Live Flight Tracking

Click Here press release with photo.

Click Here Winglet-technolgy website

An already sexy airplane gets some enhancement.

I saw this flying in Wichita a little more than a year ago & they look better in person than the pictures.

The design of the wing is efficient enough that any drag reduction/performance gain from the addition of the winglets is negligable. Word is on the inside is that it comes down to a customer perception that they must be better because so many other airplanes have them...and the look. It's all about selling airplanes...and what the customer "wants".

I'm having them installed on my car.

Yes, because just like on the Citation X...no Neon owner would go faster or be cool without them.

They're making claims of performance. +15kts cruising speed, 4*C or 1200 lbs in hot/high take off capability, 150nm increased range, shorter time to climb to flight level 450, 4-5% fuel savings, etc. Are these benefits worth the cost? That's up to the owner; but there are tangible benefits beyond aesthetics(which is a benefit to some as well).

I saw the X demo at NBAA in Atlanta a couple years ago. Negligible performance increase or not, that airplane was plain sexy!

I do agree that the stock X wing is the model of efficiency for a civilian airframe in cruise flight, but there is room for increased lift in hot and heavy conditions.

That all sounds great in "marketing speak", but in real world operations on this airplane it's negligible.

And to eliminate confusion as to what they're claiming; "up to" 15 kts...which may only be achieved under certain parameters and not under all conditions. A 1,200 lb increase in MGTW (Maximum Gross Take-off Weight) which again may not always be useable depending on field length requirements. The temp increase means that the airplane will now perform at the same level in a 4*C higher ambient temp condition as it did without the winglets. When you play in the charts, it doesn't get you very much.... And a 4-5% fuel savings would take a really really really long time for most operators to have a ROI of the $415,000 winglet kit, plus the cost of installation at $178,000.

There are wing designs that the addition of winglets makes significant gains. But because of the efficient aerodynamics of the original wing design by Cessna's engineers, the X isn't one of them.

Again, from a source on the "inside" the idea of putting winglets on the X was orginally rejected because the performance gains didn't justify the costs. And because there were those internally that felt that they aesthetically detracted the the lines of the airplane. But customer feedback and the marketeers won out.

Sounds like Cessna's playbook to a T!

Who got the plane?

It's N373AB 750-0243 seen at Wichita with winglets August 13th, operator unknown (owner is Wells Fargo Bank).

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N373 ... /CYYR/EGSS

N373AB believe the operator is Salamair, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Is there a way to find out the actual operator of aircraft owned by Wells Fargo Bank? There are a lot of them.

There are books like JP Biz Jets, etc., that provide some of the missing information, however there are several paid services that track the owner/operators of aircraft.

Often the lessee, lessor, and operator can all be different - and even the operator may be a subsidiary of the true owner/operator.

http://www.jetnet.com/

Read the post directly above yours.....

It looks like he's asking in general if there's a way to find out who the operator is for an aircraft owned by Wells Fargo and not just this particular aircraft.

Yeah!!!! The HOTTEST plane on earth just beat itself!

Are you going to upgrade?

Registered as Owner - Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, N.A.
Trust - FARRER & Co. in the UK
Owner - Citation Jet Investments, LLC in the UK
Operator - Salem Aviation, Saudi Arabia

Interesting that it is considered a "negative" that us customers wanted better performance and appearance this time. The CX is a marvelous flying machine, and just like the Dassault family, they (Cessna) finally realized the winglets reduce drag and increase performance.: these 2 companies were the last holdouts to a good idea. Anything to make an airplane more efficient and (green) gets my vote. There should also be a lot of residual value to the winglets-anyone remember the increased value of a G III with winglets in the 80s?
I am glad Cessna listened.

It may not have just been a head-in-the-sand approach, there are engineering and economic reasons why sometimes the net benefit of adding winglets is small, zero, or negative. The spanwise lift distribution with a winglet generally results in larger wing root bending stress, so designs without much margin available require reinforcement. See Airbus' ongoing saga with A32S winglets; I think they're on their 5th attempt now to find a viable winglet.

I might just get two, one to fly and the other to keep clean and look at!