interest came from.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

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


 Profile




Joined: 10/07/18
Posts: 1837
Post Likes: +1161
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Aircraft: Baron 58, Lear 35
Username Protected wrote:
I’m wondering where AOPA’s sudden interest came from.

Possibly they received a “donation” from somewhere.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 23 Jan 2021, 23:55 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/01/16
Posts: 404
Post Likes: +299
Location: Citrus County Florida
Aircraft: Shopping
I don’t know if it will extend range by 33% (have not seen that claim), but for someone who has NEVER flown either a flat wing or winglet equipped CJ you seem to have pretty strong opinions and biases against Tamarack.

I have flown the winglet equipped CJ at MTOW out of KFTW during the summer with full fuel - it took us 29 minutes to reach FL410 and burned a tad over 200 lbs to do so. That is incredible - that left us 3000 lbs of fuel which at 600 pph and considering a 45 minute reserve, is 4 hours of flying and more than 1400nm of range - something that would be unthinkable otherwise.

Here is the video - so yes - I don’t know if 33% is accurate, but extending the endurance from less than 3 hours to 4 hours at 410 is at least 25% which if I recall you said was a “fraudulent” claim and BS. In fact if I remember correctly, you claimed no more than 3-4% was possible - which of course is BS.

http://youtu.be/7ZQtmnzaNoQ
[/quote]

Ok I will attempt an guess. So if the non tamarack aircraft is 3 hours fuel post climb and a tamarack equipped aircraft is 4 hours fuel post climb, the marketing wanks say 1 over 3 is 33% so you never had that last hour of fuel so you can’t use 1 over 4 or 25%. By increasing the efficiency you “gain” an hour of flight time so by definition you burn less fuel and increase the time aloft saving you 33%. I am not attesting to the claim just proposing how a marketing guy might look at it.

So I am confused, you say you consumed 200 lbs in the climb to 410 in 29 min. That’s a tad over 400 pph. You also state the cruise consumption is 600 pph. So why is the cruise hourly fuel consumption 33% more than the climb hourly fuel consumption? Or is the 600 pph the hourly fuel consumption plus the reserve?

_________________
Anthony Dennis


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 00:02 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/16/09
Posts: 6979
Post Likes: +1841
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: KA A/B90
He must be intermixing per engine numbers with total numbers. Looks like it was more likely 200 lbs per engine in the climb (for a rate of 400 lbs/hr average, per engine, climb) then down to 300 lbs/hr per engine thenceforth. Just my interpretation.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 00:48 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15241
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I don’t know if it will extend range by 33% (have not seen that claim), but for someone who has NEVER flown either a flat wing or winglet equipped CJ you seem to have pretty strong opinions and biases against Tamarack.

I know physics and engineering.

I can read the papers on winglet performance gains.

I can detect companies that spout BS.

Winglets won't decrease fuel used by 33% under any objective circumstance.

The claim is on their home web page.
Attachment:
tamarack-claim-1.png

Early on they claimed the engines would burn less fuel per hour if the plane had winglets. I wonder how the laws of thermodynamics knew to behave differently if the plane had winglets?

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, 01:07 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15241
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I have flown the winglet equipped CJ at MTOW out of KFTW during the summer with full fuel - it took us 29 minutes to reach FL410 and burned a tad over 200 lbs to do so. That is incredible

You are right, it isn't credible to believe a CJ can get to FL410 for only 30 gallons of fuel.

That would imply an average fuel burn during climb of only 400 lbs/hour, an insane number since cruise at FL410 is significantly more than that.

Quote:
extending the endurance from less than 3 hours to 4 hours at 410 is at least 25%

The climb and descent cover distance to destination, too.

Quote:
In fact if I remember correctly, you claimed no more than 3-4% was possible - which of course is BS.

You have an unreliable memory when it comes to what others say, apparently. I suggest you verify what others have said before you make claims about them.

I said winglets are typically 3-4% efficiency gains. This is what the research says from academic studies and intensive research by companies like Boeing and Airbus. Boeing's blended winglet, a complex highly tuned winglet, improves efficiency by "up to 5%" on the 757/767.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... icle03.pdf

"Lower operating costs by reducing block fuel burn by 4 to 5 percent on missions near the airplane’s design range."

