The concept of a V shaped empennage was first envisaged in 1910 by two Germans from Wallsee, Hopfenwieser and Höfinger. They began construction of a fuselage with such a tail unit. There does not seem to be any evidence that any aircraft incorporating this device was completed or any tests carried out, the idea being abandoned and forgotten.
In the the late 1920’s, Jerzy Rudlicki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Rudlicki) was exploring ways by which a gunner defending an aircraft from the rear could be improved. Rudlicki, who was completely unaware of Hopfenwieser’s and Höfinger’s work, began to pursue the idea of an empennage consisting of two inclined elements in place of a conventional tail. In the course of preliminary investigations of the system various configurations, including A, W and M forms, were studied, which showed the V layout to be the most promising. In 1930, at the Warsaw Aerodynamic Institute, extensive comparative wind-tunnel tests of conventional Rudlicki V-tail began. These fully confirmed the designer’s expectations. The results of these tests combined with detailed design investigations revealed that as well as improvements to the field of fire, the system had better efficiency, aerodynamic advantages and a reduction of 35% of the dead weight of the tail structure.
All this encouraged E.Plage & T.Laśkiewicz to test the empennage in the air. In early 1931 work commenced on an experimental of Polish built Hanriot H.D.14 serial no. 30.83 which incorporated the Rudlicki V-tail. The aircraft became the first aircraft in the world to fly with what is popularly known as a ‘butterfly tail’. Władysław Szulczewski began flight trials in early summer 1931.
Factory tests proved very successful and completely trouble free and upon completion the Hanriot was transferred to the I.B.T.L in Warsaw. There it was comprehensively evaluated by the Institute’s pilots Kazimierz Kaźmierczuk and Col. Jerzy Kossowski. Neither of the pilots found any difficulty in converting to the Rudlicki V-tail system and all reports stressed the handling characteristics of the aircraft were comparable or superior to those of standard machine, controllability in flight and on the ground being particularly good.
Despite this, the Department of Aeronautics, for reasons known only to itself, did not approve the invention. When Lublin built the R-XIX incorporating the Rudlicki V-tail the Department reprimanded the factory and instructed it to abandon all further work on the system.
Although dismissed in Poland, Rudlicki’s invention attracted attention abroad. The RAE was engaged in extensive research into improving spin recovery characteristics, particularly the Bristol Bulldog, and showed considerable interest in Rudlicki’s V-tail. Experiments with models were carried out at the RAE’s Free Spinning Tunnel and Rudlicki was invited to Britain to discuss the the issues involved.
Initial experiments suggested that there was no particular merit in the system as an anti-spinning device, but A.V.Stephens, who conducted the research, noted that their outcome was not entirely conclusive. Another series of test was devised but not carried out.
Some research was also carried out in France, Russia, Germany and Italy, the Rudlicki-tail was installed on the French Blériot-Spad 992 and Mauboussin research biplanes and experimental conversions of the Russian R-5 and U-2 (Po-2) biplanes.
In adapting the Rudlicki V-tail to the Hanriot, the same rudder pedals and control column were retained by introducing a special transmission box which enabled the pilot to fly the machine employing the same operations he would use in controlling a conventional aircraft. Backward and forward movements of the control column operated the moveable tail surfaces together as elevators. Lateral movements controlled the ailerons in the ordinary way. The differential gearing in the transmission box permitted the pilot to operate the moveable tail surfaces differentially by normal movements of the rudder pedals. The transmission box itself was small and very light, carried in the rear of the fuselage near the tail. From each side of the box two axles connected by leavers extended to the moveable tail surfaces. By means of the levers the mechanism was connected to the normal system of control, one lever being connected to the control column and the other to the rudder bar. Movement of the first lever caused the surfaces to move in the same direction, while movement of the latter caused them to move differentially.
