A2A Bonanza User Manual
A2ASIMULATIONS
BONANZA
ACCU−SIM V35B BONANZA
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA
© 2018 A2A Simulations Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by A2A Simulations Inc.
ATTENTION!
Accu-sim V35B Bonanza, including sounds, aircraft, and all content
is under strict, and enforceable copyright law. If you suspect anyone
has pirated any part of Accu-sim V35B Bonanza, please contact
piracy@a2asimulations.com
RISKS & SIDE EFFECTS
Ergonomic Advice
• Always maintain a distance of at least 45cm to
the screen to avoid straining your eyes.
• Sit upright and adjust the height of your chair so that
your legs are at a right angle. The angle between your
upper and forearm should be larger than 90º.
• The top edge of your screen should be at eye level or
below, and the monitor should be tilted slightly backwards, to prevent strains to your cervical spine.
• Reduce your screen’s brightness to lower the con-
trast and use a icker-free, low-radiation monitor.
• Make sure the room you play in is well lit.
• Avoid playing when tired or worn out and take
a break (every hour), even if it’s hard…
Epilepsy Warning
Some people experience epileptic seizures when viewing ashing lights or patterns in our daily environment. Consult your doctor
before playing computer games if you, or someone of your family,
have an epileptic condition.
Immediately stop the game, should you experience any of the
following symptoms during play: dizziness, altered vision, eye or
muscle twitching, mental confusion, loss of awareness of your surroundings, involuntary movements and/or convulsions.
A2ASIMULATIONS
BONANZA
ACCU−SIM V35B BONANZA
CONTENTS
6 FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
36 DEVELOPER’S NOTES
38 FE ATUR ES
40 FSX QUICKSTART GUIDE
42 P3D QUICKSTART GUIDE
44 ACCU-SIM
48 ACCU-SIM AND THE COMBUSTION ENGINE
54 PROPELLERS
59 GENERAL
64 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
69 NORMAL PROCEDURES
74 PERFORMANCE CHARTS
86 WEIGHT AND BALANCE
90 SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION
100 AUTOPILOT
106 2D PANE LS
110 CREDITS
4
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
5
BEECHCRAFT
BONANZA
Flying Into The Future
by Mitchell Glicksman © 2018
irtually everyone who gazes upon the
fair proportions of a “V”- tail Beechcraft
Bonanza has come to feel deeply about its
striking appearance. All who have had the
V
ing and performance. From its 30º (later 33º) “V”- tail to its
tight and trim cowling Bonanza stands out from the rest.
Bonanza is unlike any other General Aviation (GA) aero-
plane. In the pilot’s seat Bonanza feels dierent than other
similar aeroplanes, more solid, sturdy and substantial. All
who may be so fortunate as to y in a Bonanza immediately perceive the extraordinarily high quality of everything
therein, from the seats, windows and curtains, to the ttings, switches, knobs and levers. Flying a “V”- tail Bonanza
is a unique and satisfying experience. From engine start to
shut- down and throughout the ight “V”- tail Bonanza
handles surely, lightly and quickly, more like a ne- tuned
piston- engine ghter than any other GA aeroplane of its
kind. Whilst Bonanza’s handling characteristics are likely
to get low- time pilots into trouble in a hurry, experienced
and knowledgeable pilots have universally found Bonanza
to be a joy to y. However, none of this came about accidentally but was a direct result of Beech’s deliberate concept
and design.
Upon its introduction to the public in March 1947 it was
clear to all that this aeroplane was miles and years ahead
of any other light civilian aeroplane, past or present. All
Bonanzas feature a ush- riveted NACA 23000 airfoil wing
which Beech had also used on its Model 18 “Twin Beech,”
a circular, ush riveted stressed aluminium fuselage, fully
enclosed electrically retractable undercarriage, a retractable
privilege to y a Bonanza have come to
appreciate its excellent and unique hand-
boarding step, gap- sealed recessed ap tracks, cockpitadjustable cowl aps, internally hinged control surfaces and, at rst, an electrically pitch- adjustable 2- blade
wooden propeller which soon afterwards was replaced by
a metal constant- speed prop. Most of these features were
commonplace for ghter aircraft of the 1940s but had rarely
ever before appeared on a light civilian aeroplane.
When it was introduced Bonanza did not merely look
supremely clean and fast, its overall drag coecient (Cd)
was, in fact, the lowest of any light aeroplane in the civilian market.
Beech publicity has often attributed much of Bonanza’s
excellent performance to its unusual “V”- tail. However, as
we shall see, it played virtually no part in contributing to
such and actually had more than a small negative impact on
the aeroplane’s reputation.
SETTING THE SCENE
In January 1945, company ocers and engineers at Beech
Aircraft Company, Inc. began to have serious discussions
about what kind of aeroplane they were going to produce
when World War II was over and crucial materials such as
aluminium, steel, rubber and such once again became available for civilian use.
By this time most of the world had been engaged in the
most savage and deadly war in all of human history in
excess of six years, four months since the Nazi invasion of
Poland, 1 September 1939. Since 7 December 1941 The United
States had been engaged in all theatres of this worldwide
conict for more than three years and would ultimately
suer 1,076,245 casualties, the great majority of which had
already been inicted by January 1945.
6
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
However, by January 1945, seven
months after the Allied invasion of
France at Normandy on 6 June 1944,
the hoped- for light of peace in Europe,
which for six years had but dimly
twinkled down at the distant end of
the war’s terribly long, dismal tunnel,
now burned ever more clearly and
brightly as a bold torch of triumph.
The rolling collapse of Nazi military forces put them nally and irre-
vocably in full retreat after the failure of one last, desperate Wehrmacht
oensive (The Battle of the Bulge - 16
December 1944 - 25 January 1945).
By the middle of January 1945 Soviet
armed forces, having essentially
ground the Nazis’ eastern armies and
amour to dust, casting their survivors
into a frozen, deadly retreat, were
in Poland and were pushing rapidly, inexorably and mercilessly towards the very heart of
Germany. Daily and nightly thousands of Allied bombers
were pounding Germany’s factories and cities into rubble,
bringing the American public’s appreciation and awareness
of aviation to its zenith.
By January 1945 in the Pacic Theatre the largest part of
Imperial Japan’s army, naval and air forces, save for a few
isolated battalions which were left alone, bereft of support
to haplessly and hopelessly defend the innermost Japanese
islands, had been utterly destroyed, essentially neutralizing Japanese aggression. During January 1945 U. S. and
Allied forces, suering great casualties, landed at Luzon,
Philippines and liberated Manila.
AT HOME
Even in the years before the war began for the United States
a sober look at that which was occurring in Europe engendered a ramping up of industry throughout the country
which facilitated the end of the Great Depression. Once at
war, virtually all industries, workplaces and factories in the
United States were intensely focused upon producing whatever was required to assure the ultimate victory. This was no less true
in the aircraft industry. By January
1945 the Allies’ spectacular military
advances on all fronts were a clear
indication to even the most hardened cynic that victory was forth-
coming. Whilst horric combat would
still continue for a time in Europe and
even longer in the Pacic, by January
1945 the general feeling was that an
end to this monstrous blood bath was
indeed nigh.
Meanwhile, as 1,000 plane bomber
raids were regularly reported in
N192D, the onl y still- f lying “Aerocar”.
newspapers and shown in newsreels between features in cinemas,
the public in the U.S. became more
and more air- minded. Accordingly,
articles speculating on the future of
civilian aviation were published in
many magazines and Sunday supplements particularly regarding what
was called, among other things, the
“Everyman Airplane.” In the late
1940s and early 1950s this often took
the shape of a new and then highly
misunderstood type of aircraft, the
helicopter.
In the February 1951 issue of
Popular Mechanics an illustration of
a two- seat, jet- powered helicopter
was shown being pushed back into its
garage by a suburban man in his hat
and overcoat having ostensibly just
own it back from work. An identi-
cal red helicopter is seen above his neighbour’s house. The
article “reported” that anyone could learn to y one of these
machines in only two hours.
Along with this kind of nonsense, fanciful drawings of
boat- aeroplanes and automobile- aeroplanes abounded.
One of these, designed to be a true- functioning automobile as well as a true- functioning aeroplane, “Aerocar”
towed its folded wings and tail section behind whilst on
the road which, when ight was desired, were assembled
and own away. Sounds crazy, does it not? The thing is,
it actually worked. Taylor “Aerocar,” the exception to the
wildly improbable contraptions that had been permeating
the press, was both successfully driven and own in 1949.
Along with so many less practical conceptions, “Aerocar”
was also intended to be the “Everyman Airplane”, however,
only six were built and sold. All six still exist, four of them
are reportedly in yable condition and one, N102D, is still
own.
It was in this chimerical aeronautical atmosphere that
aircraft manufacturers planned to sell (real) aeroplanes to
the public in huge quantities as soon as the war ended.
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
7
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
A beautifully res tored Belgianregistered Beech Model 17S
“Staggerwing.” This unique an d
strik ing design is a mass ive and
complicated fabr ic- covere d wood
and steel struc ture powered by a
450 hp Pratt & Whitn ey R- 985 - AN- 1
“Wasp Junior” radial engine . With a
top airspeed of 212 mph (184 knots,
341 km/h,) it was a fast biplane in
the 1930 s, but became less and less
competitive as an executive transport
with the e mergence of the ne w and
more eicient all- metal aviation
technology of the 1940s.
■ Be ech Model 18, he re as
Royal Canadian Air Fo rce
(RCAF ) transpor t. This
aeroplane’s resemblance
to the larger Lockheed
“Elect ra” is likely not
entirely a coincide nce.
■ Be ech AT- 11 “Kans an”
bomber trainer over
Texas in 1943 . One of
49 military variants of
Model 18 , AT- 11 w as the
U. S. Army A ir Force’s
(USAAF) primary bombing
traine r during the war in
which mor e than 40,000
bombardiers were trained.
Modifications included
a transp arent bomber ’s
nose, an internal bo mb
bay and bomb racks and
a dorsal gun turre t for
gunner y training. Photo
from “We stern Trips”
■ The second an d last
protot ype Beechcra
XA- 38 “Gr izzly” shown
here was p roduced with
an operational 75 mm
cannon . It beggars one’s
imagination to think
that the s ame company
which was s till producing
the fabric- covered
“Staggerwing” biplane
also de signed and built
this formidable- looking
and per forming modern
warplane. Photo from “Old
Machine Pr ess”
■ 19 47 Piper J- 3 “Cub.”
The great progenitor
of all general aviati on
light airc ra, what Piper
oered in 1947 was
indistinguishable from the
pre- war “Cub.”
A TWINKLE IN WALTER BEECH’S EYE
By 1945, along with virtually every U. S. manufacturer Beech
Aircraft Company which was founded in Wichita, Kansas in
1932 by Walter Beech, his wife Olive Ann Beech and a few
others began to plan for the coming post- war era. However,
by the late 1930s Beech had designed and produced only
two aeroplane types in any quantity, the 1933 Model 17
“Staggerwing” and the 1937 Model 18, commonly called
“Twin Beech.”
The 1933 Model 17 is called “Staggerwing” because the
upper wing is placed rearward of the lower wing. Model 17’s
airframe is fabric- covered wood and steel, typical of aircraft
of the early- to- mid 1930s, It initially had a xed and later a
retractable undercarriage.
Along with most of the aircraft manufacturers in the
United States in the early 1930s a number of circumstances,
particularly the deadly crash of TWA Flight 599 in which the
beloved Notre Dame University football coach Knute Rockne
was killed,
wave of the future. Not content to merely build a simple
all- metal single- engine light aeroplane Beech jumped into
these new waters with both feet by producing Model 18, a
far heavier and more complex aeroplane than it had ever
built.
Beech’s second aeroplane, Model 18, is an all- metal
twin- engine light transport which, since its introduction in
January 1937 has been a popular and highly successful civil-
ian and military aeroplane. The rst Model 18s were powered by two 330- hp (250- kW) Jacobs L- 6 or by two 350- hp
(260- kW) Wright R- 760E radial engines turning cockpitadjustable- pitch Hamilton Standard propellers. Model
18’s engines were soon upped to 450- hp (336- kW) Pratt &
Whitney R- 985 radial engines turning the new Hamilton
Standard three- blade constant- speed propellers. However,
the construction and manufacturing methods required for
building Model 18 were entirely new to Beech. In fact, Beech
Model 18 was a quantum leap from Model 17 in every way.
