Why the V-tail did not become the mainstay in aviation ?

Finny

Thanks, great article. I read that issue of FLYING when new, I remember the B-26 article.
With so few sold, it looks like Smith didn’t recoup his expenses on that project.

Easy Jet electric passenger plane with V-tail.

https://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=2550

I remember seeing N111MS at Miami Airport in 1984; seem to remember it had various other mods and was quite the speed machine; Mike Smith also built the Smith Prop-jet prototype which I think would have been a competitor for the Beechcraft Lightning which also never made it beyond prototype stage.

Edit: N111MS was still a V tail when I saw it; and here’s a link to Mac McClellan’s article.

Googling “V-tail bonanza conversion” I did find a link to an article by J.Mac McClellan in an old Flying magazine about this V-tail to straight tail modification. The link is horribly long, too long to paste it here, but if you are interested it should not be too difficult to find.Short version is that a rather famous modifier, Mike Smith, was behind this mod, and he called it the Tri-Tail Modification, costing 25.000 USD. In the article there is a photo of Smith’s V35 Bonanza N111MS, converted to a straight tail, which Smith called V35ST. Probably worth reading, if you are really interested in Bonanzas. And as I was told by the couple who owned one of these mods, there were just a couple of them ever made.

Here is the link anyways:

https://books.google.fi/books?id=KLJZBfTOWZ8C&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=v-tail+bonanza+conversion&source=bl&ots=RN0QfYAF7o&sig=ACfU3U01SNNqUKh0UL6wzLuTKdY4o_qsiA&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJ2eXKxubhAhXRlIsKHSViAa4Q6AEwEXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=v-tail%20bonanza%20conversion&f=false

Finny…
I have never heard of the tail modification kit, and I’ve been following the General Aviation scene for the last 50 years. Still, not being a member of the American Bonanza Society, I could have missed it.

I can’t imagine anyone buying a kit, the logical course of action would be to sell your V-tail and buy a conventional tail Bonanza..the 33 or 36 series.
The market for V-tails has always been good, it’s not like they were un-saleable as used aircraft.
The 33 was launched in the early 60s as a lower cost variant named the Debonair to combat the Piper Comanche and Mooney. However most were bought with all the usual Bonanza options, erasing any price advantage. They were remained in the late 60s. The long fuselage 36 was offered as a full six-seat airplane and offered the large two piece doors for cargo or passengers. That fuselage became the basis for the twin-engine Baron 58 and it’s pressurized variant. That the basic Bonanza cabin could be pressurized without too much work also speaks well of the Bonanza’s strength.

And to clarify your next to last comment, I believe Bonanzas were always Utility category aircraft, irrespective of a tail “beef up” kit.

Scaled Composites has a new V-tail design ..also a stealth…type 401.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/could-this-oddball-stealth-jet-partly-replace-the-a-1-1833954225

The Piper Malibu is another type that has suffered a number of in flight break-ups which I believe were largely due to the aircraft getting away from its pilot in poor weather. There was an incident in Florida a few years ago where the pilot was experiencing extreme difficulties with instrumentation and keeping control in IFR conditions. Another pilot on frequency advised checking the pitot heat was on; it wasn’t and solved the problem, the aircraft landed safely.

A few years ago in Oshkosh I had a bit to eat at lunchtime, and was joined by a couple from California. They had flown in with their Bonanza, which they described as a “V35 Bonanza with a conventional tail”. They explained that a company had come up with an expensive modification kit, which replaced the V-tail with a conventional unit. After they had managed to sell just a couple of these kits, Beechcraft came up with a kit of their own which beefed up the V-tail a bit and cost just a few bucks, fulfilling all FAA requirements for a utility category aircraft. I wonder if anyone here knows more of this V-Bonanza with conventional tail, or if any more of these are still flying?

Test pilot died when v-tail separated.

I get the impression they never really solved the problem of the weak tail assembly.

That early test crash was in 1946-47 and occurred during maximum velocity five tests (VD) due to tail plane flutter.
Flutter can occur in any high speed aircraft and is not a unique phenomenon to V-tail types.
I believe the infamous DH110 crash was caused by flutter and the phenomena has affected many types over the years…ranging from homebuilt designs to large transports.

To investigate that the fix was adequate, Beech instrumented a Bonanza with strain gauges and borrowed remote control gear from the Air Force and did a series of dives over Kansas. The plane, controlled from a company Beech 18, was dives from a high altitude and rapidly pulled up. Maximum speed hit 286 mph and the airframe pulled 3.5Gs.

The results of the tests allowed Beech to license the type in the “Utility” category, as opposed to the usual “Normal ” category. The utility category requires the type to be 15.7 % stronger than other types.

To combat negative “hangar talk”about the design, Beech hired famous Air show pilot Bevo Howard to do a 10 minute acrobatic sequel with the plane at the national air races.

