Mooney Tail vs V Tail

[201er]

Anyone know how the Mooney tail compares to a V tail like the Bonanza? Parasitic drag, rudder authority, malfunctions, etc?

[carusoam]

Ours was still in production until recently…

Theirs went out of favor decades ago…

-a-

[Hank]

The Mooney tail looks better. It also does not require mixing deflections on both sides to make "ruddervators" to simulate rudder and elevator motions. 

Plus there are no ugly drag-creatung trim tabs!

[kortopates]

Just like Anthony mentioned, Beech answered that question years ago when they ditched the V35’s for the A36. The A36 is an awesome plane, the V35 not so much IMO because the tail was the weak link and cause of too many aluminum showers when overstressed. The magnesium ruddervators, susceptible to cracking, where unobtainable until very recently.
I assume the only reason for them was to simply production and save cost but iam by no means a Bonanza expert.

[Kmac]

I may be in the minority here but think the v-tail is beautiful and the Bonanza is the epitome of what a single engine aircraft should look like.  

As for the questions: 

V-tail has less drag since there are only 2 leading edge surfaces

Less rudder authority...even compared to the straight 33

You may still be able to land an airplane if your rudder gets damaged but you'd be in much more trouble with a damaged ruddervator

[PT20J]

I would think that the V tail should be lighter and have less wetted area, so less parasite drag at the expense of slightly more complex control system.

It's a myth that the V tail is the source of the Bonanza's objectional Dutch roll in turbulence. Roger Hoh, an aeronautical engineer specializing in handling qualities and one time  Bonanza owner that has consulted for Beech, told me that the straight tail Deb and V tail Bonanza had similar characteristics.

Skip

[Fly Boomer]

18 minutes ago, kortopates said:

magnesium ruddervators, .....I assume the only reason for them was to simply production and save cost

I always assumed magnesium was lighter.  And that could make a difference so far aft.

[kortopates]

I always assumed magnesium was lighter.  And that could make a difference so far aft.

indeed it is and why they used magnesium to get the strength they needed without it getting too heavy or adversely effecting the cg. i only recall there were some complex considerations regarding weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PT20J]

8 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I always assumed magnesium was lighter.  And that could make a difference so far aft.

Exactly. 
https://www.bonanza.org/community/member-forum/general-discussion/posts/may-2009/ailerons/

[carusoam]

The V tail makes a great sleeping plane…

Check the length of the ruddervators…. They didn’t just cut of the tail re-angle the horizontal surface…

Those things are extra long, with extra surface… probably to make up for the missing appendage…

Have 201er get out the Mooney Measuring tape and visit with Alan…. The marketing guys at Beech… may have over-sold the benefits of the V… 

Best regards,

-a-

[Utah20Gflyer]

Considering the corrosion problems with the Magnesium control surfaces and the inability to source new ones I would say the Mooney tail is significantly superior just based on the ability to keep planes flying.  

The trim system is better because it doesn't require a trim tab.

Given the same engine power moonies are faster and burn less fuel.   Some of that is the smaller frontal area and some may be attributable to the tail.

I considered earlier Bonanzas at one point but specifically decided against buying one mostly because of the tail corrosion issues.   Given a little bit of corrosion you could have an unflyable plane for who knows how many years - Maybe permanently.  That seems like a risky investment.  

 

[Austintatious]

8 hours ago, Kmac said:

I may be in the minority here but think the v-tail is beautiful and the Bonanza is the epitome of what a single engine aircraft should look like.  

As for the questions: 

V-tail has less drag since there are only 2 leading edge surfaces

Less rudder authority...even compared to the straight 33

You may still be able to land an airplane if your rudder gets damaged but you'd be in much more trouble with a damaged ruddervator

This is a myth.  To be as effective as a conventional tail, each side of the V has to be larger than what it would need if it was a conventional surface.  IOW they need the same Wetted area.   Not to mention that any time the Tail on a V tail is producing any upwards or downwards lift,  each side of the V has a lift vector that is fighting a lift vector on the other side, thus producing more drag than needed for the required up/downforce.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Austintatious

[BDPetersen]

Potato, potatoh.  Step on the pedally thingys and the nose goes right or left, pull on the wheely thingy it goes up or way down.

