banner
banner

19 May 2022, 18:47 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2021, 19:21 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/10/17
Posts: 1012
Post Likes: +663
Company: Skyhaven Airport Inc
Aircraft: various mid century
This might have been brought up before but why increase the wing span plus a winglet other than a place to mount the active surface?

Would a tip extension span alone be enough of an improvement but not increase the bending moment enough to need the active control surfaces?

Or on the other hand maybe winglets with no tip extension in place of the original wing tip cap and keep it very near the original span?

How much of the “improvement” is done by the winglet or the span extension? Is there a lighter simpler way to be close to the performance using only one of the changes and keep it as a passive system?

I see the same thing on Kingair winglets. Why not keep the span the same and only add the winglet by itself in place of the original tip?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2022, 16:49 
Offline

 Profile




Joined: 10/14/20
Posts: 2
Anyone have winglet upgrades that wants to sell their old std RH wingtip?
We need one for a straight CJ (1996 or close would be ideal) Having trouble with SV tips and getting the bolt holes to align properly! Need the polished tip PN: 6322120-60 or polished tip assembly PN: 6322120-58, -68 or -84.

Thanks :)

-marina@avcenter.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 13 Jan 2022, 20:53 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/01/10
Posts: 3310
Post Likes: +2213
Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
I'd call Tamarack

_________________
Previous A36TN owner


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 17 Jan 2022, 15:02 
Offline

 Profile




Joined: 10/14/20
Posts: 2
Thank you! I gave them a call. They tried to help as best they could but they didn't have anything close enough to what we need :(


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 03 May 2022, 11:49 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/12/10
Posts: 342
Post Likes: +672
Company: The Grand Galvez Hotel
Location: Dallas, Texas
Aircraft: Cessna TTx/CE S550
[[/quote]
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.[/quote]

Mike. I just saw this.. you are forgetting that the CJ (like the Mustang) actually can get 3400 lbs in it instead of the published 3225. My Mustang used to hold 2800 lbs in it when published max was 2580. So this is how you would get to 410 *possibly* with 3000 lbs of fuel. Also the increased wing span would allow the airplane to climb a bit faster so the 3000 lbs is very plausible.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 03 May 2022, 15:49 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 06/25/20
Posts: 15
Post Likes: +1
Aircraft: Bonanza G35
Some fuel for the Tamarack fire. Evidently they’ve convinced the FAA it’s safe now.


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

An airworthiness directive, effective upon publication on May 24, will ground all Cessna Citations with Tamarack active winglets installed. The FAA noted that the NTSB is investigating whether a malfunction of the system was a factor in a fatal crash.

The FAA found the company’s response to reported malfunctions, including service information provided to owners, to be inadequate and unsafe, and ordered the aircraft grounded immediately.

The Federal Register notice was circulated online in advance and specifically rejects the company’s approach to addressing multiple loss-of-control events associated with the malfunctioning system. There is evidence, including Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) reports and an ongoing NTSB investigation, that malfunctions leading to uncommanded maneuvers that risk loss of control have happened half a dozen times or more within an installed fleet of fewer than 100 aircraft modified since the supplemental type certificate was first granted in December 2016.

In the notice, the FAA specifically rejected the company’s proposed service information to disable the system—to use “speed tape” around each Tamarack active camber surface (TACS) to keep them faired in the neutral position during flight. The direct to final rule noted that any modifications mandated through AD action become changes to the type design and that the FAA would need to ensure that the use of speed tape complies with the applicable airworthiness regulations. The FAA determined that the speed tape does not have sufficient testing and analysis to support the type design change.

The FAA action follows an emergency AD issued April 19 by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requiring installed ATLAS systems to be deactivated, with the control surface fixed in place, along with imposition of operational limitations and a requirement for repetitive pre-flight inspections. The EASA directive cited multiple reports of “upset events where, in some cases, the pilots had difficulty to recover the aeroplane to safe flight.”

AOPA is examining the events and process that led to the EASA emergency AD and why it took the FAA five weeks to follow suit. Additionally, the association is reviewing the manufacturer’s subsequent actions, including existing and revised service bulletins, intended to mitigate the risk.

The FAA AD cited the EASA directive and additional information, including that the NTSB investigation of a fatal crash involving an ATLAS-equipped Cessna Citation in November “focuses on the role the ATLAS may have played in the accident. In addition to the accident, five incidents of aircraft uncommanded roll events with the ATLAS activated have been reported to EASA and the FAA. In each incident, the pilot was able to recover from the event and land the aircraft.”

