By: J Boyle
- 14th April 2019 at 03:52Permalink- Edited 14th April 2019 at 03:55
"Best suited"...
Maybe, maybe not.
Look at it from Beech's perspective...
They wanted a fast aeroplane. To aid that it had to be light and with reduced drag.
The configuration also reduced weight and and cost (remember more parts mean more expense).
And although the book doesn't mention it (the Ball Bonanza book is viewed by many as a semi-official Beech history) I suspect part of the reason it was adapted was it's unique look, certainly it would stand out in the crowded early post war aircraft market and suggest a modern look to buyers.
Remember at that time, most general aviation types were steel tube/fabric covered types. (The Bonanza was slated to replace the venerable Staggerwing Model 17 in the Beech product line) so it was expected to be the last word in modernity.
In short, there were several factors in its favor and no real reason why not to adapt it.
Sure, under some circumstances, it displayed a tendency to fish tail, but few aircraft of the period (and given their price point and level of sophistication fewer general aviation types) without the odd handling quirk or piloting challenge.
By: bazv
- 14th April 2019 at 09:33Permalink- Edited 14th April 2019 at 12:36
"Best suited"...
Maybe, maybe not.
I suspect part of the reason it was adapted was it's unique look, certainly it would stand out in the crowded early post war aircraft market and suggest a modern look to buyers.
In short, there were several factors in its favor and no real reason why not to adapt it.
I would say the main reason for the Bonanza V Tail came down to it's 'fairly unique' 'Look' - any practical factors in its favour (both aerodynamic and performance) were questionable in the extreme.
As I posted previously - the V Tail can look extremely attractive and its adoption for a light aircraft really comes down to the designer thinking that it looks 'cool' - for many reasons you cannot beat a conventional tail for a light aircraft.
By: J Boyle
- 14th April 2019 at 14:10Permalink- Edited 15th April 2019 at 04:11
We'll likely never know if the appearance of the V-tail was a reason or the main reason for its adoption.
I'll give Beech the benefit of the doubt that there was more than just looks to recommend its adoption. The Bonanza cost a huge amount of money to design, test and tool up for. Thousands would need to be sold to recoup those expenses.
If It failed in the marketplace, Beech would have been in a very bad spot. Therefore, I think they really did believe it was best at the time. Simply, the risks invoke were too great for them not to offer up the best they could for the sake of mere looks.
At any extent, the conventional tail works best on the long fuselage model 36, the only variant still being offered...and the best selling model since its introduction in 1968.
A friend owns the very first production 36. I've flown in it, he (and his pilot wife) uses it quite a bit for business and personal flying. Despite its age, it's a beautifully built and capable (with modern avionics installed) aircraft that looks and performs like a much newer design.
As has been posted on here many times - a V Tail on a military jet is a completely different kettle of fish than having a v tail on a light aircraft.
Military jets have ultra expensive Active/Fly By Wire (FBW) controls which cope with any stability/control requirements - indeed modern military jets are designed to be unstable so that they are agile :)
By: topspeed
- 17th April 2019 at 11:49Permalink- Edited 17th April 2019 at 11:55
As has been posted on here many times - a V Tail on a military jet is a completely different kettle of fish than having a v tail on a light aircraft.
Military jets have ultra expensive Active/Fly By Wire (FBW) controls which cope with any stability/control requirements - indeed modern military jets are designed to be unstable so that they are agile :)
There is also a pilot in the cockpit which should be able to cope with different kinda situations even if the aeroplane is more efficient and cleaner. The Jack Northrop YB-49 is a good example of this.
By: Anonymous
- 21st April 2019 at 10:15Permalink- Edited 14th June 2020 at 08:19
Nothing there that hasn't been widely known in the aviation community for decades. Whilst beefing up the v-tail structure was certainly eminently sensible, as it says most of the in-flight break-ups were due to continued VFR flight into IMC, flying through thunderstorms and airframe icing, conditions that have led to plenty of other types exceeding their VNE/loss of control and breaking up in flight.
