What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys

Bingo....and those flows are "not" normal to the "geometrical" flow.....they're more of a "sideways" flow when the aircraft is in a high alpha configuration.

Remember folks.....the tail is an aero surface and it produces forces....or "lift"....it may not be in the z direction.....but it does produce lift (force) in the yaw direction.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
that's wrong....the rudder is out of plane by 90 degrees and is not affected....unless you want to discuss blanketing or adverse yaw.
Click to expand...

Airflow is in only 2 dimensions?
At higher angles of attack, a vertical rudder or worst a swept back rudder, the airflow will not be perpendicular, ie there will be spanwise flow, which is useless for generating lift (which is left or right, or 90°), but it still will reduce effectiveness of the rudder, which requires a larger rudder to compensate. How much a larger rudder adds to drag is debatable.
 
Bill Watson said:
Fun thread but definitely off in the ozone.

As a glider guy, when I first flew a Mooney it was apparent to me that its efficiency can from an airfoil with good laminar flow characteristics but with AOA sensitivity that more modern airfoils avoid. IOTW, a great mid-century wing design. It's sensitive to AOA so if you slow it down on approach with an AOA higher than a certain point,it comes down quite nicely. Same with slips for the same reason (rudder means little in that exercise). Get it 'up on the step' just right and it really performs.
Click to expand...

Which is why Mooney and especially the J can be touchy when stalling. When increased the length of the M20, they made them less nose heavy, by stretching the tail. After the J they added heavier, longer engines, putting more weight up front.
 
teejayevans said:
Airflow is in only 2 dimensions?
At higher angles of attack, a vertical rudder or worst a swept back rudder, the airflow will not be perpendicular, ie there will be spanwise flow, which is useless for generating lift (which is left or right, or 90°), but it still will reduce effectiveness of the rudder, which requires a larger rudder to compensate. How much a larger rudder adds to drag is debatable.
Click to expand...
meh....maybe if the fuselage is blanketing the tail? Yes, flow is three dim....but it's all relative.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
meh....maybe if the fuselage is blanketing the tail? Yes, flow is three dim....but it's all relative.
Click to expand...

Just stop. You don't get it.

Part of Mooney speed is relatively small rudder, which is same thing that the Beech V tail design was hoping for. Despite the small rudder people report good rudder effectiveness and good crosswind behavior. Moreover the whole trimming tail avoids aerodynamic trim tabs which would otherwise add drag. The original post was about comparing the two types so that's all fair game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Just stop. You don't get it.

Part of Mooney speed is relatively small rudder, which is same thing that the Beech V tail design was hoping for. Despite the small rudder people report good rudder effectiveness and good crosswind behavior. Moreover the whole trimming tail avoids aerodynamic trim tabs which would otherwise add drag. The original post was about comparing the two types so that's all fair game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
you don't get it....lol :D
 
For the most part, the Mooney is faster because it is smaller. While the coefficient of parasitic drag is smaller (11%), the bigger difference is in the effective cross section (20%). Most of that is the result of a low cabin height. If you can live with the odd position that forces you into, then you too can become a mooniac.

Aircraft CDP Flat Plate
Area (sq. ft.)

Mooney 201 0.017 2.81
Beech Bonanza 0.019 3.47

http://www.mooneyland.com/why-mooney/
 
Last edited:
this.....less fuselage cross section = minimize drag.
weilke said:
For the most part, the Mooney is faster because it is smaller. While the coefficient of parasitic drag is smaller (11%), the bigger difference is in the effective cross section (20%). Most of that is the result of a low cabin height. If you can live with the odd position that forces you into, thn you too can become a mooniac.

Aircraft CDP Flat Plate
Area (sq. ft.)

Mooney 201 0.017 2.81
Beech Bonanza 0.019 3.47

http://www.mooneyland.com/why-mooney/
Click to expand...
 
weilke said:
For the most part, the Mooney is faster because it is smaller. While the coefficient of parasitic drag is smaller (11%), the bigger difference is in the effective cross section (20%). Most of that is the result of a low cabin height. If you can live with the odd position that forces you into, then you too can become a mooniac.

Aircraft CDP Flat Plate
Area (sq. ft.)

Mooney 201 0.017 2.81
Beech Bonanza 0.019 3.47

http://www.mooneyland.com/why-mooney/
Click to expand...

Smaller frontal area anyhow... the long bodies are pretty long with good leg room and cargo space inside.... odd position however is subjective. People buy sports cars all the time. Pick your poison... They're both fine planes and they can both be cramped in different ways. One is wider and the other is taller with more head room.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
hindsight2020 said:
I would say a design decision like the dumbarse Piper T-tails are a more significant performance differentiation (detractor in this case) than stabilizer sweep or hinge line canting. and mind you, they [T-tails] were too, implemented for cosmetic reasons.
Click to expand...

