Mooney Tail vs V Tail

[T. Peterson]

14 minutes ago, cliffy said:

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. 

I have no Boeing time, so maybe I am just used to the Bus and don’t notice. Your Lear history sounds similar to mine, but I certainly never even met Bill Lear. I think it is very cool that you actually got to fly with him. What a historical treat! 
l flew part 135 in the mid nineties at Kalitta Flying Service. My only claim to fame is that I did get to fly serial #9. It was a Lear 23 and still had electric fuel pumps in the tip tanks. Eventually it went through Dmate and came out with jet pumps.

Thanks for the posts and the trip down memory lane.

Torrey

[carusoam]

We were just discussing Big Daddy Don Garlits…

 

Have you ever met Connie or Scott Kalitta?

Drag racing and flying seem to be related…

Best regards,

-a-

[cliffy]

HEY I flew #12 and it was owned by a tele-evangelist and looked like a French whorehouse inside with all the red velvet seats!!!   Had the bent pipe control wheels long before the molded ones.

Ya Flying with him was a real highlight for a very young pilot. BTW He'd go well above 410 if he wanted to- no alt reporting back then and Lears were the only thing up that high. 

I have it on good authority that they rolled real nice  :-) 

Kalitta?  Knew of the operation but didn't work there.

AH the good ol' days :-)  Burning as much fuel at idle on the ground as cruise at 410  Fuel critical at engine start Make enough noise on T/O to wake up the dead and always one engine taxi out to the end of the runway with a rolling start on #2 using brakes for steering with hyds off  And then don't pull the power off too far for decent or you lose cabin pressure

Lots of fun back then

[T. Peterson]

3 minutes ago, carusoam said:

We were just discussing Big Daddy Don Garlits…

 

Have you ever met Connie or Scott Kalitta?

Drag racing and flying seem to be related…

Best regards,

-a-

I flew with Connie one time and was chewed out by him one time!! I don’t think I ever met Scott, but Doug (Connie’s nephew) was running the part 135 operation when I left for Spirit in 1998.

[A64Pilot]

13 hours ago, BKlott said:

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 739.4 kB · 6 downloads

Awful comprehensive report, Beech didn’t sue?

[jetdriven]

Bonanza prices took a huge dump about that time.  Mike smith had a simple mod with a tail cuff that effectively ended V-tail failures and breakups.  The AD specified this cuff on D and later models. Since then, I don’t think there’s been a single tail failure precipitating an inflight breakup.  

[Kmac]

7 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Mike smith had a simple mod with a tail cuff that effectively ended V-tail failures and breakups.  The AD specified this cuff on D and later models.

I thought that the Mike Smith mod was a stub spar installed at the front of the ruddervators which required a mechanic to squeeze all of the way down the fuselage while the cuff, which is just riveted to the exterior,  became the required fix for the AD.  Some Bonanza's have the stub spar (which was designed prior to the cuff) and the cuff installed.  I believe the AD applies to the C model 35 and newer.

[T. Peterson]

21 hours ago, cliffy said:

HEY I flew #12 and it was owned by a tele-evangelist and looked like a French whorehouse inside with all the red velvet seats!!!   Had the bent pipe control wheels long before the molded ones.

Ya Flying with him was a real highlight for a very young pilot. BTW He'd go well above 410 if he wanted to- no alt reporting back then and Lears were the only thing up that high. 

I have it on good authority that they rolled real nice  :-) 

Kalitta?  Knew of the operation but didn't work there.

AH the good ol' days :-)  Burning as much fuel at idle on the ground as cruise at 410  Fuel critical at engine start Make enough noise on T/O to wake up the dead and always one engine taxi out to the end of the runway with a rolling start on #2 using brakes for steering with hyds off  And then don't pull the power off too far for decent or you lose cabin pressure

Lots of fun back then

I think you had a little more fun than I did!! Lol!

 I do have many fond memories of my part 135 experience. The schedule could be grueling as we got 10 hours rest after a trip and then back on the beeper, but you were never bored!! 

[cliffy]

I went to the airlines for the SAME reason!!!!!   Lear 135 charter was brutal. 

[Blue on Top]

So many things to say, but I'll break it up by topic ... and keep them short.  I hope.

Mooney tails versus v-tails (the original topic)

There are pros and cons (tradeoffs) with all tail configurations (as with all design parameters). The original thought on the V-tail design was lower drag due to lower interference drag due to less intersections with the fuselage ... but this is minor ...especially so far aft where the boundary layer is thicker. There are many, many other things to consider, though, too.

1.Effective aspect ratio of the stabilizer surfaces (not geometric aspect ratio). A V-tail has a higher geometric aspect ratio, but a conventional vertical tail is end-plated by the horizontal surface (and vice versa).

