Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:35 AM - Re: winglets (Moe - Ross Racing Pistons)
2. 07:52 AM - Re: winglets (BillLeff1@aol.com)
3. 10:06 AM - Re: winglets (Jim Addington)
4. 10:46 AM - Re: winglets (Moe - Ross Racing Pistons)
5. 02:22 PM - Re: winglets (nico css)
6. 02:54 PM - Re: winglets (Moe - Ross Racing Pistons)
7. 03:44 PM - Re: winglets (Barry Collman)
8. 08:58 PM - Re: winglets (YOURTCFG@aol.com)
9. 09:02 PM - Re: Re: MoGas STC & LOP (YOURTCFG@aol.com)
10. 09:07 PM - Re: winglets (Barry Hancock)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bill,
Thanks much for the report. Did you install the winglets alone, or did you
do them along with other changes. When I had them installed on my 680F(p)
the flap gap seals were installed by Commander Aero at the same time, so it
was impossible to know what changed what.
Regards,
Moe Mills
N680RR
680F(p)
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BillLeff1@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: winglets
Just to set the record straight. The AeroDyne winglets were not developed by
the Air Force engineers. However, the deign was evaluated by Air Force
engineers, visually not in wind tunnels, and they felt that they could
probably not be improved on in their present form. They felt that there
would not be a reasonable return on investment if additional evaluation was
done.
The originals were Commander factory winglets for the 695 Jet Props. A set
of those were installed on Av Fuel's 500S (N66AV). Basically those that
followed were copies of the factory winglets. They were then modified
(stretched) to fit the 690 wing. No flight test were conducted to certify
any performance improvement because it was too expensive.
I conducted some of the original flight test for Dick Wartinger. Most of the
flight test for certification were to make sure that there were no adverse
effects like vibration. My findings about performance were subjective but I
found that they made a significant improvement in the following areas:
Low Speed , high angle of attack operations.
The aircraft lifts off easier
Stalls are much cleaner and normally break straight ahead (stall speed my be
lower but we never certified that.
Aileron control at low speed is significantly improved so cross winds are
easier to handle especially in short wing aircraft (520 560 680s and
Turbos).
Approach speeds can be lowered 5-10 kts because of better low speed
characteristics.
Single engine climb appears to be improved
It is hard to ell about normal climb
I have never noticed any increase in cruse speed.
And Oh Yea... they look way cool!!!!!!
I did buy one of the first sets to put on a 681. My employer also had a 695A
(1000) as well and it came with factory winglets.
Anyway, that is the story on the winglets.
Bill Leff
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The flight test were done with only the winglets installed after a control
test flight was done. Bob Hover did not like them for what he did but that was
mostly high speed flying and there was no place to put wing tip smoke!
Bill
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Moe, Several years back I talked to an aerodynamics person at the
University of Texas at Arlington and was told that the winglets were
designed for jets that fly at high altitudes in thin air and down close
to stall speed. He said that at the lower altitudes and at speeds well
above stall they would actually slow you down. They do look so cool
though and with your pressurized plane may see some gain. I have
forgotten what the percent in efficiency was on the B-727, but it was
supposed to be enough to pay for themselves in a short time.
Jim Addington
N444BD
----- Original Message -----
From: Moe - Ross Racing Pistons
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: winglets
Bill,
Thanks much for the report. Did you install the winglets alone, or
did you do them along with other changes. When I had them installed on
my 680F(p) the flap gap seals were installed by Commander Aero at the
same time, so it was impossible to know what changed what.
Regards,
Moe Mills
N680RR
680F(p)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BillLeff1@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:03 PM
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: winglets
Just to set the record straight. The AeroDyne winglets were not
developed by the Air Force engineers. However, the deign was evaluated
by Air Force engineers, visually not in wind tunnels, and they felt that
they could probably not be improved on in their present form. They felt
that there would not be a reasonable return on investment if additional
evaluation was done.
The originals were Commander factory winglets for the 695 Jet Props. A
set of those were installed on Av Fuel's 500S (N66AV). Basically those
that followed were copies of the factory winglets. They were then
modified (stretched) to fit the 690 wing. No flight test were conducted
to certify any performance improvement because it was too expensive.
I conducted some of the original flight test for Dick Wartinger. Most
of the flight test for certification were to make sure that there were
no adverse effects like vibration. My findings about performance were
subjective but I found that they made a significant improvement in the
following areas:
Low Speed , high angle of attack operations.
