Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

winglets

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: 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. 

  [quote][b]

moe(at)rosspistons.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 5:35 am Post subject: 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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BillLeff1(at)aol.com

 Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 11:03 PM

 To: commander-list(at)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:  

    

   

    

[b]Low Speed , high angle of attack operations.[/b]  

    

   

    

[b]The aircraft lifts off easier[/b]  

    

   

    

[b]Stalls are much cleaner and normally break straight ahead (stall speed my be lower but we never certified that.[/b]  

    

   

    

[b]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).[/b]  

    

   

    

[b]Approach speeds can be lowered 5-10 kts because of better low speed characteristics.[/b]  

    

   

    

[b]Single engine climb appears to be improved[/b]  

    

   

    

[b]It is hard to ell about normal climb[/b]  

    

   

    

[b]I have never noticed any increase in cruse speed.[/b]  

    

   

    

[b]And Oh Yea... they look way cool!!!!!![/b]  

    

   

    

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.   

   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4

        [quote][b]

BillLeff1(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:52 am Post subject: winglets

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 AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

Jim Addington

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Denton, Texas

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: 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

 [quote]   ---

moe(at)rosspistons.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:46 am Post subject: 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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Addington

 Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:57 AM

 To: commander-list(at)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  

  [quote]    

---

nico(at)cybersuperstore.c
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject: 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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Moe - Ross Racing Pistons

 Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:47 AM

 To: commander-list(at)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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Addington

 Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:57 AM

 To: commander-list(at)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  

  [quote]    

---

moe(at)rosspistons.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject: 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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of nico css

 Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:21 PM

 To: commander-list(at)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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Moe - Ross Racing Pistons

 Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:47 AM

 To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: 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(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Addington

 Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:57 AM

 To: commander-list(at)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  

  [quote]    

---

barry.collman(at)air-brit
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:44 pm Post subject: winglets

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

 [quote]   ---

YOURTCFG(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject: winglets

In a message dated 6/22/2007 10:47:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, moe(at)rosspistons.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		    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 AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

radialpower(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: winglets

 	  Quote: 	

 Time: 11:04:10 PM PST US

 From: BillLeff1(at)aol.com

 Subject: Re: 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(at)worldwidewarbirds.com

Thanks!

Barry

PS  Anyone heard from Morris lately?

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

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 vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum