Best V tail Bonanza model?

N2124v

N2124v

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
633
Location
Austin, TX
Display Name
Display name:
N2124V
Ok, just stirring the pot. Which V tail model is the best and why?
 
And why is the operative point. If a V tail is so great, why didn't all the manufacturers make them. Kind of like why doesn't Cessna and Piper make a canard.

(Yes I'm aware Beech made one.)
 
Sac Arrow said:
And why is the operative point. If a V tail is so great, why didn't all the manufacturers make them. Kind of like why doesn't Cessna and Piper make a canard.

(Yes I'm aware Beech made one.)
Click to expand...

jet12.jpg
 
Okay, Cirrus but it doesn't count. You can't fly one outside of X plane.
 
hindsight2020 said:
What's the significant change with the S model?
Click to expand...

Still on the lighter side, IO-520 engine. Somewhat standard panel (no piano keys, though that was introduced with the P model). Also eligible for TKS if you want to go that route.
 
hindsight2020 said:
What's the significant change with the S model?
Click to expand...
The S was the first with the 285 hp engine, but before weight went up. Therefore, the fastest.

Two points:

1- Few Bonanzas are still in the same configuration as when they left the factory. Big engines in earlier planes are very common.

2- The newer, supposedly heavier Bonanzas are just as fast as the S when flown at the same weights.
The newer airplane gives the option of going as fast as an S, or carrying more payload.

Best Bonanza is one that has been maintained to a high standard. They are all wonderful airplanes to fly. Fast, efficient, carry a good load, and still get in and out of short strips easily.

Of course, nothing compares to an RV 10.
(Sorry, somebody was bound to say it.....)
 
The lightweight J35-M35 (1958-60) with the IO-470 was a nice combination of airframe and engine with nimble, sportscar handling and good performance and economy. Later models with higher MGW, extended baggage and all the fuel in the leading edges had more W&B issues.

But the J35-M35 had the tiny baggage areas and funky old panels (which can be fixed - $$$) and complex aux fuel systems (which can't).
 
Pilawt said:
The lightweight J35-M35 (1958-60) with the IO-470 was a nice combination of airframe and engine with nimble, sportscar handling and good performance and economy. Later models with higher MGW, extended baggage and all the fuel in the leading edges had more W&B issues.

But the J35-M35 had the tiny baggage areas and funky old panels (which can be fixed - $$$) and complex aux fuel systems (which can't).
Click to expand...

I passed on the J-M ones because I thought the fuel system was goofy. Add tip tanks and it becomes a bad joke.
 
Pilawt said:
The lightweight J35-M35 (1958-60) with the IO-470 was a nice combination of airframe and engine with nimble, sportscar handling and good performance and economy. Later models with higher MGW, extended baggage and all the fuel in the leading edges had more W&B issues.

But the J35-M35 had the tiny baggage areas and funky old panels (which can be fixed - $$$) and complex aux fuel systems (which can't).
Click to expand...


My M–35 had some weight and balance issues at destination if you weren't careful

She definitely got tail heavy when my kids got older/bigger when landing with almost empty tanks

that being said… I agree with the S model being the best
 
Simply put, the post-S models incorporated more and more baron parts for manufacturing efficiency. As a result they got heavier.
 
Allow me to weigh in from the peanut gallery. The best of the V tails is the 1950 B35 model, with the IO-470 and Osborne tip tank STCs.

A) Light weight skins.
B-) No ruddervator cuffs, small tail.
C) Evap air conditioner(yes, it does work).
D) No spar AD.
E) faster gear cycle.
F) Greater gross, over 1100 Useful load typ.
G) 30deg flaps, up from 20deg.
H) Simple bench seat with back adj


I am prepared, go ahead and attack, ridicule, and belittle.
 
Atlantic Aero Conversion on a late model V-Tail:yes:
 
In the Marine Corps we would at least have the courtesy to have yelled "Frag Out" before asking question like that ! :D
 
docmirror said:
Allow me to weigh in from the peanut gallery. The best of the V tails is the 1950 B35 model, with the IO-470 and Osborne tip tank STCs.

