banner
banner

10 Aug 2022, 00:24 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Stevens Aerospace (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 17  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 12:02 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/24/19
Posts: 9
Post Likes: +7
Company: Tamarack Aerospace Group, Inc.
Username Protected wrote:
The chart is confusing because it's block fuel flow over the whole trip. The advantage is greater for the winglet plane entirely due to time to climb being less. That advantage diminishes averaged over a longer duration.

What's the published difference in time to climb to 410? That's really all this comes down to.


You can’t use the chart as a flight per hour, any analysis based on this is incorrect as you have noted, it’s block based.

It’s hard to note the exact figures as we don’t know the actual conditions used for the test. However I will use MTOW at ISA+10 conditions. Somewhat complicated as a straight wing will not climb direct to FL410 under these conditions.

Andrew


You're on the right track Andrew. Guys it's not as clear as it should be in the graphic, but what we mean by "Reported" is that the lines "CJ" (flat wing plane) and "TCJ" (Tamarack CJ) have been built based on real-world reports of block fuel burn. Essentially, data from customers before and after the mod. That being the case, this is a smear so its Block (as Andrew points out), and also a blend of temps climb profiles, weights etc.

No deception meant here, only sharing some real world data actually to be as transparent as possible (even if not communicated very clearly). Can you use this for flight planning? No. Can you use this to get a sense of what real-world results are like? For sure! If you're considering the mod and want to talk with some of our customers we will happy to make the introduction. You don't need to take our word for it.

If you want to see real world results watch the live data from the fly-off tomorrow. It will be from PWM to PBI, and should start around 10am EST. We'll have stats on our website and social channels throughout and you can also watch on Flight Aware. The Active Winglet-equipped plane is N44VS and the flat wing plane is N741CC.

Fly safe!

Jacob Klinginsmith

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 12:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/24/14
Posts: 1289
Post Likes: +1491
Username Protected wrote:
That's an average speed, in the climb, of 470 knots.

That's faster than Vmo/Mmo.

Once again, their numbers fail sanity check.

Mike C.

Mike, these winglets are active winglets. They automatically flap really fast in the climb and add 110kts. Like a bird. It's right there in the pamphlet.

Chip-

:coffee:

I hereby nominate the for post of the month. Freaking hilarious!! :rofl: :rofl:
_________________
Jay


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 12:48 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/29/16
Posts: 1256
Post Likes: +1669
Company: RE/MAX at the Lake
Location: Mooresville, NC
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22
Username Protected wrote:

If you want to see real world results watch the live data from the fly-off tomorrow. It will be from PWM to PBI, and should start around 10am EST. We'll have stats on our website and social channels throughout and you can also watch on Flight Aware. The Active Winglet-equipped plane is N44VS and the flat wing plane is N741CC.

Fly safe!

Jacob Klinginsmith


Jacob, Thanks for joining up and posting.

When I read up to 33% improved fuel economy I imaging a very rare occasion that you can get that type of savings. Thus it says "up to". I think that's fair, not misleading, but I am curious under what conditions that extraordinary savings takes place?

We have read accounts from pilots that were able to take trips non stop that can't be done without the winglets. I'm sure that same trip making a fuel stop would add significant fuel burn, not to mention time.

This is a pretty opinionated and tough crowd here. Don't get too far in the weeds with some and I hope you have thick skin!

I look forward to the Fly Off tomorrow!

Warren


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 14:38 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 13249
Post Likes: +7695
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Username Protected wrote:
The advantage is greater for the winglet plane entirely due to time to climb being less.

The winglet airplane, in high, hot, heavy situations most noticeably, has lower induced drag and will fly a little faster in cruise on the same engine power.

Mike C.


In cruise induced drag is low. The aerodynamic cruise benefit would account for only a very small improvement and nowhere near the claimed advantages. The claims are based on increased climb performance getting you to cruise altitude much quicker, where speeds are higher and fuel flows are lower.
_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 15:07 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 829
Post Likes: +415
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
TCJ

Min 36
NM 282
LB 554

That's an average speed, in the climb, of 470 knots.

