New Winglets

ILS37R said:
I was talking to a Cessna engineer who had actually been working on the winglets program. He said that the performance improvement was really minor. Mostly they looked cool.
Click to expand...

Yea something like 1-2% increase in range or speed. I think the increase in climb rate was somewhat noticable 5-8%.

But the plane looks so sexy now I bet there is a 15-20% increase in marketing appeal. :drool:
 
crazyjaydawg said:
Yea something like 1-2% increase in range or speed. I think the increase in climb rate was somewhat noticable 5-8%.

But the plane looks so sexy now I bet there is a 15-20% increase in marketing appeal. :drool:
Click to expand...

I must be the only one here who doesn't think winglets make a plane look sexier..... I like it straight up - no winglets here please.
 
Winglets on this super swept wing look ugly.

Codyjp said:
Well, right up until the plane falls apart as it approaches Mach 1... Really though, a pilot could have worse problems...
Click to expand...

It's been over Mach 1 already.
 
crazyjaydawg said:
Now wing fences are just ugly.
Click to expand...

Blasphemy!

0904527.jpg
 
The X looks like it could easily go past Mach 1 the question is can the engines take it. I believe most supersonic planes have variable inlets on the engine to keep the airflow entering the engine subsonic.

If the G650 goes out and does .925 and then the X .93 where does the ride start getting cappy at .95?

You could probably through the 727 into the race as it's MMO is .90 and has the power to exceed that easily with the -15 or larger engines. It just he FF's are out of site when running that fast.

Pengy talk to Boeing as see if the want to enter the race there are still several US operators flying the 727.
 
crazyjaydawg said:
Yea something like 1-2% increase in range or speed. I think the increase in climb rate was somewhat noticable 5-8%.

But the plane looks so sexy now I bet there is a 15-20% increase in marketing appeal. :drool:
Click to expand...

The increase in climb rate, if true, would be nice for Cessna. I believe a Citation Sovereign has better time to climb numbers than the X.
 
Yes the the CE680 and CE560XL/XLS have better CLIMB numbers than the X, mainly due to the wing and a few other things, but you can't really beat the X when it gets up to Altitude and just overtakes.
 
Replace "winglets" with implants, and replace the picture with someone like, I dunno, Jenna Jameson, and this thread still makes sense.
 
jwp_145 said:
Documentation on that please? or just rumors...
Click to expand...

Won't ever see documentation because it's against the FAR's to go over Mach1.0.

Rumor has it from someone close to Cessna that during a descent they went over 1.0

Take this with a grain of salt but someone on APC mentioned that airplanes have to be certified to +M.07 from cruising speed. That's Mach .97 for the CX.
 
14 CFR § 91.817

Civil aircraft sonic boom.

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in the United States at a true flight Mach number greater than 1 except in compliance with conditions and limitations in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 issued to the operator under appendix B of this part.
(b) In addition, no person may operate a civil aircraft for which the maximum operating limit speed
0.38E!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif
exceeds a Mach number of 1, to or from an airport in the United States, unless--
(1) Information available to the flight crew includes flight limitations that ensure that flights entering or leaving the United States will not cause a sonic boom to reach the surface within the
United States; and
(2) The operator complies with the flight limitations prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or complies with conditions and limitations in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 issued under appendix B of this part.
 
Yeah, I've read that. I fail to see how it equates as to no one can operate at a speed greater than the speed of sound. It doesn't specifically outlaw it, just requires permission to do so.
 
When Gulfstream announced the G650 was a 0.925 airplane, Cessna brought out the X and announced it was a M0.926 airplane. The winglet bird showed up at NBAA in OCT along with almost the entire Cessna line.
 
A few weeks back there was someone on here who is a Ce750 pilot who put his .02 in on the whole winglet matter. He said that the worst thing about the Citation X was the climb rate. He said of course the engines were huge, but he said the wing was not optimized for a high rate of climb. He went on to say that the plane really begins to shine once it gets up into the flight levels where it is a beauty.

Funny story: Kenneth Copeland (the tv preacher) came through KRVS in his Citation X when I was a line crewman... his bird had the IR Camera on the nose. I asked the pilot how much drag that produced... his answer? "Do you really think it matters?" haha, he was smiling when he said it.

But anyhow, whoever it was posting on here about his Ce750 experience said that he is happy the winglets will boost the climb rate even if it is just a little bit. Someone else also chimed in about being an engineer on the winglet project... really interesting stories.

ANd I know there are rumors about the X reaking mach number 1.0, but I've never seen any documented proof that it actually happened. I've seen a cameraphone picture from an MFD that showed a TAS of 1.0 and the engineer also said that it happened, but I've never seen the proof nor will I probably ever. I had a professor at OSU, my mentor, who had the most spectacular dream carreer at TWA that we all want from 63-1991... he said that a crew inadvertantly broke mach 1.0 in a 727 during the recovery from an upset attitude.
 
Orange Anchor said:
When Gulfstream announced the G650 was a 0.925 airplane, Cessna brought out the X and announced it was a M0.926 airplane. The winglet bird showed up at NBAA in OCT along with almost the entire Cessna line.
Click to expand...

Where did you hear about the .926?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top