1
informed Beech that all- metal aircraft were the
8
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
Model 17 seats a pilot and three passengers, is a singleengine, fabric- covered biplane with a wingspan of thirtytwo feet weighing 4,250 lbs. fully loaded. By comparison, a
typical late 1930s Model 18 seats two pilots and up to eight
passengers, is a twin- engine, all- metal, cantilever (no
external struts) monoplane with a wingspan of forty- seven
feet, eight inches weighing 7,500 lbs, fully loaded.
After selling only thirty- eight Beech 18s before the United
States’ entry into W.W. II including one to Sweden as an air
ambulance and six to the Nationalist Chinese Government as
M18R Light Bombers, once the war began the various U. S.
armed forces, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and the
Royal Air Force (RAF) purchased more than 4,000 Beech 18s.
Beech built two other aeroplanes during the war. One
of these was the twin- engine Beech Model 26 AT- 10/11
“Wichita”/”Kansan,” a militarized derivative of Model 18.
This aeroplane was built in response to the U. S. Army Air
Corps’ (USAAC) requirement for a twin- engine, retractable undercarriage, multi- engine trainer similar to Cessna’s
AT- 8.
The second military aeroplane that Beech designed
and built during the war was the remarkable 1944 Beech
XA- 38 “Grizzly”, an experimental twin- engine ground
attack ghter of which only two prototypes were constructed. “Grizzly” was a completely original design created in response to the USAAF’s requirement for a replace-
ment for the Douglas A- 20 “Havoc” which by 1944 was
long past showing its age “Grizzly” was powered by two
2,300 hp Wright R- 3350- 43 air- cooled radial engines.
Unfortunately these engines were already in use by Boeing
B- 29 Superfortress which had the highest priority for them.
In early 1944 an invasion of Japan was deemed to be likely
and the USAAF wanted a fast, powerful and lethal ground
attack aeroplane which could be employed to neutralize
Japanese fortied ground installations and artillery. For this
purpose Beech designed XA- 38 around the most powerful
engines available (or unavailable as it turned out) installing a 75 mm cannon in its nose as the aeroplane’s primary
weapon in the same fashion as North American B- 25G/H
“Mitchell.” “Grizzly” also had two remotely operated
machine gun turrets similar to those in B- 17, P- 61, B- 29,
Me- 210 and He- 177A. With a total 4,600 hp, it had a blister-
ing top speed of 370 mph at sea level, faster than most of the
Japanese ghters that it was likely to encounter. Although
the war ended before XA- 38 “Grizzly” could go into production and prove its worth in combat, it was, in its day,
an extraordinary and unmatched achievement in design and
sophisticated construction technique for what had previously been a light aeroplane company. Beech’s production
of both Model 18 and “Grizzly” set the stage for another
aeronautical achievement still to come.
The extraordinarily prolic Beech Model 18 “Twin Beech”
was produced in 25 USAAF variants, 14 U. S. Navy (USN)/U.
S. Marine Corps (USMC) variants and 9 RAF and RCAF variants as well as being in operation in 43 foreign air forces.
But for this versatile and excellently performing modern
aircraft Beech might have continued to produce only its
■ 19 46 Taylorcr a BC- 1 2D. C. G. Taylor’s clean design made BC-
12DA a slight refine ment of his 1938 Model “BC,” whic h was itself
a refinement of the 1938 Piper J- 3 “Cub.” BC- 12 has dua l control
wheel s instead of control columns and a d oor on each side of the
cabin for easy entr ance and exit. Whilst Taylorcr a’s side- by- si de
seating is better for instr uction as well as for pilot- passenger
communic ation in general, these a eroplanes are not very wi de and
their snug interiors are insuicient for two “full- sized” adults.
■ 19 47 Stinson 108- 2 “Station Wagon.” A roomy four- seater,
interio r wood panels and a r einforced floor permit 6 00lb (272kg)
of bagga ge to be carried in t he passenger compartment. It s 165
hp Franklin 6A4- 165- B3 engine ca n use automotive fuel with th e
installation of a converter k it. The Stinson’s wings’ fixed leadingedge slat s make the 108 seri es excellent and re liable slow flier s,
enabling them to easily get into and o ut of small tree- lined fields.
■ 19 47 Aeronca “Champ.” Another ref inement of the J - 3 “Cub”
design with similar t andem seating an d similar perfo rmance. Solo
from the f ront seat is a definite improvement over “C ub’s” rear
seat solo station a nd “Champ’s” large wind ows make visibilit y
in all directions much better. Having had a number of hour s in
a “Champ,” this wr iter has found this respons ive and sprightl y
aeroplane to be the b est of the lot of this t ype.
■ 19 47 Luscombe 8A “Sil vaire” on float s. Rather fast f or its 65 hp
engine wi th a top airspeed of 85 mph or so, the aerop lane in the
photo is identical to t he “Silvaire” in which this writer firs t received
instr uction and lear ned to fly the age of 1 2. Luscombe “Silvaire”
has dual control sticks rath er than control wheels making it a ver y
fun and responsive aeroplane.
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
9
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
■ Ryan (originally Nor th American L- 145 ) Navion B Super 26 0 C-
FCTI. It i s not merely a coincidence that airfra me of this excellent
four- seat aeroplane is reminiscent of P- 51 “Mus tang” upon
which it s design was base d. Introduced in 1948, the retra ctable
tricycle undercarriage Navion is powerful and fast . 260 hp
Navion variants have a useful load of 920 lbs, a top airspeed of
175 mph, can car ry four pass engers in comfor t over a range of
595 miles , take- o in 400 feet and la nd in 466 feet. Navion was
Bonanz a’s closes t rival in the late 19 40’s and during th e 1950s,
outperforming Bonanz a in many ways. Celeb rities Veronic a
Lake, Ar thur Godfrey, Mickey Roone y and Bill Cullen were among
those wh o owned and flew Navions. Many are still f lying and
whilst oering something of an awkward climb to ente r they are
conside red to be a great barg ain on the used aer oplane market.
Photo by Barry Gr iiths.
■ Piper Pa- 2 2 “Tri- Pacer.” Introduced in February 1951, this
comfor table four- s eat aeroplane is e ssentially a Pip er PA- 20
“Pacer ” with a nose wheel . Although rather a throwb ack with
its fab ric- cover ed aluminium fram e and stodgy app earance
(derisively nicknamed “Fly ing Milk Stool,”) 160 hp ver sions of
this fine aeroplane give it us eful load of 890 lbs, a top airs peed of
141 mph, an 800 fpm climb rate and a range of 650 miles, all with
four 170 lb passengers on board. This writer ha s enjoyed many
pleasant hours f lying Tri- Pacers as well a s its two- seat version,
PA- 22- 108 “Colt .” Tri- Pacer was introduced six years ahea d
of its chi ef tricycle- undercarriage riv al, the all- metal Cessna
172. As good as Tri- Pacer was and is, it has neve r been serious
competition for Bonanza. A John Marco photograph
fabric- covered “Staggerwing” bi- plane as it had before
the war. As it was, Beech produced 16 variants of Model 17
“Staggerwing” for the USAAF, the USN/USMC and for fteen
foreign air forces. However, it was Beech’s mass production
of the sophisticated Model 18 “Twin Beech” which considerably informed the company regarding modern metal construction methods and gave it otherwise unobtainable and
invaluable experience regarding the construction and production of complex all- metal aircraft. This precious experience gave Beech a great advantage over virtually all of the
other U. S. light aircraft manufacturers when it conceived
and designed Model 35 “Bonanza” in 1944.
Whilst Model 18 was a great success, the production of
which continued until 1970 with more than 9,000 ultimately
produced, Walter Beech and his sta had been optimistically looking toward the post- war civilian aviation world
to come. The plan they developed was to produce a highperformance, luxury, all- metal, four seat, single- engine
light executive aeroplane that would be relatively simple
and ecient to operate.
Except for Cessna’s AT- 8/AT- 17/UC- 78/JRC “Bobcat”/
“Crane” primarily wooden “Bamboo Bomber” bomber
trainers during the war, the other light aeroplane manu-
facturers primarily produced only slightly modied military
versions of what they had been producing before, i.e., light,
low- powered, two- seat, “low and slow” fabric- covered
aeroplanes.
Piper produced O- 59/L- 4, the military version of its
“Cub” and few glider trainers. Stinson produced a military
version of its 105 “Voyager’ designated L- 5 “Sentinel,” a
military version of its pre- war SR- 10 “Reliant,” designated
UC- 81, as well as Model 74/L- 1 “Vigilant,” a larger, more
powerful light observation aeroplane. Aeronca produced a
military version of its tandem- seat trainer, “Champ.” des-
ignated O- 58/L- 3 “Defender” and like Piper, a number of
glider trainers. Taylorcraft produce a military version of its
Model D, designated O- 57/L- 2.
After the war these manufacturers made few if any modi-
cations to their aeroplanes and those which simply were
essentially their early 1940s designs were put back onto
the market. Photographs on Page 9 show some of Beech’s
“competition” were oering in the post- war, late 1940s:
Of course, more powerful and sophisticated aeroplanes
such as Cessna 190/195 (see further discussion of this aero-
plane below,) Ryan Navion, Piper Tri- Pacer, Cessna 172
and Bellanca 14- 19 would soon be produced; however, until
Piper’s 1958 PA- 24 “Comanche 250,” nothing came close
to ousting Bonanza from its position at the top of the heap.
“I SEE A NEW SUN UP IN A NEW SKY”2
It is an oft- told tale that by the end of W.W. II, U. S. light
aeroplane manufacturers, all of whom had been forced to
curtail their usual retail businesses during the war to supply
aircraft for the armed services, looked forward with anxious
hearts and open coers to the soon- to- come peace during
which they hoped and believed that the tens of thousands
of returning military pilots, having experienced the “joy”
of ight, would wish to continue the same and would gladly
purchase low- priced, simple aeroplanes by the bushel- full.
The Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, popularly
3
10
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
known as the “G. I. Bill,” designed and largely drafted by
the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, was
a Federal entitlement program which provided a range of
nancial benets, including free ight instruction all the
way to an Airline Transport Rating, for returning WWII veterans. Aircraft manufacturers were all quite aware of this
and they saw it as a boost to what they believed would be a
glorious new, commercially lucrative general aviation boom.
The aeroplanes that they had been producing before being
interrupted by the war - Piper J- 3 “Cubs”, Taylorcrafts.
Stinsons and the like would be just perfect, or so they
thought. What was not spoken of if it was thought of at all
was that immediately after the end of the war a tremendous
glut of surplus “grasshoppers” (all of those high- wing, low
powered, mostly two- seat aircraft) would be oered as surplus to the public at very low prices. For instance, in 1945
the Oce of Price Administration (OPA) made surplus twoseat Aeronca L- 3B “Champs” in virtually unused condition
available for $1,788.00 ($19,963.94 in 2018 at a cumulative
rate of ination of 1,016.6%) and four- seat Stinson UC- 81/
AT- 19 “Reliants” available for $6,736.00 ($75,210.91 in
2018 at the same rate of ination.)
However, Walter Beech and his sta had a completely
dierent view of what Beech’s role would ideally be in the
post- war future. Their experience with light aircraft had
solely been with Model 17 “Staggerwing”, a fairly large and
expensive executive aeroplane. Beech’s plan was that its
new post- war aeroplane would well- t this role.
In 1945 and for a decade and a half thereafter, the now-
familiar culture of the casual weekend pilot who usually ies
locally in good weather with friends and family to sightsee and perchance to purchase a few of those $100 dollar
hamburgers at a far- o little airport’s snack bar, the vast
majority of whom have little ight time and are not instru-
ment (IFR) rated, did not yet exist. Accordingly, once plans
for what became Bonanza began to develop, an important
aspect of this aeroplane’s design was that it did not include
compromises which would make it especially forgiving or
gentle- ying, particularly not at the expense of performance. Thus, Bonanza was not intended to cater to the
aforementioned not- yet- existent culture of casual pilots.