Dipl. Ing Zygmunt Zakrzewski, managing director of the Lublin works, impressed with the results on the modified Hanriot H.D.14and the widespread international interest in the Rudlicki, approved Rudlitcki’s ideas concerning a V-tailed version of the R-XIII, which offered the best solution of defence against attack from the rear. As the Department of Aeronautics showed no enthusiasm for the project, development was undertaken by the company as a private venture. Extensive wind-tunnel tests with scale models embodying V and A-type configurations of the tail surfaces were conducted at the Warsaw Aerodynamic Institute and the V-tail eventually chosen as the more efficient.
In late 1931 the R-XIII prototype, serial 56.1, was returned to Lublin for a complete overhaul an brought up to full Lotnictwo Wojskowe standards. The factory management decided to rebuild this machine at its own expense to serve as the R-XIX prototype. The R-XIX flew in the summer of 1932, and after comprehensive air tests at the factory, mainly conducted by Władsław Szulczewki, arrived unannounced in Warsaw to be demonstrated at the I.B.T.L. Col Kossowski was present and immediately offered to take the aeroplane for a flight. He then proceeded to put the aircraft through its paces with breath-taking aerobatics and on landing expressed a very favourable opinion on the design.
This was to infuriate the the Department of Aeronautics who severely reprimanded Kossowski for flying the aircraft without permission and for expressing a positive opinion which did not coincide with with that of the Department. Zakrzewski was summoned to learn off the Department’s displeasure and the factory was punished by being fined for failing to deliver the overhauled R-XIII to the LW on time. Further flights of the R-XIX were strictly forbidden and on the Department’s order the offending tail was sawn off and the airframe sent back by rail to Lublin.
Absolutely John but I think it helps to have a performance table with some comparative figures up.
One would also suspect that the 3 mph speed gain was with the original 'small' tail feathers - later model 35's had larger tail surfaces and therefore (as Vega and myself have previously posted) there will have been zero point in having a V Tail as there would be no drag/speed advantage.
By: topspeed
- 10th April 2019 at 12:01Permalink- Edited 10th April 2019 at 12:03
Absolutely John but I think it helps to have a performance table with some comparative figures up.
One would also suspect that the 3 mph speed gain was with the original 'small' tail feathers - later model 35's had larger tail surfaces and therefore (as Vega and myself have previously posted) there will have been zero point in having a V Tail as there would be no drag/speed advantage.
You are most likely wrong with this assumption.
Main point is that there is less interference drag..which remains the same even if there was a larger v-tail.
And 3 mph is colossal gain..as also the structure is much simpler.
3mph is tiny, the same as a retractable step and this is on a really draggy airframe.
The vee tail is the only one of the listed changes which if it’s designed incorrectly will lead to stability and control issues which will kill those on the plane.
Have you ever seen or worked on vee tail control mixer? It combines elevator, elevator trim, rudder and rudder trim in a single lethal mechanism. Character building to sign off for flight and most likely uncertifiable with respect to single point failure requirement.
Consider that all current designers of racing sailplanes will sell their soul to the devil for that last little bit of aero performance, there’s not a single vee tail available on modern gliders (or for the last 50 years )tells you something quite profound about a vee tail performance enhancing ability.
Please don’t claim you know more about this than the likes of Michael Greiner, Professor Liam Boerman, Kluas Holighaus, Gerhard Waibel etal
3mph is tiny, the same as a retractable step and this is on a really draggy airframe.
The vee tail is the only one of the listed changes which if it’s designed incorrectly will lead to stability and control issues which will kill those on the plane.
Have you ever seen or worked on vee tail control mixer? It combines elevator, elevator trim, rudder and rudder trim in a single lethal mechanism. Character building to sign off for flight and most likely uncertifiable with respect to single point failure requirement.
Consider that all current designers of racing sailplanes will sell their soul to the devil for that last little bit of aero performance, there’s not a single vee tail available on modern gliders (or for the last 50 years )tells you something quite profound about a vee tail performance enhancing ability.
Please don’t claim you know more about this than the likes of Michael Greiner, Professor Liam Boerman, Kluas Holighaus, Gerhard Waibel etal
And 3 mph is colossal gain..as also the structure is much simpler.
