banner
banner

10 Aug 2022, 00:19 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Stevens Aerospace (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 17  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 21:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 829
Post Likes: +415
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
I have a 1000nm mile commute that I have successfully accomplished non stop 100% of the time in my Mustang. Unfortunately that record is going to come to an end this week with an anticipated 80 knots on the nose.


I did New Zealand to Australia which us 1207nm with a 20kt average headwind with the winglets, I could not do that previous, had to stop at an Island in the past to refuel.

Andrew


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, 21:14 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/16/09
Posts: 6979
Post Likes: +1841
Location: Houston, TX
Aircraft: KA A/B90
I’ve been looking at some of Tamarack’s stuff and in the FAQ they do make some bold claims. But in their “flight data” section they publish this chart.
Image

It’s a bit strange. I can’t say I know what “Recorded TCJ” nor “Reported CJ Data” means, and they don’t attempt to explain. A reasonable guess (which we shouldn’t have to make) is that TCJ is Tamarack CJ and CJ Data is stock. But the thing sort of creates as many questions as it answers.

But if you take these assumptions and then make sense of the axes (which seem to mean for a given flight duration the average fuel flow is plotted). e.g.; fly 2 hours, divide fuel volume consumed by two hours, plot that) and do it for a stock and Tamarack equipped airplane. Then take a percent change and show that, but strangely label that line “ATLAS Savings” :scratch:

The fuel flow performance looks much improved. Never a 33% reduction by their own numbers, but still impressive. However it makes you wonder if they took care to attempt the same flight profile (altitude, airspeed, temps, weights, etc.). You assume they do because it’s cheating otherwise...but if they did you would think those things would be advertised. After all, some customers will want to a technical person to verify numbers.

And finally, I’m having a hard time at arriving to their ATLAS line. Example, the 2.0 hour flight, consuming 124 and 102.5 gph average. That’s a 17.3% decrease, while their ATLAS line indicates 20%.

But even if it’s a case of marketing gone wild, the product seems to do a lot of good for the lower number CJ’s and probably worth the cost. I think the numbers show a stark improvement because of climb out performance. In cruise the differences are likely modest. But there’s a lot to be said for climbing quickly!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2021, 23:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2207
Post Likes: +2121
Location: Queretaro / Houston / Fort Worth
Aircraft: C525 BE400 D1K Waco
Crickets....

Quote:
Let’s put personal attacks aside - show me your math and answer the questions from a technical perspective.

How far could you go with 2900 lbs, 360 ktas and 560 pph fuel burn (MCT)?

What if you throttled back to LRC? Is it closer to 33% or 4%?

Numbers don’t have opinions.


Mike C is unable or unwilling to do the math as it will discredit his bias - too hard to accept he is wrong. So you make an airplane with a 3 hour endurance an airplane with 4+ hour endurance you arrive at the 33% or thereabouts claim. Not that hard to do the arithmetic. The video is clear - let’s see your numbers Mike...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 01:15 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15239
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
See let's see if this chart makes any sense at all.
Attachment:
fuel-flow-endurance-chart-new-jpg.jpg

You fly 2.5 hours. The claimed ATLAS benefit is 20%. You used 20% less fuel than the stock airplane. That's literally unbelievable.

Now you decide to fly another hour. Amazingly, your savings are now only 7.5% over the stock airplane.

What happened in that last hour? The Tamarack airplane used MORE fuel in that last hour than the stock airplane, causing a loss of advantage. WTF?

Let's check the fuel flows to verify this. Let's see how much fuel has been used at each hour mark by multiplying the hour by the block fuel flow.

Stock: 1 hour 148 gallons, 2 hours 248 gallons, 3 hours 324 gallons.
Winglet: 1 hour 124 gallons, 2 hours 204 gallons, 3 hours 288 gallons.