A) Light weight skins.
B-) No ruddervator cuffs, small tail.
C) Evap air conditioner(yes, it does work).
D) No spar AD.
E) faster gear cycle.
F) Greater gross, over 1100 Useful load typ.
G) 30deg flaps, up from 20deg.
H) Simple bench seat with back adj


I am prepared, go ahead and attack, ridicule, and belittle.
Click to expand...
Too old, too many oddball parts, too hard to buy one without an orphaned prop, and the bench seat is a pia to remove and install for inspections or to load something big in the back. I changed mine to buckets in back and my bench seat became a couch in the hangar. And a comfy one it is.
 

Attachments

  • beech_couch.jpg
    beech_couch.jpg
    676.9 KB · Views: 49
LJS1993 said:
Did the V-Tail prove to have any real benefits?
Click to expand...
that's a religious debate but IMO not really, when you compare the performance of a deb vs a V35 when equipped with the same engine
 
JHW said:
Too old, too many oddball parts, too hard to buy one without an orphaned prop, and the bench seat is a pia to remove and install for inspections or to load something big in the back. I changed mine to buckets in back and my bench seat became a couch in the hangar. And a comfy one it is.
Click to expand...

Thank you sir, may I have another! :lol:

Oh yeah, getting those two 1/4" screws out of the bench seat is a real trial. Last time it took me at least - one minute.

Your couch was not out of a 1950 B35 model, BTW.

Guess you ignored my advice about the IO470 engine which only has support for about 3000 props....

Thanks for playing.
 
docmirror said:
Thank you sir, may I have another! :lol:

Oh yeah, getting those two 1/4" screws out of the bench seat is a real trial. Last time it took me at least - one minute.

Your couch was not out of a 1950 B35 model, BTW.

Guess you ignored my advice about the IO470 engine which only has support for about 3000 props....

Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...
thats right, you have the structural bench seat. An even worse deal. You can't fly without the seat installed unless you can conjur up the stretcher bar to put it its place to hold the fuselage sides in place.
 
LJS1993 said:
Did the V-Tail prove to have any real benefits?
Click to expand...

Well, not really. They started with a pretty small tail back there, and to get decent rudder and elev authority, they had to keep making it bigger until the wetted area of the V tail was about the same as the wetted area of the standard elev and rudder. There might be a slight improvement in reduced drag, but it wasn't very noticeable from what I recall reading.

The tail was increased in size, and the ruddervator travel was messed with a few times over the years to improve handling as the plane gained weight. One of the detractors of the V tail is a narrow loading graph which makes getting people and bags in the envelope rather challenging.

I think the V tail stayed because the plane became rather iconic in aviation circles in the early 50s and it had a cachet that they didn't want to give up. In fact, the Deb was supposed to be the poor step-child with it's standard tail and fewer amenities. The market has spoken on that, and now the only new Bo you can get has a std tail.

the latest popular iteration of the V tail is the Sonex Waiex. Although, it has a small vertical flight control under the V, which leads to the namesake Waiex = "Y" with the suffix 'ex' for the commonality to the Sonex. AFAIK, the Sonex and Waiex have exactly the same perf numbers.
 
docmirror said:
Well, not really. They started with a pretty small tail back there, and to get decent rudder and elev authority, they had to keep making it bigger until the wetted area of the V tail was about the same as the wetted area of the standard elev and rudder. There might be a slight improvement in reduced drag, but it wasn't very noticeable from what I recall reading.

The tail was increased in size, and the ruddervator travel was messed with a few times over the years to improve handling as the plane gained weight. One of the detractors of the V tail is a narrow loading graph which makes getting people and bags in the envelope rather challenging.

I think the V tail stayed because the plane became rather iconic in aviation circles in the early 50s and it had a cachet that they didn't want to give up. In fact, the Deb was supposed to be the poor step-child with it's standard tail and fewer amenities. The market has spoken on that, and now the only new Bo you can get has a std tail.

the latest popular iteration of the V tail is the Sonex Waiex. Although, it has a small vertical flight control under the V, which leads to the namesake Waiex = "Y" with the suffix 'ex' for the commonality to the Sonex. AFAIK, the Sonex and Waiex have exactly the same perf numbers.
Click to expand...