If Boeing tops out at 5% after extensive work, does anyone think Tamarack claims of 33% are credible?

It would be nice if the test is objective, but I fear it won't be and the raw data will be obfuscated to hide that.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 01:12 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2207
Post Likes: +2121
Location: Queretaro / Houston / Fort Worth
Aircraft: C525 BE400 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
I don’t know if it will extend range by 33% (have not seen that claim), but for someone who has NEVER flown either a flat wing or winglet equipped CJ you seem to have pretty strong opinions and biases against Tamarack.

I know physics and engineering.

I can read the papers on winglet performance gains.

I can detect companies that spout BS.

Winglets won't decrease fuel used by 33% under any objective circumstance.

The claim is on their home web page.
Attachment:
tamarack-claim-1.png

Early on they claimed the engines would burn less fuel per hour if the plane had winglets. I wonder how the laws of thermodynamics knew to behave differently if the plane had winglets?

Mike C.


The Tamarack winglets add 6 feet of wing span which increases the wing area and aspect ratio - so it’s not just the winglets that provide a gain.

Ok - let’s focus on the numbers - how does 3000 lbs @ FL410 compute on less than 600 pph fuel burn? What would the range be at 360 ktas? What is the range on a straight CJ at MCT?

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 01:57 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15241
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
how does 3000 lbs @ FL410 compute

It doesn't.

Straight CJ max fuel is 3,220 lbs. No way you can get it to FL410 on 220 lbs of fuel to have 3000 lbs left over.

Book figures for CJ serial 1 to 359, max climb, ISA, to FL410, for various starting weights:

10400 lbs: 43 minutes, 178 nm, 597 lbs (3.35 lbs/nm)
9500 lbs: 30 minutes, 120 nm, 444 lbs (3.7 lbs/nm)
8500 lbs: 23 minutes, 88 nm, 349 lbs (3.97 lbs/nm)

If it took you 29 minutes to FL410, then you burned about 430 lbs of fuel, not 200 lbs to get there, since you would be closely following the same altitudes versus time of the 9500 lbs profile above.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 02:57 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 829
Post Likes: +415
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Just for some data to compare and discuss without emotion or bias.

I just flew to a remote island that required New Zealand or Noumea as an alternate in a CJ with Tamarack winglets. I was able to arrive at the Island and conduct one approach and then divert to New Zealand when planning. I have over 1000 hours in this CJ (about 300 without winglets) so know the numbers for fuel etc. are spot on.

As it was the weather was OVC at 300 ft, 3k visibility, about 30mins out (both Auckland Oceanic and Nadi called to let me know), the VOR approach gets you down to 429ft, 3,0k vis.

I also ran the number for a flat wing CJ that I fly, only 100 hours in it but know my foreflight profile is good. I was unable to make the trip with the fuel requirements to divert, even without an approach. So a no-go at all.

Note this trip was at MTOW. I have never flown a trip at ISA only conditions, it was 38mins to climb to FL410 burning 710lbs, ISA +4 at FL410 and +15 lower etc.

So if I didn’t have CJ with Tamarack, I’d need a CJ2 - therefore about 50% increase in capital cost. Beats the 33% claim!

The Tamracks help me for my mission but I don’t save 33%.

Look forward to seeing the upcoming a flight tests.

For what it’s worth the team at Tamarack are a really great bunch of people who love aviation. Great dealing with people like that.


Andrew


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 08:42 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/20/14
Posts: 5951
Post Likes: +4058
Aircraft: V35
Do the winglets function as fuel tanks?

I could make the “save 33%” claim for the Bonanza tip tanks, claiming a savings on cost by reducing fuel stops and buying fuel at cheaper airports. The Bonanza tips convey little to no aerodynamic advantage, but a guy with a sharp pencil could work out a 33% fuel cost scenario that is plausible but uncommon in practice.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 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 2007-2022

.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.xnaut-85x50.jpg.
.greenwich-85x50-2020-08-10.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.forge-85x50.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.nexus-85x50.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.komn-85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.blr-85x200.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.aopa-85x150-2022-06-16.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.echelon-85x50.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.jetshades-85x150.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.EagleFuelCellsTriple.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.Marsh.jpg.