tonycondon said:
I think it may have been because it had directional stability issues, especially in turbulence.
Absolutely not true. Many folks have mistakenly associated the V-tail with tail wagging, thinking that that configuration is inherently less directionally stable. The truth is that all but the first few models (straight 35, A35, and B35) made prior to 1952 have slightly greater yaw stability than the straight tailed model 33). The model 36 is better in this regard but that's mostly due to the 10" longer fuselage than anything else.
Any upward gust hitting the tail was translated into side to side motion. was pretty uncomfortable for passengers especially.
Sorry, but that's not the source of the yaw/roll coupling. AFaIK the real source of the problem is the shape and dihedral of the wings along with the fuselage shape. There are plenty of other (mostly low wing) straight tailed airplanes that exhibit the same behavior.
Also had some structural issues with them i think, fixed by adding a strap or something to the attach point? the bonanza guys can help on that one. Im not sure if those problems didnt crop up later on.
This is another Bonanza issue that's often poorly understood. Back in the 70's and early 80's someone did a Nader style "expose" on the propensity for V tailed Bonanzas to shed their tails in flight. Unmentioned in the report was the fact that most if not all of the in flight structural failures occurred
after a loss of control in IMC, often involving a pilot with limited or no IFR experience. Then the ABS requested that the FAA review the certification for the 35 series to determine whether there was a structural issue hoping to put the whole thing to bed once and for all. The that analysis led to a conclusion that there was a potential problem where the leading edge of the fixed tail surfaces which had been extended in the 1952 C35 (to improve the CG range I think) could rotate under high stress leading to structural failure of the tail and subsequently the main wings. AFaIK this could only occur outside the design flight envelope, but an AD was issued anyway requiring a temporary reduction in Vne (to Va) and eventually a "fix" was designed that strengthend the weak point on the tail and restored the original operating speed limitations.
In an unusual move, Beech agreed to cover the entire cost of retrofitting the fix to the fleet regardless of age or flight time. Other than a plane that hasn't been flown for years, I believe all flyable planes have been modified so this shouldn't be any concern beyond verifying that it was done. The quality of the repair should be consistently very good since Beech required the work be done at a Beech service center that had been trained to do the job correctly.
More recently, an AD was issued regarding a similar issue on the earliest Bonanzas as well.
Both of these ADs also requried that the balance of the ruddervators be checked as flutter is a definite possibility if they aren't carefully balanced and rigged per the service manual and a significant number of V-tails suffered serious structural damage as a result of an out of balance control surface that led to flutter. Some of these aircraft were safely landed and some broke up in flight.
To my knowlege there have been no (or very few) inflight breakups of Bonanzas that had the tail mod and properly balanced and rigged flight control surfaces. Many knowlegable folks consider the modified V-tailed Bonoanzas to be one of the most structurally sound aircraft around.
"