Mooney Tail vs V Tail

[EricJ]

10 hours ago, Blue on Top said:

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 used to fly regularly as a passenger on a corporate Embraer and often observed the wingtip making a slow, periodic elliptical track in the air.   It was a constant occurance at cruise.    I mentioned it to one of the pilots once and he called it "the Embraer waltz".   I'd have thought that that could have been fully damped by the autopilot, but maybe not.

 

[Fly Boomer]

3 hours ago, 67 m20F chump said:

Over 17000 Bonanza’s were built compared to 11000 Mooney

Well, yes and no.  That number includes over 3,000 Debonairs after they decided that they were really Bonanzas after all.  And, I believe, includes the A36 and F33.  Their biggest "bonanza" was the Model 35 with more than 10,000.  Still more than Mooney any way you slice the numbers.  And, yes, I do wish I had the option of turf runways.

[Hank]

20 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

And, yes, I do wish I had the option of turf runways.

My Mooney does grass fields very well.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Fly Boomer said:

Well, yes and no.  That number includes over 3,000 Debonairs after they decided that they were really Bonanzas after all.  And, I believe, includes the A36 and F33.  Their biggest "bonanza" was the Model 35 with more than 10,000.  Still more than Mooney any way you slice the numbers.  And, yes, I do wish I had the option of turf runways.

Agree with @Hank. Turf is not a problem.

[carusoam]

Ever try to get voted off the Mooney island?
 

What’s it like having to fly a Mooney, because you can’t fly your favorite plane?

If the other plane is so good… your current Mooney can’t achieve forever-plane status…

When other machines look so good… you don’t know how good your machine really is…

Some posts are better launched on BT…

 

PP humor only, things that come to mind after some posts…

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

44 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Ever try to get voted off the Mooney island?
 

What’s it like having to fly a Mooney, because you can’t fly your favorite plane?

If the other plane is so good… your current Mooney can’t achieve forever-plane status…

When other machines look so good… you don’t know how good your machine really is…

Some posts are better launched on BT…

 

PP humor only, things that come to mind after some posts…

Best regards,

-a-

Love the one yer with!

[A64Pilot]

I’m based on grass, only problem with it is insurence frowns on retracts based on grass for some reason, including Bonanza’s and even Pipers who usually have big ole tough gear.

The V35’s do fly well, but are expensive to feed and maintain, If I slow down to 120 kts I can burn 6.5 GPH, Bo can maybe get down to 9 or 10?

Then they are getting old, and have a few worrisome AD’s, isn’t there a main spar AD now?

When you really run the numbers a V35 is about 5 kts faster than a J model, doesn’t really carry much if any more and burns 1/3 more fuel at least, the only thing it brings is the social appeal, like driving a Lexus. Useful is bigger, but that mostly goes away when you calculate the increased fuel burn. Bo will way out climb a J though

If I wanted a larger airplane it would be a 210, again about 5 kts slower than a Bo, but much more room, much more useful load and greater range, no sickening tail wagging, but does have a wing spar AD, but Cessna’s are Chevrolet’s not Lexus’s. So no snob appeal. A 210 is pretty close to a 206 with retracts and a Laminar flow wing. We know a 206 is a truck, well so is a 210 really

Beech did build one Bo with a laminar flow wing, but didn’t manufacture it, presumably due to cost.

Edited April 28, 2022 by A64Pilot

[Shadrach]

59 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I’m based on grass, only problem with it is insurence frowns on retracts based on grass for some reason, including Bonanza’s and even Pipers who usually have big ole tough gear.

The V35’s do fly well, but are expensive to feed and maintain, If I slow down to 120 kts I can burn 6.5 GPH, Bo can maybe get down to 9 or 10?

Then they are getting old, and have a few worrisome AD’s, isn’t there a main spar AD now?

