VMC is really not a good number as it requires the aircraft be banked towards the good engine 5 deg or so.
an excellent video that discusses this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbu6X0hSnBY

If I look at a 58P vs 601P (I happen to have the POHs for those models)

T/O over 50', 6000#, sea level standard;
601P 2400'
58P 1500 '

Cruise at 20,000'
601P 19.9 GPH 28"/2400 rpms 230 KTAS
601P economy 14.7 GPH 25"/2200 rpms 211 KTAS
58P 19.2 GPH, 33", 2400 rpms 232 KTAS
58P 14.6 gph, 30", 2200 RPMS 210 KTAS


I'm making no claims about which manufacturer lies more on their POH. In particular the TO distance for the 58P seems very short to me but I haven't flown one. This was

I think the 58P is at 5800# weight
the 601P is at 6000# would gain about 2.5 ktas at 5800#

Is a 58P and 601p about the same speed at the same power settings? I've never flown either, (and afford either) so no dog in this fight. Just found it surprising. (always possible I misread the blurry graphs on the POHs I have)

Yes Adam, EXACTLY MY POINT. You said it more simply.

The laminar flow wing is designed for speed, and it delivers. Sometimes, I felt like I could time the acceleration from lift off to blue line with an hour glass. This is the butt camping part of any flight in a twin. The "big engine" Aerostar's simply power through that quicker.
Jg

Apples and oranges, Josef. You're not pressurized so I was using the example of a non-pressurized, non-turbocharged 600. From the POH Fig 8-3 Takeoff Distance to 50 - Foot Obstacle Flaps 20: 1,900 at ISA sea level MTOW. But remember the 600 maxes out at 5,500 lbs, not 6,000.

I don't have a POH or performance charts for a 600 to compare to a NA baron

I thought a 58P and 601P were fairly comparable, both turbocharged, pressurized, similar max weight



Apples and oranges, Josef. You're not pressurized so I was using the example of a non-pressurized, non-turbocharged 600. From the POH Fig 8-3 Takeoff Distance to 50 - Foot Obstacle Flaps 20: 1,900 at ISA sea level MTOW. But remember the 600 maxes out at 5,500 lbs, not 6,000.

Geo - I agree: Ted Smith was a frig'n genius and the A* 600 is the best kept secret in GA !

Pulling 200kts from TO to TD without having to crawl into the FLs gives un-beatable door-to-door performance.

That said, there ain't no way I'm taking my stubby wing'd 600A over 12,000' - it's not real happy mushing along wit the nose up.

Is a 600A really worse than a baron at high altitude? I'm in California so 12K is a common cruise altitude for IFR flights over terrain. A b55 seems to do fine there, its a pretty good cruise altitude in general. I've had it up to 17K with 4 people -it managed it, but it was pretty marginal, not much climb left.

I remember doing 24-25gph total and doing 200kts LOP on the 601P. Good economy - the 601P really is the miser in the lineup (with its high compression engines).

I did not use the Baron numbers vs. Aerostar numbers to try to degrade the Aerostar. I'm trying to make a legitimate point among a whole lot of absolutely unsubstantiated claims and anecdotal evidence.

Heads up, the Aerostar will be faster than a Baron and take more runway.

An MU-2 will be faster than both and take even more runway.

An Aztec will land and take off shorter than just about anything.

I find the POH numbers of both the Aerostar and Baron reasonably accurate. With either airplane, you should know those numbers pretty closely or refer to them before you decide to use a particular runway. If you are flying an Aerostar into a particular runway, what a Baron will or will not do is COMPLETELY irrelevant as to whether you can fly the Aerostar there safely.

And, as far as I know, there is not one single piece of formally tested reliable data as to the effect of winglets on an Aerostar, Baron or any other piston airplane. If you know of any, PLEASE direct me to it. The anecdotal evidence just continues to grow and become more unbelievable in the present vacuum.

Jg

NASA equipped a Bonanza with winglets and performed extensive testing. Published in the Journal of Aircraft back in Sept 1980. File is too large to attach.