2. Flutter modes are different due to the mixing of flight controls AND the higher aspect ratio movable surfaces. IOW, the balance weight on a ruddervator puts a significantly higher torsional load on the ruddervator. The free play on the Bonanza is in the torsional direction (i.e. bad). One can look at this by moving one ruddervator, the other one will move in the opposite direction.

3. Two surfaces are typically heavier than three surfaces because the two surfaces are larger with larger loads, requiring thicker materials.

4. Ruddervator control travels have to be significantly larger than conventional surface to be able to handle both motions. Look at the appropriate TCDS for actual numbers. The travels on the Bonanza are in the non-linear range (if not separated) of the CL versus surface deflection curve.

5, Yaw significantly changes the local AOA (due to the high dihedral) between the left and right surfaces. This in turn adds to the torsional issues when an "elevator" input is added.

Tip of the iceberg. There is A LOT more. With today's CFD, it would be much easier to analyze than in 1945-47. 

PS. There was not ONE failure mode of the tail. There were several. Each "fix" cause the next.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Blue on Top

[Blue on Top]

T-tails have pros and cons, too.

1. A T-tail is less likely to spin and is typically easier to recover if it does (there are exceptions ... ask Piper)

2. If the vertical stabilizer is swept, it moves the horizontal stabilizer back further (more tail power). Some airliners put fuel back there to move the CG further aft for more efficient cruise. The vertical stabilizer has to be beefier to handle the horizontal tail loads, though.

3. Drag is reduced (less intersections in smaller boundary layer).

4. Vertical stabilizer can be smaller because it is end-plated on both ends.

5. On smaller airplanes a T-tail is bad for takeoff because there is less ground effect for rotation ... And then when it does rotate the airplane it is lowered into stronger ground effect when the pilot doesn't need it. Prescott Pusher is a great example.

Also tip of the iceberg.

[Blue on Top]

High wing versus low wing (another tradeoff of course)

1. High wing is less drag. Interference drag with the fuselage is less as the intersection angle is >90 degrees.  Intersection angle on a low wing is 84-87 degrees (bad ... that's why there is typically a fairing).

2. Stability is better with a high wing (weight is below the wing). This is why dihedral on a low wing is much greater than on a high wing.

3. A strutted high wing is significantly lighter ... but draggier.  BUT look at the advanced Boeing designs that have really high aspect ratio wings ... that are strutted.

4. Fuselage on a high wing can be shaped as needed because its effects are on the bottom of the wing. On a low wing, the fuselage should not be made narrower until after the trailing edge of the wing ... or a long, fillet fairing needs to be added.

5. No fuel selector is really required. Don't laugh. You'd be surprised how many people die every year from fuel starvation (fuel in the airplane but not getting to the engine ... wrong tank selected).

6. Hard to put wheels in the wings ... but good for getting in during bad weather or shading at Oshkosh from the sun.

Again, tip of the iceberg.

[Shadrach]

On 4/28/2022 at 6:12 PM, A64Pilot said:

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

He was referring to his own strip. Which was private and unlisted. There is no limitation in my policy about landing anywhere. However the application does ask about “NORMAL” operations (see below). I am sure if the answer to C. was “NO” there would be a potential surcharge or exclusion, it seems occasional operations on private turf are acceptable but if occasional becomes “Normal” then we have a problem.
 

was 

[Will.iam]

On 4/29/2022 at 10:06 PM, cliffy said: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. 

I agree that the fly by wire computers are the issue but i think it’s because they were  386 equivalent processors and the control code should have been optimized better or maybe that was just the limit. The A350 doesn’t have these issues but it has vastly faster processors. Would be great to upgrade the processors but the recertification must make it cost prohibitive as we get new A320 every month and the brand new ones are just as bad as the old ones. You would think airbus would put newer processors but i guess the old ones where good enough for them(or maybe the coding really is just that bad).  Analogy i have used to help explain the difference between boeing and airbus is that boing is an aircraft with a computer put on it and an airbus is a computer with an airplane put on it. Where i really miss the boeing is in gusty crosswinds. Airbus does fine in a crosswind but when it’s gusting crosswinds the airbus computer has a delay as it takes your control input and calculates how much aileron deflection to move. It’s not unsafe but i can fly a more precise approach in a boeing because I get instant control response from my control wheel input as it’s not going through a computer filtering my requests before moving the ailerons. 
Airbus Philosophy is pilots make mistakes computers do not. So when you disconnect the autopilot the system blares the master caution siren and there is no way to turn that off. I’ll be deaf by the time I’m 65 from that horn. Boeing if you double click the disconnect for the autopilot you cancel the horn and don’t have to hear it. I also don’t like airbus calling me a retard every time i go to land the airplane even if the thrust levers were at idle 15 seconds ago, the computer still has to say retard at least once. 
i will have to say i like having a tray table in front of me with no yoke in the way to eat my meals so that’s nice. 