The aircraft lifts off easier
Stalls are much cleaner and normally break straight ahead (stall speed
my be lower but we never certified that.
Aileron control at low speed is significantly improved so cross winds
are easier to handle especially in short wing aircraft (520 560 680s and
Turbos).
Approach speeds can be lowered 5-10 kts because of better low speed
characteristics.
Single engine climb appears to be improved
It is hard to ell about normal climb
I have never noticed any increase in cruse speed.
And Oh Yea... they look way cool!!!!!!
I did buy one of the first sets to put on a 681. My employer also had
a 695A (1000) as well and it came with factory winglets.
Anyway, that is the story on the winglets.
Bill Leff
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Jim,
My younger son flies a 737 for the US Navy, and they agree that the winglets
reduce fuel burn substantially at altitude. He quoted me some figures a
while back, and as I remember the fuel burn saving was just south of 5%.
The 680F(p) is obviously supercharged and pressurized, however, it seems to
like about 17,000 ft. unless the winds are really good at higher altitude,
and remember it has that nasty little placard that reminds you to
de-pressurize at 21,000 or 22,000 feet (forgot which one since I never go up
that high). As far as speed it seems to be about the same. Perhaps the
flap gap seals and winglets offset each other there? I am sure that the
combination did slightly extend my takeoff run a little (100 to 150 feet).
Moe
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Addington
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: winglets
Moe, Several years back I talked to an aerodynamics person at the University
of Texas at Arlington and was told that the winglets were designed for jets
that fly at high altitudes in thin air and down close to stall speed. He
said that at the lower altitudes and at speeds well above stall they would
actually slow you down. They do look so cool though and with your
pressurized plane may see some gain. I have forgotten what the percent in
efficiency was on the B-727, but it was supposed to be enough to pay for
themselves in a short time.
Jim Addington
N444BD
----- Original Message -----
From: Moe - Ross Racing <mailto:moe@rosspistons.com> Pistons
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: winglets
Bill,
Thanks much for the report. Did you install the winglets alone, or did you
do them along with other changes. When I had them installed on my 680F(p)
the flap gap seals were installed by Commander Aero at the same time, so it
was impossible to know what changed what.
Regards,
Moe Mills
N680RR
680F(p)
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BillLeff1@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: winglets
Just to set the record straight. The AeroDyne winglets were not developed by
the Air Force engineers. However, the deign was evaluated by Air Force
engineers, visually not in wind tunnels, and they felt that they could
probably not be improved on in their present form. They felt that there
would not be a reasonable return on investment if additional evaluation was
done.
The originals were Commander factory winglets for the 695 Jet Props. A set
of those were installed on Av Fuel's 500S (N66AV). Basically those that
followed were copies of the factory winglets. They were then modified
(stretched) to fit the 690 wing. No flight test were conducted to certify
any performance improvement because it was too expensive.
I conducted some of the original flight test for Dick Wartinger. Most of the
flight test for certification were to make sure that there were no adverse
effects like vibration. My findings about performance were subjective but I
found that they made a significant improvement in the following areas:
Low Speed , high angle of attack operations.
The aircraft lifts off easier
Stalls are much cleaner and normally break straight ahead (stall speed my be
lower but we never certified that.
Aileron control at low speed is significantly improved so cross winds are
easier to handle especially in short wing aircraft (520 560 680s and
Turbos).
Approach speeds can be lowered 5-10 kts because of better low speed
characteristics.
Single engine climb appears to be improved
It is hard to ell about normal climb
I have never noticed any increase in cruse speed.
And Oh Yea... they look way cool!!!!!!
I did buy one of the first sets to put on a 681. My employer also had a 695A
(1000) as well and it came with factory winglets.
Anyway, that is the story on the winglets.
Bill Leff
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Moe,
What was the purpose of depressurizing at 22,000'? I never had the patience
to take the 680FP up that high, but I must admit I never saw that placard.
Well, on the other hand, in Africa it might not have made it all the way out
to us back then.
Thanks
Nico
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Moe - Ross
Racing Pistons
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: winglets
Jim,
My younger son flies a 737 for the US Navy, and they agree that the winglets
reduce fuel burn substantially at altitude. He quoted me some figures a
while back, and as I remember the fuel burn saving was just south of 5%.