If it wasn’t for the power of the placebo effect, very few aerodynamic mods would be sold. Want proof? Go read the testimonials of the wonders of tape gap seals.

I fell victim years ago and laughing say if all the claims were true my Twin Co should do 200 kts before I start the engines…

The only reliable evidence I have found is the more folks spent, the more glowing the reports.

Jeff

I've had a 602P/700 and three MU-2s and currently fly a Solitaire. The MU-2 will take off and land much shorter than the AEST. This is particularly true if compared for similar flights (same range, payload). The MU-2 flight manual is so conservative that I am not sure where they got the TO numbers.

Mike

fun discussion.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have an Aerostar 602P modified to a 700 that I added winglets to.

It is somewhat better handling on takeoff it appears I have 3 to 5 knots faster cruise at 65%

but is it worth the extra money? it does not change it into a short field wonder. my speed might be because my family has grown up and I fly it more with 1 or two people and thus the CG is further aft. (flying an aircraft at the Aft CGT limit is one of the best ways to gain speed)

who knows if it is worth it. It still has the same pucker factor when I land and take off of a 3000 ft runway at mid weights and seems to land and take off (wheels off) in 2000 ft however at that takeoff point the end of the runway is coming up really fast.

so is getting a few knots worth the cost? it is up to you.

My friend at NASA has told me that winglets have roughly the same effect as increasing the wing length by the length of the winglets. Note that this can still be a win, because the torque at the wing root is slightly less for the same effective length and in some cases keeping the wing length below some limit has advantages.

So not magic, but if designed right, provide a slight advantage,

Longer wings are more efficient, but add weight, both from the length and from the structural beef-up required.

Low speed aerodynamics has been understood for a long time now and most of the popular airplanes are designed to do efficiently operate in some part of the tradeoff space. Look at how close the performance is between a 1970 Bonanza and a 2020 Cirrus. 50 years and if all you had were performance specs, it wouldn't be obvious which was the newer airplane. (cirrus is a little faster, needs a little more fuel, little more runway, little less useful load)

Aztec / Baron / Aerostar are all great airplanes, that are designed for different tradeoff points. Same for a C210, Bonanza, and Mooney.






NASA equipped a Bonanza with winglets and performed extensive testing. Published in the Journal of Aircraft back in Sept 1980. File is too large to attach.

Anecdotal evidence:

I fly LOP in cruise 99% of the time.

At high altitudes my power is limited by the 1650 TIT limit.

Before I had winglets, at high altitudes, I was limited to about 12.7gph/side, which wasn’t much power and depending on weight, put me close to (or over) the back side of the drag curve.

My IAS was high 130s -low 140s.

Keep in mind low IAS means the turbos have less ram air to work with so boot strapping in this condition was an additional factor to being on the back side of the drag curve.

With winglets, I am solidly on the front side of the drag/boot strap curve.

And my fuel flows are higher mid 13s to low 14s, and my IAS is 8-10 kts faster.

I don’t see any improvement at 75% ROP.

With winglets, the pause (in climb) between rotation and 110-120kts is gone, at rotation the plane just starts climbing and accelerating.

I assume that the winglets would help with S/E performance but lacking a pre winglets baseline for my plane I haven’t explored that part of the performance envelope.

Do they look cool…..?

They do.

Do they make it go faster?
Probably not very much.

Do they improve performance in high(er) angle of attack operation?

IMO they do.

Are they worth it?

I’d think that that decision ought to be based on whether or not one considers high(er) AOA operation to be a remote possibility or normal practice.

In other words, if you have a 700 and operate out of long runways, at SL, fairly light, ROP, at power settings above 65%, probably not (except for looks).

But if you have a practice of operating out of short(er) runways, heavy, with less than 700HP, and cruising at lower power settings at high altitudes especially LOP, you are likely to see a meaningful increase in performance from adding winglets.

Since AAC makes no claim about improved S/E performance, I won’t either, but based on the improvement in low power cruise performance, it seems reasonable to assume that there may be some improvement.

Forrest