Mooney Tail vs V Tail

[steingar]

Apples and oranges.  Make the Mooney tail out of magnesium and see how it does.  Bo's are pretty, but I'd not touch one with a stick now that Textron has stopped making the V-tails.  

[Kmac]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

Apples and oranges.  Make the Mooney tail out of magnesium and see how it does.  Bo's are pretty, but I'd not touch one with a stick now that Textron has stopped making the V-tails.  

Textron recently announced they are producing a run of magnesium ruddervators for the 35 fleet.

[201er]

3 minutes ago, Kmac said:

Textron recently announced they are producing a run of magnesium ruddervators for the 35 fleet.

Price of Bonanzas must have doubled at the sound of that news! Much like Mooneys jump in price when a small batch of gear springs gets released.

[BobbyH]

16 hours ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

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.  

Since Magnesium and it's alloys are low on the galvanic scale (highly Anodic, meaning it gives up ions to neighboring materials) so they are very hard to protect from corrosion.  All it takes is a scratch in the paint or a fastener to start the down hill spiral.  It has good strength to weight ratio as long as you can keep it from giving away all it's strength to mating surfaces.  Great material to work with until it's not! 

Mooney did a good job of maintaining robust design, including materials, with innovative ideas.

[aviatoreb]

I wish my airplane were made entirely of Titanium.  Never corrodes.  Strong.  Compliant.  Hard.  Lightweight.  (and Expensive and hard to work...).

[MooneyMitch]

Our aluminum [non-wood] Mooneys were initially created by the fellow that created the V tail BO.  Something must have been positive about that V tail.............Cirrus must think the V tail is a good thing [certainly the Vision V tail is engineered quite differently than the V Bo].

I think the V tail Bonanza is a good looking airplane too!

[BDPetersen]

I doubt you will find much discussion as to how to land a Bonanza.  But while my model 35 was great, but I wouldn’t trade my C model Mooney.

[Shadrach]

22 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

If I’m honest, I must admit that my M20F will Dutch roll in turbulence. I imagine most do.

[A64Pilot]

4 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I wish my airplane were made entirely of Titanium.  Never corrodes.  Strong.  Compliant.  Hard.  Lightweight.  (and Expensive and hard to work...).

Actually Ti Corrodes pretty much instaneously (nanoseconds)and compared to aluminum it’s heavy, 2/3’s heavier than aluminum or 45% lighter than steel.

Ti’s layer of corrosion protects it and stops further corrosion. A Ti airplane would be heavier than aluminum as you just can’t get it that thin, but your right it would have an almost infinite life

Ti is the ninth most abundant substance on Earth, however it’s all oxide, until recently refining it was what was hard it had to be done in batches, but recently continuous refining is done, Ti ought to replace SS in most cases before too long.

[A64Pilot]

8 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

If I’m honest, I must admit that my M20F will Dutch roll in turbulence. I imagine most do.

All aircraft will to some extent, but not nearly as much as a V tail Bo. Why yaw dampeners were made, to dampen yaw in conventional tailed airplanes

Edited April 27, 2022 by A64Pilot

[Shadrach]

22 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

I’ve always loved the look of the V35B with tip tanks. Just a beautiful, timeless, and iconic design. That being said, I think the less attractive A36 is far better to live with.  

[carusoam]

Oddities of tails and material selection…

1) Mooney has one well known tail structure failure…

2) The cause was not exactly known…

3) The wooden structure came apart in flight…

4) The thought was the tail had been damaged during handling… any damage was not seen…

5) Its solution… convert all of the wooden tailed M20As to aluminum tails..

6) Very few wooden tailed M20As still exist…

7) Aluminum Beech rain last occurred near NYC only a few years ago… vacuum pump failure in VMC… descended into IMC following an electric TC… exited the bottom of the clouds in pieces….

8) As far as wacky things to go with that… the Beech WnB will run out the back of the envelope with time as the fuel burns off….  Sooooo… don’t forget to use a modern WnB program to know when the fuel burned is too low to keep flying…

 

PP thoughts only, not a historian…

Best regards,

-a-

[BobbyH]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

my M20F will Dutch roll in turbulence. I imagine most do.

