banner
banner

25 May 2022, 13:14 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Garmin International (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2021, 10:09 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/25/11
Posts: 7562
Post Likes: +12782
Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
First let me say to Mike C., glad to see you back and active. You spice up any conversation and do it with more research and analysis than most of us care to expend.

While cleaning dripped oil from under the radial engine of my 195 yesterday, and lamenting the fact that no one is selling a mod to make the 195 fly higher, faster, and cheaper :shrug: I started considering this thread and the Tamarack "side by side' comparison.

WHY WOULD THEY DO IT?? Perhaps it is a valid mod for owners with a repetitive flight plan that can take advantage of its seemingly otherwise marginal benefits, but why this??? Why set up a demonstration that is anything but "side by side"? Before this, as an innocent bystander wiping oil off a radial cowling, I could say "yea maybe". But seriously, this charade of a demonstration removes just about any credibility that I would have allowed the company.

The first thing I think when presented a new "better, faster, cheaper" anything is my father's jaundiced response to just about anything on first glance.

"JUST SOMETHING TO SELL."

Jg

_________________
I've Wrestled My Last Pig.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2021, 10:31 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 14821
Post Likes: +18382
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
WHY WOULD THEY DO IT??

Sales slowing down for the mod, so spice it up by getting glorious pictures in the AOPA mag. This is all about marketing.

Use a stock airplane to present it as frumpy and the winglet airplane as modern. That is why they needed one in the photo shoot. The message is don't be that guy in the ugly airplane!

AOPA is not Consumer Reports. The article will be glowing and gushy. The author will concentrate on the overall results (winglet airplane faster!) while avoiding any questions about the fairness of the test. To the casual reader, it will seem like a huge win for the winglets, they are magic!

Here is a preliminary article:

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

The AOPA is repeating serious mistakes made by Tamarack, such as "spent five hours, 37 minutes in flight", which the stock airplane did not.

A quote from the article:

“For example, when we’re operating out of Salt Lake City, the takeoff and climb is a game-changer. With Tamarack winglets, we went straight up to 40,000 in just under 26 minutes. We were still climbing at 500-plus feet per minute when we leveled off.”

Why is that possible when the track from the test showed 47 minutes and climbing ~160 FPM at the end? Is Maine somehow higher and hotter than SLC? Something's just not right about this.

AOPA has adopted the "flat wing" insult in their article as well.

Mike Collins has it easy, copy paste from whatever Tamarack gives him, no questions asked.

Main point: everyone involved in this event has a vested interest in seeing the winglet airplane win. Tamarack sells more mods. Tamarack owner improves value of his airplane and validates his purchase. Mike Laver (stock pilot) owsn CTS which is becoming a Tamarack install center. AOPA gets content that promotes their mag and GA generally, and maybe even ad revenue and other financial benefits.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2021, 10:59 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/25/11
Posts: 7562
Post Likes: +12782
Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
Username Protected wrote:
WHY WOULD THEY DO IT??

Sales slowing down for the mod, so spice it up by getting glorious pictures in the AOPA mag. This is all about marketing.

Use a stock airplane to present it as frumpy and the winglet airplane as modern. That is why they needed one in the photo shoot. The message is don't be that guy in the ugly airplane!

AOPA is not Consumer Reports. The article will be glowing and gushy. The author will concentrate on the overall results (winglet airplane faster!) while avoiding any questions about the fairness of the test. To the casual reader, it will seem like a huge win for the winglets, they are magic!

Here is a preliminary article:

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

The AOPA is repeating serious mistakes made by Tamarack, such as "spent five hours, 37 minutes in flight", which the stock airplane did not.

A quote from the article:

“For example, when we’re operating out of Salt Lake City, the takeoff and climb is a game-changer. With Tamarack winglets, we went straight up to 40,000 in just under 26 minutes. We were still climbing at 500-plus feet per minute when we leveled off.”

Why is that possible when the track from the test showed 47 minutes and climbing ~160 FPM at the end? Is Maine somehow higher and hotter than SLC? Something's just not right about this.

AOPA has adopted the "flat wing" insult in their article as well.

Mike Collins has it easy, copy paste from whatever Tamarack gives him, no questions asked.

Main point: everyone involved in this event has a vested interest in seeing the winglet airplane win. Tamarack sells more mods. Tamarack owner improves value of his airplane and validates his purchase. Mike Laver (stock pilot) owsn CTS which is becoming a Tamarack install center. AOPA gets content that promotes their mag and GA generally, and maybe even ad revenue and other financial benefits.

Mike C.


Mike,

Yea, I understand, and then don't. Owners of airplanes for which Tamarack is an option, didn't get "there" by being stupid or gullible. And, most of them have some degree of 3rd party management/consultant arrangement with professional pilots/maintenance people. This project was so transparent as to be insulting. Personally, I discount AOPA's ability to add any validity. The AOPA magazine is just short of a rag these days as well. It generally takes me less than 5 minutes to skim a new issue to confirm that there is nothing worth reading.

So, no, I don't understand, but I appreciate your effort!

Still wiping oil. :lol:

Jg
_________________
I've Wrestled My Last Pig.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2021, 11:36 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/28/11
Posts: 1273
Post Likes: +540
Aircraft: V35A, B300
Username Protected wrote:
The AOPA is repeating serious mistakes made by Tamarack, such as "spent five hours, 37 minutes in flight", which the stock airplane did not.


That one blows my mind. That’s taking the off time in PWM to on time in PBI. 5:35. So they are counting all the ground time in CAE getting fuel as flight time. But like you said Mike. The average person reading the article won’t know.


