Loading...
BONANZAA2ASIMULATIO S
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 flicker-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 flash- ing 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 FEATURES
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 PANELS
110 CREDITS
4 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
www.a2asimulations.com |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
|
|
|
www.a2asimulations.com |
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
5 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
BEECHCRAFT BONANZA
Flying Into The Future
by Mitchell Glicksman © 2018
V 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 privilege to fly a Bonanza have come to appreciate its excellent and unique hand-
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 different than other similar aeroplanes, more solid, sturdy and substantial. All who may be so fortunate as to fly in a Bonanza immedi- ately perceive the extraordinarily high quality of everything therein, from the seats, windows and curtains, to the fit- tings, switches, knobs and levers. Flying a “V”-tail Bonanza is a unique and satisfying experience. From engine start to shut-down and throughout the flight “V”-tail Bonanza handles surely, lightly and quickly, more like a fine-tuned piston-engine fighter 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 fly. However, none of this came about acci- dentally 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 flush-riveted NACA 23000 airfoil wing which Beech had also used on its Model 18 “Twin Beech,” a circular, flush riveted stressed aluminium fuselage, fully enclosed electrically retractable undercarriage, a retractable
6 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
|
boarding step, gap-sealed recessed flap tracks, cockpit- adjustable cowl flaps, internally hinged control sur- faces and, at first, 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 fighter 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 coefficient (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 officers 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 conflict for more than three years and would ultimately suffer 1,076,245 casualties, the great majority of which had already been inflicted by January 1945.
www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION 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 mili- tary forces put them finally and irre- vocably in full retreat after the failure of one last, desperate Wehrmacht offensive (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 rap-
idly, 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 Pacific 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, suffering 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 ulti-
mate 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 horrific combat would still continue for a time in Europe and even longer in the Pacific, 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
www.a2asimulations.com
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 flown it back from work. An identi-
cal red helicopter is seen above his neighbour’s house. The article “reported” that anyone could learn to fly 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 flight was desired, were assembled and flown 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 flown 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 flyable condition and one, N102D, is still flown.
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.
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
7 |
|
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
A beautifully restored Belgian- registered Beech Model 17S “Staggerwing.” This unique and striking design is a massive and complicated fabric-covered wood and steel structure powered by a 450 hp Pratt & Whitney 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 1930s, but became less and less
competitive as an executive transport with the emergence of the new and more efficient all-metal aviation technology of the 1940s.
■■ Beech Model 18, here as Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) transport. This aeroplane’s resemblance to the larger Lockheed “Electra” is likely not entirely a coincidence.
■■ Beech AT-11 “Kansan” bomber trainer over Texas in 1943. One of
49 military variants of Model 18, AT-11 was the U. S. Army Air Force’s (USAAF) primary bombing trainer during the war in which more than 40,000 bombardiers were trained. Modifications included
a transparent bomber’s nose, an internal bomb bay and bomb racks and a dorsal gun turret for gunnery training. Photo from “Western Trips”
■■ The second and last prototype Beechcraft XA-38 “Grizzly” shown here was produced with an operational 75 mm cannon. It beggars one’s imagination to think that the same company which was still producing the fabric-covered “Staggerwing” biplane also designed and built this formidable-looking and performing modern
warplane. Photo from “Old Machine Press”
■■ 1947 Piper J-3 “Cub.” The great progenitor
of all general aviation light aircraft, what Piper offered in 1947 was indistinguishable from the pre-war “Cub.”
8 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
|
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 fixed 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,1 informed Beech that all-metal aircraft were the 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 first Model 18s were pow- ered by two 330-hp (250-kW) Jacobs L-6 or by two 350-hp (260-kW) Wright R-760E radial engines turning cockpit- adjustable-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.
www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
Model 17 seats a pilot and three passengers, is a single- engine, fabric-covered biplane with a wingspan of thirty- two 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 fighter of which only two prototypes were con- structed. “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 fortified 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 fighters 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 prolific 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
www.a2asimulations.com
■■1946 Taylorcraft BC-12D. C. G. Taylor’s clean design made BC- 12DA a slight refinement of his 1938 Model “BC,” which was itself a refinement of the 1938 Piper J-3 “Cub.” BC-12 has dual control wheels instead of control columns and a door on each side of the cabin for easy entrance and exit. Whilst Taylorcraft’s side-by-side seating is better for instruction as well as for pilot-passenger
communication in general, these aeroplanes are not very wide and their snug interiors are insufficient for two “full-sized” adults.
