Mxfarm
Line Up and Wait
And how fast was he going while in the turbulence.This guy obviously was into some nasty turbulence....it was more than just light. IMHO.
And how fast was he going while in the turbulence.This guy obviously was into some nasty turbulence....it was more than just light. IMHO.
New guy puzzled...
With cases of failure (as indicated by others here, no personal knowledge) documented- assuming no evidence of over-stressing the airframe exists- why is this model still certified to fly?
I recall seeing a Bonanza in a shop, I think at N Perry in Hollywood, FL. It had allegedly encountered some light turbulence while inbound.
![]()
![]()
From the interior shot you can see the skin starting to tear. Not sure how close it was to failing, but it looked scary and made an impression on me.
I don't see any cases of failure without indication of overstressing the airframe indicated by others. Certified aircraft don't just come from together without exceeding airframe g force limitations except in rare cases of fatigue failure/corrosion. Encounter turbulence/get into an upset and don't recover appropriately or in time and bad things can happen. On a clean airframe like the V-35, if you point the nose down it will build speed quickly, add a bank and pulling back on the controls will really put you in a pickle. I suspect something of this nature bit Tre.New guy puzzled...
With cases of failure (as indicated by others here, no personal knowledge) documented- assuming no evidence of over-stressing the airframe exists- why is this model still certified to fly?
Just a casual glance would indicate that two control surfaces doing the work of three are going to have different stresses, and more stress, than three.That is some crazy scary sh*t. Are they built so differently from the non V-tails, or does the V-tail have so much more stress than traditional vertical stabilizer?
Any airplane will do as described, however, the more 'slippery' the airframe/configuration will pick up speed faster and require quicker intervention. Heck, my 182 picked up a crazy descent rate once when I let a wing dip during a power on stall...and made a rookie mistake of a quick 'correction' with aileron input. I was pointed toward green leafy stuff in a heading nearly 180deg from my initial so fast it left a pretty good impression. I lost 1200 ft in only a half a turn. I don't recall looking at my ASI, just pulling the throttle, putting a little forward elevator input and anti-spin rudder. I was level within 8-10 seconds but I recall the noise made by the slipstream telling me I was probably well into the yellow arc. The V-35, with its ruddervators, is more slippery than the same fuselage with a conventional tail. I can see how, if one enters a steep spiral, the AS would build very fast.That is some crazy scary sh*t. Are they built so differently from the non V-tails, or does the V-tail have so much more stress than traditional vertical stabilizer?
That is some crazy scary sh*t. Are they built so differently from the non V-tails, or does the V-tail have so much more stress than traditional vertical stabilizer?
No....it depends on the resultant forces. Any tail configuration can be ripped off.Just a casual glance would indicate that two control surfaces doing the work of three are going to have different stresses, and more stress, than three.
That is some crazy scary sh*t. Are they built so differently from the non V-tails, or does the V-tail have so much more stress than traditional vertical stabilizer?
Ask Scott Crossfield how that worked out for him......![]()
^^^^ And if it is building 1000-2000fpm....and I'm in a piston single already at 7000' and think I need 9000' but miss that guess by a small margin, then I am in the $hi+.Not really. There were some models that were grounded until a mandatory AD was complied with that reinforced the RV structure.
The problem is there’s no real way to overcome the violent up/down drafts that are present in rapidly building T storms.
Imagine from 20 miles away, you watch what appears to be layer 4000ft beneath you start rapidly towering in and around. You’ve got about 4 minutes to outclimb or deviate. Make the wrong choice and you wind up in a spot where Va won’t save you, and neither will GA structure.
The crap part of is it takes about six minutes for the weather radar on the ground to build the image of the growing thunderstorm, and can then take 15 mins or longer to transmit it over ADSB, so from 20mi away, what you see may not have any corroborating evidence until it’s too late.
No....it depends on the resultant forces. Any tail configuration can be ripped off.
For those that may not know....That one pictured does have the cuffs.....Years ago I believe it was Mike Smith who came out with the STC for leading edge cuffs on the stabilators. Beech immediately starting complaining and threatened a lawsuit saying Smith’s fix was cosmetic and his STC alluded to a design flaw, which Beech said didn’t exist.