When you really run the numbers a V35 is about 5 kts faster than a J model, doesn’t really carry much if any more and burns 1/3 more fuel at least, the only thing it brings is the social appeal, like driving a Lexus. Useful is bigger, but that mostly goes away when you calculate the increased fuel burn. Bo will way out climb a J though

If I wanted a larger airplane it would be a 210, again about 5 kts slower than a Bo, but much more room, much more useful load and greater range, no sickening tail wagging, but does have a wing spar AD, but Cessna’s are Chevrolet’s not Lexus’s. So no snob appeal. A 210 is pretty close to a 206 with retracts and a Laminar flow wing. We know a 206 is a truck, well so is a 210 really

Beech did build one Bo with a laminar flow wing, but didn’t manufacture it, presumably due to cost.

The insurance thing is odd to me.  I was once told by someone that landing on turf would not be covered by my insurance. I called them to see if I needed a special waiver for turf ops and they said of course not. It would seem that someone based out of a grass strip would be even less of a risk than a pilot that lands at a turf strip every few years.

[A64Pilot]

No, it’s not just me either, the broker lives in the neighborhood and most companies won’t even write to a retract on grass.

In your case I bet it’s off airport landings that the person was thinking about and misspoke, many insurence companies won’t cover you to land in a farmers field or on a stream bank to fish etc., another reason I didn’t insure my Maule

[Blue on Top]

12 hours ago, EricJ said:

I used to fly regularly as a passenger on a corporate Embraer and often observed the wingtip making a slow, periodic elliptical track in the air.   It was a constant occurrence at cruise.    I mentioned it to one of the pilots once and he called it "the Embraer waltz".   I'd have thought that that could have been fully damped by the autopilot, but maybe not.

 

@EricJ Great observation ... made by few! A good yaw damper can take care of the issue. An autopilot may or may not handle the maneuver as it is very subtle. A yaw damper would need to be tuned well to handle it if the motions are small.

PS. It not a Waltz (1..2,3) but rather a Somba with a figure-8 motion of the hips 

[Austintatious]

On 4/26/2022 at 9:32 AM, 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.

 

All that is fine and good, but IMHO ignored the real reason why V tails suck.  That being that the two surfaces have lift components that fight one another when any lift is being produced by the two surfaces.   See the attached sketch.  The red vectors in each condition are doing nothing to aid in producing the desired pitch or yaw change, but merely increasing drag. 

The Angle of the V can effect the amount of excess drag.  IE: A flatter V results in less excess drag for elevator commands and more for rudder commands and visa versa.

So as you fly along with a V tail producing downwards force, there is extra induced drag being created by the opposing lift components.  Every time the aircraft Yaws and corrects, excess drag.  Every time elevator input is applied (like in a turn) excess drag is produced.

The only time this is not true is when the tail is producing 0 lift.

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Austintatious

[Kmac]

7 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

V tails suck

That is quite a generality and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I'm not here here saying a V-Tail is better than a conventional tail, T-Tail or cruciform tail...  There are pluses and minuses to all types and I'm inclined to say the V-Tail definitely does not suck.

Are we only talking about flying qualities here?  At least with any other tail except the conventional tail you have a place where you can stand or sit in the shade on a hot sunny day.  It's a much shorter walk around a V-Tail to get to the other side in the hangar (just pay attention or you might get scalped).  It is even one less appendage to spend time looking at during a pre-flight (even though you may want to spend twice as much time looking at each ruddervator).

[Austintatious]

11 minutes ago, Kmac said:

That is quite a generality and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I'm not here here saying a V-Tail is better than a conventional tail, T-Tail or cruciform tail...  There are pluses and minuses to all types and I'm inclined to say the V-Tail definitely does not suck.

Are we only talking about flying qualities here?  At least with any other tail except the conventional tail you have a place where you can stand or sit in the shade on a hot sunny day.  It's a much shorter walk around a V-Tail to get to the other side in the hangar (just pay attention or you might get scalped).  It is even one less appendage to spend time looking at during a pre-flight (even though you may want to spend twice as much time looking at each ruddervator).

Ok, I'll concede that for ground purposes and visual appeal,  A v tail may be superior! 

 

 

[EricJ]

33 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

All that is fine and good, but IMHO ignored the real reason why V tails suck.  That being that the two surfaces have lift components that fight one another when any lift is being produced by the two surfaces.   See the attached sketch.  The red vectors in each condition are doing nothing to aid in producing the desired pitch or yaw change, but merely increasing drag. 

