Doc Holliday
En-Route
Any aircraft that exceeds structural limits will break a part....ask Scott Crossfield.
So why didn't Beech include the straight tail (Debonair) into the AD? How many Debonairs have broken up compared to the V tail?
Any aircraft that exceeds structural limits will break a part....ask Scott Crossfield.
I'm sure you'll attempt to correct me.....but we are discussing the post AD aircraft....that had an inflight break up.So why didn't Beech include the straight tail (Debonair) into the AD? How many Debonairs have broken up compared to the V tail?
I'm sure you'll attempt to correct me.....but we are discussing the post AD aircraft....that had an inflight break up.
If your memory is that short.....I can repost the pictures.![]()
Statistics prove that wrong. IIRC, from the Aviation Consumer expose on it, there were a couple of hundred V-tail break ups and less than five straight tail break ups.It will break up also....given similar flight conditions.![]()
Actually, when the V-tails broke up in flight, it was the failure of the ruddervator. The straight tails do not have a ruddervator.Any aircraft that exceeds structural limits will break a part....ask Scott Crossfield.
let's see your references. I believe those were prior to the AD.Statistics prove that wrong. IIRC, from the Aviation Consumer expose on it, there were a couple of hundred V-tail break ups and less than five straight tail break ups.
Sounds like what this guy was saying.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
Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide, Third Edition.let's see your references. I believe those were prior to the AD.
Perhaps because when Debonairs break up after exceeding structural limits, a different structure is involved.So why didn't Beech include the straight tail (Debonair) into the AD? How many Debonairs have broken up compared to the V tail?
Note the footnote.....Thru 1979. Those are mostly prior to the tail stiffening AD.Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide, Third Edition.
"What makes the V-tail's high record of in-flight breakup all the more ironic is the very low breakup rate of the straight-tail 35 and 36 models, which are essentially identical to the 35 except for the tail. The V-tail's breakup rate, according to one study, is 24 times higher than the straight tail."
From the book:
View attachment 129060
This edition was copyrighted 1989, though the Bonanza article might stem from the earlier edition in 1981 or the actual magazine article, published earlier.
It may pre-date the AD. However, what catches my attention is that the piece doesn't solely attribute the problem to structural issues.
"Any airplane will fall apart in the air if pushed far enough beyond its airspeed or g-load limits, and Bonanzas don't usually break up unless pushed past their limits. The question is, why do the pilots of older V-tails allow their craft to exceed speed and load limits so much more often than pilots of other planes?
"The answer, we believe, may lie in the handling qualities of the V-tail Bonanzas."
The article then notes that the V-tails are very light ailerons and pitch control, have and low lateral and pitch stability, and exhibit high spiral divergence. Also notes that the V-tails have a relatively narrow CG range..."Some models have 30 pounds of lead in the nose to counter the balance problem."
Ron Wanttaja
Note, though the items I quoted about how AC felt that stability, sensitivity, and CG issues may be associated with the failures. Doubt the tail stiffening AD affected those.Note the footnote.....Thru 1979. Those are mostly prior to the tail stiffening AD.![]()
Meh....maybe. I'm a sub-par pilot and think it might take a bit to lose it in my Bo. Maybe some disorientation could do it I suppose. Thankfully I have a functional autopilot to hep me out. It's probably the easiest plane I've ever flown.Note, though the items I quoted about how AC felt that stability, sensitivity, and CG issues may be associated with the failures. Doubt the tail stiffening AD affected those.
Ron Wanttaja
First slice of cheese : “I’m a subpar pilot”Meh....maybe. I'm a sub-par pilot and think it might take a bit to lose it in my Bo. Maybe some disorientation could do it I suppose. Thankfully I have a functional autopilot to hep me out. It's probably the easiest plane I've ever flown.
![]()
Nails it......First slice of cheese : “I’m a subpar pilot”
Second slice: “Maybe disorientation could do it I suppose”
Third slice: “I have an autopilot to help me out”
Fourth slice: “It’s the easiest plane I’ve ever flown”
I know the family well. He practiced with a friend of mine in BR and his younger brother and father are referrals to my practice. Tragic loss.![]()
Bonanzas were never doctor killers. Doctors were Bonanza killers.Most were overstressed.
Many times by flying into thunderstorms. More of a indictment of the type of people flying them, not the actual aircraft. That's why they were called Fork Tailed Doctor Killers.
