Bo vs. Arrow

Tom-D said:
I'll bet when you get it flying it will be a new aircraft
Click to expand...
Yep. George Washington’s hatchet. 2 new heads and 5 new handles but it’s the same hatchet. :)
 
steingar said:
I suspect that it was mostly VFR pilots flying into IMC with the predictable outcome.
Click to expand...

From the little research I did, it appears that there was an initial "design flaw" if you want to call it that... There was a significant amount of the tail surface that wasn't supported forward of the attach point... Under some flight conditions (extreme) the leading edge could be twisted causing a catastrophic failure... A relatively simple fix was the addition of a collar that secures the leading edge to the fuselage...

"Investigators did find a common thread in V-tail accidents. Effective with the C35, the chord of the tail surfaces was increased by seven inches but the internal structure remained the same. As a result, the tail stabilizer is extended to 16 inches ahead of the spar on C35 and later airplanes."

"It was determined from wreckage that when the airplane was operated in excess of the never exceed speed, the unsecured leading edge of the stabilizer would fail first, in an up or down direction. Even though the airplane met the certification standards, it was determined that anchoring the leading edge of the stabilizer to the fuselage at the root would minimize this and give the pilot a little extra time to recover from an overspeed condition."
 
Not to change a lively debate :) - however, there is also Commander. The 114 has a wide cabin, plenty of room and decent useful load. It lacks the speed of the Bonanza. It's responsive and flies a lot lighter than the Arrow - and is larger and faster than the Arrow. I know you were specifically thinking V-35 not, trying to change your mind, just let you know there are a few more options.

Dean
 
FlySince9 said:
"It was determined from wreckage that when the airplane was operated in excess of the never exceed speed, the unsecured leading edge of the stabilizer would fail first, in an up or down direction. Even though the airplane met the certification standards, it was determined that anchoring the leading edge of the stabilizer to the fuselage at the root would minimize this and give the pilot a little extra time to recover from an overspeed condition."
Click to expand...
now....ya can't blame the airplane for that. Exceed physics....and we repeat the same old science experiment. :confused:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
now....ya can't blame the airplane for that. Exceed physics....and we repeat the same old science experiment. :confused:
Click to expand...
Is it not a simple case of "know your aircraft"?
Think an A-36 conventional tail would do the same ?
 
Go well beyond NE, especially in rough air, and at some point every airplane will break.
 
Tom-D said:
Is it not a simple case of "know your aircraft"?
Think an A-36 conventional tail would do the same ?
Click to expand...
Tom.....think about that for just a few seconds. ;)

Why do we have limitations?.....especially structural limitations. After you're done thinking....do tell us what Scott Crossfield did and why it happened that way.
 
FlySince9 said:
From the little research I did, it appears that there was an initial "design flaw" if you want to call it that... There was a significant amount of the tail surface that wasn't supported forward of the attach point... Under some flight conditions (extreme) the leading edge could be twisted causing a catastrophic failure... A relatively simple fix was the addition of a collar that secures the leading edge to the fuselage...
Click to expand...
Yeah, what I've read is that this flaw revealed itself when the aircraft went outside the normal flight envelope, i.e. after the pilot had undergone spatial disorientation.
 
steingar said:
Yeah, what I've read is that this flaw revealed itself when the aircraft went outside the normal flight envelope, i.e. after the pilot had undergone spatial disorientation.
Click to expand...
Right... That said...How many airplanes would NOT come from together flying outside its Never Exceed envelope?
 
The V-tails are extremely slick airplanes. It’s easy to redline it just from going into a decent from cruise without powering back. Thats not dissimilar to even modern high performance jets or aircraft.

The main reason why they had issues up front is the same reason why the Cirrus had such a bad accident rate for a while. People upgrade from slower trainers (that have the aerodynamics of a brick but fly much further away from their limits) and hop in a high performance single where there’s a lot less forgiveness for flying off the numbers. The Cirrus and Bo are both clear demonstrations that if you take a high performance single past it’s limits bad things happen.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
The V-tails are extremely slick airplanes. It’s easy to redline it just from going into a decent from cruise without powering back. Thats not dissimilar to even modern high performance jets or aircraft.

The main reason why they had issues up front is the same reason why the Cirrus had such a bad accident rate for a while. People upgrade from slower trainers (that have the aerodynamics of a brick but fly much further away from their limits) and hop in a high performance single where there’s a lot less forgiveness for flying off the numbers. The Cirrus and Bo are both clear demonstrations that if you take a high performance single past it’s limits bad things happen.
Click to expand...
full disclosure....if you keep them trimmed and fly with two fingers....they won't overspeed. Just say'n. That's how mine does....

You're not going to go pushing the yoke forward for the carrier descent/landing....it won't fly well like that. :no:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
full disclosure....if you keep them trimmed and fly with two fingers....they won't overspeed. Just say'n. That's how mine does....

You're not going to go pushing the yoke forward for the carrier descent/landing....it won't fly well like that. :no:
Click to expand...
Exactly. Point is though that if you do that in a less power plane it’s bad practice but you won’t break anything.
 
Shameful Beechcraft never cared if the Bonanza fell apart, until two things happened.

1. King Air wings started falling off.
2. The apologist president of the Bonanza Society was killed when his Bonanza disintegrated.

Mike Smith had already fixed the Bonanza, and David Saunders fixed the King Air wings from falling off. Finally, after much whining, kicking, and crying, Beechcraft got off their butts.

1. No more "V" tails.
2. King air wing attach point changed from tension to shear.
 
Tom-D said:
Is it not a simple case of "know your aircraft"?
Think an A-36 conventional tail would do the same ?
Click to expand...

With the cuff modification the V-tails and the conventional tail A-36 fail the same way. Fly it far enough outside the design flight envelope and the wings come off first.
Does that make you feel vindicated Tom?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
full disclosure....if you keep them trimmed and fly with two fingers....they won't overspeed. Just say'n. That's how mine does....

You're not going to go pushing the yoke forward for the carrier descent/landing....it won't fly well like that. :no:
Click to expand...

Is it roll stability that's at the root of the loss of control issue? Drop a wing hand flying in IMC and the Bo is accelerating in a spiral dive pretty quickly?

Seems something like a Mooney, which is equally slick, doesn't result in a loss of control quite so often even after the attitude gyro packs up. Is there a difference in roll stability?
 
GRG55 said:
Does that make you feel vindicated Tom?
Click to expand...
Vindicated ?? Why would I need vindication for advising any buyer of a Bonanza to do there home work. That is how this conversation got started when you took offense .
 
Tom-D said:
Vindicated ?? Why would I need vindication for advising any buyer of a Bonanza to do there home work. That is how this conversation got started when you took offense .
Click to expand...

So if the OP decided on the Arrow, you would be ok if he didnt do his homework? Just buyers of Bo's are the ones that need to check AD's, reviews and opinions?
 
charheep said:
So if the OP decided on the Arrow, you would be ok if he didnt do his homework? Just buyers of Bo's are the ones that need to check AD's, reviews and opinions?
Click to expand...
....and which recurring Arrow ADs will kill if not complied with?
 
charheep said:
So if the OP decided on the Arrow, you would be ok if he didnt do his homework? Just buyers of Bo's are the ones that need to check AD's, reviews and opinions?
Click to expand...
Awe hell folks, just buy the pretty one, the first annual will take care of the mechanical stuff.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Gee Tom....sounds like yer all over the place on this. :D
Click to expand...
No, just seems to me there are those who never catch on. So let them get screwed. some A&P-IA needs a 401k retirement system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top