banner
banner

10 Aug 2022, 01:08 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Stevens Aerospace (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 01:23 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15241
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
As you point out they made the trip in the same time.

Stock airplane flew 17 nm further due to routing, net 7 knots faster overall.

Quote:
You've probably already seen the winglet plane climbed to FL410 in the same time the flat wing climbed to FL370, as the first step. There will be about 3.2% increase in specific range per 1,000 ft altitude.

Stock was doing 700 fpm in the last 1000 ft before FL370, not appreciably less than the bent wing. It could clearly go higher. And it did go to FL390 and spent more time there than at FL370.

The bent wing took ~37 minutes to reach FL410. Presumably it wasn't at gross due to shorter leg needing less fuel, so that's not exactly awe inspiring.

Quote:
I know there are folks here waiting with a bat to hit me in the head about 33%, but I don't expect any jet pilot to think our max fuel savings applies to a hop like this trip to FDK. We certainly aren't promoting that as true, as you can see in our flight planning guides, which are linked directly on the product pages.

These product pages?

http://bit.ly/2EOZ2TM

Under "Performance & Planning", it says "Contact Sales: sales@tamarackaero.com".

That's not "directly linked". No planning data is evident on the web site.

The CJ1 AFMS (M037) says only this:

"Except where indicated below, takeoff, climb, cruise, and landing performance will be equal to or greater than the data established by Cessna in the base AFM. For flight planning purposes, continue to use the data presented in the base AFM unless indicated otherwise."

Clearly, when they flew N44VS, they did not use the Cessna data. If you don't provide true planning data, how are pilots supposed to plan to use the extra performance? Your press release claims you "couldn't plan it safely" for the stock airplane, so how did you plan it safely for the bent wing given the AFMS guidance?

The CJ1 AFMS otherwise has no flight planning information at all. There's no time, distance, and fuel for climb, no cruise speed and fuel flow, and no time, distance, and fuel for descent.

As to the 33% claim, you made the stock airplane fly a much longer route, fly artificially lower, fly artificially heavier, fly faster, and selected a route that forced it to stop. Even with all that, you only got to 28.5% improvement in fuel used, and we don't have any independent corroboration of the fuel usage, either.

Quote:
It's really cool to make a 3 hour plane into a 4 hour plane!

Those smart jet pilots you referred to earlier also know this is a lie, just like the 33% claim.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 10:50 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 1551
Post Likes: +1708
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
It's really cool to make a 3 hour plane into a 4 hour plane!

Jacob,

I've downloaded the data from your website, as suggested, and I can't find a condition under which a stock airplane would go only 3 hours and a winglet airplane flown using the same methods would go 4 hours. I understand you won't get this increase on every flight, but can you help us understand when you would get this increase?

What is the empty weight of the winglet airplane used in the test? What STCs were applied to make it so light?

3 people & gear in a 4 hour CJ1 sounds very appealing.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 12:53 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/16
Posts: 44
Post Likes: +51
Aircraft: King Air C90
Been a lot of good data and points passed back and forth in this thread - it’s why I love this site. Andrew has offered some honest, no spin numbers he’s seeing on his CJ with the winglets installed, so I thought I’d offer up my real world numbers on our stock CJ.

We run s/n 77. We’ve done the JetTech Garmin stc for a set of 750’s, but otherwise she’s as stock as the day she rolled out of the factory. Empty weight is a few pounds below 6700, so we round up and start all our calcs at 6700lbs for you guys that track this stuff.

The winglets folks saying the stock airplane is a 3 hr plane are - no surprise - not being 100% truthful. At FL270, sure. 3 hrs and time to land. However - fly it by the book and getting more than 3 hrs out of the plane is very doable. We have done northern Maine to Atlanta a few times, and the shortest flight time I’ve ever done it in was 3:40. That particular trip had 3 pax. We got a nice climb straight to FL380, where we spent the entire trip. The difference in 38 and 40 was negligible due to loss of true airspeed which offset the fuel savings of being there. We landed with 1100 lbs in the tanks on that one, and because it’s Atlanta, we got stuck on an arrival that required the last 70 some odd miles be flown at 6,000 feet. Not too bad...

