Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Gentlemen,

 

Just curious if a brief outline on a comparison of acquisition costs and performance comparisons between a new (single pilot approved) and a pre owned air frame would be something useful to you?  I work for a company that has developed and installed innovative winglets greatly enhancing performance, safety and reduces fuel burn by as much as 33%.for lite jets. We are looking at offering some data to pilots that my wish to move to a single pilot jet.

 

Thank you for any feedback, if this is against the rules, please delete post and my apologies.

 

Thanks!

 

AP

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

We have had a couple of pilots graduate from Mooney ASEL, to Other planes...

  • More capacity, 6 seats...
  • More capacity, 2k#s UL...
  • A few have gone turbine...
  • At least one has gone twin jet...

What we don’t see... is what everyone drives as a work vehicle...

So... it isn’t necessarily a Mooney topic...  but it could be really interesting...

The most interesting part is about the MSer’s work in other parts of aviation...
 

Air Pirate, I have read your background around here before... you might want to include that paragraph here as well...

MS has a section for aviation topics... right here, Misc Aviation Talk...

 

Talk away!  :)

Best regards,

-a-

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll bite.  I and a few friends separately are casually in the used market.  Think C-500 for me.  I have a friend or two in the CJ1 market (who would rather have a 3).  What airframes are these winglets stc'd for as I haven't seen anything on the market for light jets since Tamarack?  If you work for Tamarack are you thinking of doing something more than the CJ series like the C-550 and older?  If not Tamarack, can you briefly outline the install cost/work/downtime involved in beefing up the wing structure or are you using some innovative control deflection limiter based on Mach?  Not looking for "state secrets" just basics.

I'm sure the OP is very smart and already has a slick presentation with things like cost of jet acquisition, time down, time to recapture upgrade investment, along with changes in runway needs, climb rate, payload changes, etc.  I'd be interested in that presentation.  I bet most on Mooneyspace would be.  Or maybe I'm alone.

William

 

 

Edited by WilliamR
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is Tamarack's claim; up to 33%.  The C-525 is supposed to get up to 25% efficiency.  I haven't met anyone with those winglets.  So, I don't know of have any real world experience.  I stopped investigating when I saw ROI timeline; jut too long for my taste.

I agree, airlines would love that extra efficiency over passive winglets as Tamarack points out.  Not sure exactly where the disconnect is - install and reg. costs or lack of actual efficiency.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

thank you for your reponses, as mentioned NOT pushing a sales pitch, just wanted insights about some resources to guys stepping to a light jet. Always good to keep a connection to new market opportunities.  Listed below is a third party write up if you have interest.  Thanks again.

https://simpleflying.com/active-winglets/?utm_source=Bibblio

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Air pirate said:

Guys,

 

thank you for your reponses, as mentioned NOT pushing a sales pitch, just wanted insights about some resources to guys stepping to a light jet. Always good to keep a connection to new market opportunities.  Listed below is a third party write up if you have interest.  Thanks again.

https://simpleflying.com/active-winglets/?utm_source=Bibblio

 

Interesting article! Wing extension and active winglets that can be made passive with the push of a button! My current hangar could accept a wing extension, but I've had hangars that gave me 12-18" clearance on each wingtip if I was exactly in the center . . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Air pirate said:

Guys,

 

thank you for your reponses, as mentioned NOT pushing a sales pitch, just wanted insights about some resources to guys stepping to a light jet. Always good to keep a connection to new market opportunities.  Listed below is a third party write up if you have interest.  Thanks again.

https://simpleflying.com/active-winglets/?utm_source=Bibblio

 

What makes them better than Joe Clark's winglets?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, carusoam said:

So...

What is an active winglet, what makes it active?

How often does it get turned off? For what reasons?

Best regards,

-a-

The winglets extend the effective wingspan, which changes the loads on the spar, carry through, bolts, sheet metal screws, whatever.  I saw one of these in terre haute last week.  A CJ3. On the trailing edge of the winglet’s horizontal surface is another aileron, which acts to kill lift when some G limit or acceleration is exceeded.  
 

the company is Tamarack, and there was some controversy last year after an equipped CJ lawn darted.  Company passed through bankruptcy but now back in the game, I believe.
-dan

Edited by exM20K
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, WilliamR said:

I'll add that I seem to remember part of Tamarack's efficiency claim is circumstances where you've maxed your range and need a fuel stop just short of destination.

I’d forgotten about that jive.  Doesn’t give one the warm fuzzies about the company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago I had a chance to compare non winglet 757 and 767 to the winglet equipped bretheren. Because the FAA did not allow the company to initially account for the winglets in flight planning we could get a good sense of how much the winglets reduced fuel burn as it would show up as underburn on the flight plan. At best we could see 4%, even on trans oceanic operations. Understand, that each flight plan is based upon historical burn numbers for each specific ship, accounting for historical ship to ship differences. While 4% is a great improvement that more than justifies the mult-million dollar investment, when someone starts talking double digit improvements on STC units, you're jacking the claim.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 1:21 PM, MooneyMitch said:

“A man flying in a jetpack has been spotted again in the skies over Los Angeles“

Would winglets improve performance for this flying device perhaps?

Was it you Mitch?  Are you jet pack guy? Aren’t you...?!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Was it you Mitch?  Are you jet pack guy? Aren’t you...?!

Man, this cat is going to ruin it for the jetpack flyers.  And, how does anyone know it a male jetpacker? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MooneyMitch said:

Man, this cat is going to ruin it for the jetpack flyers.  And, how does anyone know it a male jetpacker? 

True true - could be a jet pack gal.

Does anyone here know - is it a jet wing or a jet pack?

A flying thing like this

or more a hovering thing like this?

My money is on a misbehaving aerospace engineer - from nasa-jpl, spaceX, Boeing, or maybe just some "kids" from Caltech?  Could be Raj or Sheldon or Leonard?  Howard!

I don't think its just some dudes from the 7-eleven blowing off steam.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

True true - could be a jet pack gal.

Does anyone here know - is it a get wing or a jet pack?

A flying thing like this

or more a hovering thing like this?

My money is on a misbehaving aerospace engineer - from nasa-jpl, spaceX, Boeing, or maybe just some "kids" from Caltech?  Could be Raj or Sheldon or Leonard?  Howard!

I don't think its just some dudes from the 7-eleven blowing off steam.

Keep it up, and you’re going to be discovered eventually.  

I do believe flying one of these would be an absolute thrill, but not when your possibly endangering others in the process.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

Keep it up, and you’re going to be discovered eventually.  

I do believe flying one of these would be an absolute thrill, but not when your possibly endangering others in the process.  

So it IS YOU!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a device which when added to any Mooney airframe will increase your overall performance and fuel burn.  STC’s coming soon for most models other than the Mite.

Clarence

1EDF4751-A21B-41C3-B2B1-F6500671B3D2.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


Oddly enough...

The long body looks like it has room for an extra pair of cylinders...

Lots of free space between the firewall and the IO550’s back side...

could be the necessary step connecting the O1 to the OT...  :)
 

Go Clarence!

Best regards,

-a-

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

STC’s coming soon for most models other than the Mite.

The Mite is just a 337, right? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.