[GeeBee]

I agree with others, that the V tail has a huge area, thus the drag savings are questionable. It all cannot be bad however, the VisionJet has a V tail.....that Teslas cannot detect.

[A64Pilot]

9 hours ago, PT20J said:

I would think that the V tail should be lighter and have less wetted area, so less parasite drag at the expense of slightly more complex control system.

It's a myth that the V tail is the source of the Bonanza's objectional Dutch roll in turbulence. Roger Hoh, an aeronautical engineer specializing in handling qualities and one time  Bonanza owner that has consulted for Beech, told me that the straight tail Deb and V tail Bonanza had similar characteristics.

Skip

 

1 hour ago, Austintatious said:

This is a myth.  To be as effective as a conventional tail, each side of the V has to be larger than what it would need if it was a conventional surface.  IOW they need the same Wetted area.   Not to mention that any time the Tail on a V tail is producing any upwards or downwards lift,  each side of the V has a lift vector that is fighting a lift vector on the other side, thus producing more drag than needed for the required up/downforce.

Your both correct, it’s one of those paper things, on paper you can prove a V tail had less drag, but when sized so that the tail stays behind the airplane they have to be so large they don’t. Beech had had structural problems with the V tail from the beginning, they fixed them, then increased the cord to make them more effective and they started coming off again, latest fix I believe is to attach the leading edge of them to the fuselage,  I’m no Bo expert but I looked at them before buying my J, an S model to be specific.

Look at most all of the old design aircraft, B-17, 29, DC-3 old square tail Cessna’s etc. They all have Huge tails, it’s an old adage that you can’t give a pilot too much tail,

Personally I wouldn’t have either the V or the A, as neither has enough tail, it’s literally that simple, not enough tail, so they both wag back and forth in any turbulence making especially the back seater sick as the further aft you sit, the worse it is. Strakes have been added under the fuselage in an attempt to increase vertical surface area and has been partially successful, and I assume a Yaw dampner would be pretty much required, or strong stomachs, cause the thing just wags back and forth, holding one rudder helps some but nothing stops that tail wagging except smooth air.

Then they have an aft CG issue, by that I mean they are easily loaded out of aft CG, and aft CG will get you killed, so without a redesign the Bo can’t be fixed, it can’t take the weight of a large enough tail to fly right, maybe composites would work, but this is an OLD design, most like Cessna were still building tail draggers when Beech came out with the Bo, wooden prop and all.

Due to CG only a fool puts a composite prop on one, but I have one of those fools in my neighborhood.

The V can be made to work, and work well but by the time you size it correctly there is no advantage to one, I’ll attach a pic of a V tail RC Pylon racer I have, look how long the tail surfaces are then look how long the surfaces are on the Vision jet, those work I’m sure but of course have never flown the Vision

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

6 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I agree with others, that the V tail has a huge area, thus the drag savings are questionable. It all cannot be bad however, the VisionJet has a V tail.....that Teslas cannot detect.

The V on the Vision is there to allow the single engine to be fitted in the manner it is of course, and it appears to have enough surface area to work well. But what other aircraft have it?

Thats the thing about Aviation, if you find something that works other people will be building it soon, and no one else built a V tail and even Beech abandoned it, which tells you what?

Actually the Tesla did as it was designed, it slowed down waiting for owner intervention, when that didn’t happen, it proceeded. Summons isn’t supposed to be used unless your watching the car, because it will find something it can’t figure out, and run into it. I don’t have summons as it’s part of self driving, which doesn’t work and costs either $200 a month or now it’s gone up from $10,000 to $12,000 if you don’t want to do it monthly. People are buying it, but it doesn’t work, so who buys something knowing it doesn’t work? It’s just a software unlock, all Tesla’s have the equipment, if it ever is made to work, I’ll sign up for the monthly plan if it stays the same which is no contract, stop and start is as often as you like.

