banner
banner

17 Aug 2022, 20:42 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 15:06 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/04/10
Posts: 3492
Post Likes: +3097
Aircraft: C525
Mike,

Have you posted anything yet on your transition to the 560? (is that a citation V?)

I'd love to hear how you decided what to buy and how your first 100 hours are going (or went)!

_________________
John Lockhart
Phoenix, AZ


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 15:27 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 05/30/17
Posts: 177
Post Likes: +143
This thread has been very interesting and enjoyable. I am still considering a straight CJ and if I do proceed, I will go ahead and get the winglets. Not to save $$ on fuel, but (a) to enhance climb performance and (b) for those missions where I need it, to extend the range and avoid a fuel stop. My longer range missions are in the 1090-1160 nm/direct range, which would be right at the spot where a fuel stop could be avoided. I also have heard the price is more consistent with the lower price referenced earlier. With the Garmin updates, the weight savings more than covers the extra weight of the winglets.

I can’t afford a CJ2, M2 or higher level 525, and I’m not as interested in the older Citations. The CJ otherwise fits my budget and should accommodate my range requirements 90+% of the time.

What’s interesting to me about this thread is that there is no corresponding thread on CJOPA. I can’t be certain why not - there was an extensive thread like this when the winglets were first certified. However, I believe that over time, the actual performance figures have become pretty well known to CJOPA members and they are making their decisions based on those (and not the brochures). I could be wrong about that however ...

Anyway, I think the winglets work for a mission case like mine. If my missions were consistently 1000 nm or less, I wouldn’t do it (and would consider a Mustang also). But the Mustang, Eclipse, Vision and Phenom 100 all have similar max ranges and the ability to go an extra 200 miles most of the time is meaningful for my city pairs. I think if I decide to go the CJ route, I’m the right kind of customer for these, to be honest. I would not be doing it to save fuel expense; any such savings would be a bonus.

Plus they do look good! :peace:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 16:15 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15268
Post Likes: +19026
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
With the winglets it’s accelerates to cruise speed in minutes.

On the KPWM to KBPI test flight, the speed measured by Flightaware showed this:

Top of climb: 222
+1 minutes: 227
+2 minutes: 235
+3 minutes: 241
+4 minutes: 243
+5 minutes: 245
+6 minutes: 246
+7 minutes: 249
+8 minutes: 252
+9 minutes: 255
+10 minutes: 266
+11 minutes: 268
+12 minutes: 268
+13 minutes: 270
+14 minutes: 272
+15 minutes: 273
+16 minutes: 274
+17 minutes: 274
+18 minutes: 275
+19 minutes: 276
+20 minutes: 276

So about 20 minutes to increase 50 knots. Not exactly spritely.

One can't know that the winds were steady per se, but probably reasonably so.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 16:19 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15268
Post Likes: +19026
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
The marketing machine continues.

AIN story:

Atlas-equipped CitationJet Wins in Head-to-head Fly-off

A fly-off on Tuesday afternoon between a 2002 Cessna Citation CJ1 (N44VS) equipped with Tamarack Aerospace’s Atlas active winglets and a stock 1997 CJ1 (N741CC) resulted in the retrofitted model outpacing its older competitor. The event, sponsored by Tamarack and monitored by AOPA and the National Aeronautic Association, had the two aircraft fly a nearly 1,200-nm course from Portland, Maine, to West Palm Beach, Florida. According to Textron Aviation, a stock CJ1 has an NBAA IFR range (four passengers) of 1,127 nm.

N741CC spent 5 hours and 37 minutes in the air, not including a 45-minute fuel stop in Columbia, South Carolina. Meanwhile, N44VS, the Atlas-modified CJ1, was able to make the trip nonstop in 4 hours and 36 minutes.

According to Tamarack, N741CC could climb only to FL360 and was forced to stop to refuel after needing to change course due to weather. N44VS, on the other hand, was able to climb directly to FL410 in less than 30 minutes thanks to improved performance from the winglets and was thus able to use a more direct route, landing with more than 700 pounds of fuel remaining.