Do I think the winglets provide a benefit? Sure. Going straight to 410 and running for 4 hours up there saves fuel. Can’t argue with it. The question we had to ask ourselves - and I haven’t seen it asked here yet - is how many flights are you doing over the life of your ownership where you are doing 1100-1200 miles? If 100% of your flights are in this range, then the winglets make sense.

Until I look at money...

I can buy a nice straight CJ for somewhere around $1mm. Add the cost of winglets, and let’s assume you’re into it total for $1.2mm. For dangerously close to the same $1.2mm, I can go buy a nice Citation Bravo and fly it 1400-1500 miles. Some will say the Bravo cost more to run - and that’s true - however the cost increase is linear to the CJ, so cost per mile - (we run one of each, so I know) - is the same over a trip of that length. Yeah, you’ll need a SPW, but that’s not a real roadblock.

So, for me - if I need 1200 miles all the time, I’m buying a Bravo and never having to worry about it.

Daniel


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 15:43 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15241
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
So, for me - if I need 1200 miles all the time, I’m buying a Bravo and never having to worry about it.

A better comparable would be a 501SP Stallion with FJ44-2A engines.

You can buy that for $1M.

It goes 1500 nm with basically the same engine as the CJ, though improved and bigger. It would do a 1200 nm trip routinely.

No SPE required as it is SP out of the box. About the same cabin as a CJ/CJ1.

Much faster than a CJ/CJ1, about 30 knots or so.

Bravo has the PW500 series engines, much $$$$. The Williams is better even despite having to be on program since their program cost is cheaper and better.

Even if you have a 1200 mile trip, the winglet will make a difference on a non stop flight only about 20% of the time due to winds. Somedays you will have to stop, some days the stock airplane wouldn't stop, either. The small percentage increase in range just doesn't make that trip reliably non stop. In other words, the winglet mod is only an improvement in the odds, not a clear win routinely.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 15:49 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 1551
Post Likes: +1708
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
So, for me - if I need 1200 miles all the time, I’m buying a Bravo and never having to worry about it.

A better comparable would be a 501SP Stallion with FJ44-2A engines.

You can buy that for $1M.

It goes 1500 nm with basically the same engine as the CJ, though improved and bigger. It would do a 1200 nm trip routinely.

No SPE required as it is SP out of the box. About the same cabin as a CJ/CJ1.

Much faster than a CJ/CJ1, about 30 knots or so.



Mike,

I am really interested in your decision to get a 560 instead of a Sierra conversion 550. Did you ever talk about that on BT? If not, would you be willing to start a thread? I think there's a lot of overlap in the mission between those two planes and a Tamarack CJ1.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 16:12 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/24/14
Posts: 1289
Post Likes: +1491
Username Protected wrote:
A better comparable would be a 501SP Stallion with FJ44-2A engines.

You can buy that for $1M.

It goes 1500 nm with basically the same engine as the CJ, though improved and bigger. It would do a 1200 nm trip routinely.

No SPE required as it is SP out of the box. About the same cabin as a CJ/CJ1.

Much faster than a CJ/CJ1, about 30 knots or so.



Mike,

I am really interested in your decision to get a 560 instead of a Sierra conversion 550. Did you ever talk about that on BT? If not, would you be willing to start a thread? I think there's a lot of overlap in the mission between those two planes and a Tamarack CJ1.

Yes please!
_________________
Jay


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 18:18 
Online


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 5555
Post Likes: +4751
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
Username Protected wrote:


Mike,

I am really interested in your decision to get a 560 instead of a Sierra conversion 550. Did you ever talk about that on BT? If not, would you be willing to start a thread? I think there's a lot of overlap in the mission between those two planes and a Tamarack CJ1.


Mike is avoiding that question like that Tamarack guy is avoiding his! ;)

_________________
Frankie says: Make love your goal.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 18:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/04/13
Posts: 2179
Post Likes: +894
Location: Little Rock, Ar
Aircraft: A36 C560 C177 C501SP
What is the current engine hour cost for CJ w Williams?
What is the current cost for Bravo engine hours?

Robert T


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 18:49 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/16
Posts: 44
Post Likes: +51
Aircraft: King Air C90
I was just about to address that from Mike’s comments above :)

We are running TAP Blue on our CJ and Power Advantage Plus on our Bravo. TAP Blue for 2021 for us is $147.33/hr. PA+ per the contract we just signed is $190/hr.

