banner
banner

17 Aug 2022, 21:32 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 17  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2021, 21:48 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/24/19
Posts: 9
Post Likes: +7
Company: Tamarack Aerospace Group, Inc.
Username Protected wrote:
Do the tamarack winglets come with supplement or replacement performance charts and pages for the POH?

Are those shared online somewhere?


You bet Brian, for the 525. Check out the Customer Support page on the Tamarack site.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2021, 21:54 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15268
Post Likes: +19026
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
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?

The restriction was placed on the stock airplane, limited to FL360. It was clearly capable of climbing higher.

You may say the stock airplane was climbing too slowly and should stop at FL360. The bent wing airplane took *24* minutes to get from FL360 to FL410, including 6.5 minutes for the final 1000 ft. Now that's crawling. How come the stock airplane wasn't allowed to do that as well?

Quote:
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.

Correct.

But to do that properly, you have to know what the benefit will truly be, not what the brochure promises.

There is no question the winglets improve the airplane. The argument is about how much and if Tamarack is being deceptive in their marketing about that.

Today, KPBI to KFDK:

N44VS (bent wing) 2:41 (FL410)
N741CC (stock) 2:41 (FL370, FL390)

Identical flight times, literally to the minute. The stock airplane flew 17 nm further due to routing, so it was faster overall by about 7 knots. Had it had the same route, it wins by 3 minutes.

Let's be extreme and say the bent wing saved 10% fuel over the stock airplane. That would be about 200 lbs, 30 gallons. They saved no time, but about $100 in fuel. And that's if the 10% savings actually materialize.

It would take 3000 flights like this to break even. Conclusion: the winglets are not a general cost saving mod as they don't save enough fuel to be worth it. The one place they shine is range extension if and only if they eliminate a fuel stop. Unfortunately, the conditions under which that actually works vary day to day with winds. No two city pairs will be reliably in the zone where the fuel stop is eliminated.

This is clearly going to be an AOPA article. Looks like they went to AOPA HQ, and did some air to air photos, and now going back home.

Amusingly, the bent wing airplane filed from KFDK to KDAL but had to divert due to heavy headwinds, stopped at KNQA (Millington Memphis) after 3:26 airborne and covered only 711 nm, 207 knots average ground speed. Tough day!

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2021, 22:05 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15268
Post Likes: +19026
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Do the tamarack winglets come with supplement or replacement performance charts and pages for the POH?

Are those shared online somewhere?

The AFMS contain legally required takeoff and landing data, but no flight planning performance data such as climb, cruise, descent numbers, which is what matters in this debate.

This is true of the Textron AFM as well, they put flight planning data in the OM (operating manual) or the FPG (flight planning guide). I could not find any flight planning data on Tamarack website.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2021, 22:49 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4573
Post Likes: +3286
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
Username Protected wrote:
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?

The restriction was placed on the stock airplane, limited to FL360. It was clearly capable of climbing higher.

You may say the stock airplane was climbing too slowly and should stop at FL360. The bent wing airplane took *24* minutes to get from FL360 to FL410, including 6.5 minutes for the final 1000 ft. Now that's crawling. How come the stock airplane wasn't allowed to do that as well?

Quote:
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.

Correct.

But to do that properly, you have to know what the benefit will truly be, not what the brochure promises.

There is no question the winglets improve the airplane. The argument is about how much and if Tamarack is being deceptive in their marketing about that.

Today, KPBI to KFDK:

N44VS (bent wing) 2:41 (FL410)
N741CC (stock) 2:41 (FL370, FL390)

Identical flight times, literally to the minute. The stock airplane flew 17 nm further due to routing, so it was faster overall by about 7 knots. Had it had the same route, it wins by 3 minutes.

Let's be extreme and say the bent wing saved 10% fuel over the stock airplane. That would be about 200 lbs, 30 gallons. They saved no time, but about $100 in fuel. And that's if the 10% savings actually materialize.