Ah I see so it's basically about styling and looks. Thanks for the input.
 
The V tail typically has better useful load and the CG range is more usable than the F33A. It is about 4 or 5 Knots faster than the F33A although the POH lists identical speeds, its just that the F33A speeds are optimistic. I collected W&B data on over 200 Bonanza's and categorized them by year and model. The average of the 54 samples I have of V35/35A/35B for empty weight and CG are 2245 pounds and 79.53 inches. The average of the 42 F33A samples I have is 2329 and 82.00 inches. They have the same maximum gross weight of 3400 pounds. The aft CG limit on the V35 is 84.4 inches at 3400 pounds and increases to 85.7 inches at 3000 pounds. The aft CG limit on the F33A is fixed at 86.7 inches. One might think that the F33A offers a greater loading flexibility with a more aft rear CG limit, starting at 2.3 inches further aft at maximum gross weight, but this is an illusion as the typical empty CG starts at 2.47 inches further aft (82.00-79.53). The bottom line is that the F33A is slower, has a lower useful load, and a greater aft CG issue than its V tail brother. Otherwise they are identical in loading.

The F33A retains a greater resale price and can be modified with a TAT turbo, tip tanks and obtain a substantial GW increase with the STC.
 
LJS1993 said:
Did the V-Tail prove to have any real benefits?
Click to expand...
I have a few hundred hours in both V-tail and straight tail Bonanzas.

They fly identically.

They both have the Bonanza tail waggle in turbulence. The V-tail may be a bit more pronounced, but not by much. Simply resting one foot on a rudder pedal damps 90% of the waggle. The front seaters are sitting on the waggle's pivot point, and don't feel much. Rear seat passengers are far more likely to feel the waggle.

When flying a Bonanza, the only way to tell which tail it has is to look backwards out the window.

The Bonanzas I've flown can fill the seats and tanks and be well within weight & balance. Only when the baggage area gets heavy does one have to calculate the weight envelope.
 
John Collins said:
The average of the 54 samples I have of V35/35A/35B for empty weight and CG are 2245 pounds and 79.53 inches. The average of the 42 F33A samples I have is 2329 and 82.00 inches.
Click to expand...
In the mid-'70s when the V35B and F33A were offered side-by-side in the catalog -- identical except for the tailfeathers -- Beech quoted empty weight of the F33A 19 pounds higher than the V35B.
 
Non Compos Mentis said:
I have a few hundred hours in both V-tail and straight tail Bonanzas.

They fly identically.

They both have the Bonanza tail waggle in turbulence. The V-tail may be a bit more pronounced, but not by much. Simply resting one foot on a rudder pedal damps 90% of the waggle. The front seaters are sitting on the waggle's pivot point, and don't feel much. Rear seat passengers are far more likely to feel the waggle.

When flying a Bonanza, the only way to tell which tail it has is to look backwards out the window.

The Bonanzas I've flown can fill the seats and tanks and be well within weight & balance. Only when the baggage area gets heavy does one have to calculate the weight envelope.
Click to expand...

On balance, I agree except with the typical aircraft, you can't fill the seats with four 170 pounders, fill the tanks and carry any significant luggage. That is 680 + 444 = 1124 useful, plus typical V35 empty weight of 2245 is 3369 and only allows a maximum of 31 pounds in the back. If it is a typical F33A with an empty weight of 2329 + 1124 = 3453 puts one over max takeoff weight by 53 pounds. I normally don't do a W&B with three adults, but almost always need to do one for four. That is not to say that there aren't many V35B or F33A aircraft that are lighter than average, have a more forward empty CG, and one can do what you say.

Also, in many cases, if you have four adults and 50 pounds of baggage, you will be outside the aft CG limit for an F33A and off loading fuel makes the situation worse. With the V35B, if you are at the max gross weight and at the aft CG limit, you can burn off up to 400 pounds of fuel before the aircraft will exit the aft CG limit because the aft CG limit moves further aft at the same rate as fuel is burned will move the CG further aft. With the F33A, if you are loaded at Max GW and aft CG at takeoff, the first gallon burned will put you outside the aft CG limit.
 
