Beech V35 Midair Breakup

tobnpr said:
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?
Click to expand...

There’s a long history with the V tail Bos that has been resolved for a long time.

But take any single engine piston into a thunderstorm and the risk of in flight break up goes through the roof.
 
FastEddieB said:
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.

15451130306_4dc73e1daa_z.jpg


15287583088_5db9f5dd51_z.jpg


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.
Click to expand...

Wonder if it’s still flying. Did you get the whole N#?
 
I believe those pictures are old.....they've been on the internets for a while.
 
tobnpr said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
Hengelo said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hengelo said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hengelo said:
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?
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with structure. Has to do with flight characteristics. Less control surfaces = less drag. Less drag = picks up speed faster in a descent. More speed = more potential stress on airframe in turbulence or when overcontrolled.
 
MauleSkinner said:
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.
Click to expand...
No....it depends on the resultant forces. Any tail configuration can be ripped off.
 
Hengelo said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TCABM said:
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.
Click to expand...
^^^^ 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+.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
No....it depends on the resultant forces. Any tail configuration can be ripped off.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Doc Holliday said:
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.
Click to expand...
For those that may not know....That one pictured does have the cuffs.....

BTW....I'm certain this one would have come a part without the cuff. The guy needs to thank the heavens above for his life.
;)
 

Attachments

  • 15451130306_4dc73e1daa_z.jpg
    15451130306_4dc73e1daa_z.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 67
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I get that- which is why I qualified with "assuming no evidence of over-stressing the airframe exists".
It hadn't been clarified that the documented past break-ups are all apparently due to exceeding design limits, which from what I've read here is easier to do than in many other GA planes.
 
TCABM said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mike Smith recognized the real problem with the V-tail and first certified a stub spar that anchored the front of the root rib of the ruddervator to the adjacent empennage bulkhead. He later came up with a cheaper formed cuff, top and bottom. The FAA came out with the AD a couple of years later after Beech had designed a cuff arrangement to anchor the leading edge.

The Hollywood, FL incident looks more like a flutter encounter. The ruddervators will flutter, especially if the trim tab cables are not kept to spec.
 
tobnpr said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because it meets or exceeds all certification requirements? Once outside the operating envelope, all bets are off?
 
The feds did extensive flight testing pre and post cuff installation on the design after the breakups were occurring. The flight report is out there but I couldn’t find it.

Great article by the late Richard Colins on the history in the design .
airfactsjournal.com

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 airfactsjournal.com
 
Nice find!
Initial Fix said:
Great article by the late Richard Colins on the history in the design .
airfactsjournal.com

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 airfactsjournal.com
Click to expand...
 
tobnpr said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Hengelo said:
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.
Click to expand...
A Bonanza does not go to VNO in a blink of an eye.....that's a ridiculous statement.

However, it is a high performance airplane....and not your average Piper or Cessna that you can point straight down and take forever to build speed.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
IIRC, before the cuff AD came out, they did thorough structural re-analysis and verified that the original design did meet certification standards.
Click to expand...
WHICH certification standards... CAR 3, dating from when the Bonanza came out in the '40s, or modern Part 23....?

Ron Wanttaja
 
MauleSkinner said:
IIRC, before the cuff AD came out, they did thorough structural re-analysis and verified that the original design did meet certification standards.
Click to expand...

Didn’t the AD require the airspeeds to be lowered without the cuffs installed?
 
wanttaja said:
WHICH certification standards... CAR 3, dating from when the Bonanza came out in the '40s, or modern Part 23....?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Even the last Mooney we sold in 2019 was cert'd to Car3.
 
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
 
kgruber said:
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
Click to expand...
It will break up also....given similar flight conditions. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top