banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 19:45 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 17  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 10:03 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 6908
Post Likes: +3553
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
Nearly demonic level of hate on TAG. Thought I was on the C19 thread for a second!

I’m excited for TAGs marketing efforts and recent successes. Their new integration with Air1st’s Mike Lavar as well, an Mu2 man even.

When you sit across the table from them and get their side of the story you see a different system.

End of the day.. it’s a promotional video :cheers:

_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 10:33 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
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!

You will always be able to find that mission where the winglet airplane makes it and the stock one doesn't. This would be true as long as there is any advantage, no matter how small, for the winglet airplane.

The fact Tamarack has not stated the route provides them an opportunity to select exactly such a marginal case once they know the upper level winds. Then the winglet airplane does it non stop and the stock airplane has a fuel stop. This is a subtle way to bias the test without overtly appearing to do so.

In the end, this fly off is marketing, not science. No matter how it comes out, the believers will hail it and label all those who criticize it as haters. Physics doesn't bend to those labels, however.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 11:21 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2214
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
Mike C - Your erroneous pontifications are mostly due to the fact that you know little about the 525 other than what you google and read on Wikipedia....

Username Protected wrote:
Winglets can improve performance about 3-4%, and those are super optimized ones like Boeing does with huge research and development budgets. If you are expecting more than that, you are being deceived.
Mike C.


Once again - you are ignoring the increased wing area and aspect ratio - didn't you claim to be technical? An engineer?

So do you at least concede Tamarack has proven that their winglets can do much better than what you thought was the consensus?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 11:21 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2214
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
Nearly demonic level of hate on TAG. Thought I was on the C19 thread for a second!

Amen!

:lol:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 11:44 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
In fairness, here are a few things to clarify about the flight video

Ah, the truth starts to come out once someone starts checking the numbers.

Quote:
the published fuel capacity of the CJ is 3220lbs but you can add around 3340 if you fill it to the brim as we did for this flight.

Another area Tamarack can add bias to the experiment, somewhat unequal fueling treatment.

To be truly fair, the winglet airplane needs to be flown at a higher zero fuel weight to account for the extra weight added by the mod. This either means they fly at the same gross with less fuel, or they fly at a higher gross with the same fuel. Flying with the same fuel load and same gross isn't being fair, that's reduced cabin load.

Quote:
The fuel at the top of the climb was slightly below 3000 lbs, so yeah, we burned approximately 400 lbs for the climb - not 200 lbs as it says - it was actually close to 200 per side. My bad.

While better than stock, it isn't hugely different, certainly not 33% less fuel to reach altitude.

Quote:
However with the fuel shown on the video at FL410 you have a range that simply put would not be possible in a flat wing CJ - it's that easy.

Pontificate about that.

Yes, it is better, but not better as much as Tamarack claims.

That's been my point from the start, Tamarack is making false claims. There is no way a winglet improves the fuel efficiency of the CJ by 33% by any objective measure. They may have a fantastic marketing program and be the nicest people to talk to, but they are perpetuating a false story as to the benefits.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 11:58 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2214
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
That's been my point from the start, Tamarack is making false claims. There is no way a winglet improves the fuel efficiency of the CJ by 33% by any objective measure. They may have a fantastic marketing program and be the nicest people to talk to, but they are perpetuating a false story as to the benefits.

Mike C.

Perhaps you are also making unfounded claims and perpetuating a false story due to the fact that you just don't know what you are talking about and/or your negative bias is so strong you refuse to accept anything other than your beliefs. Your point all along is that the improvement provided by the winglets - no way - under no circumstances and under no scenarios, could be more than 5%.... sorry 3-4%.

I'm not here to defend Tamarack's advertising, but the benefits are transformational and several orders of magnitude higher than your Wiki-analysis points to. Is it 33%? I would like to understand the math of that number before I disqualify it.

Is it 3-4%? No - I know that is ludicrous.

I would venture to say it is north of 20% - and you said back in 2016, that anything north of 10% was crazy and fraudulent - look at the stock book numbers and do the math for yourself


Last edited on 24 Jan 2021, 12:30, edited 2 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 12:08 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/28/11
Posts: 1337
Post Likes: +588
Aircraft: V35A, B300
This is all a moot point. Mike called in 2019. Another set would never be installed. There would be no support.

Mike seriously. Why do you feel the need to have so much dislike for a company you have nothing to do with. You don’t have a citation. Don’t comment on it. You have no experience. Your experience is from what you read on Google. You speak like it’s fact when it’s really not.


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, 12:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2214
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
This is all a moot point. Mike called in 2019. Another set would never be installed. There would be no support.

Mike seriously. Why do you feel the need to have so much dislike for a company you have nothing to do with. You don’t have a citation. Don’t comment on it. You have no experience. Your experience is from what you read on Google. You speak like it’s fact when it’s really not.

Didn't Mike say the SF50 would never be certified? Or that Cirrus would never sell a single SF50?