By the second hour, both planes are operating at the same altitude, and the same power setting, so the fuel used in each hour should be the same to within a small margin. Here is the fuel used in each hour separately:

Stock: 1st hour 148 gallons, 2nd hour 100 gallons, 3rd hour 76 gallons
Winglet: 1st hour 124 gallons, 2nd hour 80 gallons, 3rd hour 84 gallons

The winglet airplane used 20 gallons less the second hour, then it used 8 gallons more the third hour, versus stock.

Does that make any sense?

How do winglets change the fuel consumption of an engine operating at the same altitude and power setting? Any why does the impact reverse in the third hour of flight such that the winglet airplane is now less efficient than stock? Or even comparing the winglet airplane just to itself, fuel used went up 5% in the third hour versus the second?

Any time Tamarack release any sort of data where you can perform even the simplest of sanity checks, it fails. This chart is an example of this. Incredible claims plus a long history of failing basic sanity checks should cause anyone to have concerns.

If you want to save a small percentage of fuel and look cool on the ramp, go get the winglets. If you expect to save a third of your fuel, you are completely delusional.

Mike C.


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

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 02:40 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 13249
Post Likes: +7695
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
The chart is confusing because it's block fuel flow over the whole trip. The advantage is greater for the winglet plane entirely due to time to climb being less. That advantage diminishes averaged over a longer duration.

What's the published difference in time to climb to 410? That's really all this comes down to.

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 03:06 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/09/13
Posts: 829
Post Likes: +415
Location: Byron Bay,NSW Australia
Aircraft: CE525,PA31
Username Protected wrote:
The chart is confusing because it's block fuel flow over the whole trip. The advantage is greater for the winglet plane entirely due to time to climb being less. That advantage diminishes averaged over a longer duration.

What's the published difference in time to climb to 410? That's really all this comes down to.


You can’t use the chart as a flight per hour, any analysis based on this is incorrect as you have noted, it’s block based.

It’s hard to note the exact figures as we don’t know the actual conditions used for the test. However I will use MTOW at ISA+10 conditions. Somewhat complicated as a straight wing will not climb direct to FL410 under these conditions.

Data as below.

TCJ

Min 36
NM 282
LB 554

CJ

Min 110
NM 547
LB 1298

Andrew


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 08:43 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 14573
Post Likes: +13425
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
It’s hard to note the exact figures as we don’t know the actual conditions used for the test. However I will use MTOW at ISA+10 conditions. Somewhat complicated as a straight wing will not climb direct to FL410 under these conditions.

Data as below.

TCJ

Min 36
NM 282
LB 554

CJ

Min 110
NM 547
LB 1298

And that does indeed make the Tamarak plane look far superior, but it assumes that you force the other to climb to 410, which no sane person would do. So if this is the sort of comparison they are using, then it’s misleading and for all intents and purposes, useless.

We have two separate debates going on; one about whether the Tamarak mod is useful, and the other about marketing practices. The Tamarak wing is better. Their marketing appears to be deceptive. I like the former, I dislike the latter.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Last edited on 25 Jan 2021, 10:09, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 09:26 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15239
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
TCJ

Min 36
NM 282
LB 554

That's an average speed, in the climb, of 470 knots.

That's faster than Vmo/Mmo.

Once again, their numbers fail sanity check.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 09:31 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15239
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
The advantage is greater for the winglet plane entirely due to time to climb being less.

The winglet airplane, in high, hot, heavy situations most noticeably, has lower induced drag and will fly a little faster in cruise on the same engine power.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 09:43 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/07/11
Posts: 516
Post Likes: +296
Location: KBED, KCRE
Aircraft: Phenom 100
Username Protected wrote:
TCJ

Min 36
NM 282
LB 554

That's an average speed, in the climb, of 470 knots.

That's faster than Vmo/Mmo.

Once again, their numbers fail sanity check.

Mike C.

Mike, these winglets are active winglets. They automatically flap really fast in the climb and add 110kts. Like a bird. It's right there in the pamphlet.