Overall, the unmodified CJ1 burned more than 1,000 pounds of fuel than its competitor. “Comparing these two flights, we saw about a 30 percent more efficient flight profile in terms of fuel consumption,” said Tamarack CEO Nick Guida.


Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 16:42 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15268
Post Likes: +19026
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Quote:
A fly-off on Tuesday afternoon between a 2002 Cessna Citation CJ1 (N44VS) equipped with Tamarack Aerospace’s Atlas active winglets and a stock 1997 CJ1 (N741CC) resulted in the retrofitted model outpacing its older competitor.

The stock airplane was average 9 knots faster, so it depends on what they mean by "outpacing".

Quote:
According to Textron Aviation, a stock CJ1 has an NBAA IFR range (four passengers) of 1,127 nm.

Tamarack doesn't publish NBAA IFR range with 4 people on the Tamarack equipped plane. Note that they have to offload 80 lbs more fuel than stock due to weight of the winglets, so range may be impacted at that cabin load.

Quote:
N741CC spent 5 hours and 37 minutes in the air, not including a 45-minute fuel stop in Columbia, South Carolina.

Wrong. Flightaware says it was 4:48 in the air, 3:08 first leg, 1:40 second leg.

Quote:
According to Tamarack, N741CC could climb only to FL360

Wrong. The stock airplane was doing 500-600 FPM climb at FL360. The bent wing airplane was doing no better at that altitude, so it should have stopped also if that climb rate qualified for being "forced to stop".

Quote:
and was forced to stop to refuel after needing to change course due to weather.

Wrong. The stock airplane filed for KCAE from the start, 3 hours before the weather would have been known.

Quote:
N44VS, on the other hand, was able to climb directly to FL410 in less than 30 minutes

Wrong. The Flightaware track shows it took 46 minutes to reach FL410.

Quote:
thanks to improved performance from the winglets and was thus able to use a more direct route

Wrong. The stock airplane could have flown a more efficient route.

Quote:
landing with more than 700 pounds of fuel remaining.

Given the credibility of numbers provided by Tamarack, I'm not sure this is the case.

Quote:
“Comparing these two flights, we saw about a 30 percent more efficient flight profile in terms of fuel consumption,”

Depends on what you mean by "about 30 percent". Per route mile, the bent wing was 22.8% more fuel efficient. In terms of total fuel, it was 28.5% more efficient. Did not reach 30%.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 16:58 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/29/16
Posts: 1256
Post Likes: +1670
Company: RE/MAX at the Lake
Location: Mooresville, NC
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22
Username Protected wrote:
Not to save $$ on fuel, but (a) to enhance climb performance and (b) for those missions where I need it, to extend the range and avoid a fuel stop. :peace:


Another advantage is having a larger reserve when landing and not just minimum fuel. Most pilots I know never dip into reserves, never. If the weather is snotty and an alternate probable, having 45 minutes is not enough. Legally sure, but not enough to fly a long distance worrying for 3 hours if you are going to go missed. North East corridor flying is another way to burn more gas too. Heck, even the pandemic has caused us problems with center shut downs and reroutes. Banking a couple hundred extra pounds of fuel is a great stress reliever.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 16:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 829
Post Likes: +415
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
So about 20 minutes to increase 50 knots. Not exactly spritely.

One can't know that the winds were steady per se, but probably reasonably so.


That is slow, kind of what my plane was like pre-winglets.

Here is a flight a couple of weeks ago, I was at MTOW on departure and it was ISA+5 at 410


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: 28 Jan 2021, 17:07 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 01/29/16
Posts: 1256
Post Likes: +1670
Company: RE/MAX at the Lake
Location: Mooresville, NC
Aircraft: Cirrus SR22
Username Protected wrote:
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 got a -1 from Adam S. for your post which I offset with a +1. Biden shutdown the Keystone pipeline resulting in lost jobs for Americans. Maybe if they are not driving to work anymore they won't be buying as much fuel and prices will remain steady.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 17:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 1570
Post Likes: +1723
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
I'm really curious about the weight of the winglet airplane.

Real-world CJ1s have (legal) full-fuel payloads in the 600 lb range. I've found a few with far less. This one, for example, is 410 lbs: https://l33jets.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... -Sheet.pdf

According to numbers provided by Tamarack, they overfilled the tanks by around 220 lbs, and the winglets weigh about 80 lbs. I haven't seen anything that says the winglets give a GW increase (just a ZFW increase.)