The Angle of the V can effect the amount of excess drag.  IE: A flatter V results in less excess drag for elevator commands and more for rudder commands and visa versa.

So as you fly along with a V tail producing downwards force, there is extra induced drag being created by the opposing lift components.  Every time the aircraft Yaws and corrects, excess drag.  Every time elevator input is applied (like in a turn) excess drag is produced.

The only time this is not true is when the tail is producing 0 lift.

 

Orthogonal dimensions need orthogonal controls! 

I think there's a reason conventional tails are conventional.   

[PT20J]

2 hours ago, Austintatious said:

All that is fine and good, but IMHO ignored the real reason why V tails suck.  That being that the two surfaces have lift components that fight one another when any lift is being produced by the two surfaces.   See the attached sketch.  The red vectors in each condition are doing nothing to aid in producing the desired pitch or yaw change, but merely increasing drag. 

The Angle of the V can effect the amount of excess drag.  IE: A flatter V results in less excess drag for elevator commands and more for rudder commands and visa versa.

So as you fly along with a V tail producing downwards force, there is extra induced drag being created by the opposing lift components.  Every time the aircraft Yaws and corrects, excess drag.  Every time elevator input is applied (like in a turn) excess drag is produced.

The only time this is not true is when the tail is producing 0 lift.

 

If I understand your argument correctly, the reasoning is that the component of total lift normal to each surface must be greater (by the inverse of cosine of the dihedral angle) than the useful vertical component, and this must necessarily result in greater induced drag. This is undoubtable true, but some analysis would be necessary to quantify the the effect to see if it is significant. It would seem to me that the angle of attack of the tail would be low at cruise and thus induced drag would also be low. Also, the aerodynamic forces on the tail are low with respect to the wing., So all told, the effect is probably not great.

Skip

[A64Pilot]

The bottom line is, if they were superior, then you would see them on many aircraft, and you don’t. Even Beech quit manufacturing them. Has to be a reason.

Cirrus Jet is a V tail I’m sure so they could mount that engine without going the Piper jet way, not because it’s “better”

Like T tails, how many of them do see? On paper they have several advantages, but by the time they get put on an airplane those advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages. Now if you need or desire to mount engines back on the tail, then you can live with them, cause you don’t really have any other choice

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

angle of attack of the tail would be low at cruise

In cruise, isn't the wing generating more lift because of the speed?  If so, and if the Center of Lift is aft of the CG, wouldn't the tail need more downforce and therefore more drag?
 

[A64Pilot]

7 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

In cruise, isn't the wing generating more lift because of the speed?  If so, and if the Center of Lift is aft of the CG, wouldn't the tail need more downforce and therefore more drag?
 

No assuming level flight lift will always equal weight, angle of attack changes of course to maintain same lift at different speeds. elevator changes lift essentially by varying camber, but lift or downforce of both airfoils will stay relatively the same.

Now as we aren’t a symmetrical airfoil, the center of lift does change with angle of attack, but unless really getting into the weeds, it’s not enough to matter

Edited April 29, 2022 by A64Pilot

[Austintatious]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

The bottom line is, if they were superior, then you would see them on many aircraft, and you don’t. Even Beech quit manufacturing them. Has to be a reason.

 

I agree.... I have even seen them disappear in the model aircraft world... Specifically sailplanes, which are highly competitive and at the absolute cutting edge of composite and aerodynamic design.  Yes you can find V tail designs, but none of them are competitive... And believe me when I tell you if they could save even a gram of drag or weight by going with a V tail they would, they are fanatical about it and it has led to 156 inch span models that have an empty weight of  26 ounces.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Austintatious

[PT20J]

I'm not claiming that V-tails are better or worse -- it's just another way to design an airplane. Like high wing vs. low wing. Most of low speed aerodynamics was well understood by the time Harmon designed the Bonanza. I have no idea why he chose the V-tail. Maybe it was just his 'thing' at the time. Like Thorp and stabilators.