LOL - 3 mph is really not worth all the bother - also even people who love the V Tail Bonanza would be the first to admit that it is longitudinally unstable which means that it tends to 'Dutch Roll' in any turbulence !
By: Malcolm McKay
- 10th April 2019 at 23:32Permalink- Edited 10th April 2019 at 23:34
Now while I really am not an expert or even particularly knowledgeable on the subject of aerodynamics I suspect that where the V tail has been successfully applied it is part of a design package that includes integrating the design of the whole airframe including fuselage and wings so that the V tail itself is an effective component of the overall aerodynamic package. The Fouga Magister and the F117 exhibit that integration of features. However in the case of the Bonanza, the Polish design and the earlier mentioned Me 109 experiment the V tail appears to be a modification restricted only to the rear fuselage and even then more as tinkering with a design than seeking a fully integrated design.
By: topspeed
- 11th April 2019 at 06:21Permalink- Edited 11th April 2019 at 10:05
Now while I really am not an expert or even particularly knowledgeable on the subject of aerodynamics I suspect that where the V tail has been successfully applied it is part of a design package that includes integrating the design of the whole airframe including fuselage and wings so that the V tail itself is an effective component of the overall aerodynamic package. The Fouga Magister and the F117 exhibit that integration of features. However in the case of the Bonanza, the Polish design and the earlier mentioned Me 109 experiment the V tail appears to be a modification restricted only to the rear fuselage and even then more as tinkering with a design than seeking a fully integrated design.
Right you see seldom jet trainers with under 8 kN of thrust !
By: J Boyle
- 12th April 2019 at 22:40Permalink- Edited 12th April 2019 at 23:09
However in the case of the Bonanza...the V tail appears to be a modification restricted only to the rear fuselage and even then more as tinkering with a design than seeking a fully integrated design.
I'm not sure if you can call theM-tail on the Bonanza a "modification" since it was originally designed and flown with it.
There is an interesting section on the tail selection in Those Incomparable Bonanzas by Larry Ball. He notes the feature was first tested as an experiment for application on future high speed aircraft on a AT-10 trainer in 1943.
It doesn't say whether it was purely a Beech initiative or if it was done at the behest of NACA (now NASA) or a university.
Specifically it states:
-On low wing types, it gets the horizontal stabilizer out of the turbulence caused by the wing at some speeds.
-It reduced surface to fuselage intersections which cut drag.
-The AT-10 testbed didn't offer any weight savings but the designers felt that if it were designed into a h del from the beginning, a weight savings could be realized.
-Based on some flight test data from the AT-10, it was believed that a V-tail offered better soon recovery. Apparently, in conventional tail designs, the horizontal stabilizer, when stalled, can blank out part of the vertical stabilizer and rudder. It was felt the o figure AT-10 had better soon recovery than the stock model.
At any rate, the Bonanza underwent extensive (and probably unprecedented) wind tunnel studies for a "light" aircraft.
In other words, it wasn't designed and built by some blokes in a shed. The primary designer was Ralph Harmon and the team that designed the very successful and long lived (32 years) Twin Beech Model 18.
By: Malcolm McKay
- 13th April 2019 at 07:57Permalink- Edited 13th April 2019 at 08:01
I'm not sure if you can call theM-tail on the Bonanza a "modification" since it was originally designed and flown with it.
There is an interesting section on the tail selection in Those Incomparable Bonanzas by Larry Ball. He notes the feature was first tested as an experiment for application on future high speed aircraft on a AT-10 trainer in 1943.
It doesn't say whether it was purely a Beech initiative or if it was done at the behest of NACA (now NASA) or a university.
Specifically it states:
-On low wing types, it gets the horizontal stabilizer out of the turbulence caused by the wing at some speeds.
-It reduced surface to fuselage intersections which cut drag.
-The AT-10 testbed didn't offer any weight savings but the designers felt that if it were designed into a h del from the beginning, a weight savings could be realized.
-Based on some flight test data from the AT-10, it was believed that a V-tail offered better soon recovery. Apparently, in conventional tail designs, the horizontal stabilizer, when stalled, can blank out part of the vertical stabilizer and rudder. It was felt the o figure AT-10 had better soon recovery than the stock model.