Rather, it was designed to be a business tool, an executive
transport aeroplane which would be owned by success-
ful businesses and own by professional pilots who would
transport those executives who required quick, private and
convenient transportation to places that were too distant or
inconvenient for ecient ground travel. Oh yes, and lest we
forget, Bonanza was also intended to be an exclusive, con-
spicuous totem of nancial accomplishment.
Since its introduction in 1936, and into the early 1940s,
Walter Beech and Co. had been well and painfully aware of
their greatest competitor in the corporate aviation genre:
Spartan Aircraft Company’s 7W “Executive.” This highly
advanced aeroplane is a sleek and muscular- looking, allmetal, retractable undercarriage, low- wing monoplane
which exhibited spectacular performance for its time, with
a top airspeed of 257 mph (223 knots, 414 km/h) whilst
■ 19 49 Bellanca 14- 19 “Cruis emaster.” An upgrade of the pre - war
Bellanca 14- 7 an d the post- w ar Bellanca 14- 13, 14- 19 has a large,
comfor table cabin for four and is powered by a Fran klin 6A4- 335- B3
190 hp engine. “Cruisemaster’s” triple tail and its wooden wing
garnered it the nickname “Cardboard Constellation” aer Lockheed’s
“Constellation.” However, like Lockheed’s triple- tail marvel,
“Cruise master’s” per formance was in many ways bet ter than its similar
contemporarie s, including Bonanza, with a u seful load of 1,02 5 lbs,
a top airspeed of 174 mph, a rate of climb of 1,2 50 fpm and a fullyloaded r ange of 435 miles. A t ailwheel aeroplane with r etractable main
underc arriage in the new t ricycle under carriage world, its ret ro wood
and fabr ic construc tion and undeniab ly quirky appearance did not aid
its over all public accept ance. Whilst in 19 59 14- 1 9 would be converted
to a retra ctable tric ycle undercarriage by “Dow ner Aircra” (B ellanca’s
new name, ) only around 600 of the original 14- 19 “Cruisem asters” were
produce d. Whilst in many ways “Cruisemaster ” is a better- perfor ming
aeroplane, Bonanza remained unchallenged.
■ Cessna 172. Introduced in 1 956, it was the direct competitor of Pip er
Tri- P acer. All metal and looking far more moder n than Tri- Pacer, C- 172
is a Cessna 170 with a nose wheel. Despite its sleek appe arance, C- 172
does not p erform as well as Tri- Pacer in many areas. 160 hp ver sions
of C- 172 give it a useful loa d of only 758 lbs, a top airspeed of 140 mph,
a rate of climb of 721 fpm an d a possible range of 696 miles , but with
only two rather slim passengers on board. Ces sna 172 might have wellcompete d with Tri- Pace r but it, too, was no competiti on for Bonanza.
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
11
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
Spartan 7W “E xecutive.” The name says it all.
Sleek, modern, powerful and sensual, this was
top shelf, first- class personal transportation for
the supe r- r ich corporate executive in the mid
1930s an d early 1940s. Photo fro m Flickr.
Restor ed Spartan 7 W
“Execu tive” previously owned by
Texaco, Inc. in t he late 1930s.
comfortably carrying up to four with a range of 1,000 miles.
Spartan “Executive” boasted such notable owners as industrialist and lm mogul Howard Hughes, oil magnate, nancial wizard and overall S. O. B., J. Paul Getty, and no less
than His Royal Highness, King Ghazi of Iraq. To Beech’s
chagrin, from its rst appearance Spartan “Executive” was
universally considered to be the “Rolls- Royce” of pre- war
executive aeroplanes which even Walter Beech would have
had to reluctantly admit, deservedly so.
Compared to the potent and swift- looking Spartan 7W
“Executive,” Beech’s contemporary Model 17’s top speed
is 45 mph slower and its range of 670 miles is 330 miles
less. Walter Beech had to admit, at least inwardly, that his
Model 17, while an excellent aeroplane in its own right, was
clearly and eminently inferior to Spartan 7W. To make matters even worse for Beech, both Model 17 and Spartan 7W
were powered by the same Pratt & Whitney R- 985- AN- 1
“Wasp Junior” radial engine producing 450 hp (340 kW) at
2,300 rpm.
Whilst Model 17 was attractive to the military in small
batches during the war and each of fourteen foreign nations
operated a scant few of them, Model 17 never arose to the
level of a truly mass- produced aeroplane with a total of
only 785 examples having been produced from 1933 to 1949.
Spartan 7W was in production for only ve years (1936 to
1940) and only 34 examples were produced; however, 7W’s
spectacular, striking appearance and blazing performance
epitomised the value of the practical application of advanced
aerodynamics, modern construction methods and materials
and the latest concepts in aeronautical structural engineering in the arena of executive aircraft. While no- doubt painful, this lesson was not lost on Walter Beech, who would
soon put it to good use.
To be fair, Model 17 “Staggerwing” is a unique and extraordinary design particularly for a biplane, and it is certainly
impressive to the eye (many consider “Staggerwing” to be
the most beautiful biplane ever built.) Despite its inherent
disabilities, the extra wing along with the struts and wires
required to keep it in place, “Staggerwing” performed very
well indeed. However, aside from its inferior overall performance compared to Spartan 7W whilst powered by the same
engine, “Staggerwing” was also very costly to build and
delicate to maintain. Its old- school wood and steel- tube
construction with thousands of intricate structural parts
and connectors covered by stitched and doped fabric, the
entirety of which must be meticulously assembled by many
skilled hands, was highly labour- intensive (i.e., expensive)
to construct. Additionally, “Staggerwing” and all fabriccovered aeroplanes’ owners always have a terrible “Sword
of Damocles” hanging over them in the form of an inevitable and expensive re- covering and paint job awaiting them
in the future. Altogether, it is no wonder that by mid- war
Beech was beginning to have serious thoughts about a more
modern, more ecient and less complicated replacement
for Model 17.
Walter Beech, a man of a considerably forceful personality was, to his credit, not at all hidebound to the past or
by traditional methods of building aeroplanes. Additionally,
he was determined that his “star” aeroplane would never
again be so outperformed as had been Model 17. In January
1945, with the war still raging all around the world but with
imminent peace and a bright, shimmering future clearly
in sight, Beech, unlike virtually every other light general
aviation aeroplane manufacturer, began to draw plans for
something entirely new that would be an icon for and of
that bright future.
12
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
Rolled ou t of the factor y on 9 September 1940, this was the last Spar tan 7W, later calle d
“Mrs. Mennen.” It was originally purchased by Texaco, Inc. (now a subsidia ry of Chevron
Corporation) for corporate use in the New York State/N ew England area. This magnificent
aeroplane cost $26 ,200.40 in 19 40 ($467,029.62 in 2018 at a cumulati ve rate of inflatio n of
1,682.5%) and was o ne of five Spartan 7Ws owned by Texaco, who based this aircra at
Roosevelt Field lo cated in Mineola (now Garden City), New York.
This aeroplane was p urchased by Geo rge
Mennen of the Menne n Company, Morris town,
New Jersey in the sp ring of 1969. It was then
painted “M ennen Green” and named “Mrs.
Mennen .” “Mrs. Mennen” was so ld, traded and
bought by m any dierent owne rs over the
years unt il it was purchase d in October 200 4 by
Will Mennen, George Mennen’s grandson.
“A BUILT- IN TAILWIND”
Walter Beech wanted his new aeroplane to set the standard
for quality and performance. It was to be something not yet
seen, something that one might to y into the future.
He told his design sta to come up with something not
merely of 1945, but of 1955 and 1965 - and beyond. It had
to be a sleek, clean design, all- metal, simple (inexpensive)
to build, look sexy, go fast, carry four in comfort and have
a range of around 700 miles. These factors were imperative
if Beech was going to lead the post- war pack and attract
wealthy corporate customers.
It is well to recall that in 1945, as Walter Beech and his
team’s ideas for a new light aeroplane were accumulating, the current stars of aviation were all- metal, single-
engine, retractable undercarriage piston- engine ghters – Mustangs, Corsairs, Spitres, etc. These powerful,
sleek aeroplanes appeared fast even when sitting still and
they made the blood rush and the imagination soar just to
look upon them. Beech was determined that his new aero-
plane would be just like that. He wanted to build a high-
performance, light executive transport aeroplane with, as he
put it, “a built- in tailwind.”
At Walter Beech’s behest, Ted Wells, Beech’s VicePresident of Engineering who had been instrumental in
the design of both the Model 17 “Staggerwing” and Model
18 “Twin Beech,” together with project engineer Ralph
Harman, set about the task of putting together a team of
creative aircraft designers. Their mission was to design an
entirely new single- engine aeroplane not only for the postwar era, but for decades to come. Such an aeroplane had also
been Harman’s dream and he was highly delighted to have
the opportunity to be able to make it a reality.
It is reported that Beech’s employees and company ocers
were extremely optimistic about Beech’s future given its
wartime experiences building powerful and sophisticated
all- metal aeroplanes. They rightly felt that they had a signicant “leg- up” on their competition and they were anxious and ready to prove what they could do.
The design of what was to become “Bonanza” was very
much a team eort. Ralph Harmon was the overall Project
Engineer, also taking on responsibility for the design of the
interior and undercarriage. Jerry Gordon, Beech’s Chief of
Aerodynamics, created the shape of the wing and tail surfaces. Wilson Erhart designed the interior structure of the
wings. Alex Oderse designed the fuselage. Noel Naideno
designed the fuel system and engine compartment. It is
a great compliment to the skills of these engineers that
Bonanza ultimately appeared to be the conception of a
single brilliant individual rather than the product of a committee that it was.
No doubt greatly inuenced by Beech’s past success with
Model 17 as well as the success of rival Spartan Corporation,
Walter Beech decided from the outset not to include a trainer
or low- cost cruiser in Beech’s post- war menu.
4
That eld,
it was thought, would soon be overlled with “Cubs”,
“Champs” and the like. No, Beech’s new aeroplane was to
be aimed solely at the highest end of the light general aviation aeroplane market. It was to be more than a means of
transportation; it was to be an objet de prestige like a Rolex or
a Rolls- Royce, something literally exclusive which only the
wealthiest could aord to obtain, the possession of which
would openly attest to the owner’s prosperity, sophistication and good taste.
As mentioned, Walter Beech was known to be a very for-
ward character in both his conceptions and his mode of
expression. Who else but such a very condent “Type A”
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
13
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
individual would plan for his company to enter a new and
unknown aviation market with the most advanced and
expensive aeroplane of the lot? Whilst Beechcraft would
eventually see the ecacy of producing less sophisticated
and less expensive aircraft (see endnote 4,) this rst postwar Beech was intended to come out of the box rmly sitting atop of the aviation mountain, condently and reso-
lutely daring all comers to topple it. As history has shown,
despite a most valiant but ultimately failed eort by Piper
to do just that with its superb PA- 24 “Comanche,” no aeroplane, so far, has quite been able to do so.
WHY “BONANZA”?5
In Walter Beech’s own words in 1946, “Airplanes have been
named after stars, galaxies, constellations, animals, sh,
birds, and natural phenomena such as hurricanes, lightning
and thunderbolts. For our new Model 35, Beech Aircraft has
sought to nd a name that would be descriptive of the extra
value oered in the way of economy, performance, and
pleasure to the owner. We examined the word ‘Bonanza’,
which in English has a common meaning of a rich source of
prot or gain or an unusual value.”
Whilst there is no evidence to the contrary that Mr. Beech
sincerely intended that owners of his new aeroplane would
feel that they had indeed purchased a “bonanza”, I think that
we may be forgiven if we strongly suspect that he sincerely
intended that his new aeroplane would be a “bonanza” for
Beech Aircraft as well – and so it has been on both counts.
Additionally, Mr. Beech said, “We found that it (‘bonanza’)
... also has an additional meaning of ‘fair weather’ in certain foreign languages.”
In Spanish and Portuguese, “bonanza” means prosperity,
success and fair weather;
In French, “bonance” means calm, tranquil and smooth
seas.