Pilawt said:
In the mid-'70s when the V35B and F33A were offered side-by-side in the catalog -- identical except for the tailfeathers -- Beech quoted empty weight of the F33A 19 pounds higher than the V35B.
Click to expand...

The very early F33A's are the lightest of the breed, but much of the marketing numbers are just that. The earlier 33 models were stripped down and had fewer creature comforts than the same year V tail. Beechcraft sold the Debonair as competition to the Piper Comanche and kept the price lower than the V tail at the time. The rear seat in the 33 is a bench seat, there are no cowl flaps, and the passenger windows don't open on the ground.
 
JHW said:
Too old, too many oddball parts, too hard to buy one without an orphaned prop, and the bench seat is a pia to remove and install for inspections or to load something big in the back. I changed mine to buckets in back and my bench seat became a couch in the hangar. And a comfy one it is.
Click to expand...

docmirror said:
Thank you sir, may I have another! :lol:

Oh yeah, getting those two 1/4" screws out of the bench seat is a real trial. Last time it took me at least - one minute.

Your couch was not out of a 1950 B35 model, BTW.

Guess you ignored my advice about the IO470 engine which only has support for about 3000 props....

Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

I would've waste my time with this guy or a couple of others Doc.

If you are happy with your plane and it does what you want it to do that's all that matters. :thumbsup:
 
John Collins said:
That is not to say that there aren't many V35B or F33A aircraft that are lighter than average, have a more forward empty CG, and one can do what you say.
Click to expand...
I don't remember the empty weight of the V-tail I used to fly, but the F33A is definately lighter than the book figure you quoted.
Both airplanes had three-blade props, which brings CG farther forward than the book figures.

Guess I got lucky to fly airplanes that are better than average.
 
I don't have that much time in Bonanzas, so tell me which ones fly the nicest...I mean which ones have the sweetest, silkiest flight controls?
 
j1b3h0 said:
I don't have that much time in Bonanzas, so tell me which ones fly the nicest...I mean which ones have the sweetest, silkiest flight controls?
Click to expand...
the very earliest (and lightest) ones up through the B have the sweetest controls, but are sort of enthusiast planes. They're old enough you will struggle to maintain them on occasion.
The J-S IMO are the best all around performers
starting with the V they got heavier with each version
 
j1b3h0 said:
I don't have that much time in Bonanzas, so tell me which ones fly the nicest...I mean which ones have the sweetest, silkiest flight controls?
Click to expand...

They are all close to each other in handling qualities, with the short body V35B/F33A having lighter controls than the A36. The A36 can be nose heavy at low weights, but gives a slightly better passenger ride. All of the Bonanzas have the tail wag, with the V35B, followed closely by the F33A, and the least tail wag by the A36. The tail wag affects the rear passengers and holding pressure on the rudders or using a slight push in the same direction of the wag will dampen the wag. The reason that the push in the same direction dampens the wag has to do with the pilot will induce more wag because by the time they input the correction, the tail is already starting back. A yaw damper is a nice feature and I have one installed on my V35A. I sold my wife on the idea saying I was buying it for her comfort.
 
Thanks, Jeff. Is the performance much different between the 260 and 285hp models? I want one that flys great, but still want good performance.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Thanks, Jeff. Is the performance much different between the 260 and 285hp models? I want one that flys great, but still want good performance.
Click to expand...
Not to sound like a Bonanza snob, but they all fly great.
The Bonanza with the "worst" flying dynamics is still way nicer to fly than the average GA airplane.

That being said, I've never flown an airplane that I didn't enjoy.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Thanks, Jeff. Is the performance much different between the 260 and 285hp models? I want one that flys great, but still want good performance.
Click to expand...
the only thing I'd suggest is staring away from old models with the tube spar. We used to have a beech guru on the field before he passed and bo's came from far and wide for service. There were some real horror stories with the ancient ones between oddball airframe structure to orphaned props to onerous airspeed restrictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top