I have heard from a few former Piper employees, and current Diamond sales staff the T-Tail is used because construction is easier (takes stronger parts, but less labor intensive, so construction is cheaper). Hence the belief the choice was driven by manufacturing costs, not cosmetic.
Again, I was not there, and this is all second hand....

Tim
 
tspear said:
I have heard from a few former Piper employees, and current Diamond sales staff the T-Tail is used because construction is easier (takes stronger parts, but less labor intensive, so construction is cheaper). Hence the belief the choice was driven by manufacturing costs, not cosmetic.
Again, I was not there, and this is all second hand....

Tim
Click to expand...

T-tail does have aerodynamic advantage in laminar flow designs like gliders. Outside of some aerobatic designs, most competition gliders have T-tails. The Katana (DA20) started out as the HK36 motorglider. Everything diamond makes follows from there.
 
gsengle said:
Just stop. You don't get it.

Part of Mooney speed is relatively small rudder, which is same thing that the Beech V tail design was hoping for. Despite the small rudder people report good rudder effectiveness and good crosswind behavior. Moreover the whole trimming tail avoids aerodynamic trim tabs which would otherwise add drag. The original post was about comparing the two types so that's all fair game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In the V case, it was removing 1 of the roots (where the airfoil attaches to the fuselage, and a source of drag), so instead of 3 it only has 2.
 
weilke said:
T-tail does have aerodynamic advantage in laminar flow designs like gliders. Outside of some aerobatic designs, most competition gliders have T-tails. The Katana (DA20) started out as the HK36 motorglider. Everything diamond makes follows from there.
Click to expand...

I owned a t tail arrow. While it wasn't a good short field performer, having the tail up in the clean air out of the prop wash did seem to make it a very smooth flying airplane. I think they're good values (if you don't fly short fields) as they've gotten a bit of a bum rap, and seem to be priced accordingly... now the lance may have more of an issue with elevator authority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I owned a t tail arrow. While it wasn't a good short field performer, having the tail up in the clean air out of the prop wash did seem to make it a very smooth flying airplane. I think they're good values (if you don't fly short fields) as they've gotten a bit of a bum rap, and seem to be priced accordingly... now the lance may have more of an issue with elevator authority.
Click to expand...

Piper's clumsy implementation of the T-tail did a lot of damage to the concept, at least for light aircraft.
 
weilke said:
Piper's clumsy implementation of the T-tail did a lot of damage to the concept, at least for light aircraft.
Click to expand...

Yes that said it seems ok on the arrow and seminole, the bad rep seems to date from the Lance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Pilawt said:
Looking at all the aerodynamic gimmicks (slots, fences, fillets) on the PA-28RT stabilator, I'm guessing Piper's engineers had a heckuva time getting it to fly right.
Click to expand...

One jet manufacturer, in 1965, advertised, "no slits, slats, slots, or vortex generators!"

But my google-foo fails me to find it.
 
Last edited:
kgruber said:
One jet manufacturer, in 1965, advertized, "no slits, slats, slots, or vortex generators!"
Click to expand...
and you know what?......a man walking out a long pier once said, while looking down...."when yer outta slits....yer outta pier". o_O
 
kgruber said:
One jet manufacturer, in 1965, advertized, "no slits, slats, slots, or vortex generators!"
Click to expand...

Dassault still doesn't use cheating devices like washers, button head screws, stall strips, vortex genterators, BLEs, strakes, vortilons, fences, claims to be engineered perfect and don't need that junk to make it fly well

Lear on the other hand pioneered ways to improve ****ty low speed handling of high speed wings using any cheating device they could think of, (page 22 of 26) http://www.royalair.com/PDFs/Learjet_Product_History.pdf
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
Dassault still doesn't use cheating devices like washers, button head screws, stall strips, vortex genterators, BLEs, strakes, vortilons, fences, claims to be engineered perfect and don't need that junk to make it fly well

Lear on the other hand pioneered ways to improve ****ty low speed handling of high speed wings using any cheating device they could think of, (page 22 of 26) http://www.royalair.com/PDFs/Learjet_Product_History.pdf
Click to expand...

I agree, anything that adds drag doesn't belong on an airplane. I don't think fences add any drag, and TBM has some on the lower part of their tail as well as the wing.
Stall strips, VGs....yuk! I saw one plane had VGs on the entire wing?! Yep, slow the plane down, that fixes it.
 
teejayevans said:
I agree, anything that adds drag doesn't belong on an airplane. I don't think fences add any drag, and TBM has some on the lower part of their tail as well as the wing.
Stall strips, VGs....yuk! I saw one plane had VGs on the entire wing?! Yep, slow the plane down, that fixes it.
Click to expand...