That's faster than Vmo/Mmo.

Once again, their numbers fail sanity check.

Mike C.


My bad, I transposed the number wrong it’s 182NM.

Andrew

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 15:14 
Online



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 5783
Post Likes: +2586
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
Welcome Jacob. You know you have to turn in that 150 for a Bonanza now right?

:thumbup:

_________________
Tom Johnson Agency President
AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx
Tj@AirpowerInsurance.com
C:602-628-2701


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 15:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7068
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Man, this is getting good.
Kinda like a good who dunnit novel!!!

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 15:40 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15239
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Can you use this to get a sense of what real-world results are like? For sure!

So in the third hour of a flight, the winglet airplane burns 5% more fuel than the second hour, and the stock airplane burns less than the winglet airplane?

That chart is crazy and I certainly hope it doesn't actually match what you can expect.

Quote:
If you want to see real world results watch the live data from the fly-off tomorrow. It will be from PWM to PBI, and should start around 10am EST.

Great circle distance is 1123 nm but due to routing will be at least 1200 nm in the end, often 1250 nm or more based on past routings. Winds aloft at the time of the flight look to be strong, well over 100 knots cross to slight headwind at the start, to almost 100 knots and maybe 60 degrees off the nose until the turn down the coast. The 1500Z FL390 winds:
Attachment:
tamarack-test-winds-1.png

Using the stock flight planning guide, assuming max gross departure and standard day, FL410, MCT, and assuming an average 50 knot headwind, I get 2900 lbs of fuel used. It won't make it per Cessna's numbers, at least not safely.

I then used Fltplan.com for the CJ profile, got 2905 lbs fuel used assuming FL410 and routing through SSI. This had no allowance for ATC, but closely matches the Cessna guide.

I then used Fltplan.com for the CJ winglet profile, got 2747 lbs fuel used. 5.4% savings per the Fltplan.com models, within the realm of plausible benefit for winglets, particular for the CJ with it being slightly underpowered and smallish wing.

You have waited until the day before the test to announce the route and found a route which will be exactly in that small region where the winglet airplane makes it non stop and the stock airplane doesn't. A slightly shorter flight and they both make it non stop, a slightly longer flight and they both have to stop. A relatively minor change of +/- 20 knots in winds aloft could also have the same effect.

You may have overcooked it slightly and maybe neither airplane makes it safely non stop tomorrow. That's okay, the winglet airplane will go as far as it dares and the stock will have to stop to get there, so the point will be made anyway.

Quote:
We'll have stats on our website and social channels throughout and you can also watch on Flight Aware. The Active Winglet-equipped plane is N44VS and the flat wing plane is N741CC.

Provide the starting weights for each contender: empty, fuel, cabin load.

N741CC is 525-0227.

N44VS is 525-0500, which has 200 lbs higher gross due to serial number range.

To be fair, each plane should depart with the same cabin load and same full fuel (either the book figure of 3220 lbs or the same overfill that others have reported is possible, no fair shorting fuel). Thus N44VS should be heavier at takeoff by at least the weight of the Tamarack system, that is, at least 80 lbs or so.

Why didn't you pick a route closer to where the planes are? They are both flying right now, one from Long Beach, CA and the other from Aiken, SC. You'd have less ATC uncertainty if you did this in the middle of the country instead of along the east coast.

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: 25 Jan 2021, 18:01 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/09/11
Posts: 1335
Post Likes: +1421
Company: Naples Jet Center
Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
Username Protected wrote:
Man, this is getting good.
Kinda like a good who dunnit novel!!!


Since the ministry of truth has vaporized JC, glad something is filling the entertainment void ;)

To me winglets are simple. They look good. And they provide some high altitude performance that a plane without enough wing and/or power can use at the top of the envelope. A CJ1/CJ2 fits that description. So does my 601P. I’ve convinced myself that the winglets are worth 10 knots up high. Happiness! :peace: :cheers:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 18:26 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15239
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
To me winglets are simple. They look good.