You are correct about that, especially the short bodies. 

[Kmac]

20 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

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

It didn't help with the yawing...even the 33 has the same issue

20 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

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

They only added a longer tailcone which added to the overall length.  They only extended the baggage area/seating to the rear.

 

The original straight 35's even had fabric covered ruddervators.

The issues of breakups and rear cg issues began after converting to magnesium ruddervators (added weight to the tail) , extending the chord of the ruddervators by 9 inches (adding even more weight) and only in front of the spar which allowed bending motion and flutter where finally the cuffs (more weight) were mandated.  The longer tailcone added even more weight far aft.  Extending the baggage area further rear and pretending it was a 6 seat airplane caused even more problems with CG with pilots thinking they could use it.

Switching to the two main leading edge fuel tanks in 1961 created even more CG issues where the full fuel CG was well forward and as it was burned off CG left the envelope to the rear.

Many pilots have taken off within CG and went out of CG during flight.  Going out of CG during flight is obviously disastrous and couple that with unattached extended chord ruddervators and your looking at pieces spread across miles...

20 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

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”

I am by no means saying the 35 is perfect...I am on Mooneyspace and owned a Mooney for many reasons over a Bonanza.  The original 35 design was a fairly safe airplane after beefing up the main spar...  I would even consider purchasing a 1949 A35 or 1950 B35 (short chord ruddervators, factory beefed up main spar and less CG issues) as I believe it to be safer than the later versions.

[PT20J]

15 hours ago, Shadrach said:

If I’m honest, I must admit that my M20F will Dutch roll in turbulence. I imagine most do.

All stable airplanes do that to some extent. Whenever there is a sideslip, the airplane will yaw to reduce the sideslip and roll away from it. It's more complicated than just the size of the tail. For instance, there is a certification requirement to raise the wing with rudder input only in case the aileron controls fail. To avoid excessive dihedral, an aileron-rudder interconnect is often added. The Mooney uses this. The real issue is how objectionable the ride is. Some airplanes wallow around more in turbulence than others. Personally, I've never found the ride in the mid-bodies to be objectionable and I would not add additional complexity by installing a yaw damper, but that's just me.

The CAR 3 requirements are pretty loose: "Any short period oscillation occurring between stalling speed and maximum permissible speed shall be heavily damped with the primary controls (i) free and (ii) in a fixed position."

Skip

 

[Shadrach]

8 hours ago, PT20J said:

All stable airplanes do that to some extent. Whenever there is a sideslip, the airplane will yaw to reduce the sideslip and roll away from it. It's more complicated than just the size of the tail. For instance, there is a certification requirement to raise the wing with rudder input only in case the aileron controls fail. To avoid excessive dihedral, an aileron-rudder interconnect is often added. The Mooney uses this. The real issue is how objectionable the ride is. Some airplanes wallow around more in turbulence than others. Personally, I've never found the ride in the mid-bodies to be objectionable and I would not add additional complexity by installing a yaw damper, but that's just me.

The CAR 3 requirements are pretty loose: "Any short period oscillation occurring between stalling speed and maximum permissible speed shall be heavily damped with the primary controls (i) free and (ii) in a fixed position."

Skip

 

I don't find it objectionable either, but it is most certainly noticeable in light chop.  Having spent years riding in the back of various GA airplanes, the obvious notion that it would be more noticeable in the back seats is indeed true.  I do not recall the 210 having a noticeable amount of Dutch roll tendency in the bumps but I was a youngster and didn't even know the term then. I just knew that the constant "wallowing" in some planes could induce nausea over time.  Perhaps it was just luck but I used to lay crossways in the backseat of our P210 and look up through skylight windows and never a hint of nausea.