Yes, the Bonanza has a history of airframe failures, but most/all were caused by overseeing the aircraft due to loss of control (usually in IMC) not a design weakness.

I can find no real basis for your claim of a “weak” V-tail assembly never being fixed.
I as I said before, the V-tails were in production for 30+ years (1947-77), were approved by the FAA and re-approved following a special design review.

Are there any technical details of how the controls to the V tail are connected/mixed?

I’m pretty sure they can help you with that information here; https://www.beechcraftheritagemuseum.org/

Ok . Test pilot died when v-tail separated the aircraft. http://kuknamys.cz/1_48/0262.htm

https://beech-bonanza.org/beechcraft-bonanza

I get the impression they never really solved the problem of the weak tail assembly.

—

Bill Odom made a record with it; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XpRptVPrtI

Is the Type Approval open source info ?

I’m pretty sure they can help you with that information here; https://www.beechcraftheritagemuseum.org/

Yes it is, for all types.
Since it doesn’t happen with warbirds these days, many forum members may not appreciate the continued flight in IMC, leading to loss of control which leads to in-flight breakups.
If happens to higher performance, owner-flown types because they are out there in the bad weather whereas lesser types are still on the ground. If the pilot is a bit rusty with his/her instrument work, bad things can happen. Unfortunately, many who own high performance IFR capable aircraft are busy professionals…which is how they can afford the aircraft in the first place…and despite training requirements put in place by the FAA
and their insurance companies…get into trouble.

Yes, Beech won the trial and also the FAA conducted a special review of its type approval and found it safe.

Is the Type Approval open source info ?

Gerard..thanks for the pics.

I have another picture, made it at the Beech heritage museum in Tennessee
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”data-attachmentid”:3860266}[/ATTACH]

Nevertheless inflight brake up is a very serious issue.

Yes it is, for all types.
Since it doesn’t happen with warbirds these days, many forum members may not appreciate the continued flight in IMC, leading to loss of control which leads to in-flight breakups.
If happens to higher performance, owner-flown types because they are out there in the bad weather whereas lesser types are still on the ground. If the pilot is a bit rusty with his/her instrument work, bad things can happen. Unfortunately, many who own high performance IFR capable aircraft are busy professionals…which is how they can afford the aircraft in the first place…and despite training requirements put in place by the FAA
and their insurance companies…get into trouble.

Yes, Beech won the trial and also the FAA conducted a special review of its type approval and found it safe.

This cut-away-model was used by Beech in a court of law to prove that the Bonanza was properly build and save. Beech won the trial !!!!

Nevertheless inflight brake up is a very serious issue.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:timage_261836.jpg Views:t6 Size:t121.7 KB ID:t3860261″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3860261″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]MY PIC!!
This cut-away-model was used by Beech in a court of law to prove that the Bonanza was properly build and save. Beech won the trial !!!!

Nothing there that hasn’t been widely known in the aviation community for decades. Whilst beefing up the v-tail structure was certainly eminently sensible, as it says most of the in-flight break-ups were due to continued VFR flight into IMC, flying through thunderstorms and airframe icing, conditions that have led to plenty of other types exceeding their VNE/loss of control and breaking up in flight.

Ok !

This is what wiki has to say about it;

In the late 1980s, repeated V-tail structural failures prompted the United States Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct extensive wind tunnel and flight tests, which proved that the V-tail did not meet type certification standards under certain conditions; the effort culminated with the issuance of an airworthiness directive to strengthen the tail, which significantly reduced the incidence of in-flight breakups. Despite this, Beech has long contended that most V-tail failures involve operations well beyond the aircraft’s intended flight envelope.^[18][19] Subsequent analysis of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident records between 1962 and 2007 revealed an average of three V-tail structural failures per year, while the conventional-tailed Bonanza 33 and 36 suffered only eleven such failures during the same time period. Most V-tail failures involved flight under visual flight rules into instrument meteorological conditions, flight into thunderstorms, or airframe icing.^[20] In addition to the structural issues, the Bonanza 35 has a relatively narrow center of gravity envelope, and the tail design is intolerant of imbalances caused by damage, improper maintenance, or repainting; such imbalances may induce dangerous aeroelastic flutter.^[18] Despite these issues, many Bonanza 35 owners insist that the aircraft is reasonably safe, and its reputation has lessened acquisition costs for budget-conscious buyers.^[20]

I am after a extremely efficient design that is also safe. I figure V-tail is underestimated.

Nothing there that hasn’t been widely known in the aviation community for decades. Whilst beefing up the v-tail structure was certainly eminently sensible, as it says most of the in-flight break-ups were due to continued VFR flight into IMC, flying through thunderstorms and airframe icing, conditions that have led to plenty of other types exceeding their VNE/loss of control and breaking up in flight.