The 680F(p) is obviously supercharged and pressurized, however, it seems to
like about 17,000 ft. unless the winds are really good at higher altitude,
and remember it has that nasty little placard that reminds you to
de-pressurize at 21,000 or 22,000 feet (forgot which one since I never go up
that high). As far as speed it seems to be about the same. Perhaps the
flap gap seals and winglets offset each other there? I am sure that the
combination did slightly extend my takeoff run a little (100 to 150 feet).
Moe
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Addington
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: winglets
Moe, Several years back I talked to an aerodynamics person at the University
of Texas at Arlington and was told that the winglets were designed for jets
that fly at high altitudes in thin air and down close to stall speed. He
said that at the lower altitudes and at speeds well above stall they would
actually slow you down. They do look so cool though and with your
pressurized plane may see some gain. I have forgotten what the percent in
efficiency was on the B-727, but it was supposed to be enough to pay for
themselves in a short time.
Jim Addington
N444BD
----- Original Message -----
From: Moe - Ross Racing <mailto:moe@rosspistons.com> Pistons
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: winglets
Bill,
Thanks much for the report. Did you install the winglets alone, or did you
do them along with other changes. When I had them installed on my 680F(p)
the flap gap seals were installed by Commander Aero at the same time, so it
was impossible to know what changed what.
Regards,
Moe Mills
N680RR
680F(p)
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BillLeff1@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: winglets
Just to set the record straight. The AeroDyne winglets were not developed by
the Air Force engineers. However, the deign was evaluated by Air Force
engineers, visually not in wind tunnels, and they felt that they could
probably not be improved on in their present form. They felt that there
would not be a reasonable return on investment if additional evaluation was
done.
The originals were Commander factory winglets for the 695 Jet Props. A set
of those were installed on Av Fuel's 500S (N66AV). Basically those that
followed were copies of the factory winglets. They were then modified
(stretched) to fit the 690 wing. No flight test were conducted to certify
any performance improvement because it was too expensive.
I conducted some of the original flight test for Dick Wartinger. Most of the
flight test for certification were to make sure that there were no adverse
effects like vibration. My findings about performance were subjective but I
found that they made a significant improvement in the following areas:
Low Speed , high angle of attack operations.
The aircraft lifts off easier
Stalls are much cleaner and normally break straight ahead (stall speed my be
lower but we never certified that.
Aileron control at low speed is significantly improved so cross winds are
easier to handle especially in short wing aircraft (520 560 680s and
Turbos).
Approach speeds can be lowered 5-10 kts because of better low speed
characteristics.
Single engine climb appears to be improved
It is hard to ell about normal climb
I have never noticed any increase in cruse speed.
And Oh Yea... they look way cool!!!!!!
I did buy one of the first sets to put on a 681. My employer also had a 695A
(1000) as well and it came with factory winglets.
Anyway, that is the story on the winglets.
Bill Leff
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Nico,
I have not ever found a stated reason; however, I suspect that they were
afraid that you would blow the windows out of the plane. Remember Commander
"got by" with adding pressurization on as an option or as an accessory, not
by certifying it as a new air frame. If you check the registration on my
plane (N680RR) it is certified as a 680F. On some of the paper work it is
listed as a 680F(p).
Perhaps Sir Barry could weigh in on this.
Regards,
Moe
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of nico css
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: winglets
Moe,
What was the purpose of depressurizing at 22,000'? I never had the patience
to take the 680FP up that high, but I must admit I never saw that placard.
Well, on the other hand, in Africa it might not have made it all the way out
to us back then.
Thanks
Nico
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Moe - Ross
Racing Pistons
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: winglets
Jim,
My younger son flies a 737 for the US Navy, and they agree that the winglets
reduce fuel burn substantially at altitude. He quoted me some figures a
while back, and as I remember the fuel burn saving was just south of 5%.
The 680F(p) is obviously supercharged and pressurized, however, it seems to
like about 17,000 ft. unless the winds are really good at higher altitude,
and remember it has that nasty little placard that reminds you to
de-pressurize at 21,000 or 22,000 feet (forgot which one since I never go up
that high). As far as speed it seems to be about the same. Perhaps the
flap gap seals and winglets offset each other there? I am sure that the
combination did slightly extend my takeoff run a little (100 to 150 feet).