Some while after that, Beech started building Bonanzas with…….leading edge cuffs.
Wonder if it’s still flying. Did you get the whole N#?
I get that- which is why I qualified with "assuming no evidence of over-stressing the airframe exists".Why not? There are many models of aircraft that have had structure failure or damage in flight. The key is to operate and maintain them with those certified limits. If after the fact a structural design deficiency is found that caused the failure, then an AD or similiar bulletin is issued to correct it.
Exactly. And they were flying into an area that was being perturbed by a cold front as well, so the smaller buildups they were flying over to the south easily could have suddenly turned into bigger ones as they continued north, where the approaching front, low-level moisture, and daytime heating were interacting.Not really. There were some models that were grounded until a mandatory AD was complied with that reinforced the RV structure.
The problem is there’s no real way to overcome the violent up/down drafts that are present in rapidly building T storms.
Imagine from 20 miles away, you watch what appears to be layer 4000ft beneath you start rapidly towering in and around. You’ve got about 4 minutes to outclimb or deviate. Make the wrong choice and you wind up in a spot where Va won’t save you, and neither will GA structure.
The crap part of is it takes about six minutes for the weather radar on the ground to build the image of the growing thunderstorm, and can then take 15 mins or longer to transmit it over ADSB, so from 20mi away, what you see may not have any corroborating evidence until it’s too late.
Or exceed Vne…The ruddervators will flutter, especially if the trim tab cables are not kept to spec.
Because it meets or exceeds all certification requirements? Once outside the operating envelope, all bets are off?New guy puzzled...
With cases of failure (as indicated by others here, no personal knowledge) documented- assuming no evidence of over-stressing the airframe exists- why is this model still certified to fly?
Great article by the late Richard Colins on the history in the design .
![]()
What was wrong with V-tail Bonanza pilots? : Air Facts Journal
I sort of stirred up a hornet’s nest with a recent post about Cirrus airplanes and Cirrus pilots. A few commenters compared the discussion with ones about the Beech V-tail (Model 35) Bonanzas a long time ago. That airplane was actually referred to by many as the “V-tail doctor killer” back in...airfactsjournal.com
Most were overstressed.New guy puzzled...
With cases of failure (as indicated by others here, no personal knowledge) documented- assuming no evidence of over-stressing the airframe exists- why is this model still certified to fly?
A Bonanza does not go to VNO in a blink of an eye.....that's a ridiculous statement.Agreed about where the blame lies if you are messing about with convection.
It does seem to me that there should be some sort of ratio of slipperiness (how fast the puppy picks up speed) to utility category.
A plane that can go VNO in the blink of an eye seems like much more than the average GA pilot should be flying.
IIRC, before the cuff AD came out, they did thorough structural re-analysis and verified that the original design did meet certification standards.Most were overstressed.
WHICH certification standards... CAR 3, dating from when the Bonanza came out in the '40s, or modern Part 23....?IIRC, before the cuff AD came out, they did thorough structural re-analysis and verified that the original design did meet certification standards.
CAR3, I would assume. Are there significant differences in structural requirements?WHICH certification standards... CAR 3, dating from when the Bonanza came out in the '40s, or modern Part 23....?
Ron Wanttaja
IIRC, before the cuff AD came out, they did thorough structural re-analysis and verified that the original design did meet certification standards.
Even the last Mooney we sold in 2019 was cert'd to Car3.WHICH certification standards... CAR 3, dating from when the Bonanza came out in the '40s, or modern Part 23....?
Ron Wanttaja
I think so.Didn’t the AD require the airspeeds to be lowered without the cuffs installed?
It will break up also....given similar flight conditions.Beechcraft was TOTALLY complacent about the breakup problem......so was the American Bonanza Society. Then, the president of the Bonanza Societies "V" tail disintegrated..........and finally, Beech made a strengthening kit. The straight-tail Debonaire is a MUICH better design
It will break up also....given similar flight conditions.![]()
Any aircraft that exceeds structural limits will break a part....ask Scott Crossfield.Can you cite a reference for that? If that was true, the Beech AD would have included the Debonairs as well.