By: topspeed
- 21st April 2019 at 15:01Permalink- Edited 21st April 2019 at 15:01
Nothing there that hasn't been widely known in the aviation community for decades. Whilst beefing up the v-tail structure was certainly eminently sensible, as it says most of the in-flight break-ups were due to continued VFR flight into IMC, flying through thunderstorms and airframe icing, conditions that have led to plenty of other types exceeding their VNE/loss of control and breaking up in flight.
Ok !
This is what wiki has to say about it;
In the late 1980s, repeated V-tail structural failures prompted the United States Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct extensive wind tunnel and flight tests, which proved that the V-tail did not meet type certification standards under certain conditions; the effort culminated with the issuance of an airworthiness directive to strengthen the tail, which significantly reduced the incidence of in-flight breakups. Despite this, Beech has long contended that most V-tail failures involve operations well beyond the aircraft's intended flight envelope.[18][19] Subsequent analysis of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident records between 1962 and 2007 revealed an average of three V-tail structural failures per year, while the conventional-tailed Bonanza 33 and 36 suffered only eleven such failures during the same time period. Most V-tail failures involved flight under visual flight rules into instrument meteorological conditions, flight into thunderstorms, or airframe icing.[20] In addition to the structural issues, the Bonanza 35 has a relatively narrow center of gravity envelope, and the tail design is intolerant of imbalances caused by damage, improper maintenance, or repainting; such imbalances may induce dangerous aeroelastic flutter.[18] Despite these issues, many Bonanza 35 owners insist that the aircraft is reasonably safe, and its reputation has lessened acquisition costs for budget-conscious buyers.[20]
I am after a extremely efficient design that is also safe. I figure V-tail is underestimated.
By: Gerard
- 21st April 2019 at 16:04Permalink- Edited 21st April 2019 at 17:12
[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\timage_261836.jpg Views:\t6 Size:\t121.7 KB ID:\t3860261","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"3860261","data-size":"full"}[/ATTACH]MY PIC!!
This cut-away-model was used by Beech in a court of law to prove that the Bonanza was properly build and save. Beech won the trial !!!!
Nevertheless inflight brake up is a very serious issue.
Yes it is, for all types.
Since it doesn't happen with warbirds these days, many forum members may not appreciate the continued flight in IMC, leading to loss of control which leads to in-flight breakups.
If happens to higher performance, owner-flown types because they are out there in the bad weather whereas lesser types are still on the ground. If the pilot is a bit rusty with his/her instrument work, bad things can happen. Unfortunately, many who own high performance IFR capable aircraft are busy professionals...which is how they can afford the aircraft in the first place...and despite training requirements put in place by the FAA
and their insurance companies...get into trouble.
Yes, Beech won the trial and also the FAA conducted a special review of its type approval and found it safe.
I have another picture, made it at the Beech heritage museum in Tennessee
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","data-attachmentid":3860266}[/ATTACH]
Yes it is, for all types.
Since it doesn't happen with warbirds these days, many forum members may not appreciate the continued flight in IMC, leading to loss of control which leads to in-flight breakups.
If happens to higher performance, owner-flown types because they are out there in the bad weather whereas lesser types are still on the ground. If the pilot is a bit rusty with his/her instrument work, bad things can happen. Unfortunately, many who own high performance IFR capable aircraft are busy professionals...which is how they can afford the aircraft in the first place...and despite training requirements put in place by the FAA
and their insurance companies...get into trouble.
Yes, Beech won the trial and also the FAA conducted a special review of its type approval and found it safe.
By: J Boyle
- 22nd April 2019 at 13:51Permalink- Edited 22nd April 2019 at 14:16
Test pilot died when v-tail separated.
I get the impression they never really solved the problem of the weak tail assembly.
That early test crash was in 1946-47 and occurred during maximum velocity five tests (VD) due to tail plane flutter.
Flutter can occur in any high speed aircraft and is not a unique phenomenon to V-tail types.
I believe the infamous DH110 crash was caused by flutter and the phenomena has affected many types over the years...ranging from homebuilt designs to large transports.