Thing about the video that surprised me was to see that the Vision has that stupid shopping cart nose wheel, on a jet? I got it, it’s cheaper to build, but on a Jet?

[A64Pilot]

Actually the V tail Bo is a nice flying airplane with nicely balanced control forces (in smooth air) They are well made and high quality workmanship etc.

[GeeBee]

What do deer and a Tesla have in common? Neither can look up.

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, BDPetersen said:

pull on the wheely thingy it goes up or way down.

If you want to go up, pull.  If you want to go down, pull harder.

[Jerry Pressley]

Anyone ever hear of a Mooney tail coming off in the air?    In 60 years of dealing with aircraft salvage I have seen many instances of Bonanza v-tail separations.  Of course always pilot induced!!!!!!!!

[GeeBee]

I have a feeling we will soon see an NTSB report that features one.

 

[Kmac]

3 hours ago, Austintatious said:

This is a myth.  To be as effective as a conventional tail, each side of the V has to be larger than what it would need if it was a conventional surface.  IOW they need the same Wetted area.

I beg to differ.

The straight 35 up to the B35 had a 30° angle from level for each side of the v-tail and a short chord.  In 1951 the dihedral was increased from 30° to 33° and the chord was increased by 14.4% (9 inches) in an attempt to decrease yawing and it was only increased in front of the spar.  That is the reason for the cuffs on the 51 and newer v tails and reason for the break ups.  There are no cuffs on the 1950 and older Bonanza's.  There is much less wetted area on the 1950 and older Bonanza's but both v-tails accomplish the same task.

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Kmac

[PT20J]

Everything’s a tradeoff. Make the tail too big and the increased directional stability can lead to an objectionable spiral mode. If improving the Bonanza Dutch roll were as simple as making the fin bigger they would have probably done that on the straight tail Debonaire. 

Part of the problem may be the difference between stick fixed and stick free stability due to control surface float. I was once flying a Duchess in light turbulence and the airplane was wallowing around until I blocked both rudder pedals with my feet and it calmed down quite a bit. The rudder wasn’t moving a lot. It doesn’t take a lot.

Skip

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Kmac said:

I beg to differ.

The straight 35 up to the B35 had a 30° angle from level for each side of the v-tail and a short chord.  In 1951 the dihedral was increased from 30° to 33° and the chord was increased by 14.4% (9 inches) in an attempt to decrease yawing and it was only increased in front of the spar.  That is the reason for the cuffs on the 51 and newer v tails and reason for the break ups.  There are no cuffs on the 1950 and older Bonanza's.  There is much less wetted area on the 1950 and older Bonanza's but both v-tails accomplish the same task.

 

You disagree they have to be bigger, and then say how the cord was increased and made more vertical in an attempt to increase vertical surface area to stop the nauseating wagging

Beech obviously would have increased aspect ratio if they could have, but they couldn’t as they were weight constrained. Beech knew they needed more surface area and made it as big as they could, but it needs to be bigger.

I’m not saying surface area has to be the same, but wouldn’t be surprised if that were true, but just surface area is only part of the story, increasing cord isn’t as effective as span drag wise, reason why gliders don’t have Hersey bar wings.

The old Bo’s with smaller tails were smaller aircraft weren’t they? Essentially short body Bo’s, I don’t know Bonanza history but I know the old ones are shorter

Between balance issues resulting in flutter and in flight break ups, corrosion from the magnesium skins, cracking from the same skins, inflight break ups even up until the late 80’s, the sickening yaw wagging, it’s amazing anyone would have one, much less be a sought after aircraft, but the inflight break ups did hurt their resale price for a long time.

I mean come on, what other aircraft had the nickname “Killer” and people want it?

Seems like they are still coming apart in the air?

‘Google “beech bonanza inflight breakups”

Edited April 26, 2022 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

I have a feeling we will soon see an NTSB report that features one.

 

Yes 1, not 136 between the years 1962 and 2007, let that number sink in.

136 is a BIG number. I don’t know how many since 07, maybe none? Seems article was written in 08, so I bet there have been more

http://www.thomaspturner.net/inflight breakups.htm

Edited April 26, 2022 by A64Pilot