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: 31 Jan 2021, 15:19 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/25/11
Posts: 7562
Post Likes: +12782
Location: KGNF, Grenada, MS
Aircraft: Baron, 180,195,J-3
Eric,

The average reader won't know and AOPA will likely get a couple of advertisement slots filled with more questionable claims.

Jg

_________________
I've Wrestled My Last Pig.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2021, 16:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/04/10
Posts: 3477
Post Likes: +3077
Aircraft: C525
After screwing up a good number of times as an entrepreneur, I’ve finally picked the title of the business book that I’ll likely never write. “How small can it start? How big can it get?”

I admire many entrepreneurs, including Nick, but his choice of business wouldn’t pass either of my initial tests.

Not mine but another quote I love is “find a backwoods business and become the best at it.” Aviation does not qualify as “backwoods”! Anybody with half a brain knows there is no money in aviation (but it is fun as heck!), looking for the exception to this rule is futile.

_________________
John Lockhart
Phoenix, AZ


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2021, 17:42 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/24/13
Posts: 6139
Post Likes: +2524
Company: Aviation Tools / CCX
Location: KSMQ New Jersey
Aircraft: TBM700C2
Username Protected wrote:
After screwing up a good number of times as an entrepreneur, I’ve finally picked the title of the business book that I’ll likely never write. “How small can it start? How big can it get?”

I admire many entrepreneurs, including Nick, but his choice of business wouldn’t pass either of my initial tests.

Not mine but another quote I love is “find a backwoods business and become the best at it.” Aviation does not qualify as “backwoods”! Anybody with half a brain knows there is no money in aviation (but it is fun as heck!), looking for the exception to this rule is futile.


My strategy has been to find niches in the aviation business where a mfr has an older product that they are resting on their past success with. They usually don't want to invest in upgrading it. Come out with a superior product and take market share.

I guess that qualifies as "find a backwoods business"! I've done it 3 times in 20 years, no failures yet.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2021, 18:31 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 13977
Post Likes: +12748
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
Mike Laver (stock pilot) owsn CTS which is becoming a Tamarack install center.

Oh, seriously‽

For $#&@+ sake! The guy choosing the route, making the flight decisions, and flying the “losing” plane has a vested interest in seeing Tamarak win? The whole thing is even more of a sham than I imagined.

I had a feeling in the back of my mind that if I were in charge of the stock plane’s flight it would at the very least have been extremely close. Now I’m pretty sure that any good owner/operator could do it.

AOPA’s involvement in this is a disgrace to their organization. I’m not sure how I’ll respond, but I really don’t want to reward them with my support.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2021, 18:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/04/10
Posts: 3477
Post Likes: +3077
Aircraft: C525
Username Protected wrote:
After screwing up a good number of times as an entrepreneur, I’ve finally picked the title of the business book that I’ll likely never write. “How small can it start? How big can it get?”

I admire many entrepreneurs, including Nick, but his choice of business wouldn’t pass either of my initial tests.

Not mine but another quote I love is “find a backwoods business and become the best at it.” Aviation does not qualify as “backwoods”! Anybody with half a brain knows there is no money in aviation (but it is fun as heck!), looking for the exception to this rule is futile.


My strategy has been to find niches in the aviation business where a mfr has an older product that they are resting on their past success with. They usually don't want to invest in upgrading it. Come out with a superior product and take market share.

I guess that qualifies as "find a backwoods business"! I've done it 3 times in 20 years, no failures yet.


You are flying a TBM, you must be doing something right!
_________________
John Lockhart
Phoenix, AZ


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2021, 01:46 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 13029
Post Likes: +7445
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
From a marketing perspective looks like they nailed it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler ... looking-on

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2021, 19:19 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 4420
Post Likes: +3930
Aircraft: G44, R44, C501, C55
It would have been neat if the legacy passive winglets took off. I heard the performance was excellent.


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: 02 Feb 2021, 22:44 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 13977
Post Likes: +12748
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
It would have been neat if the legacy passive winglets took off. I heard the performance was excellent.

That’s gotta be worth at least a 75% increase in range and a $2.00 / gallon discount at the pump. :rofl:

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 03 Feb 2021, 02:42 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 828
Post Likes: +414
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
It would have been neat if the legacy passive winglets took off. I heard the performance was excellent.


Looks cool.

What data did they publish Michael?

Andrew


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2021, 14:09 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 14821
Post Likes: +18382
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Sad note:

Mike Collins, the AOPA article author for this flyoff, passed away from COVID on Feb 25 after 2 weeks on intensive care on a ventilator.

Assuming typical incubation and disease progression rates, and knowing he wasn't sick at the flyoff, plus the two weeks on ventilator at the end, he had to have been infected at or very near the flyoff.

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

We will never know, but one wonders if the flyoff had not occurred, and all the travel and exposure it required, would Mike still be with us today.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2021, 18:55 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/13
Posts: 1566
Post Likes: +845
Location: KCRQ
Aircraft: Breeezy, 182,601P
RIP

That sucks...
I'm 58 and had Covid in December....

I got really sick, right at the threshold of going to the hospital...
103F Fever and O2 Sat of 90% with lungs feeling like they were full of caulking.
Dr said anything under 90% go to ER... I was at 90 to 92 % for 4 days.

I'm now full recovered, but stories like this make you ponder fate...


Top

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



PWI, Inc. (Banner)

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

.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.blr-85x200.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.kingairdom.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.jetshades-85x150.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.dshannon.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.forge-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.xnaut-85x50.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.komn-85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.echelon-85x50.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.aopa-85x200.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.ssv-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.EagleFuelCellsTriple.jpg.
.greenwich-85x50-2020-08-10.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.nexus-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.