To investigate that the fix was adequate, Beech instrumented a Bonanza with strain gauges and borrowed remote control gear from the Air Force and did a series of dives over Kansas. The plane, controlled from a company Beech 18, was dives from a high altitude and rapidly pulled up. Maximum speed hit 286 mph and the airframe pulled 3.5Gs.
The results of the tests allowed Beech to license the type in the "Utility" category, as opposed to the usual "Normal " category. The utility category requires the type to be 15.7 % stronger than other types.
To combat negative "hangar talk"about the design, Beech hired famous Air show pilot Bevo Howard to do a 10 minute acrobatic sequel with the plane at the national air races.
Yes, the Bonanza has a history of airframe failures, but most/all were caused by overseeing the aircraft due to loss of control (usually in IMC) not a design weakness.
I can find no real basis for your claim of a "weak" V-tail assembly never being fixed.
I as I said before, the V-tails were in production for 30+ years (1947-77), were approved by the FAA and re-approved following a special design review.
By: Finny
- 23rd April 2019 at 08:04Permalink- Edited 23rd April 2019 at 08:05
A few years ago in Oshkosh I had a bit to eat at lunchtime, and was joined by a couple from California. They had flown in with their Bonanza, which they described as a "V35 Bonanza with a conventional tail". They explained that a company had come up with an expensive modification kit, which replaced the V-tail with a conventional unit. After they had managed to sell just a couple of these kits, Beechcraft came up with a kit of their own which beefed up the V-tail a bit and cost just a few bucks, fulfilling all FAA requirements for a utility category aircraft. I wonder if anyone here knows more of this V-Bonanza with conventional tail, or if any more of these are still flying?
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 14th April 2019 at 03:52 Permalink - Edited 14th April 2019 at 03:55
"Best suited"...
Maybe, maybe not.
Look at it from Beech's perspective...
They wanted a fast aeroplane. To aid that it had to be light and with reduced drag.
The configuration also reduced weight and and cost (remember more parts mean more expense).
And although the book doesn't mention it (the Ball Bonanza book is viewed by many as a semi-official Beech history) I suspect part of the reason it was adapted was it's unique look, certainly it would stand out in the crowded early post war aircraft market and suggest a modern look to buyers.
Remember at that time, most general aviation types were steel tube/fabric covered types. (The Bonanza was slated to replace the venerable Staggerwing Model 17 in the Beech product line) so it was expected to be the last word in modernity.
In short, there were several factors in its favor and no real reason why not to adapt it.
Sure, under some circumstances, it displayed a tendency to fish tail, but few aircraft of the period (and given their price point and level of sophistication fewer general aviation types) without the odd handling quirk or piloting challenge.
Posts: 6,051
By: bazv - 14th April 2019 at 09:33 Permalink - Edited 14th April 2019 at 12:36
I would say the main reason for the Bonanza V Tail came down to it's 'fairly unique' 'Look' - any practical factors in its favour (both aerodynamic and performance) were questionable in the extreme.
As I posted previously - the V Tail can look extremely attractive and its adoption for a light aircraft really comes down to the designer thinking that it looks 'cool' - for many reasons you cannot beat a conventional tail for a light aircraft.
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 14th April 2019 at 14:10 Permalink - Edited 15th April 2019 at 04:11
We'll likely never know if the appearance of the V-tail was a reason or the main reason for its adoption.
I'll give Beech the benefit of the doubt that there was more than just looks to recommend its adoption. The Bonanza cost a huge amount of money to design, test and tool up for. Thousands would need to be sold to recoup those expenses.
If It failed in the marketplace, Beech would have been in a very bad spot. Therefore, I think they really did believe it was best at the time. Simply, the risks invoke were too great for them not to offer up the best they could for the sake of mere looks.
At any extent, the conventional tail works best on the long fuselage model 36, the only variant still being offered...and the best selling model since its introduction in 1968.
A friend owns the very first production 36. I've flown in it, he (and his pilot wife) uses it quite a bit for business and personal flying. Despite its age, it's a beautifully built and capable (with modern avionics installed) aircraft that looks and performs like a much newer design.