[A64Pilot]

A low wing doesn’t need a fuel selector either, the Thrush Crop duster never had one, fuel is just on, or off. 

For an aircraft that does a lot of maneuvering separate tanks is dangerous, you can unport one wing, but unporting both wings is very unlikely.

Only justification I can come up with for a fuel selector is if you get a huge leak in one tank (military aircraft) or possibly contaminated fuel in only one tank.

With both tanks interconnected it’s possible to park on a unlevel surface and fuel go to the low side and out the vent, many aircraft with a both selection do this as well, if the selector is left on both.

Left, right, both is best of all worlds in my opinion

Edited May 1, 2022 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

He was referring to his own strip. Which was private and unlisted. There is no limitation in my policy about landing anywhere. However the application does ask about “NORMAL” operations (see below). I am sure if the answer to C. was “NO” there would be a potential surcharge or exclusion, it seems occasional operations on private turf are acceptable but if occasional becomes “Normal” then we have a problem.
 

was 

Being based on grass, like I am puts me into the normal category I can assure you, and apparently many insurence companies won’t quote a complex aircraft on grass,  But many insurence companies have an exclusion for “off airport” landings, which I did occasionally in my Maule, so I just didn’t renew one year, as my most likely place to have an accident would be off airport and I had no coverage there.

I bet if you call your insurence company and ask about off airport landings you’ll find your not covered, probably in the fine print that discusses nuclear war and other hopefully improbalities.

Or maybe they only throw that out for Supercubs, Husky’s and Maules who do off airport landings?

Edited May 1, 2022 by A64Pilot

[cliffy]

22 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

I agree that the fly by wire computers are the issue but i think it’s because they were  386 equivalent processors and the control code should have been optimized better or maybe that was just the limit. The A350 doesn’t have these issues but it has vastly faster processors. Would be great to upgrade the processors but the recertification must make it cost prohibitive as we get new A320 every month and the brand new ones are just as bad as the old ones. You would think airbus would put newer processors but i guess the old ones where good enough for them(or maybe the coding really is just that bad).  Analogy i have used to help explain the difference between boeing and airbus is that boing is an aircraft with a computer put on it and an airbus is a computer with an airplane put on it. Where i really miss the boeing is in gusty crosswinds. Airbus does fine in a crosswind but when it’s gusting crosswinds the airbus computer has a delay as it takes your control input and calculates how much aileron deflection to move. It’s not unsafe but i can fly a more precise approach in a boeing because I get instant control response from my control wheel input as it’s not going through a computer filtering my requests before moving the ailerons. 
Airbus Philosophy is pilots make mistakes computers do not. So when you disconnect the autopilot the system blares the master caution siren and there is no way to turn that off. I’ll be deaf by the time I’m 65 from that horn. Boeing if you double click the disconnect for the autopilot you cancel the horn and don’t have to hear it. I also don’t like airbus calling me a retard every time i go to land the airplane even if the thrust levers were at idle 15 seconds ago, the computer still has to say retard at least once. 
i will have to say i like having a tray table in front of me with no yoke in the way to eat my meals so that’s nice. 

Boy that is hitting the nail on the head!!!!

Everyone forgets the basic premise of the 320. It was to be able to take an ab-initio EUROPEAN pilot with 400 hours and put him in the right seat (because Europe was not making enough indigenous pilots so none had any experience) and have an airplane "smart"  enough so that the dunce in the right side couldn't kill the airplane.  That's how it all started with AirBus. Look it up in history (if they haven't scrubbed that yet)

Yet now we have made automation paramount so much so that when it stops for what ever reason our "trained" pilots  (BOTH SEATS) don't know what to do or how to fly the airplane!!  This was brought to the fore just this last Saturday at our local airport Saturday hangar breakfast when one of the attendees was lamenting how he was going for his 3rd try at his Instrument Rating. When someone queried him as to what happened the last time he related that he was vectored to intercept the final for the LDA and when he went to put on the autopilot  it kept kicking off because of turbulence (?) He was so focused on having the A/P fly the airplane that he flew right through the final approach course. 

Personal gripe time- no different here when everyone HAS to have an A/P  Let it do all the work IFR.  And then we wonder why we have accidents due to hand flying skills!

Now 30 or so years later we are entering an era in  aviation where we have the USA in the same boat.  US airlines estimate (from the latest figures I have heard) need to hire 14,000 pilots a year for the next 10 years. So the new training ground is going to be regional 135 flying with low time pilots. The regionals will be a revolving door hiring system for the majors. 1500 hours and they're outta there. And yet we are just starting to come to the idea that hand flying skills are deteriorating across the board. 