VGs be awfully handy to reduce stall speed without impacting cruise. I'm all for smart tricks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
VGs be awfully handy to reduce stall speed without impacting cruise. I'm all for smart tricks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They do impact cruise by adding more drag. On slow planes (STOL) where reduced stall speed is desired, and fast cruise speed is a secondary concern, maybe. No one designs a plane with VGs, they are always added on to fix a problem.
 
teejayevans said:
They do impact cruise by adding more drag. On slow planes (STOL) where reduced stall speed is desired, and fast cruise speed is a secondary concern, maybe. No one designs a plane with VGs, they are always added on to fix a problem.
Click to expand...

Never said they didn't. But they may present a very desirable tradeoff. Small hit to cruise, big impact on stall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
weilke said:
For the most part, the Mooney is faster because it is smaller. While the coefficient of parasitic drag is smaller (11%), the bigger difference is in the effective cross section (20%). Most of that is the result of a low cabin height. If you can live with the odd position that forces you into, then you too can become a mooniac.

Aircraft CDP Flat Plate
Area (sq. ft.)

Mooney 201 0.017 2.81
Beech Bonanza 0.019 3.47

http://www.mooneyland.com/why-mooney/
Click to expand...

If you want odd seating position, fly a 172. It seems vert weird to me. It is as if the panel is in a tunnel ahead of you. It just feels weird. Being on the floor looking over the top of the panel seems quite natural. I am 6'1" so maybe that is why it doesn't bother me.
 
weilke said:
Piper's clumsy implementation of the T-tail did a lot of damage to the concept, at least for light aircraft.
Click to expand...
Gliders pretty much repaired that damage. The only thing that prevents T-tail from winning is that its effect is not great, so it's only noticeable on clean airplanes. Switching an RV-3 to T-tail would probably net it 2 knots or maybe even 1 :)
 
Skyrys62 said:
The drift of this thread isn't just off the magenta line, it's on a whole new sectional at this point.

maybe it's the hurrican'
Click to expand...

There is no way you can have a thread this long and have it stay on topic, pretty sure that is a law.
 
gsengle said:
Yep, based on how they are positioned on the wing. Same reason in my plane you can go around fine with speed brakes extended. Here is just one of many articles on em:

"The net result is about a "push" with no measurable degradation in cruise speed."

https://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/182564-1.html
Click to expand...
Coming from the president of the company selling the VGs, and I like the vague statement..."about a push". What's about?
 
teejayevans said:
Coming from the president of the company selling the VGs, and I like the vague statement..."about a push". What's about?
Click to expand...

I have had the discussion with a few aerodynamic engineers. Depending on the airfoil, the placement of the VGs and angle of attack, there may be a net decrease in drag. Now let's see if I can explain it correctly. :)
VGs effectively add energy to the boundary layer by creating a turbulent flow above the lowest layer of the boundary space. This does two things, delays the separation of the boundary layer, and two reduces the drag in the area past the where separation normally occurs. So, if in cruise, the boundary layer normally separated at 50% of the wing, the VGs may push that down to 75%. So the energy used by the VGs can decrease the total drag on the wing. On the other hand, if the boundary layer normally made it the end of the wing in cruise, then VGs will cost cruise speed because there is no decrease in drag. The rule of thumb I was told was the closer in cruise you fly to L/D, the less VGs have an effect on cruise performance.
Hopefully I explained it well enough....

Anyway, it is very airplane specific (at least airplane model specific).

Tim
 
Tim....dependent on the placement of the VGs (depends how close they are placed to the trip point from laminar to turbulent flow- the boundary layer changes thickness up to this trip point)....the boundary layer shrinks or thins out with increased speed (mass flow). At cruise, those VGs are not needed (the flow is well established and remains attached) and the tops of the VGs are way outside the boundary layer into the slip stream.

This protrusion into the free stream creates additional parasite drag....and parasite drag increases proportional with mass flow.
 
I don't really see how the VGs being used on light aircraft ever achieve any 'push'. However I know how the placement of turbulators on sailplane wings (and other surfaces) achieves some level of performance improvement at glider cruise speeds. These wings have extensive laminar flow characteristics and turbulators in the form of blow holes and 'bumpy' tape are you used to extend and mange the transition from laminar to turbulent flow. They decrease net drag in these applications and have little or no impact on stall speeds or angles. The VGs I see on Maule's for example, will clearly add a bit of drag in exchange for improved slow speed handling.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
the tops of the VGs are way outside the boundary layer into the slip stream.
Click to expand...

So, that begs the following questions:
1. Would shorter (or more vertically challenged to be politically correct) VG's be better? Seems practical if they are 'way' outside the boundary layer.
2. Would they become less effective in their duty, if shorter? (less vortexiness) :)

Seriously asking just for discussion sake..
but also am trying to get this thread to 500 posts, just because.
( of which less than 10% will be in response to the OP)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top