Like tail fins on a 1959 Caddy.
Attachment:
425daae8dca6840b8723da4c37e37bb4.jpg

I'm convinced looks play a major role in winglet purchases, subconscious or otherwise. It just says "modern".

Of course, in 1959, so did tail fins on the Caddy.

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: 25 Jan 2021, 18:44 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/06/12
Posts: 2135
Post Likes: +1847
Company: FlightRepublic
Location: Bee Cave, TX
Aircraft: DA40, C182
Username Protected wrote:
To me winglets are simple. They look good.

Like tail fins on a 1959 Caddy.
Attachment:
425daae8dca6840b8723da4c37e37bb4.jpg

I'm convinced looks play a major role in winglet purchases, subconscious or otherwise. It just says "modern".

Of course, in 1959, so did tail fins on the Caddy.

Mike C.

Tail fins move the aerodynamic center of pressure rearward behind the center of mass where the car rotates, making those fifties cars a little more stable at high speed. Now we have air dams, spoilers, side skirts, diffusers and adjustable aero to achieve the same thing!
:hide: :duck:
_________________
Antoni Deighton
contactlink.to/antoni.deighton


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 20:43 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/24/14
Posts: 1289
Post Likes: +1491
So, when will we hear about the fly-off results? What happened?

_________________
Jay


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 21:14 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15239
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
TCJ

Min 36
NM 182 (corrected)
LB 554

CJ

Min 110
NM 547
LB 1298

The 182 nm number still seems wrong to me. That implies an average climb true speed of 303 knots. That seems awfully fast for a CJ class airplane. The stock ISA -10 climb time is 37 min, so similar profile, and that takes 152 nm, or an average ground speed of 247 knots, far more reasonable.

But for now, let's assume it is correct.

To review, these are claimed to be at MTOW ISA+10 FL410.

To compare both, the winglet airplane needs to cruise at FL410 to a point 547 nm downrange so we can compare fuel and time used to get there.

Let's assume the winglet airplane can do 10 knots faster due to lower induced drag than stock. The top of climb weight will be 9853 lbs and about 700 lbs will be used in the initial cruise part, so 9500 lbs makes a good average weight for that segment. The stock figures are 319 KTAS and 582 pph, so add our 10 knots for winglets and we get 329 knots and 582 pph.

Net result is this:

Stock: 110 min, 547 nm, 1298 lbs

Winglet climb: 36 min, 182 nm, 547 lbs
Winglet initial cruise: 67 min, 365 nm, 646 lbs
Winglet total: 103 min, 547 nm, 1193 lbs

Winglet advantage to the 547 nm point is 8% les fuel used. Given this is biased to high (max altitude), hot (ISA + 10), and heavy (MGTOW), on a plane which is underpowered and small wing, that's at the upper end of what is plausible for the conditions. Reduce any variable down and the winglet gain shrinks. As the two planes lighten during the rest of the trip, the advantage will shrink as induced drag becomes less of a factor.

As the flight continues, the slight extra cruise speed of the winglet airplane will decrease, so it will net about 2% more distance for the fuel used. Combined with the climb advantage, a max range flight will be in the 6% benefit.

I also doubt the 182 nm figure. If that is closer to 150 nm, the advantage shrinks.

Nothing resembling 33% is even remotely indicated here. That claim is outrageously false under any objective standard.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 21:24 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15239
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
So, when will we hear about the fly-off results? What happened?

Tomorrow at 1000 ET.

Winglet airplane, N44VS, 525-0500:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N44VS

Stock airplane, N741CC, 525-0227:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N741CC

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 21:28 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15239
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Tail fins move the aerodynamic center of pressure rearward behind the center of mass where the car rotates, making those fifties cars a little more stable at high speed.

Unless there is a crosswind.

Weathervane tendencies are a bad thing in cars.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 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

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