Chip-

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 10:10 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/04/10
Posts: 3492
Post Likes: +3097
Aircraft: C525
Three years ago at the CJP convention, I flew a Tamarack's CJ2 with the winglets. Hot day, (I think it was ISA +10 at 350) heavy and we went right up to 450 (I hand flew it with the YD off). I didn't have much time in the CJ2 at that point so I was impressed but not as impressed as I should have been. I surely couldn't do that in mine.

But in the 3.5 years I have owned it, I have only had one trip that this would have made a difference. I was flying from KARR to KSDL into a stronger than predicted headwind and had to land at KPUB for fuel. I could have made it but I would have landed with less than #800 pounds and I had no good reason to break that rule (my own rule). To be fair, over the same period I had 3-4 more trips that were tight on fuel and it would have been nice to have them.

I'm in a shared hangar and I pay by the sq ft so having winglets would have increased my monthly rent. In addition, if I had them I would have been grounded when everyone else was grounded, plus if I bought them the plane would have been in the shop for a couple of months getting them installed and I'd be out the $250K purchase price. It is just one data point but my broker (and good buddy) said that having winglets doesn't add anywhere near 250K to the value. In total, that's a lot to give up in trade for avoiding one fuel stop in 3 years. But in Andrew's case, I think they were an excellent choice!

_________________
John Lockhart
Phoenix, AZ


Last edited on 25 Jan 2021, 10:26, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 10:13 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 14573
Post Likes: +13425
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
TCJ

Min 36
NM 282
LB 554

That's an average speed, in the climb, of 470 knots.

That's faster than Vmo/Mmo.

:rofl:

This is the sort of thing that puts a cloud over Tamarak's work. Do they not know how to use a calculator? I'm sure that this is all clumsiness in the marketing department, but they make the whole company look bad.
_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 10:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2207
Post Likes: +2121
Location: Queretaro / Houston / Fort Worth
Aircraft: C525 BE400 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
Crickets....

Quote:
Let’s put personal attacks aside - show me your math and answer the questions from a technical perspective.

How far could you go with 2900 lbs, 360 ktas and 560 pph fuel burn (MCT)?

What if you throttled back to LRC? Is it closer to 33% or 4%?

Numbers don’t have opinions.


Mike C is unable or unwilling to do the math as it will discredit his bias - too hard to accept he is wrong. So you make an airplane with a 3 hour endurance an airplane with 4+ hour endurance you arrive at the 33% or thereabouts claim. Not that hard to do the arithmetic. The video is clear - let’s see your numbers Mike...

And Mike continues to avoid answering a simple question.... instead he obfuscates further pulling charts and making circular arguments.

Numbers don't have opinions Mike. The video is clear:

Take off - fly 29 minutes to reach FL410 and have 2900 lbs left in the tanks having traveled 140 nm.

Consuming 580 pph and flying at 360 kts, what would be the endurance, and how far could you go in zero wind with a 45 minutes reserve at MCT? What about LRC?

How does that compare to the stock airplane?

Is the improvement closer to 4% or 33%?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 10:54 
Offline


 Profile




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

And Mike continues to avoid answering a simple question.... instead he obfuscates further pulling charts and making circular arguments.

Numbers don't have opinions Mike. The video is clear:

Take off - fly 29 minutes to reach FL410 and have 2900 lbs left in the tanks having traveled 140 nm.

Consuming 580 pph and flying at 360 kts, what would be the endurance, and how far could you go in zero wind with a 45 minutes reserve at MCT? What about LRC?

How does that compare to the stock airplane?

Is the improvement closer to 4% or 33%?


Your gonna have to make this a multiple choice test :lol:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2021, 11:00 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 2207
Post Likes: +2121
Location: Queretaro / Houston / Fort Worth
Aircraft: C525 BE400 D1K Waco
Username Protected wrote:
Your gonna have to make this a multiple choice test :lol:

It certainly appears so.... :lol:


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 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 2007-2022

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