Moe
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Addington
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: winglets
Moe, Several years back I talked to an aerodynamics person at the University
of Texas at Arlington and was told that the winglets were designed for jets
that fly at high altitudes in thin air and down close to stall speed. He
said that at the lower altitudes and at speeds well above stall they would
actually slow you down. They do look so cool though and with your
pressurized plane may see some gain. I have forgotten what the percent in
efficiency was on the B-727, but it was supposed to be enough to pay for
themselves in a short time.
Jim Addington
N444BD
----- Original Message -----
From: Moe - Ross Racing <mailto:moe@rosspistons.com> Pistons
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: winglets
Bill,
Thanks much for the report. Did you install the winglets alone, or did you
do them along with other changes. When I had them installed on my 680F(p)
the flap gap seals were installed by Commander Aero at the same time, so it
was impossible to know what changed what.
Regards,
Moe Mills
N680RR
680F(p)
_____
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BillLeff1@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: winglets
Just to set the record straight. The AeroDyne winglets were not developed by
the Air Force engineers. However, the deign was evaluated by Air Force
engineers, visually not in wind tunnels, and they felt that they could
probably not be improved on in their present form. They felt that there
would not be a reasonable return on investment if additional evaluation was
done.
The originals were Commander factory winglets for the 695 Jet Props. A set
of those were installed on Av Fuel's 500S (N66AV). Basically those that
followed were copies of the factory winglets. They were then modified
(stretched) to fit the 690 wing. No flight test were conducted to certify
any performance improvement because it was too expensive.
I conducted some of the original flight test for Dick Wartinger. Most of the
flight test for certification were to make sure that there were no adverse
effects like vibration. My findings about performance were subjective but I
found that they made a significant improvement in the following areas:
Low Speed , high angle of attack operations.
The aircraft lifts off easier
Stalls are much cleaner and normally break straight ahead (stall speed my be
lower but we never certified that.
Aileron control at low speed is significantly improved so cross winds are
easier to handle especially in short wing aircraft (520 560 680s and
Turbos).
Approach speeds can be lowered 5-10 kts because of better low speed
characteristics.
Single engine climb appears to be improved
It is hard to ell about normal climb
I have never noticed any increase in cruse speed.
And Oh Yea... they look way cool!!!!!!
I did buy one of the first sets to put on a 681. My employer also had a 695A
(1000) as well and it came with factory winglets.
Anyway, that is the story on the winglets.
Bill Leff
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi All,
Moe is exactly right.
The Pressurization system on a 680F was considered an Optional Extra.
Therefore, the Models 680F & 680F(P) shared the same 'Unit' or 'Dash'
number sequence.
Of the 152 Unit numbers for the 680F, 47 were 680F(P).
The last 680F built was s/n 1447-152. And yes, if you look at the Serial
Number Plate for the F(P) version, it will tell you it's a 680F.
You won't find the 680F(P) on the Type Certificate 2A4 as a separate
Model, but Note 5 tells us all about it:
"An optional pressurized version of the Model 680-F designated "680-F
(Pressurized)" was approved June 29, 1962. This model is a standard
680-F incorporating a factory modification per Aero Commander Dwg.
610021. Note the special required equipment list and the special
equipment column for this modified 680-F in Revision No. 24 or Service
Information SI-118."
The correct Drawing No. though is 6100021.
Strange then that the Model 720 wasn't called the 680E(P) and the 680FLP
wasn't the 680FL(P). Although, the latter was going to be called the
680FPL and the first few were Certificated as such!
Every day's a schoolday.
Very Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Moe - Ross Racing Pistons
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:56 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: winglets
Nico,
I have not ever found a stated reason; however, I suspect that they
were afraid that you would blow the windows out of the plane. Remember
Commander "got by" with adding pressurization on as an option or as an
accessory, not by certifying it as a new air frame. If you check the
registration on my plane (N680RR) it is certified as a 680F. On some of
the paper work it is listed as a 680F(p).
Perhaps Sir Barry could weigh in on this.
Regards,
Moe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of nico css
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:21 PM
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Commander-List: winglets
Moe,
What was the purpose of depressurizing at 22,000'? I never had the
patience to take the 680FP up that high, but I must admit I never saw
that placard. Well, on the other hand, in Africa it might not have made
it all the way out to us back then.