Edited April 28, 2022 by Shadrach

[Fly Boomer]

23 hours ago, MooneyMitch said:

Mooneys were initially created by the fellow that created the V tail BO

You may be thinking of Ralph Harmon.  In 1999, Richard Simile wrote on the Mooney Mail list:

"Just After Ralph Harmon passed away, I spoke with Ed Penny who really admired him.  Ed told me that Ralph was responsible for some early wing designs at Beech.  There were in-flight break ups of a few Bonanza wings which totally devastated Ralph.  He redesigned those Beech wings and that general design stands today.  When Ralph came to Mooney, Ed told me that he vowed that there will never be another wing design of his that ever fails.  Hence the spectacular integrity of our Mooney wings today."
 

[MooneyMitch]

9 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

You may be thinking of Ralph Harmon.  In 1999, Richard Simile wrote on the Mooney Mail list:

"Just After Ralph Harmon passed away, I spoke with Ed Penny who really admired him.  Ed told me that Ralph was responsible for some early wing designs at Beech.  There were in-flight break ups of a few Bonanza wings which totally devastated Ralph.  He redesigned those Beech wings and that general design stands today.  When Ralph came to Mooney, Ed told me that he vowed that there will never be another wing design of his that ever fails.  Hence the spectacular integrity of our Mooney wings today."
 

You are correct, Ralph Harmon.

I agree your Ed Penny story is accurate as well. 

[A64Pilot]

Aileron / rudder interconnects were a fashion of the 60’s and maybe 70’s

I dislike them as among other things your cross controlled and fighting the interconnect springs in a cross wind and of course in a slip, I removed it when I designed the aircraft that’s in the ditch, most aircraft with them will pass the test flight without them, but the FAA back in the day liked them and you got points if you had one.

Only one I didn’t really dislike was what was on the Maule M-6, the ailerons were connected to a movable trim tab on the rudder, aileron displacement moved cables that moved the trim tab, they of course added rudder, but as there was no physical connection with of course springs in a cross wind you weren’t fighting the springs on the interconnect, because they weren’t connected.

Edited April 27, 2022 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

6 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I don't find it objectionable either, but it is most certainly noticeable in light chop.  Having spent years riding in the back of various GA airplanes, the obvious notion that it would be more noticeable in the back seats is indeed true.  I do not recall the 210 having a noticeable amount of Dutch roll tendency in the bumps but I was a youngster than and didn't even know the term then. I just knew that the constant "wallowing" in some planes could induce nausea over time.  Perhaps it was just luck but I used to lay crossways in the backseat of our P210 and look up through skylight windows and never a hint of nausea.

The 210 is a very stable airplane, and that stability in my opinion may have something to do with why the 210 isn’t known for coming out of a cloud base in pieces like the V tails are. The Bo crowd like to point out that any aircraft if pushed far enough past Vd and or overstressed will fail, and they are right, but what they are missing is why does that occur so much more often in a V tail than other aircraft? I believe tail yawing around in turbulence may have a lot to do with the apparent spatial disorientation that Bo drivers get more than other aircraft drivers. I’m not so sure the Dr theory of people who get in over their head because they can afford it holds up anymore as the aircraft are old so that they are inexpensive, average V tail largely due to age brings about the same price of an average J model

The only thing I noticed scary about our L model 210 is that if you pulled it into a stall with wheels and flaps up at high power, it would roll over on its back to the left and I’m sure if you left the power in it might spin.

The reason is it doesn’t have enough rudder, you know it’s coming because your right foot will be to the firewall and as you keep pulling the nose up the trim ball will start moving right

Edited April 27, 2022 by A64Pilot

[Blue on Top]

On 4/26/2022 at 1:45 PM, steingar said:

Apples and oranges.  Make the Mooney tail out of magnesium and see how it does.  Bo's are pretty, but I'd not touch one with a stick now that Textron has stopped making the V-tails.  

Not a materials issue. V-tails had a ruddervator flutter issue initially (Beech/Textron will say outside of the operating envelope ... or balance specification). The C35 and on have an additional spar added to the ruddervators to stop the torsional flexing from aero-elastic issues. They can't be made from aluminum (or composites) because they would be heavier and require more balance weight ... which there is not physical room for (or torsional stiffness to allow for). That is without a complete, new, flight test flutter program.