A preliminary NTSB report on the Nov. 30 crash states that a Cessna 525A Citation was climbing through 6,000 feet when it “began a left turn, descended, and disappeared from radar.” The pilot and two passengers were killed in that accident; there were no survivors.

The FAA order grounds all ATLAS-equipped Cessna Citations “until a modification method is developed and approved,” allowing only a limited exception: up to 10 hours of flight under a ferry permit, with limitations on speed and altitude specific to the three Citations models for which ATLAS was approved and installed, and excluding carriage of passengers.

The FAA determined that the manufacturer’s service bulletin is not adequate to disable the system and address the safety risk:

“The FAA finds the service information from the STC holder (Cranfield Aerospace Solutions) does not contain adequate instructions to safely disable the ATLAS. Those instructions include the use of ‘speed tape’ around each Tamarack active camber surface (TACS) to keep them faired in the neutral position during flight,” the FAA emergency AD states. “The FAA would need to ensure that the use of speed tape complies with the applicable airworthiness regulations for use on a movable surface to hold that surface in a fixed position. The speed tape does not have sufficient testing and analysis to support the type design change. This program would involve testing for environmental effects, fatigue analysis, and analysis of hazards due to potential failures of the tape. Without more analysis, the security of the speed tape method to prevent movement of the TACS cannot be assured, and loss of control of the airplane may occur with the ATLAS disabled.”

The FAA estimated that the emergency AD applies to 76 aircraft in the U.S. registry; a company official told AOPA May 7 that ATLAS systems have been installed on 95 aircraft worldwide to date, and all but a few have been modified under the STC as amended in March.

“This AD prohibits flight until the incorporation of an FAA-approved modification. At this time, a modification does not exist; therefore, we have no data to use for estimating the cost of the modification,” the FAA wrote.

AOPA has reached out to Tamarack Aerospace and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association to better understand the issue, inform our review of the AD and future comments, and explore solutions and next steps to resolve the issue and return the aircraft to operation.


Link to Federal Register:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspect ... -10993.pdf


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 03 May 2022, 16:59 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 1402
Post Likes: +1550
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Where's the news? That AD is 2 years old, the AMOC is almost 2 years old, exit from chapter 11 is almost a year old...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 03 May 2022, 20:10 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/01/10
Posts: 3310
Post Likes: +2213
Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
There seems to be a time warp from 2019 on this thread.

_________________
Previous A36TN owner


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 09 May 2022, 01:17 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/18/09
Posts: 1128
Post Likes: +193
Company: SierraTrax
Location: KHCR/KSNA
Aircraft: Citation CJ2+
Username Protected wrote:
There seems to be a time warp from 2019 on this thread.


Wish we had 2019 jet-a prices….

_________________
--
Jason Talley
http://www.sierratrax.com

Citation CJ2+
Citabria 7GCBC
A-1C Husky
R66


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 10 May 2022, 00:23 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/01/10
Posts: 3310
Post Likes: +2213
Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
No doubt. Bring back 2019!

_________________
Previous A36TN owner


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 10 May 2022, 11:44 
Online


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/06/12
Posts: 2033
Post Likes: +1751
Company: FlightRepublic
Location: Bee Cave, TX
Aircraft: DA40, C182
Username Protected wrote:
No doubt. Bring back 2019!

Would we also have to redo 2020-21? I’m not sure I’m ready for that, unless we can implement 20/20 hindsight!
:peace:

_________________
Antoni Deighton
contactlink.to/antoni.deighton


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 10 May 2022, 12:14 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/07/10
Posts: 319
Post Likes: +238
Aircraft: Pitts S-2B
Username Protected wrote:
No doubt. Bring back 2019!

Would we also have to redo 2020-21? I’m not sure I’m ready for that, unless we can implement 20/20 hindsight!
:peace:


We could add some useful insight to the investing thread...

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 10 May 2022, 23:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/01/10
Posts: 3310
Post Likes: +2213
Location: Roseburg, Oregon
Aircraft: Citation Mustang
Username Protected wrote:
No doubt. Bring back 2019!

Would we also have to redo 2020-21? I’m not sure I’m ready for that, unless we can implement 20/20 hindsight!
:peace:

No, no, no. Just bring back 2019. From there we’ll just move on into 2023
_________________
Previous A36TN owner


Top

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



Marsh Brothers Aviation (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

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