Thanks
Nico
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Moe -
Ross Racing Pistons
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:47 AM
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Commander-List: winglets
Jim,
My younger son flies a 737 for the US Navy, and they agree that the
winglets reduce fuel burn substantially at altitude. He quoted me some
figures a while back, and as I remember the fuel burn saving was just
south of 5%.
The 680F(p) is obviously supercharged and pressurized, however, it
seems to like about 17,000 ft. unless the winds are really good at
higher altitude, and remember it has that nasty little placard that
reminds you to de-pressurize at 21,000 or 22,000 feet (forgot which one
since I never go up that high). As far as speed it seems to be about
the same. Perhaps the flap gap seals and winglets offset each other
there? I am sure that the combination did slightly extend my takeoff
run a little (100 to 150 feet).
Moe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Addington
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:57 AM
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: winglets
Moe, Several years back I talked to an aerodynamics person at the
University of Texas at Arlington and was told that the winglets were
designed for jets that fly at high altitudes in thin air and down close
to stall speed. He said that at the lower altitudes and at speeds well
above stall they would actually slow you down. They do look so cool
though and with your pressurized plane may see some gain. I have
forgotten what the percent in efficiency was on the B-727, but it was
supposed to be enough to pay for themselves in a short time.
Jim Addington
N444BD
----- Original Message -----
From: Moe - Ross Racing Pistons
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: winglets
Bill,
Thanks much for the report. Did you install the winglets alone, or
did you do them along with other changes. When I had them installed on
my 680F(p) the flap gap seals were installed by Commander Aero at the
same time, so it was impossible to know what changed what.
Regards,
Moe Mills
N680RR
680F(p)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BillLeff1@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:03 PM
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: winglets
Just to set the record straight. The AeroDyne winglets were not
developed by the Air Force engineers. However, the deign was evaluated
by Air Force engineers, visually not in wind tunnels, and they felt that
they could probably not be improved on in their present form. They felt
that there would not be a reasonable return on investment if additional
evaluation was done.
The originals were Commander factory winglets for the 695 Jet Props.
A set of those were installed on Av Fuel's 500S (N66AV). Basically those
that followed were copies of the factory winglets. They were then
modified (stretched) to fit the 690 wing. No flight test were conducted
to certify any performance improvement because it was too expensive.
I conducted some of the original flight test for Dick Wartinger.
Most of the flight test for certification were to make sure that there
were no adverse effects like vibration. My findings about performance
were subjective but I found that they made a significant improvement in
the following areas:
Low Speed , high angle of attack operations.
The aircraft lifts off easier
Stalls are much cleaner and normally break straight ahead (stall
speed my be lower but we never certified that.
Aileron control at low speed is significantly improved so cross
winds are easier to handle especially in short wing aircraft (520 560
680s and Turbos).
Approach speeds can be lowered 5-10 kts because of better low speed
characteristics.
Single engine climb appears to be improved
It is hard to ell about normal climb
I have never noticed any increase in cruse speed.
And Oh Yea... they look way cool!!!!!!
I did buy one of the first sets to put on a 681. My employer also
had a 695A (1000) as well and it came with factory winglets.
Anyway, that is the story on the winglets.
Bill Leff
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
See what's free at AOL.com.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">h
ttp://forums.matronics.com
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
In a message dated 6/22/2007 10:47:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
moe@rosspistons.com writes:
I am sure that the combination did slightly extend my takeoff run a little
(100 to 150 feet
It is the gap seals that adversely affect the TO performance. I have flown a
couple of airplanes before and after the installation and in both cases, the
TO performance suffered noticeably. They do however seem to give the
advertised increase in speed so unless one routinely operates from short strips,
they
probably make since jb
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MoGas STC & LOP |
Great info and accurate jb
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
>
> Time: 11:04:10 PM PST US
> From: BillLeff1@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: winglets
>
> Just to set the record straight. The AeroDyne winglets were not
> developed by
> the Air Force engineers. However, the deign was evaluated by Air Force
> engineers, visually not in wind tunnels, and they felt that they
> could probably
>
> not be improved on in their present form. They felt that there
> would not be a
>
> reasonable return on investment if additional evaluation was done.
Bill, et. al.,
Anyone know an aerodynamic engineer that would be willing to help
redesign wing tips on a 300 knot aircraft?
Please forward information to me at bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com
Thanks!
Barry
PS Anyone heard from Morris lately?
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|