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 16th April 2019 at 08:13 Permalink
YF-23 is an excellent example of a well managed V-tail; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_-OqCJ34WE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23
Posts: 6,051
By: bazv - 16th April 2019 at 11:04 Permalink
As has been posted on here many times - a V Tail on a military jet is a completely different kettle of fish than having a v tail on a light aircraft.
Military jets have ultra expensive Active/Fly By Wire (FBW) controls which cope with any stability/control requirements - indeed modern military jets are designed to be unstable so that they are agile :)
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 17th April 2019 at 11:49 Permalink - Edited 17th April 2019 at 11:55
There is also a pilot in the cockpit which should be able to cope with different kinda situations even if the aeroplane is more efficient and cleaner. The Jack Northrop YB-49 is a good example of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-49
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dfj3SeMI-s
Best document of it ever; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkhziQF0AiI
Ignaz Etrich made first in 1906; https://www.alamy.com/etrichs-zanonia-glider-1906-1932-flying-wing-aircraft-built-by-austrian-flight-pioneer-ignaz-etrich-and-inspired-by-the-flying-seed-of-zanonia-macrocarpa-a-kind-of-plant-from-quotdie-eroberung-der-luftquot-the-conquest-of-the-air-cigarette-card-album-produced-by-the-garbxe1ty-cigarette-factory-1932-eugene-and-moritz-garbxe1ty-who-were-jewish-were-driven-out-of-business-by-the-nazis-in-the-late-1930s-and-forced-to-sell-their-factory-which-lay-empty-for-over-70-years-garbaty-cigarettenfabrik-berlin-pankow-1932-image228909800.html
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 21st April 2019 at 06:47 Permalink
Wiki reveals that Beechcraft 35 Bonanza's structure was not sound.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza
By: Anonymous - 21st April 2019 at 10:15 Permalink - Edited 14th June 2020 at 08:19
Nothing there that hasn't been widely known in the aviation community for decades. Whilst beefing up the v-tail structure was certainly eminently sensible, as it says most of the in-flight break-ups were due to continued VFR flight into IMC, flying through thunderstorms and airframe icing, conditions that have led to plenty of other types exceeding their VNE/loss of control and breaking up in flight.
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 21st April 2019 at 15:01 Permalink - Edited 21st April 2019 at 15:01
Ok !
This is what wiki has to say about it;
In the late 1980s, repeated V-tail structural failures prompted the United States Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct extensive wind tunnel and flight tests, which proved that the V-tail did not meet type certification standards under certain conditions; the effort culminated with the issuance of an airworthiness directive to strengthen the tail, which significantly reduced the incidence of in-flight breakups. Despite this, Beech has long contended that most V-tail failures involve operations well beyond the aircraft's intended flight envelope.[18][19] Subsequent analysis of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident records between 1962 and 2007 revealed an average of three V-tail structural failures per year, while the conventional-tailed Bonanza 33 and 36 suffered only eleven such failures during the same time period. Most V-tail failures involved flight under visual flight rules into instrument meteorological conditions, flight into thunderstorms, or airframe icing.[20] In addition to the structural issues, the Bonanza 35 has a relatively narrow center of gravity envelope, and the tail design is intolerant of imbalances caused by damage, improper maintenance, or repainting; such imbalances may induce dangerous aeroelastic flutter.[18] Despite these issues, many Bonanza 35 owners insist that the aircraft is reasonably safe, and its reputation has lessened acquisition costs for budget-conscious buyers.[20]
I am after a extremely efficient design that is also safe. I figure V-tail is underestimated.
Posts: 3,099
By: Gerard - 21st April 2019 at 16:04 Permalink - Edited 21st April 2019 at 17:12
[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\timage_261836.jpg Views:\t6 Size:\t121.7 KB ID:\t3860261","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"3860261","data-size":"full"}[/ATTACH]MY PIC!!
This cut-away-model was used by Beech in a court of law to prove that the Bonanza was properly build and save. Beech won the trial !!!!