That leaves about 300 lbs of real payload for max range trips.

Can anyone with winglets post your actual empty weight and gross weights?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 17:22 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15268
Post Likes: +19026
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
That leaves about 300 lbs of real payload for max range trips.

There were at least 2 people on the bent wing airplane (pilot and AOPA journalist). Maybe they were jockeys in a former life?

Jacob claimed "it was realistic for a 3 pax golf trip". That sounds like at least 600 lbs of cabin payload, if not more like 700 lbs assuming someone who can use a CJ doesn't rent clubs.

Hard to imagine that was actually possible if the full fuel (or overly full fuel) useful loads are as you stated.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Last edited on 28 Jan 2021, 17:24, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 17:23 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 829
Post Likes: +415
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
Can anyone with winglets post your actual empty weight and gross weights?


For Straight CJ - 6580
MTOW - 10400

I’m doing the Garmin upgrade as soon as the JT STC Is approved - which removes 217lbs and adds 73lbs, so gain an extra 144.

Andrew


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 17:30 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15268
Post Likes: +19026
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
For Straight CJ - 6580
MTOW - 10400

Is 6580 lbs your actual empty weight with winglets? How much did the winglet mod add to the empty weight?

Useful load with book fuel load of 3220 lbs: 600 lbs.

If you overfill, reduce that by the amount you overfill.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 17:31 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15268
Post Likes: +19026
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I’m doing the Garmin upgrade as soon as the JT STC Is approved

Columbia Avionics has their 525 CJ STC approved, G700 + GTN + GFC 600. Probably saves ~ 200 lbs, though you can end up tail heavy and need ballast.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 17:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 1570
Post Likes: +1723
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
For Straight CJ - 6580
MTOW - 10400

Is 6580 lbs your actual empty weight with winglets? How much did the winglet mod add to the empty weight?

Useful load with book fuel load of 3220 lbs: 600 lbs.

If you overfill, reduce that by the amount you overfill.

Mike C.

Depending on which post of theirs you read, they took off with 3340 or 3440 lbs of fuel.

I wonder how they had enough payload for a "3 pax golf trip."

They did say "more data to come." I'm interested to see how it shakes out, but I predict this particular question will never be answered.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2021, 17:49 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15268
Post Likes: +19026
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
At a certain point, you have to believe the deception is pathological, it just keeps coming.

On the Tamarack website:

WEATHER PLAYED A BIG PART IN DRAMATIC FLY-OFF BETWEEN TAMARACK ACTIVE WINGLETS AND A FLAT-WING CESSNA

January 28th, 2021 | Press Releases

AND THE WINNER IS… WEATHER PLAYED A BIG PART IN DRAMATIC FLY-OFF BETWEEN TAMARACK ACTIVE WINGLETS AND A FLAT-WING CESSNA

(Portland, Maine) - Tamarack Aerospace was the official winner of the Tuesday, January 26 “Fly-Off” between an unmodified CitationJet and an Active Winglet transformed CitationJet. This event was a real-world comparison between the Active Winglet’s performance on a Cessna CitationJet (N44VS) against flat-wings(N741CC).

The aircraft with Active Winglets took off with a deliberate 200 lb. additional weight penalty. Both aircraft took off at Portland, Maine (PWM) and targeted West Palm Beach, Florida (PBI) for landing. The Active Winglet aircraft flew to PBI without a stop and burned 155 gallons less fuel than the flat-wing aircraft despite a stiff headwind. The flat-wing aircraft had to stop to refuel in Columbia after weather-related performance restrictions, but was back in the air quickly. They had twice the enroute fuel burn rate of the Active Winglet transformed aircraft.

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) journalists were onboard both aircraft to document the event, which was tracked live on the web. The fly-off was also documented according to National Aeronautic Association (NAA) rules, and will be considered for a record flight time between the city pairs.

