Congrats A2A team!Question dangerousness of the V Tail?

[lknfly]

Hi guys!

I just bought the A2A Bonanza V Tail... as usual congratulations to the team!

I was flying on Xplane 11 the last two years but I always had the nostalgia of the A2A study aircrafts as a big fan of A2A Simulations since years!

Before becoming a real pilot, I used to come back home to continue my training flights with the A2A C172 right away after my real flying lessons with my instructor, it was my habit, a sacred ritual!

So I couldn't resit to buy the new Prepar 3D V4... I updated all my A2A hangar old and new purchases as the gorgeous Connie (so sexy!)

Anyway, all my due respect to the passionnate A2A team to bring out such study aircrafts linked to a stunning realism! Fortunatelly I'm not the only real pilot to feel that way, I guess all of them sign for the same feeling.

2 questions about THE Bonanza:

Does the A2A flight model reflect the real dangerousness of V Tail?

Did you guys pushed the realism so far?

I know that the creative genius of your team are able to do so...

I'm curious about that, I've never flew V Tail aircrafts in real life, I still wait to max my flying skills for that! hhh

Aviation Press article :

https://airfactsjournal.com/2012/06/tai ... za-pilots/

"In virtually all the structure-related accidents the airplane was flown outside the envelope. Often as not this was the result of the pilot losing control. The airplane had light and delightful control forces and while it was stable in pitch it was less so in roll. If a pilot was going to hand-fly in clouds he had to be both good and attentive. Left to its own devices, a V-tail would be in a spiral dive in a heartbeat. A VFR pilot in clouds was almost autodead".

Thanks to feed my curiosity!

Enjoy the Bonanza V Tail Captains!

LKN
From LFPL

[Tailspin45]

Why the hysteria about the Bonanza's flight characteristics and accident rate? It's not deserved. (BTW, I'm not pointing a finger at the original post's author here...the same attitude is reflected in Scott's product description.)

Back in the late 80s, the AOPA Air Safety Foundation compared the V-tail Bonanzas, the BE33 Debonair/F33 Bonanza, and the BE36 models to comparable retractables: the Cessna 182RG, Cessna Centurion, Mooney M20, Piper Comanche, Piper Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga PA-32R, and the Rockwell Commander 112 and 114.

Compared to other aircraft in the study, Bonanzas had a lower overall accident rate. And the V-tail had a lower accident rate than the straight-tail Bonanzas, too.

When the Bonanza was first introduced in the late '40s it did have a higher than average accident rate, but keep in mind that when it was introduced the average GA aircraft was something like a Cessna 170. Pilots learning to fly in low-performance aircraft where not getting the training they needed to handle the incrementally higher performance of the new aircraft designs. The Cessna 310 had the same problems in the early 50s. So did the Cirrus in the '80s.

It was true, too, that the Bonanza was expensive but relatively affordable back then for successful professionals who represented a disproportionate number of accident victims.

Can you blame the aircraft for the inadequate training and pilot's failures?

[CodyValkyrie]

This is discussed heavily in the manual. One of the problems came from pilots exceeding VNE, usually in bad conditions, and over-stressing the airframe. It was kind of a domino effect. Structural changes were made, giving pilots a bit more time, but education was also part of it.

[lknfly]

"Can you blame the aircraft for the inadequate training and pilot's failures?"

hhh you're right Tailspin45! of course my post wasn't to blame the aircraft neither to participate in the hysteria around the V Tail which gives more "respect" to this bird by the way cuz it imposes such flying skills and more attention on top of that.

I was just wondering about this dangerousness reflecting in A2A which I believe it does.

i also read the manual partially but deeply and indeed they talk about it... This manual is so rich in informations!

I've just flew 3 hours in a row, training on the machine... engine failures after TO and Landing, flaps failures etc...
So enjoying!

Getting in a spin after stall looks so realistic, not that so easy to recover with the V Tail by the way ... The flight model seems so loyal to the real aircraft (even if I never flew that one but the way she responds is just stunning )

All right tks for your answers guys, have a safe flight!

[Tailspin45]

"...of course my post wasn't to blame the aircraft neither to participate in the hysteria around the V Tail...