Certainly more expensive on the Bravo, but if $86/hr is going to blow the budget...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 18:54 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/16
Posts: 44
Post Likes: +51
Aircraft: King Air C90
Username Protected wrote:
So, for me - if I need 1200 miles all the time, I’m buying a Bravo and never having to worry about it.

A better comparable would be a 501SP Stallion with FJ44-2A engines.

You can buy that for $1M.

It goes 1500 nm with basically the same engine as the CJ, though improved and bigger. It would do a 1200 nm trip routinely.

No SPE required as it is SP out of the box. About the same cabin as a CJ/CJ1.

Much faster than a CJ/CJ1, about 30 knots or so.

Bravo has the PW500 series engines, much $$$$. The Williams is better even despite having to be on program since their program cost is cheaper and better.

Even if you have a 1200 mile trip, the winglet will make a difference on a non stop flight only about 20% of the time due to winds. Somedays you will have to stop, some days the stock airplane wouldn't stop, either. The small percentage increase in range just doesn't make that trip reliably non stop. In other words, the winglet mod is only an improvement in the odds, not a clear win routinely.

Mike C.



All good points Mike. We looked real hard at a 501 with the Williams engines on it, but ultimately decided to pass. Lots of reasons why, but at the time we were shopping, Sierra still owned/supported the STC and Textron had taken the position of “don’t bring it to us - we won’t touch it”, so we felt more than a little exposed should something happen, like, say Mark deciding to sell Sierra and what the future of the stc would look like. Also at the time the price difference between a Williams 501/CJ/Bravo was nearly nothing, so it made the choice that much easier to go with a product still loved by the manufacture. Different strokes for different folks and all that stuff...:)

Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 19:32 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/09/09
Posts: 4573
Post Likes: +3286
Aircraft: C182P, Merlin IIIC
All of the above could easily one day apply to the bent wing citation.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 20:04 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/16
Posts: 44
Post Likes: +51
Aircraft: King Air C90
Username Protected wrote:
All of the above could easily one day apply to the bent wing citation.



Very true. I’m not engineer, but I do wonder what the long term effects to the wing structure of planes with these winglets installed will be. Tamarack says no structural mods to the wing are needed due to the “Load Alleviation” stuff.....no such thing as a free lunch comes to mind.

Friend of mine flies one here in the southeast with the winglets - all those trips are under 2 hrs in duration. He tells me that he has seen zero benefit over stock.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 20:47 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 5783
Post Likes: +2586
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
I feel like the RedBoard is back reading all this!

_________________
Tom Johnson Agency President
AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx
Tj@AirpowerInsurance.com
C:602-628-2701


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 30 Jan 2021, 23:54 
Online


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 15241
Post Likes: +18999
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I’m not engineer, but I do wonder what the long term effects to the wing structure of planes with these winglets installed will be.

A more direct and concerning issue might be what the effect will be if Tamarack ceases operations and you can't get the parts to fix it.

Can you return the planes to stock configuration? Might not be practical, the mod is extensive and structural.

Can the planes be flown with an inoperative system? Yes, but the speed penalty is so severe as to make the plane effectively useless.

Thus the fate of the airplane is now tied inexorably with the fate of Tamarack.

The system has a lot of parts, structural, mechanical, actuators, sensors, electronics. Those are likely going to need serving at some point.

There is already some history here with ADs, grounding, and bankruptcy, so this doesn't feel like a purely hypothetical question.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Flat wing 525 vs Tamarack winglet 525 face-off
PostPosted: 31 Jan 2021, 09:59 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 4479
Post Likes: +4090
Aircraft: G44, R44, C501, C55
I read this thread and came to the conclusion that the CJ was a step backwards over the 501.

The 501 is an extremely usable airplane: 350kts, put 1200lbs in the cabin, burn about 800pph or less in cruise, go 3.5 hours or about 1000nm, easily land on a 3000 foot strip. The CJ (stock or modified) can't carry much weight and doesn't have the short field performance of the 501. The CJ cabin feels more cramped to me than the 501.

I think you could probably make an argument that the entire CJ line didn't really need to exist and doesn't do anything that a modernized legacy airframe couldn't do better. Perhaps the T tail was a marketing thing or perhaps Pratt said that no long wanted to build JT15s. Does anyone know what Cessna was thinking when they decided to simultaneously manufacture CJs and Legacy airframes for a number of years?


Top

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

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