True.Bonanzas were never doctor killers. Doctors were Bonanza killers.
I don’t know. I have not spoken to his brother or father since the accident. Funeral is tomorrow and will be a very sad event laying 3 family members to rest. They were enroute to pick up another sibling. Could have been even more tragic if it happened on the return flight.Robin, I read somewhere (probably AvWeb) that he'd only had the Bo since January. Do you know what he was flying before? Could inexperience with a higher performance plane be a factor?
I don't think the author of "Aviation Consumer User Aircraft Guide" understands the meaning of the word "ironic". The stats they're quoting aren't either humorous or unexpected.Aviation Consumer Used Aircraft Guide, Third Edition.
"What makes the V-tail's high record of in-flight breakup all the more ironic is the very low breakup rate of the straight-tail 35 and 36 models, which are essentially identical to the 35 except for the tail. The V-tail's breakup rate, according to one study, is 24 times higher than the straight tail."
They were prior to the AD. It was an article in Aviation Consumer, circa 1984. I am not a subscriber, so don't have access to their archive, but perhaps you can look it up. I was in Mike Smith's shop a few times in 1984 while work was being done to beef up the ruddervators. Smith clearly identified what the issue was, and had examples. The ruddervators would fail in torsion under higher loading because the center of pressure was significantly forward of the main spar. It only became an issue with the C model in about 1951 was the chord of the ruddervator was increased, without significant change to the torsion box structure. The Mike Smith stub spar and the Beech cuff did the same thing, by alleviating the torsion load by transferring stress from the leading edge to the empennage. I am sure if you Google you can come up with written references with the precise statistics. After 40 years, my recall of exact numbers is imperfect, but I was around the issue enough to have the gist of the thing.let's see your references. I believe those were prior to the AD.
Try Googling it.Is there a statistical analysis on this before and after the AD? I'd like to see the data....
Normal category aircraft must have a design load limit of at least +3.8G. Utility category is +4.4G. Aerobatic category is+6G. Negative G limits are less.Is there a way to tell what the max G factor is for an aircraft? My new fancy panel has a G meter and I’ve seen 1.3 on the display.
They were prior to the AD. It was an article in Aviation Consumer, circa 1984. I am not a subscriber, so don't have access to their archive, but perhaps you can look it up. I was in Mike Smith's shop a few times in 1984 while work was being done to beef up the ruddervators. Smith clearly identified what the issue was, and had examples. The ruddervators would fail in torsion under higher loading because the center of pressure was significantly forward of the main spar. It only became an issue with the C model in about 1951 was the chord of the ruddervator was increased, without significant change to the torsion box structure. The Mike Smith stub spar and the Beech cuff did the same thing, by alleviating the torsion load by transferring stress from the leading edge to the empennage. I am sure if you Google you can come up with written references with the precise statistics. After 40 years, my recall of exact numbers is imperfect, but I was around the issue enough to have the gist of the thing.
Normal category aircraft must have a design load limit of at least +3.8G. Utility category is +4.4G. Aerobatic category is+6G. Negative G limits are less.
Wow. I was getting bounced around pretty good and was seeing 1.4 and I was worried. I could not imagine turbulence at 3+ and how that would feel.
Wow. I was getting bounced around pretty good and was seeing 1.4 and I was worried. I could not imagine turbulence at 3+ and how that would feel.
Neither did Scotty's 210.Actually, when the V-tails broke up in flight, it was the failure of the ruddervator. The straight tails do not have a ruddervator.
Neither did Scotty's 210.
Do you have data to support that?Not all V tail failures have been attributed to flying through extreme convective activity.
Do you have data to support that?![]()
I think this is a time to show your cards and point to specific NTSB reports instead of sending folks on a fishing expedition.Go read the NTSB reports. All the data you could want.
I think this is a time to show your cards and point to specific NTSB reports instead of sending folks on a fishing expedition.
cuz I don't endorse moral hazards and the offender wouldn't pay me to have it done.^why not comply with the spar bolt AD?
I think this is a time to show your cards and point to specific NTSB reports instead of sending folks on a fishing expedition.
That’s his M.O.Gryder was not kind to the pilot on his most recent video. Guys family suffers a huge loss and then someone says a few not-so-nice things about the pilot. Not the time or forum for that.
how did you get an airworthiness return to service with intentional non-compliance of an A.D. ?cuz I don't endorse moral hazards and the offender wouldn't pay me to have it done.![]()