■■1947 Stinson 108-2 “Station Wagon.” A roomy four-seater, interior wood panels and a reinforced floor permit 600 lb (272 kg) of baggage to be carried in the passenger compartment. Its 165 hp Franklin 6A4-165-B3 engine can use automotive fuel with the installation of a converter kit. The Stinson’s wings’ fixed leading- edge slats make the 108 series excellent and reliable slow fliers, enabling them to easily get into and out of small tree-lined fields.
■■1947 Aeronca “Champ.” Another refinement of the J-3 “Cub” design with similar tandem seating and similar performance. Solo from the front seat is a definite improvement over “Cub’s” rear seat solo station and “Champ’s” large windows make visibility
in all directions much better. Having had a number of hours in a “Champ,” this writer has found this responsive and sprightly aeroplane to be the best of the lot of this type.
■■1947 Luscombe 8A “Silvaire” on floats. Rather fast for its 65 hp engine with a top airspeed of 85 mph or so, the aeroplane in the photo is identical to the “Silvaire” in which this writer first received instruction and learned to fly the age of 12. Luscombe “Silvaire” has dual control sticks rather than control wheels making it a very fun and responsive aeroplane.
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
9 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
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 fifteen 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 staff had been optimisti- cally looking toward the post-war civilian aviation world to come. The plan they developed was to produce a high- performance, luxury, all-metal, four seat, single-engine light executive aeroplane that would be relatively simple and efficient 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 modified 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
10 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
|
■■Ryan (originally North American L-145 ) Navion B Super 260 C- FCTI. It is not merely a coincidence that airframe of this excellent four-seat aeroplane is reminiscent of P-51 “Mustang” upon which its design was based. Introduced in 1948, the retractable 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 carry four passengers in comfort over a range of 595 miles, take-off in 400 feet and land in 466 feet. Navion was Bonanza’s closest rival in the late 1940’s and during the 1950s, outperforming Bonanza in many ways. Celebrities Veronica Lake, Arthur Godfrey, Mickey Rooney and Bill Cullen were among those who owned and flew Navions. Many are still flying and whilst offering something of an awkward climb to enter they are considered to be a great bargain on the used aeroplane market. Photo by Barry Griffiths.
■■Piper Pa-22 “Tri-Pacer.” Introduced in February 1951, this comfortable four-seat aeroplane is essentially a Piper PA-20 “Pacer” with a nose wheel. Although rather a throwback with its fabric-covered aluminium frame and stodgy appearance (derisively nicknamed “Flying Milk Stool,”) 160 hp versions of this fine aeroplane give it useful load of 890 lbs, a top airspeed of 141 mph, an 800 fpm climb rate and a range of 650 miles, all with four 170 lb passengers on board. This writer has enjoyed many pleasant hours flying Tri-Pacers as well as its two-seat version, PA-22-108 “Colt.” Tri-Pacer was introduced six years ahead
of its chief tricycle-undercarriage rival, the all-metal Cessna 172. As good as Tri-Pacer was and is, it has never been serious competition for Bonanza. A John Marco photograph
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- fications 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 offering 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 coffers 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”3 of flight, 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
www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION 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 financial benefits, including free flight 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 offered as sur- plus to the public at very low prices. For instance, in 1945 the Office of Price Administration (OPA) made surplus two- seat Aeronca L-3B “Champs” in virtually unused condition available for $1,788.00 ($19,963.94 in 2018 at a cumulative rate of inflation 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 inflation.)
However, Walter Beech and his staff had a completely different 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-fit this role.