In Italian, “bonaccia” means prosperity, calmness and
tranquillity.
elevator at its trailing edge, often split into left and right
horizontal stabilizer/elevator units acting in unison, one on
each side of the rearmost end of the fuselage. Accordingly,
the position of the rudder aects the yaw axis and is controlled by the pilot by pushing the left (left yaw) or right
(right yaw) rudder pedals in the cockpit. The position of the
elevator aects the pitch axis and is controlled by the pilot
by either pushing (nose down) or pulling (nose up) a control
stick or a yoke. Conventional rudder and elevator control
surfaces are completely independent of each other.
On a “V”- tailed aeroplane, however, the rudder and elevator are not separate and independent control surfaces.
Instead, the moveable control surfaces at the trailing edge
of the two tail surfaces, the ruddevators, act just as the
name indicates, each one controlling both the yaw and pitch
axes simultaneously. A fairly complex system of rigging the
ruddervators permits a pilot to y a “V”- tailed aeroplane
exactly as he or she ies a conventional- tailed aeroplane
using normal rudder pedals and control stick/yoke inputs.
Note: What follows is a description of the operation of an
aeroplane’s movable control surfaces where these surfaces
are located at the rear of the aeroplane and does not apply
to aircraft with elevators ahead of the wing (canard) or aircraft equipped with elevons or ailevators (elevator and aileron operating in a single control surface as found on many
“Delta” winged aircraft).
ELEVATOR/PITCH CONTROL
The following drawings show the control surface movements and tail forces for “V”- tailed aircraft when the stick/
yoke and rudder pedals are operated as viewed from the rear.
As shown, because the control surfaces are oset from
horizontal and vertical, the forces created when the rudder-
vators are displaced are similarly oset.
THE “V”
During WWII, as aeronautical engineers in Great Britain and
the United States began to think about how the airspeed of
currently operational aircraft might be increased, the idea
of using a “V”- tail as a replacement for a conventional tail
arrangement was raised. “V’- tail was not, however, a new
concept at that time.
The rst “V” or “Buttery” tail surface arrangement (an
aircraft tail- surface conguration combining rudders and
elevators into two, single control surfaces called “ruddervators” was invented and patented in 1930 (Patent Polksi #
115938) by Polish pilot and aeronautical/aerospace engineer
Jerzy Rudlicki (14 March 1893 – 18 August 1977.)
(For the purpose of this discussion, the term “ruddervator” will refer to each separate “V” surface as well as to
the hinged, movable control surfaces at their trailing edges)
A conventional- tailed aeroplane has one or more vertical
ns with a hinged, movable rudder(s) at its (their) trailing edge and a horizontal stabilizer with a hinged movable
14
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
1. When the yoke is pushed
forward to lower the nose, the
ruddervators move downward
as does a conventional elevator
control surface. However, they
also necessarily create additional
forces which push and pull to
each side (yaw axis) as well.
Each ruddervator osets the
other’s yaw force, but because
of the dual direction of forces
created by ruddevators, they are
functionally less aerodynami-
cally ecient than a similarly
sized and displaced horizontal control surface. Accordingly,
rudddervators must be larger
and/or be displaced farther than
a conventional horizontal elevator surface to create an equal
force in the pitch axis.
“V”- tail mixing linkage: The blue section shown is the fuselage’s
rearmo st end looking up from under neath. There are t wo rods
exten ding o to the le of this photogra ph that connect to t he
actual rudder vators. Rightward motion of the top rod (due to
either r ightward motion of the ent ire mixer assembly due to a
pitch command, or cloc kwise rotation of the ass embly due to
a yaw comman d) will deflect the rudd ervator one directio n;
lewa rd motion will def lect it the othe r direction. This is the sam e
for the other rudd ervator similarly conne cted past the b ottom of
the photo graph. Simple, eh?
2. When the yoke is pulled
rearward to raise the nose, the
ruddervators move upward as
does a conventional elevator control surface. However, they
also create additional forces which push and pull to each
side as well, as described above. The ineciency caused
by the oset forces is similar to when the ruddervators are
pushed downward.
3. When the right rudder pedal is pushed to yaw the nose
to the right the ruddevators both move to the right. In order
for the left ruddervator to move to the right it must also
move upward creating an additional nose up force, and
when the right ruddervator moves to the right it must also
move downward creating an additional downward pitch
force. The ruddervators’ up and down pitch forces cancel
each other out so that only a right yawing force is created.
The canceled- out upward and downward forces create inef-
ciency as stated above.
4. When the left rudder pedal is pushed to yaw the nose
to the left, the ruddevators both move to the left. In order
for the left ruddervator to move to the left it must also move
downward creating an additional nose down force, and
when the right ruddervator moves to the left it must also
move upward creating an additional nose up force. Each of
the ruddervators’ up and downward pitch forces cancel each
other out so that only a left yawing force is created. The
canceled- out upward and downward forces create ineciency as stated above.
5. When both the yoke and either rudder pedal are moved a
combination of the above control surface movements is created so that the nose may be raised or lowered while simultaneously yawing the nose to the left or right as desired.
As you may imagine, the linkages required to move the
ruddervators to comply with the exact forces which a pilot
may require are quite complicated.
On a “V”- tail Bonanza, with full up elevator and with no
rudder input, the left ruddervator is displaced 22½º upward.
With full right rudder and with
the elevator neutral, the left
ruddervator is displaced 23º
upward, and with full up elevator and with right rudder simultaneously, the left ruddervator is
displaced 44º upward. By contrast, the elevator of the con-
ventional tail of an A36 Bonanza
is limited to 23º upward and 20º
downward displacement, while
the rudder is limited to 25º left
or right displacement.
“V”- TAIL DISADVANTAGES:
■ Weight
While Bonanza’s “V”- tail is legendary, the myriad aeronautical
claims that Beech has perennially made for it do not entirely
or even partially live up to that
legend. Bonanza’s “V”- tail is
not lighter than a conventional tail arrangement as the two
ruddervators must each be larger than any of the three conventional tail surfaces. Because the control force of the two
ruddervators must equal the control force of the conventional three- surface design, the two ruddervators, in sum,
must have approximately equal or greater area because of
“V”- tail’s aerodynamic ineciencies when compared to a
conventional tail. Additionally, the complex control linkage
of the “V”- tail arrangement is heavier than the far simpler
conventional- tail linkage and is located at the most rear-
ward position. For example, a 1968 E33A Debonair, which is
virtually identical to a similarly equipped 1968 V35A “V”-
tail Bonanza except for the tail surfaces, is 45 lbs lighter
than V35A. However, this is not the total story of the disadvantages of the “V.”
■ Greater interference drag
NACA wind- tunnel studies of the generic “V”- tail design
have found that a small amount of interference drag is
reduced by the reduction of one intersection of tail surfaces
(two instead of three.) However, what small advantage may
be gained thereby is virtually eliminated by the increase of
interference drag created at the proximate inside surfaces of
the “V” surfaces where they are attached to the aft fuselage.
Interference drag caused by the proximity of the inside base
of each “V” surface occurs in this manner: Air molecules
moving past the lower inside surfaces of the ruddervators
become commingled and disorganized creating a disturbed
airow which creates interference drag.
■ Greater induced drag
In order to ensure pitch stability, the aft pitch controlling
surfaces of any aeroplane must be set at such a positive
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
15
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
(nose up) incidence when the elevator is neutral that suf-
cient “decalage” (also known as “horizontal dihedral”) is
created relative to the wing’s angle of incidence. The non-
horizontal ruddervators, when at neutral, are less ecient
in creating sucient decalage than a conventional horizon-
tal stabilizer/elevator and therefore must be set at a greater
positive incidence. Being at greater incidence puts each of
the ruddervators under a greater positive aerodynamic load
at all times and thereby creates greater induced drag (drag
which occurs whenever an aeroplane’s wing and/or tail surfaces positively redirect the oncoming airow) than are created by conventional horizontal surfaces.
Additionally, in Bonanza, the right ruddervator is oset a
few degrees more to the right than the left ruddervator to
counter P- factor, also called “asymmetric blade eect” and
“asymmetric disc eect” (relocation of a spinning propel-
ler’s centre of thrust when the propeller disc is at a positive
angle of attack [Alpha] which in a right hand- turning propeller exerts a left yawing moment on the aircraft and vice
versa). To reiterate, because each ruddervator is oset from
vertical, they must be set at a greater degree to the right to
counter P- eect than a conventional single n/rudder surface would need to be to exert the same force.
■ Form/pressure drag
In order to preserve pitch and yaw stability as well as to
grant ecient control displacement forces, the wetted area
(the area exposed to the oncoming air) of the ruddervators
must be roughly equal to that of conventional tail surfaces.
Accordingly, each of the “V” surfaces must be larger both
in chord and/or span than that of equally- eective conventional tail surfaces. Accordingly, the ruddervators’ wetted
area produces form/pressure drag equal to or greater than
that produced by conventional tail surfaces.
■ Yaw/Roll Instability or “Dutch Roll”
Properly applied, a small amount of dihedral creates a stabilising force in a wing or horizontal tail surface so that when
it is displaced in the roll axis by turbulence, a gust of wind
or after the aircraft is deliberately banked, it will tend to
return to level ight. However, when tail surfaces are radically oset upward (as in a “V”- tail,) a very strong dihedral
force is created at the rear of the aeroplane.
Some aircraft are designed with some amount of horizon-
tal tail surface dihedral to increase roll- axis stability. Less
commonly, some aircraft are designed with some negative
(downward) horizontal tail surface dihedral, called “anhedral” or “cathedral,” to decrease what is considered to be an
excess of roll- axis stability. It is understood that extreme
dihedral (or extreme sweepback) tends to instigate a condition called “Dutch Roll,” a series of out- of- phase turns
in which an aeroplane tends to roll from side to side whilst
also yawing in the opposite direction of the roll and not
remaining at or returning to level ight without engaging
a yaw and/or pitch damper, an auto pilot and/or the pilot’s
corrective control input.
Accordingly, Bonanza’s 30º- 33º ruddervators tend to
cause Dutch Roll at the rear of the aeroplane, which has
been reported to cause both yaw and pitch “wandering” and
pitch “seeking” at cruise airspeeds.
ADVANTAGES:
■ Airspeed?
Beech’s claim that a “V”- tail design suciently reduces
drag so that it increases the aircraft’s airspeed as compared to the same aircraft with a conventional tail has been
shown not to be so. If any such advantage exists at all, it is
de minimus at best. Even Beech (which some have claimed
has not always been known to have played entirely fairly
with regard to its aeroplanes’ published airspeed specications) lists the cruising airspeeds of the last “V”- tail
Bonanza, V35B, as being the same (172 knots) as an equally
powered F33A (a conventionally- tailed Bonanza.)
■ Appearance
Many would agree that the undisputed advantage that a
“V”- tail has over a conventional tail is its appearance. It is
certainly eye- catching and unless the truth of the matter is
known to the observer, a “V”- tail appears to be cleaner and
more ecient. Beechcraft apparently heavily relied upon
this erroneous assumption and armatively added to it for
decades in order to generate Bonanza sales. As stated before,
despite its exotic appearance and appeal, the “V”- tail actually does not improve aircraft performance in any measurable amount as compared to a conventional tail.
A RARELY ADOPTED TAIL DESIGN
There are so many ineciencies and control rigging complications involved with the “V”- tail design that it is not a
surprise that it has been so rarely used.
Whilst at least 15 jet engine- powered military aeroplanes and at least one helicopter incorporating a “V”- tail
are known to exist at this time (2018,) the only piston-
engine ghter known to have been built with a “V”- tail is
the experimental Bell P- 63A- 8 “Kingcobra”. This one- o
aeroplane was a test bed to nd out if such a tail congu-
ration might increase the top airspeed of the already quite
fast P- 63D “Kingcobra”. Powered by an Allison V- 1710- 109
engine producing 1,425 hp and with a top airspeed of 437
mph at 30,000 feet (on par with P- 51 “Mustang’ and P- 47
“Thunderbolt”), P- 63A- 8 was already ying nearly as fast
as a propeller- driven ghter could be made to y. This
P- 63D was so modied and was designated P- 63A- 8. It
broke up during diving tests before it could be determined
whether the substitution of the “V”- tail produced less drag
than the conventional tail surface arrangement and accordingly produced any increase of airspeed. It is not reported
whether the “V”- tail was the cause of P- 63A- 8’s in- ight
breakup but speculation thereof abounds. Experiments with
“V”- tails were not made thereafter.