At any rate, the Bonanza underwent extensive (and probably unprecedented) wind tunnel studies for a "light" aircraft.
In other words, it wasn't designed and built by some blokes in a shed. The primary designer was Ralph Harmon and the team that designed the very successful and long lived (32 years) Twin Beech Model 18.
Was there any difference in the aerodynamic features of the rest of the Bonanza i.e. wings, fuselage and engine thrust line etc. between the V tailed version and the conventionally tailed version. Perhaps there isn't and the removal of the V tail actually worked to actually enhance performance by removing an unrecognised problems Certainly the Me 109 and the Polish aircraft are really just a conventionally tailed aircraft that have had the empennage changed to a V. It really appears to me that those aircraft that have worked successfully with a V tail in whatever form have close attention paid to the fuselage and its aerodynamic function as a part of the lift rather than simply as a streamlined protective enclosure for the crew and payload. But I could be wrong.
Was there any difference in the aerodynamic features of the rest of the Bonanza i.e. wings, fuselage and engine thrust line etc. between the V tailed version and the conventionally tailed version?
No.
Remember that the Bonanza was a commercial project (not a test bed or military type) so both versions were produced in the same tooling/fixtures.
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 9th April 2019 at 21:41 Permalink - Edited 9th April 2019 at 21:42
deleted
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 9th April 2019 at 21:42 Permalink
Thank you awesome research.
Posts: 6,051
By: bazv - 9th April 2019 at 22:49 Permalink
From Beechcraft tech info/history about the model 35 - to fit a 'fashionable' and cute V Tail gained a colossal 3 mph
http://www.beechcraft.org/vtail/BEECH-DOC/beech2.pdf
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"large","data-attachmentid":3859127}[/ATTACH]
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 9th April 2019 at 23:47 Permalink
...which is what I reported in post #7. :)
Posts: 6,051
By: bazv - 10th April 2019 at 08:55 Permalink
Absolutely John but I think it helps to have a performance table with some comparative figures up.
One would also suspect that the 3 mph speed gain was with the original 'small' tail feathers - later model 35's had larger tail surfaces and therefore (as Vega and myself have previously posted) there will have been zero point in having a V Tail as there would be no drag/speed advantage.
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 10th April 2019 at 12:01 Permalink - Edited 10th April 2019 at 12:03
You are most likely wrong with this assumption.
Main point is that there is less interference drag..which remains the same even if there was a larger v-tail.
And 3 mph is colossal gain..as also the structure is much simpler.
Posts: 472
By: Vega ECM - 10th April 2019 at 13:56 Permalink
3mph is tiny, the same as a retractable step and this is on a really draggy airframe.
The vee tail is the only one of the listed changes which if it’s designed incorrectly will lead to stability and control issues which will kill those on the plane.
Have you ever seen or worked on vee tail control mixer? It combines elevator, elevator trim, rudder and rudder trim in a single lethal mechanism. Character building to sign off for flight and most likely uncertifiable with respect to single point failure requirement.
Consider that all current designers of racing sailplanes will sell their soul to the devil for that last little bit of aero performance, there’s not a single vee tail available on modern gliders (or for the last 50 years )tells you something quite profound about a vee tail performance enhancing ability.
Please don’t claim you know more about this than the likes of Michael Greiner, Professor Liam Boerman, Kluas Holighaus, Gerhard Waibel etal
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 10th April 2019 at 16:59 Permalink
I designed such a system...it is challenging.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S_hAlDTQtQ
Posts: 6,051
By: bazv - 10th April 2019 at 18:08 Permalink
LOL - 3 mph is really not worth all the bother - also even people who love the V Tail Bonanza would be the first to admit that it is longitudinally unstable which means that it tends to 'Dutch Roll' in any turbulence !
Posts: 1,707
By: longshot - 10th April 2019 at 21:53 Permalink
Nobody's mentioned the F-117 yet, have they? Presumably the it's V-tail confers stealthiness?