The flat-wing aircraft (N741CC) travelled a total of 1,496 miles after being forced inland slightly by weather conditions, spent 5 hours and 37 minutes in the air, and used 3,650 pounds of fuel.  The Active Winglet transformed aircraft was able to take a more direct route and travelled 1,386 miles, spending 4 hours and 36 minutes in the air, and used a total of 2,610 pounds of fuel.

The Active Winglet-equipped Cessna CitationJet (N44VS) was flown by 30-year pilot and aircraft owner Wick Zimmerman, CEO and co-founder of Outside the Lines. The unmodified flat-wing aircraft (N741CC) was flown by aviation veteran Mike Laver, owner of Carolina Turbine Support.

Tamarack CEO Nick Guida is proud of how the Active Winglets performed during the fly-off. “This was the first fly-off comparing an Active Winglet aircraft and a flat-wing aircraft operating under the same conditions,” he says. ”Active Winglet mods can result in up to 33% fuel savings, depending on weather conditions and other variables. Comparing these two flights, we saw about a 30% more efficient flight profile in terms of fuel consumption. As we saw yesterday, the Active Winglet competitor was unable to make the east coast trip without a stop, we couldn’t plan it safely. The Active Winglet transformed CitationJet (N44VS) was able to complete the trip without a fuel stop.”

“I am very pleased with how the Active Winglets performed in yesterday’s fly-off” shares Wick Zimmerman. “Active Winglets provide dramatic fuel savings, increased safety benefits, and much more. I am glad that the aviation industry is able to see this game changing technology in action.”

“I am very happy I was able to participate in this dramatic fly-off,” shares Mike Laver. ”The Tamarack Active Winglets are an impressive technology that continue to prove they help with fuel efficiency “says Laver. “Congratulations to Wick and the entire Tamarack team!”

Tamarack Active Winglets are comprised of a wing extension, a winglet, and an autonomous load alleviation system. The active winglet technology features instantaneous adjustment to turbulence, affording smoother and safer flights, quicker climbs, the need for shorter runways, fewer stops, up to 33% percent reduced fuel use, and more stable flight. Tamarack Active Winglets modifications are featured on more than one-hundred Cessna Jets and are being considered for other aircraft, including single-aisle commercial and military aircraft.


Fact check:

Quote:
The aircraft with Active Winglets took off with a deliberate 200 lb. additional weight penalty.

80 lbs of that is the winglet itself, so that's only 120 lbs actual net weight increase. This also indicates the stokc airplane was NOT fueled efficiently for the preplanned fuel stop. If it was, it would have been far less weight than the bent wing. So the stock airplane was penalized by having it carry fuel it wasn't going to use.

Quote:
The flat-wing aircraft had to stop to refuel in Columbia after weather-related performance restrictions

What is a "weather related performance restriction"? The fuel stop at KCAE was planned at least 5 hours in advance since that is when it showed up on Flightaware. Then they delayed the start of the test for weather, so perhaps both planes had "weather related" issues?

Quote:
They had twice the enroute fuel burn rate of the Active Winglet transformed aircraft.

Wrong. There's no way you cruise at twice the burn rate and end up using only 22.7% more fuel per mile. Also, weren't both aircraft supposed to use the same power settings? How can that be if one has twice the burn rate?

Quote:
[stock airplane] spent 5 hours and 37 minutes in the air

Wrong. The actual time in the air was 4:48.

Quote:
The Active Winglet ... used a total of 2,610 pounds of fuel.

They earlier posted 2710 lbs, then it got revised down to 2610 lbs. None of the fuel used numbers have any independent corroboration.

Quote:
“This was the first fly-off comparing an Active Winglet aircraft and a flat-wing aircraft operating under the same conditions,” he says

The conditions were clearly not the same. Even ignoring the deliberate route choice, the stock airplane was forced to carry more weight than necessary, flown faster, flown at lower altitude, and flown a further distance than required. There is no credible way this test could be considered fair.

Quote:
we saw about a 30% more efficient flight profile in terms of fuel consumption

28.5% reduction in actual fuel used, but only 22.7% when correcting for extra miles flown, and only about 7% when correcting for the lower altitude used.

I wonder why they wasted the jet fuel when what actually happened was both so biased from the start, and the actual results so ignored in the proclamations.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 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

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