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 21st April 2019 at 16:15 Permalink
Nevertheless inflight brake up is a very serious issue.
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 21st April 2019 at 17:05 Permalink
Yes it is, for all types.
Since it doesn't happen with warbirds these days, many forum members may not appreciate the continued flight in IMC, leading to loss of control which leads to in-flight breakups.
If happens to higher performance, owner-flown types because they are out there in the bad weather whereas lesser types are still on the ground. If the pilot is a bit rusty with his/her instrument work, bad things can happen. Unfortunately, many who own high performance IFR capable aircraft are busy professionals...which is how they can afford the aircraft in the first place...and despite training requirements put in place by the FAA
and their insurance companies...get into trouble.
Yes, Beech won the trial and also the FAA conducted a special review of its type approval and found it safe.
Posts: 3,099
By: Gerard - 21st April 2019 at 17:15 Permalink
I have another picture, made it at the Beech heritage museum in Tennessee
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","data-attachmentid":3860266}[/ATTACH]
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 21st April 2019 at 19:20 Permalink
Gerard..thanks for the pics.
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 22nd April 2019 at 08:11 Permalink
Is the Type Approval open source info ?
Posts: 3,099
By: Gerard - 22nd April 2019 at 09:36 Permalink
I'm pretty sure they can help you with that information here; https://www.beechcraftheritagemuseum.org/
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 22nd April 2019 at 10:41 Permalink - Edited 22nd April 2019 at 11:44
Ok . Test pilot died when v-tail separated the aircraft. http://kuknamys.cz/1_48/0262.htm
https://beech-bonanza.org/beechcraft-bonanza
I get the impression they never really solved the problem of the weak tail assembly.
--
Bill Odom made a record with it; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XpRptVPrtI
Posts: 168
By: KurtB - 22nd April 2019 at 13:18 Permalink
Are there any technical details of how the controls to the V tail are connected/mixed?
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 22nd April 2019 at 13:51 Permalink - Edited 22nd April 2019 at 14:16
That early test crash was in 1946-47 and occurred during maximum velocity five tests (VD) due to tail plane flutter.
Flutter can occur in any high speed aircraft and is not a unique phenomenon to V-tail types.
I believe the infamous DH110 crash was caused by flutter and the phenomena has affected many types over the years...ranging from homebuilt designs to large transports.
To investigate that the fix was adequate, Beech instrumented a Bonanza with strain gauges and borrowed remote control gear from the Air Force and did a series of dives over Kansas. The plane, controlled from a company Beech 18, was dives from a high altitude and rapidly pulled up. Maximum speed hit 286 mph and the airframe pulled 3.5Gs.
The results of the tests allowed Beech to license the type in the "Utility" category, as opposed to the usual "Normal " category. The utility category requires the type to be 15.7 % stronger than other types.
To combat negative "hangar talk"about the design, Beech hired famous Air show pilot Bevo Howard to do a 10 minute acrobatic sequel with the plane at the national air races.
Yes, the Bonanza has a history of airframe failures, but most/all were caused by overseeing the aircraft due to loss of control (usually in IMC) not a design weakness.
I can find no real basis for your claim of a "weak" V-tail assembly never being fixed.
I as I said before, the V-tails were in production for 30+ years (1947-77), were approved by the FAA and re-approved following a special design review.
Posts: 123
By: Finny - 23rd April 2019 at 08:04 Permalink - Edited 23rd April 2019 at 08:05
A few years ago in Oshkosh I had a bit to eat at lunchtime, and was joined by a couple from California. They had flown in with their Bonanza, which they described as a "V35 Bonanza with a conventional tail". They explained that a company had come up with an expensive modification kit, which replaced the V-tail with a conventional unit. After they had managed to sell just a couple of these kits, Beechcraft came up with a kit of their own which beefed up the V-tail a bit and cost just a few bucks, fulfilling all FAA requirements for a utility category aircraft. I wonder if anyone here knows more of this V-Bonanza with conventional tail, or if any more of these are still flying?