No worries, I understood that. My point was just that this is not a dangerous aircraft. Indeed, as other's have mentioned, the manual and especially the well researched and written history makes that clear.

As a point of interest, in 1959 Fortune magazine published a list of the 100 best-designed a d best-produced products of the era. Only two aircraft were included: the Douglas DC-3 and the Beechcraft Bonanza.

As a side, Larry Ball's Those Incomparable Bonanzas is a great reference if anyone becomes a Bonanza enthusiast thanks to A2A'a lovely bird. But now it's hard to find and it ain't cheap, even used.

[Scott - A2A]

Tailspin I'm not going to get into specifics on the subject, but there are those who would disagree with what you said. I'm not claiming anyone is right or wrong, just that there is no unanimous consensus. It's further complicated because there are folks weighing in on both sides historically who have an interest at stake, one way or the other. All would agree however with your stating that pilot training had a lot to do with it.

Anyone can say, without causing any controversy that the Comanche is a much safer airplane to fly than a V-tail Bonanza. This is largely due to the stability, and not any structural integrity issues. However, the Comanche does have a considerably stronger wing than the Bonanza, which is pretty black and white by just looking at the wing spars.

Anyone can also say that a Cessna 182 is a safer plane than a Baron, or an Aerostar, or any twin for that matter. Simply because they have two engines and usually fly faster.

lknfly, in answer to your question we did not model things like the tail ripping off due to the sensitivity of the subject.

Scott.

[CodyValkyrie]

lknfly, in answer to your question we did not model things like the tail ripping off due to the sensitivity of the subject.

I believe any flying v-tail Bo today is a lot safer than they used to be. According to multiple sources, the safety record since the FAA issued an AD in 1987 for beefing up ruddervators, there have been very few (one think only one) structural failure.

[DHenriques_]

To be very clear on this subject there simply is nothing unusual or different about the V Tail Bonanza that contributed to its accident rate EXCEPT the fact that the plane was and is one of the cleanest private GA aircraft ever designed.
What got pilots into trouble in the Bo wasn't the V Tail. It was a combination of the clean design and the inexperience of the pilots who purchased and flew the airplane. In a way what happened concerning the Bo's accident rate can be loosely related to what happened to the Martin B26 Marauder. BOTH planes suffered high accident rates due to their high performance design and the inexperience of the pilots who flew them.
As an instructor and check pilot I flew the Bo many times. I've also back engineered a few of the accidents involving Bonanzas and in many cases of failure there was an instrument condition turn involved where the pilot allowed the nose of the aircraft to get away from them causing a buildup in airspeed followed by an attempted recovery in IFR conditions without first killing the bank angle. This of course tightened the spiral eventually leading to structural failure. There were other causes for accidents of course but the IFR turn was the main reason the Bonanza earned the nickname "Doctor Killer".
Make no mistake. The Bonanza was one of the finest designs ever conceived and remains today one of the finest GA airplanes available to pilots in the GA community.
Dudley Henriques

[CodyValkyrie]

Out of curiosity, when the FAA issued the AD, do you think it assisted any or do you feel it was over-engineering? I've always been curious. While I worked on a few annuals for these aircraft, I don't recall having this conversation much.

I know this is an extremely contentious and heated debate in the community, so I hope I'm not ruffling any feathers.

[Tailspin45]

Tailspin I'm not going to get into specifics on the subject, but there are those who would disagree with what you said. I'm not claiming anyone is right or wrong, just that there is no unanimous consensus. It's further complicated because there are folks weighing in on both sides historically who have an interest at stake, one way or the other. All would agree however with your stating that pilot training had a lot to do with it.

Anyone can say, without causing any controversy that the Comanche is a much safer airplane to fly than a V-tail Bonanza. This is largely due to the stability, and not any structural integrity issues. However, the Comanche does have a considerably stronger wing than the Bonanza, which is pretty black and white by just looking at the wing spars.

The Comanche is a great aircraft, no doubt. I love the bird, especially the 250 Comanche. Never did understand why insurance was higher on it than a Bonanza though. Parts cost, ADs, labor? I dunno.

Yes, there certainly are many views on the safety of the Bonanza. And I certainly do agree that the controversy has a lot to do with special interests.

