That's an absurdly sweeping statement and patently false.

They are both flying KBPI to KFDK right now.

Stock at FL370, FL390.

Bent wing at FL410.

These flights are biased by different altitudes and tailwinds. The stock plane could fly at FL410 on such a leg.

Mike C.

Bent wing climb from FL360 to FL410 took 24 minutes.

Average climb rate is thus 210 FPM over the last 5000 ft.

The "1000 to go" chime happened 6.5 minutes before reaching FL410. Now that's crawling.

Mike C.

MCT and LRC were probably the same thing at FL410. Not sure it could pull back much on power if it was only climbing at 200 fpm to get there.

Tamarack says it was a successful event. So there. End of story. I really like Mike’s point that the fuel stop was planned. So it should have been halfway. Thus carrying less fuel and also being able to go to 410.

Im going to plan a race next. Cessna 150 vs. Citation X. PWM to PBI.
Citation makes a fuel stop in LHR.

C150 must be at least 200% more efficient!

What a bunch of crap. Just tell people the airplane will be 10% more fuel efficient (thats enough fudge factor people "might" believe it) and that they will pay for themselves in 10 years and add more value and ramp appeal to the airplane doing it. That should be enough to sell them.

33% is phony BS.

Mikko, you could send them both to PBI the way they'd normally fly it. 150 over land, hanging a left at Brunswick, and the X straight GPS direct. The 150 would need to make three fuel stops, let's say they each added 0.5 to the trip for a total of 1.5 hours. That would be 12.9 hours, making the average speed 92.4 knots, burning 68.4 gallons. The X OTOH would make the trip non-stop in about 2 hours, burning around 420 gallons.

So the 150 is 614% more efficient.



Imagine if it had winglets!

This is the level of quality that we saw in the Tamarak test.

These people have learned nothing. Aviation is way too full of these types.

Just run both planes in a straight line, same route, same altitude to the limits of the flat wing range. Then land and measure the fuel difference in the two.

I agree. I'd add a climb demo to this, too. In a perfect world, a formation takeoff showing the winglet plane's ability to keep going when the stock wing needs to level off.

They almost could have pulled that off with their demo, except both planes flew two different profiles at top of climb and the non-winglet plane didn't step climb.

That’s the trouble with tests like these, isn’t it? If the modified plane is capable of higher altitude and consequent gains in efficiency, how is logical to restrict its performance in this way?
I get frustrated when we try to rule a one-size-fits-all solution. As pilots we should all understand that it comes down to mission, and for some it will be worth it. Just like it’s worth it for many to spend the money to put Blackhawk engines on a King Air, or to add tip tanks to a Bonanza.
Not everyone’s mission is the same. Not everyone’s budget is either. At the end of the day it’s up to buyers to do the research and make that decision. The market will eventually decide if the modified planes are more valuable.

Don't restrict its performance. Let both planes climb to 410. I don't buy that the unmodified plane couldn't climb past 360. It may get there slower, but that will be reflected in the fuel remaining at the end of trip in the winglet plane.

That's part of the problem here; this "test" makes it more difficult to make that decision, not less. It convolutes the conditions of operation, miscompares performance, and in the end the conclusion it would have you come to is deceptive.

If you wanted to honestly compare, you would need to perform multiple tests with different ranges. One would need to be beyond the range of the stock airplane. One just within its range, maybe another that's half of its range, maybe others. Same days, same conditions, pilot's choice of route for at least the long range ones.

Get pilots who are well experienced in their plane and tell them to try to get the best out of their airplane with the caveat that if they land with less than "X" reserve it doesn't count. Then let them go to it. They can choose the route, the altitude, everything.

This should all be designed and run by an independent company who has no interest in the outcome. Otherwise we get what we got today, which is simply theater.

That's part of the problem here; this "test" makes it more difficult to make that decision, not less. It convolutes the conditions of operation, miscompares performance, and in the end the conclusion it would have you come to is deceptive.

If you wanted to honestly compare, you would need to perform multiple tests with different ranges. One would need to be beyond the range of the stock airplane. One just within its range, maybe another that's half of its range, maybe others. Same days, same conditions, pilot's choice of route for at least the long range ones.

Get pilots who are well experienced in their plane and tell them to try to get the best out of their airplane with the caveat that if they land with less than "X" reserve it doesn't count. Then let them go to it. They can choose the route, the altitude, everything.

This should all be designed and run by an independent company who has no interest in the outcome. Otherwise we get what we got today, which is simply theater.