It would take 3000 flights like this to break even. Conclusion: the winglets are not a general cost saving mod as they don't save enough fuel to be worth it. The one place they shine is range extension if and only if they eliminate a fuel stop. Unfortunately, the conditions under which that actually works vary day to day with winds. No two city pairs will be reliably in the zone where the fuel stop is eliminated.

This is clearly going to be an AOPA article. Looks like they went to AOPA HQ, and did some air to air photos, and now going back home.

Amusingly, the bent wing airplane filed from KFDK to KDAL but had to divert due to heavy headwinds, stopped at KNQA (Millington Memphis) after 3:26 airborne and covered only 711 nm, 207 knots average ground speed. Tough day!

Mike C.


I see some blocked tail numbers in the near future. :D

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2021, 22:58 
Offline


 Profile




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


Common Adam where would the fun be in that?

This has been a great read and I like these BT threads with good debate and opinions etc.

I’m hoping this thread leads to series two of this who dunnit - as Penman called it.

Andrew


Last edited on 27 Jan 2021, 22:59, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2021, 22:59 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/20/09
Posts: 2103
Post Likes: +1578
Company: Jcrane, Inc.
Location: KVES Greenville, OH
Aircraft: C421, RV7A
Username Protected wrote:
Amusingly, the bent wing airplane filed from KFDK to KDAL but had to divert due to heavy headwinds, stopped at KNQA (Millington Memphis) after 3:26 airborne and covered only 711 nm, 207 knots average ground speed. Tough day!

Mike C.

Man that is a tough day. As of right now a 421 could make that trip in similar time.

I'd file for 16,000 due to the ice, with a fuel burn of 172 gals.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
Jack Stull
N421EE
C421 recurrent


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 27 Jan 2021, 23:54 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/24/19
Posts: 9
Post Likes: +7
Company: Tamarack Aerospace Group, Inc.
Username Protected wrote:
probably around 9% which is what Andrew reports from real world experience, not 33% which is what Tamarac claims. I believe Tamarac is doing themselves a major disservice making that claim....


I’m glad Andrew and Alex have posted their experiences. People considering winglets should talk with people flying winglets. Tamarack also has a customer advisory board so we can have real customers evaluate our marketing claims based on their own experiences.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 00:22 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/28/11
Posts: 1276
Post Likes: +540
Aircraft: V35A, B300
Username Protected wrote:
probably around 9% which is what Andrew reports from real world experience, not 33% which is what Tamarac claims. I believe Tamarac is doing themselves a major disservice making that claim....


I’m glad Andrew and Alex have posted their experiences. People considering winglets should talk with people flying winglets. Tamarack also has a customer advisory board so we can have real customers evaluate our marketing claims based on their own experiences.

Jacob what was the fuel burns on today’s flight of equal time? Or is that classified.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 00:33 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 829
Post Likes: +415
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
I’m glad Andrew and Alex have posted their experiences. People considering winglets should talk with people flying winglets. Tamarack also has a customer advisory board so we can have real customers evaluate our marketing claims based on their own experiences.


I’m happy to talk to anyone about my experiences based on my flight missions. I had the winglets installed so I have before and after knowledge. My email is advann@pm.me and my cell is +61 457007104

For what it’s worth I didn’t buy the winglets expecting a 33% improvement. I assumed for myself it would be between 5-10%, and that worked for my missions. I can tell you a straight CJ is underpowered and a dog of a plane up high and heavy. I couldn’t climb at MTOW to 410. I did once doing the last few 1000’s at 100-200 FPM (which incidentally is not an issue) and I had to come back down as I could not accelerate. With the winglets it’s accelerates to cruise speed in minutes.

The winglets allow me to climb hot and heavy to 410 100% of the time. Like Bill B said in the M2, he flys 300-400nm trips up there due to the efficiency. I do exactly the same, which was simply not possible before hand.

The Tamarack team are a great bunch of people and a pleasure to work with. I can’t speak highly enough of my experiences with them.

Andrew


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 00:37 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 829
Post Likes: +415
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
Yes, exactly. Climbing better is the goal for increasing range and efficiency. Each 1,000 ft gives you about 3.2% better specific range which is significant, as others have pointed out too.