In 1944 Beech built an interesting experimental Model 18
“Twin Beech” designated A- 19 on the airframe of a USAAF
A- 10 “Wichita.” A large “V”- tail was substituted for the
conventional tail surfaces. Extensive stability and control
16
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
1944 Beech built a one- o A- 19, wh ich was a USAAF A- 10 “Wichita” with an exper imental “V”- tail . A- 19 was the first and la rgest Beech aircra to
that date with such. At the time, many might have won dered why Beec h was experime nting with a “V”- tail . Time would soon s olve that myster y.
A- 19 would cert ainly be a challenging subjec t for a “can you name this aeroplane” contest. USA AF archive photo, circa 194 4.
■ 19 48 Beech Mod el 34
“Twin- Quad”
■ Bell P- 63A- 8 (also
designated RP- 6 3G). This oneo experimental aeropla ne
was base d upon the basic
airfr ame and engine of P- 63D
“Kingcob ra” which usually ha s
a bubble canopy in place of
P- 39 “Airacobra’s” automotivestyle doors. However, P- 63A- 8
retained the old- style doo rs,
possib ly to ensure a safer
emergency in- flight exit.
■ Eclipse Aviati on 400. If you’re going to put a single
jet engine on top of the f uselage a “V”- tail s eems like
your bes t, if not your only be t.
■ Rob in ATL Beyond a ppearance, the re seems to
be no real need for a “ V”- tail in this design . As can
be seen , the rudder vators are so large that they
are surel y as heavy and pro duce as much drag as a
conventional cruciform tail.
■ H- 101 Salto aerobatic sailpl ane. Here, the “V”- tail
makes some sense. Without t he need to oset a
spinning propeller’s P- Factor, the ruddervators can
be smalle r (as they clearly are in this design) than
on a propeller- driven aircra, and accordingly may,
in fact , be lighter and les s drag- producing th an a
conventi onal tail would be.
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
17
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
1947 Beech Model 35 Bonanz a prototype version 4
of the 5 Bonanza air frames which Beech built and
tested . Version 4 was submitted to ob tain Model
35’s cert ificate and was e xtensively f light tested,
including a dive test to 2 86 mph in the manner in
which military aircra of that era were tested. This
very a eroplane is pictured in num erous Beech
promotional advertisements and, as usual regarding
such promotions, Beech populated it with the sma llest
people i t could find in order to make its cabin appear
more capacious.
In March 19 49, Bonanza prototype ve rsion 4,
named “Waikiki Be ech” and piloted by C aptain William
Odom, flew from Honolulu, Hawaii to Teterboro, New
Jerse y, establishing the existing non- stop longdistan ce record for light ge neral aviation a ircra of
4,957 miles. Bet ween 7 Octobe r 1951 and 27 January
1952, Congressman Peter F. Mack, Jr. comp leted a
solo, eas terly around the world flight from an d back
to Spring field, Illinois in this sam e aeroplane, which
he named “Friendship Flame,” flying 33,789 miles in
223 hours (113 days) an d stopping at 45 citi es in 35
countries.
tests were made, the ndings of which were that the “V”
empennage was altogether satisfactory. These tests continued into 1945 and provided valuable information for the
design of the “V”- tail Model 35 “Bonanza.”
With its strange appearance and confusing name, Beech
produced “Twin- Quad” to meet the newly re- born postwar need for short- haul airline transport aircraft. Quite
innovative, its name comes from its four air- cooled, eight
cylinder horizontally opposed Lycoming GSO- 580 (GSO
denoting Geared Supercharged and Opposed engines,) each
producing 400 hp at 3,300 rpm. Two engines are mounted
inside each wing, each pair of engines driving a single propeller through a gear- box. Model 34’s enormous “V”- tail,
while visually fascinating, was somewhat o- putting to
conservative airline purchasing executives in 1948, many of
whom thought that passengers might balk at ying in such
a curious- looking contraption.
Whilst timing may not be everything, it is a very important
thing. With spacious seating for 20 and/or cargo, excellent
performance (top airspeed of 240 mph and a fully- loaded
range of 1,456 miles,) Beech 34 fell victim to the post- war
era’s enormous military surplus of similar aircraft such as
the larger and ubiquitous Douglas DC- 3/C- 47 “Skytrain,”
Lockheed’s rugged and better performing Model 18/C- 60
Lodestar, as well as, ironically, Beechcraft’s own smaller
Model 18. In the face of this formidable array of relatively
inexpensive and readily available surplus aircraft, Model 34
was ultimately not a viable alternative.
These aeroplanes aside, a few light aeroplanes have
adopted the “V”- tail. Some of these are: Eclipse Aviation
400, a single engine, four- seat light jet; Robin ATL, a single
piston- engine, two- seat Avion Très Léger (“Very Light
Aircraft,”) and H- 101 Salto, a single- seat aerobatic pure
sailplane (no engine).
TO “V” OR NOT TO “V?”
When designing Bonanza, Beech’s engineers considered
both a conventional and a “V”- tail until Beech aerodynamicist Jerry Gordon convinced the rest of the team that a “V”tail, such as had been successfully installed on the experimental A- 19 variant of Model 18 (see above,) would save
weight and reduce drag by eliminating an entire surface and
might possibly be helpful regarding spin prevention and
recovery. Unfortunately, none of Mr. Gordon’s speculative
claims for Bonanza’s “V”- tail turned out to have any basis
in reality. Whatever Walter Beech may have thought of the
“V”- tail’s aerodynamic benets, he was most enthusiastic
about it for aesthetic and commercial reasons. He correctly
understood that even if the “V”- tail did nothing at all about
improving performance, it certainly made Bonanza the most
distinctive light general aviation aeroplane in the world. So
it was and so it remains.
BONANZA’S GRAND DESIGN
Beech’s team set about creating the new aeroplane in the
usual way, drawing various congurations and concepts
until one emerged which was deemed best. However, one
aspect in the creation of Bonanza was unique for its time:
Model 35 was the rst light general aviation aeroplane to
be thoroughly and extensively wind- tunnel tested before its
rst ight.
Many are not aware that there were actually ve pre-
production airframe prototypes of what became Model 35,
all which were designed, built and tested before Model 35
Bonanza became Beech’s general aviation standard bearer.
All ve of these pre- production airframes were tested in
Beech’s ten- foot diameter wind tunnel for, amongst other
things, structural integrity, utter and the integrity of the
“V”- tail surfaces. Pre- production airframes 1, 2 and 5 were
built and so tested but not own. Airframe version 3 was
the rst Bonanza to be actually ight tested on 22 December
1945. It was powered by a 4- cylinder Lycoming GO- 290
which was an experimental, geared version of the 125 hp,
horizontally opposed Lycoming 0- 290 CP, which was in this
18
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
way coaxed and prodded into producing 160 hp. One may
justly imagine that this engine was greatly and unhealthily stressed by its gearing in order to produce so much more
power than its design rating. Airframe version 3 also had
a laminar- ow wing to reduce drag, an airfoil innovation
made famous for its use by the USAAF’s then rst- line
ghter, North American P- 51 “Mustang.”
Pre- production airframe 4, which became the prototype
for the production Model 35 Bonanza, was the second of the
Model 35 airframe versions to y; however, its wing has a
conventional airfoil.
The rst 40 or so production Model 35s were not allmetal as advertised. Their ruddervators, aps and ailerons
were fabric- covered, a common practice for many military
aircraft at that time. Fabric instead of metal covering for
control surfaces was considered to be a reasonable way to
save weight, and it was also believed to help to lighten the
ailerons’ feel. However, after a time, the control surfaces
of high- speed ghter aircraft were metal- covered because,
as the British discovered when Spitre Mk. I ew at airspeeds greater than 260 mph and the fabric covering on its
ailerons ballooned away from their underlying frame adding
drag and reducing their eectiveness. Whilst Beech Model
35 is not capable of ying at airspeeds where this phenom-
enon would occur, the ailerons on all Bonanzas after the
rst 40 were covered with thin magnesium alloy plate and
later with aluminium.
Bonanza pre- production airframe 3’s original lami-
nar ow wing did not appear on production Model 35s. All
Bonanzas, except the experimental one- o laminar- ow
wing 1961 O35, have conventional airfoils derived from
the popular and often used NACA 23000 series, specically
NACA 23016.5
6
at the wing root and NACA 23012 at the tip.
Maximum camber of both of these airfoils is located at 15%
of chord aft of the leading edge, which is a bit more forward
that the usual 25 % of chord aft of the leading edge common
to most similar airfoils. A conventional airfoil’s point of
maximum camber is far more forward than that of a lami-
nar airfoil in which it is typically near 50% of the chord aft
of the leading edge. Maximum thickness of NACA 23016.5
The fir st Model 35
Bonanz a, prototype 4
during it s final testin g
stage. T his is a rare
photogr aph of this
aeroplane at rest. Note
the laminated wooden
two- blade propeller. It
was pilot- variable but not
a consta nt- pitch unit . The
pilot had to manually set
the desired propeller pitch
for any power setting.
It curiously seem s to be
particularly o ut of place
on such an ot herwise
sleek an d modern
aeroplane. Bee ch factory
photograph, March 1947
at the wing root is 16.5% of the chord and the maximum
thickness of the thinner NACA 23012 at the wing tip is only
12% of the chord.
This airfoil has been used on all Bonanza wings as well as
on other Beech aircraft. The NACA 23000 series’ rather thick
forward section provides a capacious place for the retracted
undercarriage and fuel tanks while still showing an excellent lift/drag ratio and close to a neutral pitching moment
coecient, providing a stable and predictable pitch axis
throughout its wide Alpha range although, as we shall see,
this stability was somewhat undone by the mildly destabilizing characteristics of the “V”- tail.
Early Bonanza’s narrow weight and balance envelope
makes it all- too- easy to accidentally aft- load them beyond
its safe limit (see further discussion below.) Aft- loading
beyond an aircraft’s envelope creates a destabilized and
over sensitive condition in the pitch axis at all airspeeds. At
lower airspeeds, as when taking o and landing, over aft-
loading greatly exacerbates this condition. Accidental and/
or negligent over aft- loading has been a continuing and
serious concern for Bonanza owners and operators, particularly with regard to the later, long cabin “V”- tail” models
which require particular care and planning when loading
the aeroplane.
Bonanza’s wing root is set at +4º and the tip of the wing
set at +1º to the datum line. This provides the wing with a
3º washout (leading edge lower than the trailing edge at the
outer portion of the wing.) Washout is commonly applied
in wing designs to reduce the tendency for tip stalling at
low airspeeds and in steep turns; i.e., in situations of high
Alpha.
Other familiar aircraft of the WWII era known to use
the NACA 23016.5 airfoil are: Avro bombers (Lancaster,
Manchester, Lincoln, etc.) Curtiss SB2C Helldiver; Douglas
DB- 7 “Boston;” DC- 4 (C- 54, R5C); Focke- Wulf Ta- 152;
Grumman F- 4- F “Wildcat,” F- 6- F “Hellcat,” F- 7- F
“Tigercat,” F- 8- F “Bearcat” and TBF “Avenger;” Kawasaki
Ki- 56, 60, 102 and 108; Lavochkin La 5- 7; Lockheed “Electra
Junior” and P- 38 “Lightning;” Martin PBM “Mariner;”
Messerschmitt Me- 210, 310 and 410; North American
B- 25/PBJ series; Sikorsky VS- 44;
Taylorcraft BC- BL- 12; Vought VS326 (a straight wing “Corsair;”) and
Westland “Whirlwind.”
Bonanza’s airfoils provide it
with a laterally stable, if somewhat abrupt, stall. This kind of stall,
whilst unpleasant but acceptable in a
ghter/pursuit type, is an undesirable
and possibly dangerous characteristic for a general aviation aeroplane. It
has been reported that Bonanza’s stall
has dangerously caught low- time
pilots unaware and suddenly nding themselves in a stalled aeroplane
at low altitude, always a blueprint for
calamity.