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 10th April 2019 at 22:37 Permalink
How about Fouga Magister ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoFqE9w6Ba0
Posts: 1,566
By: Malcolm McKay - 10th April 2019 at 23:32 Permalink - Edited 10th April 2019 at 23:34
Now while I really am not an expert or even particularly knowledgeable on the subject of aerodynamics I suspect that where the V tail has been successfully applied it is part of a design package that includes integrating the design of the whole airframe including fuselage and wings so that the V tail itself is an effective component of the overall aerodynamic package. The Fouga Magister and the F117 exhibit that integration of features. However in the case of the Bonanza, the Polish design and the earlier mentioned Me 109 experiment the V tail appears to be a modification restricted only to the rear fuselage and even then more as tinkering with a design than seeking a fully integrated design.
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 11th April 2019 at 06:21 Permalink - Edited 11th April 2019 at 10:05
Right you see seldom jet trainers with under 8 kN of thrust !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouga_CM.170_Magister
PZL TS-11 Iskra with same performance had 20% more thrust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_TS-11_Iskra
Posts: 1,707
By: longshot - 12th April 2019 at 17:16 Permalink
Presumably the F-117 V-tail produces less radar reflection than a conventional inverted T configuration
Posts: 126
By: Lingo Dog - 12th April 2019 at 21:49 Permalink
The V tail on the Messerschmitt seems to show a quite considerable bend toward the right. Presumably an attempt to minimise torque effect on take-off.
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 12th April 2019 at 22:40 Permalink - Edited 12th April 2019 at 23:09
I'm not sure if you can call theM-tail on the Bonanza a "modification" since it was originally designed and flown with it.
There is an interesting section on the tail selection in Those Incomparable Bonanzas by Larry Ball. He notes the feature was first tested as an experiment for application on future high speed aircraft on a AT-10 trainer in 1943.
It doesn't say whether it was purely a Beech initiative or if it was done at the behest of NACA (now NASA) or a university.
Specifically it states:
-On low wing types, it gets the horizontal stabilizer out of the turbulence caused by the wing at some speeds.
-It reduced surface to fuselage intersections which cut drag.
-The AT-10 testbed didn't offer any weight savings but the designers felt that if it were designed into a h del from the beginning, a weight savings could be realized.
-Based on some flight test data from the AT-10, it was believed that a V-tail offered better soon recovery. Apparently, in conventional tail designs, the horizontal stabilizer, when stalled, can blank out part of the vertical stabilizer and rudder. It was felt the o figure AT-10 had better soon recovery than the stock model.
At any rate, the Bonanza underwent extensive (and probably unprecedented) wind tunnel studies for a "light" aircraft.
In other words, it wasn't designed and built by some blokes in a shed. The primary designer was Ralph Harmon and the team that designed the very successful and long lived (32 years) Twin Beech Model 18.
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 13th April 2019 at 07:19 Permalink
As was the rudder in 109.
Posts: 1,566
By: Malcolm McKay - 13th April 2019 at 07:57 Permalink - Edited 13th April 2019 at 08:01
Was there any difference in the aerodynamic features of the rest of the Bonanza i.e. wings, fuselage and engine thrust line etc. between the V tailed version and the conventionally tailed version. Perhaps there isn't and the removal of the V tail actually worked to actually enhance performance by removing an unrecognised problems Certainly the Me 109 and the Polish aircraft are really just a conventionally tailed aircraft that have had the empennage changed to a V. It really appears to me that those aircraft that have worked successfully with a V tail in whatever form have close attention paid to the fuselage and its aerodynamic function as a part of the lift rather than simply as a streamlined protective enclosure for the crew and payload. But I could be wrong.
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 13th April 2019 at 16:48 Permalink
No.
Remember that the Bonanza was a commercial project (not a test bed or military type) so both versions were produced in the same tooling/fixtures.
Posts: 1,566
By: Malcolm McKay - 14th April 2019 at 00:07 Permalink
Hmmm .... probably was overall aerodynamically best suited to a conventional tail.