On a good note, Textron is making magnesium skins again ... for $8K+/side.

[PT20J]

Now that @Blue on Top is here, I'm sure we'll all learn a lot.  

It seems to me that roll-yaw coupling can get pretty complicated. I would think that mass distribution would play a role. If a gust induces a yaw angle, the tail will generate a restoring aerodynamic force.  Force applied to a mass causes acceleration, so the tail will accelerate as it swings back. Once it gets going, depending on the mass of the tail and the arm to the CG (in other words, the moment of inertia), it will overshoot and then pendulum back. This effect will be familiar to anyone who's ever landed a taildragger and let the tail start to swing and overcorrected. Whenever the tail is yawing, there are rolling moments due to yaw angle (dihedral effect) and yaw rate (the outside wing is going slightly faster than the inside wing and generates more lift). It's easy to see how the rolling and yawing motions might get out of phase.

Skip

[chrisk]

When I look at a V-Tail Bonanza, I think what a great airplane for operating on an unimproved field.  The tall gear and the tail up high.   --And now I can't stop thinking about a Beech Skipper and what a Bonanza would look like with that tail 

[Blue on Top]

27 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Now that @Blue on Top is here, I'm sure we'll all learn a lot.  

It seems to me that roll-yaw coupling can get pretty complicated. I would think that mass distribution would play a role. If a gust induces a yaw angle, the tail will generate a restoring aerodynamic force.  Force applied to a mass causes acceleration, so the tail will accelerate as it swings back. Once it gets going, depending on the mass of the tail and the arm to the CG (in other words, the moment of inertia), it will overshoot and then pendulum back. This effect will be familiar to anyone who's ever landed a taildragger and let the tail start to swing and overcorrected. Whenever the tail is yawing, there are rolling moments due to yaw angle (dihedral effect) and yaw rate (the outside wing is going slightly faster than the inside wing and generates more lift). It's easy to see how the rolling and yawing motions might get out of phase.

Skip

Yaw-Roll coupling does get very complicated ... especially when airplanes have rudder-aileron interconnects, big engines and Charlie weights in the tail, and long wings with fuel ... that moves . It's kind of an oxymoron to call it Stability & Control. It should be called Stability versus Control. A classic example is Langley versus the Wrights. Langley thought the airplane should be stable at the cost of control (the pilot would need to control less). The Wrights on the other hand wanted less stability so they could have more control over the direction of flight ... and hence not stall what their thought.  It's a compromise. 

Dutch roll is the uncoordinated, yaw-roll motion of the airplane. In small GA airplanes it is typically well dampened due to the "straight" (not highly swept) wings. On highly swept wings, Dutch roll is very much the dominate mode. So, the tradeoff here is Dutch roll stability or spiral stability. In other words, if we let go of the yoke, our airplanes will eventually spiral downward. The airplane will try to return to trim airspeed, but once the bank is over 45 degrees, the natural nose up tendency of the airplane will simply tighten the spiral. Think base to final turn (probably not a stall but rather a spiral).

The yaw and roll by definition of Dutch roll are out of phase, but they will never, by themselves, get in phase. We actually perform control input frequency testing for the simulators to try to decouple the yaw and roll modes ... it's not easy.

I like that you mentioned forces and accelerations. Unlike a car, an airplane is always reacting to force with an acceleration. Unlike an automobile that is displacement-based. 

[67 m20F chump]

Over 17000 Bonanza’s were built compared to 11000 Mooney.  If you add in the other Beechcraft like A36, F33, and Debonair I would guess over twice as many Beechcraft roam the sky compared to Mooney.  
 

I hate to tell you Mooney fan boys this but here goes.  The Beechcraft is the superior aircraft.  The Mooney is the more affordable aircraft.   For me it came down to the money and that is why I have a Mooney.  It’s a great plane but having owned both brands I understand why Beechcraft is more expensive and better.   I would be proud to have either.  First world problems.