In 1945 and for a decade and a half thereafter, the now- familiar culture of the casual weekend pilot who usually flies locally in good weather with friends and family to sight- see and perchance to purchase a few of those $100 dollar hamburgers at a far-off little airport’s snack bar, the vast majority of whom have little flight 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-flying, particularly not at the expense of perfor- mance. 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 flown by professional pilots who would transport those executives who required quick, private and convenient transportation to places that were too distant or inconvenient for efficient ground travel. Oh yes, and lest we forget, Bonanza was also intended to be an exclusive, con- spicuous totem of financial 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, all- metal, 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
www.a2asimulations.com
■■1949 Bellanca 14-19 “Cruisemaster.” An upgrade of the pre-war Bellanca 14-7 and the post-war Bellanca 14-13, 14-19 has a large, comfortable cabin for four and is powered by a Franklin 6A4-335-B3 190 hp engine. “Cruisemaster’s” triple tail and its wooden wing garnered it the nickname “Cardboard Constellation” after Lockheed’s “Constellation.” However, like Lockheed’s triple-tail marvel, “Cruisemaster’s” performance was in many ways better than its similar contemporaries, including Bonanza, with a useful load of 1,025 lbs,
a top airspeed of 174 mph, a rate of climb of 1,250 fpm and a fully- loaded range of 435 miles. A tailwheel aeroplane with retractable main undercarriage in the new tricycle undercarriage world, its retro wood and fabric construction and undeniably quirky appearance did not aid its overall public acceptance. Whilst in 1959 14-19 would be converted to a retractable tricycle undercarriage by “Downer Aircraft” (Bellanca’s new name,) only around 600 of the original 14-19 “Cruisemasters” were produced. Whilst in many ways “Cruisemaster” is a better-performing aeroplane, Bonanza remained unchallenged.
■■Cessna 172. Introduced in 1956, it was the direct competitor of Piper Tri-Pacer. All metal and looking far more modern than Tri-Pacer, C-172 is a Cessna 170 with a nose wheel. Despite its sleek appearance, C-172 does not perform as well as Tri-Pacer in many areas. 160 hp versions of C-172 give it a useful load of only 758 lbs, a top airspeed of 140 mph, a rate of climb of 721 fpm and a possible range of 696 miles, but with only two rather slim passengers on board. Cessna 172 might have well- competed with Tri-Pacer but it, too, was no competition for Bonanza.
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
11 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
Spartan 7W “Executive.” The name says it all. Sleek, modern, powerful and sensual, this was top shelf, first-class personal transportation for the super-rich corporate executive in the mid 1930s and early 1940s. Photo from Flickr.
comfortably carrying up to four with a range of 1,000 miles. Spartan “Executive” boasted such notable owners as indus- trialist and film mogul Howard Hughes, oil magnate, finan- cial 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 first 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 five 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.
12 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
|
Restored Spartan 7W “Executive” previously owned by Texaco, Inc. in the late 1930s.
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 perfor- mance 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 fabric- covered 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 efficient 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.
www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
Rolled out of the factory on 9 September 1940, this was the last Spartan 7W, later called “Mrs. Mennen.” It was originally purchased by Texaco, Inc. (now a subsidiary of Chevron Corporation) for corporate use in the New York State/New England area. This magnificent aeroplane cost $26,200.40 in 1940 ($467,029.62 in 2018 at a cumulative rate of inflation of 1,682.5%) and was one of five Spartan 7Ws owned by Texaco, who based this aircraft at Roosevelt Field located in Mineola (now Garden City), New York.
This aeroplane was purchased by George Mennen of the Mennen Company, Morristown, New Jersey in the spring of 1969. It was then painted “Mennen Green” and named “Mrs. Mennen.” “Mrs. Mennen” was sold, traded and bought by many different owners over the years until it was purchased in October 2004 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 fly into the future.
He told his design staff 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 fight- ers – Mustangs, Corsairs, Spitfires, 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 Vice- President 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 post- war 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 officers
www.a2asimulations.com
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 sig- nificant “leg-up” on their competition and they were anx- ious and ready to prove what they could do.