The problem has been been around since the first glass panels Check out "Children of the Magenta Line" by American Airlines.

 

[Kmac]

I have also read that Walter Beech decided on the V-tail because he thought it would recover from a spin easier and more naturally.

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Being based on grass, like I am puts me into the normal category I can assure you, and apparently many insurence companies won’t quote a complex aircraft on grass,  But many insurence companies have an exclusion for “off airport” landings, which I did occasionally in my Maule, so I just didn’t renew one year, as my most likely place to have an accident would be off airport and I had no coverage there.

I bet if you call your insurence company and ask about off airport landings you’ll find your not covered, probably in the fine print that discusses nuclear war and other hopefully improbalities.

Or maybe they only throw that out for Supercubs, Husky’s and Maules who do off airport landings?

I’ll make it a point to check at renewal time

[Will.iam]

5 hours ago, cliffy said:

Boy that is hitting the nail on the head!!!!

Everyone forgets the basic premise of the 320. It was to be able to take an ab-initio EUROPEAN pilot with 400 hours and put him in the right seat (because Europe was not making enough indigenous pilots so none had any experience) and have an airplane "smart"  enough so that the dunce in the right side couldn't kill the airplane.  That's how it all started with AirBus. Look it up in history (if they haven't scrubbed that yet)

Yet now we have made automation paramount so much so that when it stops for what ever reason our "trained" pilots  (BOTH SEATS) don't know what to do or how to fly the airplane!!  This was brought to the fore just this last Saturday at our local airport Saturday hangar breakfast when one of the attendees was lamenting how he was going for his 3rd try at his Instrument Rating. When someone queried him as to what happened the last time he related that he was vectored to intercept the final for the LDA and when he went to put on the autopilot  it kept kicking off because of turbulence (?) He was so focused on having the A/P fly the airplane that he flew right through the final approach course. 

Personal gripe time- no different here when everyone HAS to have an A/P  Let it do all the work IFR.  And then we wonder why we have accidents due to hand flying skills!

Now 30 or so years later we are entering an era in  aviation where we have the USA in the same boat.  US airlines estimate (from the latest figures I have heard) need to hire 14,000 pilots a year for the next 10 years. So the new training ground is going to be regional 135 flying with low time pilots. The regionals will be a revolving door hiring system for the majors. 1500 hours and they're outta there. And yet we are just starting to come to the idea that hand flying skills are deteriorating across the board. 

The problem has been been around since the first glass panels Check out "Children of the Magenta Line" by American Airlines.

 

The other quote i have heard is airbus is the great equalizer as it makes a poor pilot average and a great pilot average since really the computer is flying you are just “guiding it” where to go. 

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, Kmac said:

I have also read that Walter Beech decided on the V-tail because he thought it would recover from a spin easier and more naturally.

Yeah there is a video somewhere of a NASA test pilot spin testing a Bo, first couple were OK, then he did an opposite aileron input and she really wraps up, he ended up jumping out and it was unrecoverable. I’ve seen it but can’t find it, it’s an interesting video, camera stays in the airplane of course and even survived impact.

Average GA unintentional spin begins with opposite aileron input, it’s just instinct for a pilot to use aileron to raise a wing that drops, this of course worsens the spin.

‘Maybe one of you guys with better skills can find it, you’ll know it’s the right one if the pilot has a big ole handlebar moustache.

Edited May 1, 2022 by A64Pilot

[KLRDMD]

Not much prettier.

[cliffy]

I had a conversation with Bill Wheat before he went west and he told me he did a 5 turn spin in a short body and almost couldn't recover. Said he'd never do that again.

[Kmac]

9 minutes ago, cliffy said:

I had a conversation with Bill Wheat before he went west and he told me he did a 5 turn spin in a short body and almost couldn't recover. Said he'd never do that again.

Reminds me of this video...Watch "26 Turn Flat Spin in a Tipsy Nipper" on YouTube

Bet he never did it again either...

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

NASA test pilot spin testing a Bo

Beech probably got a DMCA Takedown:

 

Found this on another forum:

The Duchess became the only twin that I would teach multi in. The Baron/Travelaire are notorious for their unforgiving single engine flat spin which has killed numerous people because the airplane is unrecoverable. I had a friend, another instructor, that I warned about these characteristics. Unfortunately my warnings were in vain. Beech used the NACA 23000 series airfoil on everything (Cessna used it on the 500/550 Citations and 441 Conquest). NASA wasted 4 Barons trying to figure it out. Beech pulled the plug, refusing to give them anymore. The test pilots had quick release doors and parachutes of course. The Bonanza has the same wing and will also flat spin. It is equally un-recoverable.