Mike's angry posts against Tamarack remind me of the time Michael Dell famously said in 1997 that what Steve Jobs had to do with Apple was "“shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.”

We know how that went. It's all part of BTalk entertainment.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 13:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/24/14
Posts: 1754
Post Likes: +2213
The core issue is, when a company puts out one indefensible claim (up to 33% fuel savings), all of their claims become questionable. I think the winglets and wing extensions help to some degree, but Tamarack has no credibility after making a false claim. Even Alex doesn't believe the 33% fuel savings claim. Why believe any of their other claims?

_________________
Jay


Last edited on 24 Jan 2021, 13:58, edited 2 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 13:54 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I don't know where the 33% comes from - would be interested to see the math on that number.

It comes from the marketing department.

There is no objective math to substantiate it.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 13:59 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/16/09
Posts: 7087
Post Likes: +1957
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: BE-TBD
Winglets do 1 thing; decrease induced drag.

They can do a good job of that. But their addition out there on the wingtip introduce some weight and viscous drag and trim effects, all of which work against the benefit.

Looking at some of the operators performance improvements, they seem to go beyond what the addition of a winglet can rationally do. A quick investigation into their design, and as mentioned, includes a wing extension.

I’m inclined to believe the bulk of performance improvement in this design is afforded by the extension and not to the winglet. The extension is a big deal, and would be a major deal from an aeroelastic and twist distribution standpoint...and thus the unloading mechanism so as to not have to address any of that.

_________________
QB


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 14:34 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Why believe any of their other claims?

The mod costs ~$300K. That requires a certain level of believe among the owners who do that.

They should all know the 33% claim is false and after the fact justify the mod on the basis it does help some and it looks cool. A good fraction of the winglet market is about perception, winglets define a plane as modern, recent, even to the point OEMs will put winglets on an airplane with very limited benefit, just to have the market cachet.

On the CJ, it did come from the factory with a slightly undersized wing and slightly underpowered, it is the "budget" model after all. It does benefit from the winglets, no question.

On other planes in the series, like the CJ3, the benefit is so marginal to be nearly insignificant. The CJ3 has a good wing size and could climb capability. I wouldn't put the winglets on a CJ3, ever.

There are negatives to the winglets.

Cost is an obvious one, both initially and maintenance given the electronic and active nature of the system.

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).

Requires larger hangar or floor space. More chance wingtips hit something or get hit by something, particularly the part that sticks upward when in a community hangar.

More procedures. Preflight inspection, preflight checks. You have to slow down if the system fails or if you lose electrical power to a glacial speed. Having such powerful control surfaces under the control of a computer does present certain safety issues.

You also have a plane modified in its primary structure so it isn't clear what the long term effects such as fatigue will be. The accumulated fatigue damage will be greater per flight hour for a winglet equipped airplane.

You also need Tamarack to exist such that you can get parts. Anything that is highly electronic and active like this will require servicing. One wonders what happens if Tamarack, a one product start up company, no longer exists and your airplane has a broken part only they made. You are then reduced to flying at excruciating slow speeds making the plane basically useless. It isn't clear the mod can be feasibly removed since it modifies the basic structure of the wing tip area.

Then there is the question about landing Vref and runway usage. Since the wing is bigger, it stalls at a lower airspeed. Tamarack didn't publish new approach speeds, meaning the stock AFM speeds are the official Vref speeds. But you are no longer operating at 1.3 Vso any more if you follow them. So you either follow the AFM and are landing too fast and float too far down the runway, plus have less brake effectiveness, or your adjust your Vref to the new 1.3 Vso and then aren't following the AFM numbers any more. It basically puts the pilots in a gray area where the legal and the proper differ. Most winglet owners are choosing to lower Vref which is sensible, though not entirely AFM conforming.

Service history is not stellar so far. ADs, grounding, bankruptcy. Latest AD became effective Dec 28, 2020, less than a month ago, so still an active area of concern among the regulatory authorities.

The Tamarack winglets are the first widespread use of this concept. The latent and long terms flaws are yet to be fully exposed. When the company starts making outrageous claims, you either have deliberate deception or substandard engineering analysis. Neither inspires confidence they can deliver this new concept in way that it stands up over time.

If I was a possible Tamarack buyer, I'd wait a few more years and see how it shakes out. Let the fleet get some more experience before making what is likely an irrevocable decision to perform surgery on your airplane and tie its fate to that of Tamarack.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 14:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2252
Post Likes: +2214
Location: Queretaro / Woodlands
Aircraft: C525 BE40 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
Winglets can improve performance about 3-4%, and those are super optimized ones like Boeing does with huge research and development budgets. If you are expecting more than that, you are being deceived.
You throw stones, but can't even defend your own claims with math...

You can pontificate all you want - I showed a video which is clear - show me your numbers of how this computes to not more than a 4% gain.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 14:46 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4573
Post Likes: +3298
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
Username Protected wrote:


Mike seriously.... You don’t have a citation.


He doesn’t?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 14:46 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
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.

_________________
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 ... 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

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