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
19
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
However, it is well to remem-
ber that Beech did not expect
their Bonanza to be own by
amateur weekend sports lers.
It was expected to be own by
professional, highly experienced
ex- military pilots who would
not (it was supposed) be at all
challenged or put at risk by this
or any other of Bonanza’s lessthan- benign ight characteristics. It is surely an important factor regarding Bonanza’s
poor initial safety record
7
.
1940 ERCO “Ercoupe”, a very cozy side- by- s ide two- seater.
Ercoupe’s can still be s een from time- to - time at airport s
throughout the US.
Notwithstanding Beech’s expectations, from its introduction Bonanza was neverthe-
less owned and own by many
pilots whose training and experience in such a spirited and
demanding thoroughbred was woefully insucient.
The engine powering prototype #4 and the rst produc-
tion Bonanzas is the now- familiar horizontally opposed,
six- cylinder, 165 horsepower, Continental E- 165. This
engine is reliable, cool running, economical and relatively
inexpensive to maintain. It does not require uncommonly
available aviation fuel and does not tend to burn oil at a
high rate. Only this engine’s six cylinders, two more than
in a Lycoming of similar power, might be a cause for some
objection regarding maintenance and inspection expenses.
However, compared to the contemporary 1947 Cessna 195’s
seven- cylinder radial 300 hp Jacobs R- 755A2, Bonanza’s
Continental E- 165 engine is simplicity and economy itself.
Unusual for a light general aviation aeroplane of this time
and a rst in its class, Model 35 has an electrically and fully
retractable tricycle (nosewheel) undercarriage. Even more
unusual for a light aeroplane and another rst, the undercarriage when retracted is completely enclosed.
Whilst every USAAF bomber after the 1935 B- 17 had tricy-
cle undercarriage, most American WWII era ghter aircraft
had a tail- wheel, the few exceptions being Lockheed P- 38
“Lightning,” Bell P- 39 “Airacobra” and P- 63 “Kingcobra,”
and Northrop P- 61 “Black Widow” night ghter. However,
by 1945, the emerging jet aircraft all utilised a nosewheel.
Thus, tricycle undercarriage was clearly the arrangement
that virtually all military as well as general aviation aircraft
would come to adopt. In this light, it was Walter Beech’s
most fervent desire that this new aeroplane would be asso-
ciated with and dene the future of general aviation.
It is well to remember that up until 1945, tricycle undercarriage was virtually an unknown feature on general
aviation aeroplanes. One of the very few of those with a
nosewheel was the brilliant Fred Weick’s innovative and
prescient ERCO “Ercoupe.” First own in 1937, it remained
in production by one manufacturer or another until 1969.
A nosewheel for Model 35 was an innovative feature for an
aeroplane of its type. Even rival Spartan 7W had a tailwheel.
However, Beech surprisingly held back a bit from complete
modernity by designing a freely
swiveling nosewheel, requiring
dierential braking for ground
steering. This was done, perhaps, for economy of construction, or possibly because the
nose of Model 35 leaves little
room for steering linkages.
As one might suss, Bonanza’s
lack of direct nosewheel steering was unpopular in what was
loudly purported to be a rst-
class, top shelf and very expensive machine. Apparently Beech
received sucient complaints to
warrant a change and as a result
the 1949 Model 35A had a rudder
pedal- steerable nosewheel as
well as a slightly higher permissible takeo weight (and
concurrently, a slightly lower top airspeed.)
With the exception of “Ercoupe,” all other mass produced pre- war light general aviation aircraft had a tailwheel. As mentioned, virtually every US aeroplane manufacturer who had survived the war planned to re- introduce
the same or very similar aeroplanes as those they had built
and sold before the war, tailwheels, fabric covering, strut-
braced high wings and all. Even Cessna’s rst post- war
aeroplane, the 1947 Cessna 190/195, which was introduced
almost simultaneously with Bonanza, has a tailwheel. While
C- 190/195’s bow to modernity is its all- metal construction
and cantilever (no strut) high wings, its overall design, xed
undercarriage, radial engine(s) and tail wheel are most de-
nitely reminiscent of pre- war aircraft.
Bonanza’s nosewheel has always been and remains
mounted ahead of the engine, as far forward as possible.
It was placed there so that the direct weight of the engine
would not be upon it and a larger proportion of the aircraft’s
1947 Ces sna 195. Produce d in 1947, this sleek and truly beautiful aer oplane
surely lo oks classic – that is, a classic from th e 1930s. Like Bonanza, C- 190/195
was intended to be a high- end business trans port. Also like Bonanz a, it was
sleek, fast and e xpensive. Unlike Bonanza , however, C- 190/195 wa s never a
popular ride and re latively few were s old during its seven year production
perio d. In fact, Bee ch sold more Bona nzas in 1947, over 1,500, than all of the
Cessna 190/195s ever built (approximately 1,180.)
20
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
overall weight would sit on the main undercarriage. This
arrangement facilitates easier rotation on takeo, better
braking after touchdown, lighter steering on the ground and
promotes less wear on the nosewheel system itself.
Additionally, Bonanza sits relatively higher o the ground
for its wingspan than other similar tricycle retractable aircraft. Beech engineers wished to design good landing characteristics into Bonanza; a fast aeroplane that was a bear to
land would not do, not even amongst the ex- military pilots
whom Beech expected would primarily be ying Bonanzas
and who, surprisingly, turned out to be largely ex- bomber
and transport pilots. Most ex- ghter pilots apparently had
enough of the “joy of ying” - see footnote 3. Beech engi-
neers’ idea was that a shorter undercarriage would put the
wing so low to the ground that it would be deep into ground
8
eect
upon landing
When an aeroplane is in ground eect, airspeed tends
to decrease more slowly and the aeroplane tends to oat
just above the runway for a time, complicating the air and
touchdown and making the exact moment of touchdown
more dicult to anticipate. Beech’s engineers believed that
by lengthening Bonanza’s undercarriage, the consequences
of ground eect would be diminished and landings would
therefore be far more predictable. The fact is, however, that
a few inches, more or less, makes little dierence in this
matter. Bonanza oats along in ground eect pretty much
the same as other similar low- wing aircraft do, and does so
particularly when the approach and landing airspeed is a bit
on the higher side (which Bonanza’s clean airframe makes
all the more likely.)
ersonal side note: There
was a Cessna 195 on floats
(coincidentally in the same colours
P
as the one in the above photo but whose
home was certainly not such a bucolic
environment, to be sure) based at a
seaplane base near my home where I first
learned to fly at the age of 12. That C- 195
was not used for instruction, of course –
that big Jacobs radial cost a bunch to run
and maintain. It was used for morning
and aernoon commuter flights in and
out of New York City. I flew their two
Luscombe Silvaire 8A floatplanes (one
at a time) that went for $16.00 per hour
with an instructor. One day when I was
just hanging around the base, there was
an empty seat on a scheduled flight. The
C- 195’s most kindly pilot asked me if I
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
would like a ride in the “old girl.” My big
grin was answer enough. I sat up front
with the pilot with three passengers in
the wide back seat. If there had been a
fourth passenger, he or she would have
sat up front where I was. I recall that the
dual control wheels were both attached
to a single, large “V” yoke. Takeo was
a thrilling, hard push- back into my seat
and it was a short, fast ride to the city, all
at very low altitude (airspace regulations
in the area of then Idlewild, now Kennedy
International Airport were not nearly as
restrictive as they are today.) We passed
(just) over the 59th Street Bridge (now
the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge) and
landed in the East River at NY Skyports
Seaplane Base (now Midtown Skyport) at
the end of East 23rd Street. On the way
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
back, with just the pilot and me on board,
I had an opportunity to fly this aeroplane.
The pilot told me to just fly straight
and level. I remember that the 195 was
much easier to keep on an even track
than the lighter Luscombe which I was
familiar with. When we were near home
base, he took back control and climbed
to a respectable altitude whereupon he
returned control to me and said, “Do
what you like, but no aerobatics.” For
the next 15 minutes or so I steep turned,
chandelled, lazy eighted, and generally
wrung the 195 out as much as I was
then able. All that power and speed and
the he of this aeroplane was a new
experience for me. I remember that it was
a responsive, satisfying, solid and overall
enjoyable aeroplane to fly.
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
21
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
From May 1947 Holiday
Magazine. This adve rt pictures
protot ype version 4 of th e five
original Model 35 protot ypes.
Anothe r 1947 Beech advert showing how easily Model 3 5 could beat all that snaillike automobile traic below. Pictured here again i s prototype 4.
The design of Model 35 Bonanza had an unusually long
gestation period of almost twelve months between its initial
conception in January 1945 and its rst ight on December
22, 1945. Beech then announced that Model 35 would not
go into full- scale production for a further fteen months
so that Bonanza could be further tested and rened before
commencing production. Between the initial announcement
of Model 35 by the publication of press releases and adver-
tisements and its rst accrual sales day, approximately
1,500 pre- orders had been placed.
What had excited the aviation public so greatly, and particularly those who were in a position to purchase a very
expensive aeroplane, were Model 35’s unique design fea-
tures. Nothing like this aeroplane had ever before existed.
In 1947, here was an (almost) all- aluminium, monocoque
fuselage, low all- metal cantilever wing, electrically retractable fully- enclosed tricycle undercarriage, cabin seating for
four, 165 hp Continental six- cylinder engine aeroplane and,
oh, that “V”- tail, soon to be referenced by some, more ele-
gantly and aeronautically, as a “Buttery” tail.
Peculiarly, whilst the 1947 Model 35 was surely chock- full
of excellent and innovative light general aviation aeroplane
design features, there are other features of Model 35 which,
despite its long period of development, may not have been
as carefully or as wisely conceived.
AN EXCELLENT AIRCRAFT, BUT
NOT WITHOUT ITS QUIRKS
■ Bonanza’s First Propeller
Rather than install a metal two or three- blade constantspeed propeller which would have greatly enhanced
Bonanza’s performance, Model 35’s original equipment
instead included a laminated, wooden, two- blade, electrically manually variable- pitch (not constant- speed) propeller. Constant- speed propellers were nothing new in
1945. Beech itself was quite familiar with them as they
were installed on its Model 18s, had been proven reliable
and were in general usage on high- performance aircraft
since 1935. However, Beech curiously installed this throwback and inecient propeller system on its new agship
high- performance aeroplane. Acting much like a xed-
pitch propeller, Model 35’s wooden propeller requires the
pilot to most inconveniently manually re- set the pitch of
the propeller upon every power change in order to obtain
the desired R.P.M. You may be sure that it was not long after
Bonanza’s introduction that those original wooden pro-
pellers were replaced with more ecient and appropriate
metal, two or sometimes three- blade constant- speed types.
■ Aileron/Rudder Interconnect
All “V”- tail Bonanzas from the rst to the last share an
unusual feature: the yoke and rudder pedals are interconnected by a system of bungee cords that assist coordinated
turns. The bungee system allows the pilot to make shallow
coordinated turns using the yoke alone during cruise ight.
This feature also was installed in Piper Tri- Pacer, introduced in 1950. Of course, right- rudder input is still required
on takeo to overcome P- factor and the exible bungee
system allows for this. In the landing phase, the bungee
system can easily be manually overridden by the pilot when
making crosswind landings, which require cross- control
inputs to keep the nose of the airplane aligned with the
runway centreline whilst preventing the aeroplane from
drifting to the left or right.
22
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
■ D17S “Stagger wing” instrument pane l and its throw- over control
wheel. Note: No rudder peda ls at the right seat.
■ Late 195 0s Bonanza ins trument panel with its throw- over contro l
wheel an d with no right seat rudder pedals or to e brakes. This
aeroplane has non - standa rd gyro instr uments installed and a very
old- school “Radio Compass” indicator, but no instrument o r receiver
for ILS ( glide slope) oper ations and a single p rimitive, ver y elementar y
combination communications and navigation Narco Omnirange radio.