Here's an interesting NACA report from 1944 that concludes that they are pretty equivalent to convention tails in most respects. One interesting conclusion is that a V-tail requires about the same wetted area as a conventional tail so the parasite drag is equivalent. Any drag reduction is likely small and derived from reduced interference drag since there are only two junctions with the fuselage rather than three.

Skip

19930091901.pdf

[EricJ]

29 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I'm not claiming that V-tails are better or worse -- it's just another way to design an airplane. Like high wing vs. low wing. Most of low speed aerodynamics was well understood by the time Harmon designed the Bonanza. I have no idea why he chose the V-tail. Maybe it was just his 'thing' at the time. Like Thorpe and stabilators.

It was probably a marketing distinction, which outgrew its usefulness over time.

[cliffy]

Wallow around?  How about the Airbus 320?   It wallows (Dutch Roll) like a drunken sailor down the ILS on a dead calm approach.

Fly by wire stability program wrong? Or could it be a short body) short tail moment arm aerodynamics? 

What ever, I used to shut off the A/P and hand fly it as I was smoother than all that automation.

Felt like I was on the head of a pin wallowing around with the A/P on going down the slope. 

Now my short body Mooney will walk back and forth in yaw in turbulence but it seems the period of each cycle is much shorter than anything in a V tail  JMO 

[T. Peterson]

38 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Wallow around?  How about the Airbus 320?   It wallows (Dutch Roll) like a drunken sailor down the ILS on a dead calm approach.

Fly by wire stability program wrong? Or could it be a short body) short tail moment arm aerodynamics? 

What ever, I used to shut off the A/P and hand fly it as I was smoother than all that automation.

Felt like I was on the head of a pin wallowing around with the A/P on going down the slope. 

Now my short body Mooney will walk back and forth in yaw in turbulence but it seems the period of each cycle is much shorter than anything in a V tail  JMO 

I don’t think the 320 series wallow around anymore than any other swept wing jet. Dutch roll is an unavoidable characteristic of swept wing airplanes, thus the reason for yaw dampers. I certainly concede that you can feel the yaw damper working to alleviate the roll from time to time, and when hand flying the Bus a judicious tap on opposite rudder will help, but I haven’t noticed any excessive Dutch roll at all. Certainly not anymore than the 20 series Lears I flew a hundred years ago.

[cliffy]

16 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I don’t think the 320 series wallow around anymore than any other swept wing jet. Dutch roll is an unavoidable characteristic of swept wing airplanes, thus the reason for yaw dampers. I certainly concede that you can feel the yaw damper working to alleviate the roll from time to time, and when hand flying the Bus a judicious tap on opposite rudder will help, but I haven’t noticed any excessive Dutch roll at all. Certainly not anymore than the 20 series Lears I flew a hundred years ago.

Interesting thought I too have a lot of Lear 20 time and their A/Ps left a lot to be desired especially when they got older. Of course I  flew very old high time 20 series machines. The 35 was much better.  Just an added mention- I got to ride along with Bill Lear as he flew a 24. Yup. older than dirt here :-) (A 20 Lear was the hardest airplane I ever hand flew at 410, had to at times because the A/P was so bad- Long before RVSM) Many hours hand flying at 410.

I've also got many thousands of hours in several Boeings and never had the wallow on final in them in dead calm weather that I did in 319s and 320s, Either the airplane aerodynamics is conducive to wallowing or the stability program built into the 3 auto-flight computers isn't tight enough to eliminate the issue (for me anyway). 320s have Yaw dampers also! The plane still wallows. 

[BKlott]

This attachment from Aviation Consumer is what you need to know about the Model 35 Bonanza. Suggest you read it carefully.

Structural failures were prevalent throughout the production run of the Model 35 Bonanza.

Nearly 5% of the 1,500 original model 35s came down in pieces. 

The straight model 35, A35 and B35 tended to experience wing failures prior to the empennage failing. The C35 and later models tended to fail in the tail first.

Enjoy the report.

 

1980%20Aviation%20Consumer%20-%20Bonanza%20Breakups.pdf