But, with no special interest involved whatsoever, I maintain that calling a Bonanza dangerous is simply silly. Why, given all the other characteristics worth highlighting--speed, space, quality, etc--why focus on the admittedly controversial subject of its safety record. Would anyone insure it if it was dangerous? Would the FAA allow it to fly?

The Lear 20, the MU-2, the Twin Comanche, even (dare I say) the Aerostar, certainly have had lots written about their safety. But even they don't deserve being called dangerous aircraft. Sure, each aircraft has its own unique manners, and that simply means every pilot needs to be fully trained on systems, procedures, flight characteristics and needs to be proficient.

[Tailspin45]

+1 Dudley. Well said.

Out of curiosity, when the FAA issued the AD, do you think it assisted any or do you feel it was over-engineering? I've always been curious. While I worked on a few annuals for these aircraft, I don't recall having this conversation much.

Strictly opinion, no engineering to guide my view: I think the whole things was a fiscal solution, not an engineering one.

Did people break Bonanzas? Yes. Did empennage failure occur in many of those accidents? Yes. Did more in-flight breakups involve wing failure than tail? Surprising YES!

Did anything much change after the AD compliance. No. The cuff certainly took tail failure out of accident statistics, but if you fly an aircraft outside its certified envelope and subject it to stresses it wasn't designed to withstand something will break.

The tail mod was cheaper than lawsuits.

[CodyValkyrie]

So much to think about. Either way, I think the lesson is do not fly this aircraft beyond VNE. Typical for other aircraft, but especially true it seems with these ones perhaps?

[Tailspin45]

If anyone wants to know more see the FAA's Task Force Report V-tail Bonanza Investigation

[DHenriques_]

Out of curiosity, when the FAA issued the AD, do you think it assisted any or do you feel it was over-engineering? I've always been curious. While I worked on a few annuals for these aircraft, I don't recall having this conversation much.

I know this is an extremely contentious and heated debate in the community, so I hope I'm not ruffling any feathers.

Contention would indeed be the word. LOL

There are many ways governing authority approaches the problem with aircraft accidents. I believe what happened with the Bonanza was that the FAA took a logical path that omitted addressing the training program. They instead addressed the more obvious, that being the simple fact that they DID have evidence of structural failure and a direct approach that addressed THAT issue was both warranted and highly visual to the flying public.
There was no doubt about the failures and there was evidence that a V Tail in a tight spiral was more prone to asymmetrical stress load than the conventional tail. So an effort was made to address this fact with the AD and the addition of the cuffs. And it worked in the Micro sense really. It DID help prevent leading edge movement on the V Tail in the spirals which did at least "help" the situation.
But the main cause of the problem; the training regimen that was sending pilots into the death spiral scenario without the skill set required to extricate themselves properly was for all intent and purpose left hanging out in the breeze.
So what they ended up with was a "band aid" on the tail and no permanent fix to the problem and the band aid allowed everyone to say something had been done.
It's a crap shoot really with these things. There never is one magic bullet that "fixes all".
So the AD did make the Bo a bit safer, and a lot was done on the QT within the flight instruction community to "enhance just a bit" the level of training received by pilots flying the Bonanza.
Problem solved...................FAA style !
Dudley Henriques

[pilottj]

One of the 'gotchas' of the Bonanza is the CG shifting aft as fuel is burned. If the aft baggage compartment is full, with low fuel, this can lead to unfavorable aft CG. You can imagine a low time pilot in a V35 overshooting the base to final turn, overcorrecting, resulting in stall, spin, and crash. This doesn't make the Bo a dangerous plane at all, it simply requires pilots strictly adhere to limits, and be well versed the Bo's quirks.

Comparing to the Comanche, you can see a comparative W&B charts for a typical flight with 4 adults + bags. The Comanche allows you to fill it to MGTOW, without worrying about any CG shift, whereas with the Bo, you must be more wary of how you distribute your weight. Note the shift in CG with the Bonanza. So each airplane is superior, depending on your mission. If your mission is to reliably get places quickly, the Bo is for you. If your mission is to comfortably haul stuff or people, the Comanche is for you.



Cheers
TJ