■ Throw- over Single Control Wheel
Beech’s unique throw- over single control wheel and lack of
rudder pedals and toe brakes at the right seat in early Model
35 Bonanza variations were similar to “Staggerwing” and
certainly make a bold statement regarding what this aero-
plane was intended for. However, the lack of dual control
yokes, rudder pedals and toe brakes makes dual instruction
and FAA test ights in Bonanzas with a throwover yoke illegal, with exceptions for instrument ight instruction under
specic conditions as stated in the footnote below according
to The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
side rudder pedals and toe brakes helped somewhat, but still
did not satisfy the appurtenant CFR restrictions.
Even beyond actual dual instruction, this writer can
report from personal experience that checking out in a
Bonanza with a throw- over control wheel is an awkward
and unpleasant experience, especially, I suss, for the checkout pilot.
10
This “the pilot is solely in command” system has been
and remains unpopular with many prospective Bonanza
owners, and has precluded such Bonanzas from use as an
advanced training aircraft in many ying clubs and schools.
9
. Adding right-
1950 Model B35 Bonanza.
1974 Model A 36 Bonanza with i ts longer fuselage.
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
23
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
■ A Short Weight and Balance Envelope
All Model 35 Bonanzas until the introduction of the
conventional- tail Bonanza Model 36 (really a Debonair) in
1968 had the original design’s 25’ 1 ¼” short fuselage.
As mentioned, short- fuselage Model 35 Bonanzas suer
from a severe aft limitation in its weight and balance envelope. It is all too easy to load these aeroplanes too far aft
without realizing it. The fact is that too often, casual general aviation pilots are not as careful about aft overloading
as they ought to be. As mentioned, even under perfect load
conditions, Model 35 Bonanza’s pitch axis control is already
highly sensitive; however, in all aeroplanes as the centre of
gravity CG moves aft, pitch sensitivity increases. If an aeroplane is aft overloaded, pitch control becomes more sensitive
than it usually is (as mentioned Bonanza’s pitch control is
quite sensitive under ordinary conditions) and the aeroplane
becomes quite unstable in the lateral axis. This combination
of control sensitivity and instability greatly increases the
chance of over- controlling into a sudden accelerated stall/
spin. As mentioned, Bonanza already has a rather abrupt
stall. Additionally, as if this isn’t bad enough, pitch sensitivity and instability caused by aft overloading becomes
greatly exacerbated at lower airspeeds, such as when rotat-
ing and climbing out after takeo and during approach and
landing – both being low altitude conditions in which stall/
spin recovery is unlikely.
CG’s position forward of the Cl. As weight (fuel, passengers,
and baggage) is loaded forward or aft of the unloaded aeroplane’s CG, the CG moves forward or aft accordingly. When
the aeroplane’s CG is within a particular range of positions
forward of the Cl, the aeroplane is within its weight and
balance envelope (see below) and is longitudinally stable. As
the CG moves aft and approaches the CL, the aeroplane’s
longitudinal stability begins to diminish until at some point
the aft load puts the CG so close to the Cl that the aeroplane
will be longitudinally unstable in pitch and, accordingly,
loaded outside of its weight and balance envelope.
■ A Brief Primer Regarding Longitudinal Stability
The lateral (pitch) axis of an aeroplane is that axis around
which the nose rises and descends. An aeroplane’s CG is that
point at which aircraft longitudinally balances on the lateral
axis. An aeroplane’s centre of lift (Cl) is that point at which
all of the aeroplane’s lifting forces (wing and horizontal
stabilizer) are focused. The distance between the locations
of the Cl and the CG determines the longitudinal stability of
the aeroplane.
When the aeroplane is fully loaded and ready for takeo,
the safe and normal position of the CG is always ahead of
the CL. The horizontal stabilizer at the rear of the aeroplane
produces sucient nose up (tail down) force to counter the
This is a typical (not Bonanza’s) loading graph. The pilot
determines the weight of each item to be loaded (left side)
and notes the moment arm (bottom).
24
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
This is a typical (not Bonanza’s) loading calculator. When
the weight and moment arm of all the items to be loaded are
added together, the aeroplane must be within its weight and
balance envelope (below) or it is unsafe to y.
Here is an actual diagram of the weight and balance envelopes of all Bonanzas from Model 35 to A36. The numbers
running along the left side of the diagram indicate the gross
weight of the aeroplane and the numbers running along the
bottom of the diagram indicate the moment arm of the aeroplane from forward (left) to aft (right) measured in inches
from a specic datum point near the nose and divided by
1,000 inch- pounds. The weight and moment arm must fall
within its envelope or the aeroplane is unsafe to y.
It can be seen that earlier Bonanza models had a very
limited fore- aft loading envelope. However, as Bonanza
evolved and it carried more useful load, its weight and balance envelope expanded and aerodynamic improvements
permitted greater fore and aft loading. However, it is not
recommended that any aeroplane be own very close or
exactly at the aft edge of its weight and balance envelope
and NEVER own beyond it, even if by a tiny margin.
All Model 35 Bonanzas carry their fuel in the leading edge
of the wing which is forward of the aeroplane’s unloaded CG
and at the forward end of its weight and balance envelope.
This means that as fuel burns o, Bonanza’s CG moves aft.
Accordingly, a well- fuelled Bonanza may have been loaded
within its weight and balance envelope at takeo, however,
whilst in ight and as fuel is consumed, its CG moves aft,
possibly to or beyond the edge of its permissible aft weight
and balance limit. This Bonanza is now in a longitudinally
unstable condition and pitch control and has become highly
sensitive, perhaps actually or very nearly uncontrollable
(see above discussion). It hardly needs to be stated that a
too light and overly sensitive pitch control at landing is a de
facto unsafe ight condition.
Bonanzas up to S and V models have a rather short passenger cabin with only four seats, two up front and two
behind and a small baggage compartment behind the rear
seats. Whilst earlier Bonanzas models’ weight and balance
envelopes are quite narrow, one might expect that their
shorter cabins tended to keep aft load conditions within
safe CG limits, but apparently this was not the case in too
many situations. The last two Model 35 variants, S and V,
have optional fth and sixth passenger seats in the rear
which if lled greatly increases the chance of an aft over-
load condition. Bonanza Models S and V’s rearmost safe CG
is only slightly farther aft than earlier four seat, short- cabin
Bonanza models (see weight and balance envelope diagram
above). Recognizing this potential hazard, Beech specically
and rmly forewarned S and V model Bonanza pilots and
operators to take extra care not to load the aeroplane beyond
its published aft load limits and advised them to consider
the two rearmost seats to be child’s seats only and not to
seat adults so far aft.
A practical solution to Bonanza’s limited weight and balance envelope was largely resolved in the next major Bonanza
model, Model A36. This aeroplane is a conventional- tail
E33 Debonair with a ten- inch fuselage stretch and is powered by a 285 hp Continental IO- 520- B engine, with four
cabin windows on each side, rear starboard double entry
doors and seating for six, including the pilot. Stretching an
aeroplane’s fuselage has traditionally been a common and
eective method to increase its load capacity and exibility as well as to move the aft edge of its weight and balance
envelope further aft. Among other things, a stretched fuselage places the horizontal stabilizer father aft, increasing its
moment arm as well as moving the aeroplane’s CL farther
aft. This widens its weight and balance envelope permitting
increased aft loading. Accordingly, stretched Bonanza Model
A36’s weight and balance envelope is far wider than all earlier Bonanza models (see envelope diagram above).
■ The Elevator Downspring
From the rst Model 35 to the latest Model 36, Bonanza has
a downspring incorporated in its elevator control system.
The downspring, as its name implies, provides gentle, constant, positive forward pressure on the control wheel. This
unusual addition to the control system helps to desensitize
Bonanza’s very light pitch control and give it more “feel” in
all situations..
THE BONANZA BONANZA
The initial price of the Bonanza was $7,345 (the equiva-
lent of $82,010.71 in 2018 with a cumulative ination rate
of 1.016.6%.) A lavishly- equipped 2018 Beechcraft G36
Bonanza was recently placed on sale for $913,105, although
earlier and more modestly equipped Bonanzas are regularly
purchased for a fraction of that.
In its class and for its time, Bonanza was the epitome
of aeronautical design and engineering - fast, sturdy, and
looking like nothing which had come before. The particular historical time that Bonanza came into being and went
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
25
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
before the American aviation public is a crucial reason for its
immediate and enormous commercial success.
One important reason for Bonanza’s success when it was
introduced is that in the United States, for entirely understandable reasons, in the immediate post- war years there
was an innate and urgent desire for freshness and newness
as a sign that the coming new, more peaceful world was
going to be far better than that in which so recently and so
tragically entire nations and populations had been utterly
destroyed.
While it took most countries in Europe and Asia many
years, and in some cases, decades after the end of the war,
to signicantly recover and move forward again, the United
States, whose cities and civilian population had been spared
the cruel ravaging and devastation that had befallen most
of the rest of the world during the war, even before the war
ended was ready and able, to begin anew.
From the late summer of 1945 and throughout the 1950s
people all over the world deeply desired and worked hard
to create a new beginning. A new, clean, peaceful and
prosperous world had been promised, and now, for some,
it was in their grasp. In the United States, everything from
buildings to automobiles to kitchen appliances to furniture to the new, retractable ballpoint pens took on a clean,
“streamlined” and modern look. The stodgy, old, heavily
riveted, ornately carved, massive, dark antique appearance
of much of what had dened the pre- war world was now
considered more than simply “old- fashioned.” In a tacit
but very substantial way, the artifacts of the pre- war world
and culture were a sore and uncomfortable reminder of how
that world and culture had so utterly failed humanity. Many
of these things were thrown or given away or were put in
the attic or the basement, out of sight. Accordingly, decades
passed before “antique” or “used” furniture and objects
regained popular appreciation and value. After the war all
that was “new” and, most particularly, that which was not
at all like what was old, was in high demand.
These are a few magazine advertisements which give a
good sense of the avour of this post- war feeling:
It was into this supercharged, sociologically, historically
No wonde r he’s smiling.
A2ASIMULATIONS
26
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
27
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
Still sleek and mode rn looking, this is Beech Model 35 version 4. I t is currently being displaye d
in the Nati onal Air and Space Museum of the S mithsonian on the National Ma ll in Washington
D. C. as Cap tain William Odom’s “Waikiki Be ech.” Whilst this is the oldes t flyable Bee ch Model
35, it is not currentl y flight- worthy. Note the large tip - tanks installe d for the record 19 49 flight.
and psychologically nova- venerating American culture that
Beechcraft introduced its Bonanza in 1947. It was no coincidence that Bonanza was ready- made for those times. It
epitomized them. Those who were in the market for the
nest and most modern of personal or business aeroplanes
and could aord its price lined up to place their orders.
In fact, it was this enormously positive response to the
Bonanza in 1947 that fueled many GA aircraft manufacturer’s starry- eyed optimism and belief in an aviation sales
boom that never happened.
Beechcraft’s goal and expectations for the Bonanza were
clear from the outset – to create the fastest aeroplane for
its horsepower that could carry up to four in comfort and
which would be purchased primarily by corporations and
businesses for use as a luxury executive transport. Visually
stunning, made of the same materials and being of the
same design philosophy as current front- line ghter aircraft, promising spectacular performance whilst powered
by a modestly- sized and economical- to- operate engine
and presenting a futuristic “new world” look and attitude,
Beech Model 35 Bonanza hit every note and nerve, clicked
on every button and twanged every heart string.
Unfortunately for most, although a part of Beech’s plan,
only those with a great deal of hard cash could buy into the
Bonanza club. Of course, nancial ability does not necessarily imply aeronautical ability or experience. Far too many
private Bonanza owners in those rst post- war years were
woefully unprepared to y it safely.
IS THE “V”- TAIL BONANZA SAFE?
Let me say at the outset of this topic discussion that “V”-
tail Bonanza, and all properly designed and competently
built aeroplanes for that matter, are ultimately only as
safe as the competency and diligence of their pilots. Proper
maintenance and inspection along with careful and knowl-
edgeable piloting are the requisites for all safe ight.
cient cruisers. They get the most out of the power available and they go fast. Unfortunately, that is not the totality
of the matter. “Clean” aeroplanes, like Bonanza, also tend
to be challenging for those pilots who are unfamiliar with
the ight characteristics of such aircraft. The problem is
that when a clean aeroplane’s nose goes below its normal
cruising attitude with power on, the aeroplane accelerates
at a very high rate, far faster than anything in which most
casual general aviation pilots might have trained or previ-
ously own. As the airspeed indicator rapidly winds past the
end of the green arc (VNO – maximum structural cruising
speed) into and through the yellow arc (cautionary maneou-
vering airspeeds) and towards and beyond the red line (VNE
– never exceed airspeed,) the situation is often already too
late for all but the most careful and knowledgable pilots to
correct (and likely too late for even them, as well).