Ok let’s get this FL430 sorted for the CJ/CJ1 now! It will rock this thread;)

Andrew


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 09:36 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15268
Post Likes: +19026
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Each 1,000 ft gives you about 3.2% better specific range which is significant, as others have pointed out too.

The stock airplane was penalized 5000 ft, or 16% by your rule of thumb.

Your test flight had a 22.8% advantage in fuel used per route mile, so 70% of that was the altitude choice. Much of the rest was the stock airplane having to do two climbs.

Quote:
People buy jets to go fast and mostly are unwilling to reduce power to save fuel. This isn't an analytical conclusion, it's from several winglet customers who have seen it for themselves.

The stock airplane was 9 knots faster per route mile than the bent wing.

On the return flights to KFDK, the stock airplane was 7 knots faster per route mile.

Why couldn't the bent wing be as fast?

Quote:
Yes, climbing is key to increase the range/endurance so that was priority yesterday;

Apparently not for the stock airplane which flew at FL360.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 11:00 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/12/10
Posts: 346
Post Likes: +683
Company: The Grand Galvez Hotel
Location: Dallas, Texas
Aircraft: Cessna TTx/CE S550
Username Protected wrote:


Let's be extreme and say the bent wing saved 10% fuel over the stock airplane. That would be about 200 lbs, 30 gallons. They saved no time, but about $100 in fuel. And that's if the 10% savings actually materialize.

It would take 3000 flights like this to break even.


Mike C.


Mike: I was quoted 165,000 to put the winglets on a Citation 1. Not 300,000. I don't mind a bit of piling on when it comes to over exuberant marketing claims but I dont believe in telling lies about the cost of the mod either. 250K is the price if you walk in and pay list price which NO ONE does. Also averaging 3.00 per gallon for jet fuel is impossible unless you are going to just a few select CAA locations and you know it. Average Jet A over the entire nation is more like 4.00 - 4.25 a gallon until the Biden effect happens (then its going to 6 bucks mark my words!). .

You are being over exuberant in your negativity lol.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 12:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 1570
Post Likes: +1724
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
it was realistic for a 3 pax golf trip or biz trip with these two planes and that city pair.

Jacob,

What was the payload of the Tamarack airplane after full fuel was added? Can you publish both EW and GW for that plane?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 14:56 
Online



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 14655
Post Likes: +13481
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
I can tell you a straight CJ is underpowered and a dog of a plane up high and heavy. I couldn’t climb at MTOW to 410. I did once doing the last few 1000’s at 100-200 FPM (which incidentally is not an issue) and I had to come back down as I could not accelerate. With the winglets it’s accelerates to cruise speed in minutes.

This is likely why the Tamarak plane seemed to be flying slower than HSC. Having struggled to 410, it took a long time to accelerate, and that showed in the average speed. The altitude more than made up for the speed loss, especially since it allowed it to go non-stop.

As I read and hear more about it, I'm more and more disappointed that the actual benefits of the winglets are being overshadowed by the nonsense from the marketing department. The actual performance sounds quite good. Why not just publish that instead of sensationalizing and turning people off with absurd numbers. Somebody needs to muzzle the marketing dept.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 15:00 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15268
Post Likes: +19026
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I was quoted 165,000 to put the winglets on a Citation 1. Not 300,000.

I wonder if your number is what people routinely pay now. Jacob may not have wanted this number revealed.

Quote:
250K is the price if you walk in and pay list price which NO ONE does.

I wonder why they scare people away with a list price higher than it actually costs?

Quote:
Also averaging 3.00 per gallon for jet fuel is impossible

My figures are based on $3.33 which is about what I have averaged in the last 6 months.

So, $165K mod cost and $4 fuel means it takes 1400 flights to break even, *if* 10% fuels savings are generally possible. That doesn't seem substantiated as of yet and the recently conducted flights suggest the plane flies about 2.5% slower to achieve the savings.

It isn't a hugely compelling thing for money saving. The key is the range increase and how often it saves a fuel stop if you are flying right at the margins, as this test was.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 17  Next



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

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