All pilots know that to reduce airspeed, the nose must be
raised by pulling back on the control stick/yoke, increasing the aeroplane’s Alpha which, in turn, creates a positive
g- force (accelerative force applied in addition to the force
of gravity) on the aeroplane and those onboard. However,
when airspeed is at a critically high level, it is possible,
perhaps likely, that even the smallest amount of rearward
control stick/yoke pressure will create a powerful positive
g- force sucient to overload the aeroplane’s wings and tail
structures, causing a catastrophic failure thereof. In extreme
circumstances, even the gentlest pull on the controls when
the airspeed needle is at, or worse, beyond the red line will
instantly cause such dire consequences. Not doing anything
is no solution either.
Once the aeroplane is past the redline it is under tremendous structural stress. Every second is crucial and recov-
ery which safely and eectively lowers the airspeed must be
done right now! Closing the throttle is, of course, the rst
thing to do in such a situation, but that might not be su-
cient to avoid a tragedy. If you have a speed brake, of course,
However, it is not a secret that
early “V”- tail Bonanzas have had a
poor safety record. Many have blamed
the “V”- tail for this, but that is not
entirely fair. Other more important
factors have been found to have been
responsible for this record. It appears
that the greatest reason why there
were so many early fatal Bonanza
accidents is that the aeroplane was
simply ahead of its time and more of
a handful than most general aviation
pilots could then handle. General aviation pilots in the late 1940s and early
1950s were not used to aircraft as
clean and demanding as Bonanza, and
why should they have been? Nothing
like Bonanza had previously been
available to them.
Aerodynamically “clean” (low drag)
aeroplanes are excellent and e-
28
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
extend it immediately, but speed brakes are not installed in
Bonanzas nor in virtually any other general aviation air-
craft. Trying to lower the undercarriage and/or aps to slow
down at such a high airspeed is very risky may not work.
Additionally, doing this is likely to cause just the serious
structural damage you are trying to avoid. In fact, once you
are hurtling past the redline there may be no way to avoid
a tragedy.
With this in mind, it is well to be aware that in nearly
all fatal Bonanza accidents in which a failure of the aircraft’s structure was involved, it was determined that the
aeroplane had been own outside its normal ight envelope (i.e., ying too damn fast). In most instances these
accidents were preceded by loss of control due to the pilot’s
apparent misinterpretation of the aeroplane’s situation
causing him/her to make incorrect control inputs, exacerbating rather than correcting the problem.
When Bonanza was introduced in 1947, very few pilots
were trained or competent to y in what is called “instrument ight rules” (IFR) conditions, which are essentially
those in which the pilot is unable to see the horizon and is
unable to accurately and safely y the aeroplane without
reference to instruments. At this time not even many exmilitary pilots had much IFR training or experience and the
vast majority of civilian pilots had even less. The IFR navi-
gation system, so sophisticated, ecient and ubiquitous in
modern times, was in its bare infancy in early 1950s and
virtually non- existent in the late 1940s. In that era gyroscopic instruments, common today and which are a crucial
aid during IFR ight, were not standard or even available
equipment in early Bonanzas and most of the other general
aviation aeroplanes.
When the weather obscures or completely hides the hori-
zon, safe ight becomes dependant upon the pilot’s ability to y the aeroplane with sole reference to and reliance
upon what instruments may be on the panel. Yes, IFR ying
can be done without gyros and learning to do so is a part of
IFR training, but doing this eectively requires professional
instruction and lots of practice.
Unless an auto- pilot has been engaged, even a welltrimmed aeroplane will not maintain straight and level
ight by itself for very long. Even assuming perfectly calm
winds (which is rarely the case, particularly at altitude,) the
torque of the engine and propeller causes a steady left banking tendency which is likely to go unnoticed unless the pilot
has reference to the horizon (real or gyroscopic), the terrain
and/or notices that the aircraft’s compass heading is slowly
changing.
An ordinary magnetic compass (sometimes called a
“whisky compass” for its visible yellow/brown- coloured
lubricating oil) is notoriously inaccurate and misleading
under many ight conditions and is considered to be unreliable as the sole source of heading information during IFR
ight. An aeroplane out of true rigging, subtle trim inaccuracies, gusts of wind and/or turbulence may cause pitch and
roll changes as well, all of which may also go unnoticed by a
pilot not trained to y in IFR conditions.
As mentioned, pilots have reported that “V”- tail
Bonanzas are very light and sensitive in pitch to the extent
that ying a “V”- tail Bonanza has been described as being
“sportscar- like.” Also, “V”- tail Bonanzas are notoriously
unsteady in pitch and roll, tending to constantly “seek”
pitch position and laterally wander from level ight. Beech
designed Bonanza for maximum performance with little to
no considerations or compromises for ight by low- time
pilots. Whilst Bonanza’s “sportscar- like” – perhaps even
“warbird- like” – ight characteristics may be quite satisfying to an experienced pilot, when in IFR conditions these
characteristics are likely to create an unintended and unnoticed banked, nose down condition. When these are combined what is called a “spiral dive” is likely to occur.
Over many decades of close and diligent study of fatal
general aviation aircraft accidents and reports from ight
instructors, the loss of a visual horizon has been cited as the
most common cause of the spiral dive phenomenon and the
fatal accident which soon and inevitably follows. It has been
determined by a number of ight instructors that if a pilot
without an instrument rating tries to turn around in IFR
conditions to y back to clear weather he /she is likely to
mishandle the turn by not applying sucient back pressure
on the yoke/stick, thereby allowing the nose to drop. Add to
this banked attitude the aerodynamically clean Bonanza’s
tendency to quickly accelerate to and beyond its redline
(Vne) when the nose drops, and therein exists a formula
for catastrophe that is, as is said, “Just waiting to happen.”
What happens all- too- often is this: a pilot inadvertently
and/or negligently ies into a low - visibility weather condition and soon loses sight of the horizon. If not trained to
y in IFR conditions and relying upon his/her “senses,”
11
he/she “feels” that all is well all whilst the left wing has
already slightly dropped and, because the aeroplane is no
longer ying level, the nose has also begun to drop. As mentioned, this situation is exacerbated if this pilot attempts a
turn in IFR conditions. What this pilot usually then hears
is the rising sound of the outside air ow and immediately
sees the airspeed indicator needle quickly rising. He/she
naturally pulls back on the control wheel to alleviate this
but, because the aeroplane’s wings are no longer level, up
elevator input only steepens the left bank which, accordingly, causes the nose to drop further. Meanwhile, airspeed
continues to increase until it is quickly well past the redline
as the pilot frantically but vainly pulls back even harder on
the control wheel to slow the airplane. This continues for
only a short while until either the wings and/or tail structures fail or the aeroplane contacts the ground in a sharp
nose- down left bank at a very high speed.
This is, in fact, what apparently happened to John
Kennedy, Jr. on July 16, 1999 when his high- performance,
high- powered and aerodynamically clean Piper PA32R
“Saratoga,” which he had recently purchased and in which
he had little ight time, crashed into the Atlantic Ocean
o the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, kill-
ing all three on board (Kennedy, his wife Carolyn and his
sister- in- law Lauren Bessette). On that day, Kennedy had
www.a2asimulations.com ACCU- SIM V35 B BONAN ZA
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
:::
A2ASIMULATIONS
29
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
been delayed by business and did not takeo from Essex
County Airport, near Faireld, New Jersey to attend the
wedding of his cousin Rory Kennedy at Martha’s Vineyard,
Massachusetts until almost sunset. He soon found himself ying in the dark of the evening in very hazy, humid
low- visibility weather, always a perilous ight condition
for VFR ying. At some point he apparently lost clear sight
and sense of the horizon and became spatially disoriented
(see footnote below.) The installed sophisticated threeaxis autopilot was not engaged and he was not instrument
rated. Kennedy’s “Saratoga” crashed into the ocean at an
extremely high speed in a steep left bank and with the nose
steeply down.
All of the foregoing is not to say that Model 33 Debonairs
and later the Model 36 Bonanzas with conventional tails
did not occasionally have fatal accidents, including those
involving a pilots’ loss of control in IFR weather. The difference was that in these accidents, the tail surfaces were
found not to have failed in ight and were not considered to
be a signicant factor in these accidents. It was determined
that the ruddervators of the early “V”- tail Bonanzas tended
to fail early in the course of an over- speed situation, whilst
conventional- tail Bonanzas and Debonairs were discovered
to have granted a bit more time for a pilot to extricate him/
herself from the overspeed situation before the tail surfaces
departed.
Of course, Beech took this matter extremely seriously and
from Bonanza C35 (late 1950 to 1952) onward, the chord
(leading to trailing edge) of the ruddervators was increased
by seven inches, putting the non- moving stabilizer part of
the ruddervator sixteen inches ahead of its main spar. On
early Bonanzas up to model C- 35 the ruddervators’ main
spars were their sole attachment points to the fuselage. The
problem was that with this increase in area, an even larger
part of the ruddervator was now unattached to the fuselage.
This redesign was a logical attempt to create a more stable
and less sensitive pitch control by increasing the overall area
of the ruddervators. Unfortunately, the ruddervators’ internal structure was not similarly enhanced, which some have
speculated was because of Beech’s apparent reluctance to
ocially and publicly acknowledge that there was anything
fundamentally wrong with the original “V”- tail design to
begin with.
In addition to the increase in the ruddervators’ area,
Bonanza C35 has a more powerful Continental E- 185- 11
engine, upping the hp from 165 hp to 205 hp for one minute
and 185 hp continuous, all of which make it a very desirable
and sought- after early Bonanza.
Unfortunately, not anchoring the ruddervators more
securely in C35, such as at their leading edges as well as the
spar, caused a number of in- air ruddervator failures which,
in turn, caused the wings to fail as well. All of these accidents occurred after the aeroplane had been own at airspeeds beyond the redline (Vne,) as occurs in an uncontrolled spiral dive. Based upon inspection of the wreckage of
these crashed aeroplanes, Beech ultimately determined that
Bonanza’s ruddervators would henceforth be required to be
attached to the fuselage at both the spar and leading edge.
This x was eective and thereafter the number of
Bonanzas which crashed due to tail surface collapse or
departure decreased. Recovering to level ight from airspeeds higher than the redline no longer tended to cause
immediate airframe disintegration and in some instances
with careful handling, a pilot could now extricate such a
hurtling Bonanza from its dive to level
ight without incident.
Piper PA- 32R “Saratoga.” This adv anced and very high- perfo rmance aeroplane was initially called
“Piper Lance,” a retra ctable undercarriag e Piper PA- 32 Che rokee Six. As this aeroplane evolved it
becam e known as Piper “Saratoga.” Similar to Lance in m ost ways, Saratoga has a tap ered wing,
whilst Lance’s wing is Cherokee Six’s un- tapered “Hershey Bar” t ype.
30
A2ASIMULATIONS
:::
ACCU- SIM V3 5B BONA NZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIM ULATIO N USE ONLY
“ALRIGHT, WE GET IT”
Whilst spokespersons for Beech are
not known to have actually publicly
said this or acknowledged “V” - tail
Bonanza’s deciencies, Beech certainly tacitly made such a statement
when, in 1959, Model 33 “Debonair”,
essentially a conventional- tail
Bonanza, was introduced. Surely this
was a strong response to the burgeoning criticism and the historically poor safety record of “V”- tail
Bonanza. At this or any time Beech
could have simply changed to a conventional tail arrangement whilst
retaining the Bonanza name, as it
actually did in 1968 with the introduction of the conventional- tail
Model 36 “Bonanza.” The introduction of “Debonair,” a new non- “V”tail Beech aeroplane, was Beech’s
clear invitation to “V”- tail sceptics
Loading...