The design of what was to become “Bonanza” was very much a team effort. 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 Oderseff designed the fuselage. Noel Naidenoff 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 influenced 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 field, it was thought, would soon be overfilled 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 afford 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 forward character in both his conceptions and his mode of expression. Who else but such a very confident “Type A”
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
13 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
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 efficacy of producing less sophisticated and less expensive aircraft (see endnote 4,) this first post- war Beech was intended to come out of the box firmly sit- ting atop of the aviation mountain, confidently and reso- lutely daring all comers to topple it. As history has shown, despite a most valiant but ultimately failed effort 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, fish, birds, and natural phenomena such as hurricanes, lightning and thunderbolts. For our new Model 35, Beech Aircraft has sought to find a name that would be descriptive of the extra value offered 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 profit 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.
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 first “V” or “Butterfly” tail surface arrangement (an aircraft tail-surface configuration 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 fins with a hinged, movable rudder(s) at its (their) trail- ing edge and a horizontal stabilizer with a hinged movable
14 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
|
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 affects the yaw axis and is con- trolled by the pilot by pushing the left (left yaw) or right (right yaw) rudder pedals in the cockpit. The position of the elevator affects 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 fly a “V”-tailed aeroplane exactly as he or she flies 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 offset from horizontal and vertical, the forces created when the rudder- vators are displaced are similarly offset.
www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION 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 offsets the other’s yaw force, but because of the dual direction of forces created by ruddevators, they are functionally less aerodynami- cally efficient 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.
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 inefficiency caused by the offset 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- ficiency 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 ineffi- ciency 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
www.a2asimulations.com
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 inefficiencies 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 disad- vantages 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 airflow 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
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
15 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
(nose up) incidence when the elevator is neutral that suf- ficient “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 efficient in creating sufficient 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 sur- faces positively redirect the oncoming airflow) than are cre- ated by conventional horizontal surfaces.
Additionally, in Bonanza, the right ruddervator is offset a few degrees more to the right than the left ruddervator to counter P-factor, also called “asymmetric blade effect” and “asymmetric disc effect” (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 offset from vertical, they must be set at a greater degree to the right to counter P-effect than a conventional single fin/rudder sur- face 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 efficient 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-effective conven- tional 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 flight. However, when tail surfaces are radi- cally offset 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 flight 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
16 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
|
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 sufficiently 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 specifi- cations) 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 efficient. Beechcraft apparently heavily relied upon this erroneous assumption and affirmatively 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 inefficiencies and control rigging com- plications 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 fighter known to have been built with a “V”-tail is the experimental Bell P-63A-8 “Kingcobra”. This one-off aeroplane was a test bed to find out if such a tail configu- 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 flying nearly as fast as a propeller-driven fighter could be made to fly. This P-63D was so modified 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-flight 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
www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
1944 Beech built a one-off A-19, which was a USAAF A-10 “Wichita” with an experimental “V”-tail. A-19 was the first and largest Beech aircraft to that date with such. At the time, many might have wondered why Beech was experimenting with a “V”-tail. Time would soon solve that mystery. A-19 would certainly be a challenging subject for a “can you name this aeroplane” contest. USAAF archive photo, circa 1944.
■■Eclipse Aviation 400. If you’re going to put a single jet engine on top of the fuselage a “V”-tail seems like your best, if not your only bet.
■■Robin ATL Beyond appearance, there seems to be no real need for a “V”-tail in this design. As can be seen, the ruddervators are so large that they are surely as heavy and produce as much drag as a conventional cruciform tail.
■■H-101 Salto aerobatic sailplane. Here, the “V”-tail makes some sense. Without the need to offset a spinning propeller’s P-Factor, the ruddervators can be smaller (as they clearly are in this design) than on a propeller-driven aircraft, and accordingly may, in fact, be lighter and less drag-producing than a conventional tail would be.
■■1948 Beech Model 34 “Twin-Quad”
■■Bell P-63A-8 (also designated RP-63G). This one- off experimental aeroplane was based upon the basic airframe and engine of P-63D “Kingcobra” which usually has a bubble canopy in place of P-39 “Airacobra’s” automotive- style doors. However, P-63A-8 retained the old-style doors, possibly to ensure a safer emergency in-flight exit.
www.a2asimulations.com |
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
17 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
1947 Beech Model 35 Bonanza prototype version 4 of the 5 Bonanza airframes which Beech built and tested. Version 4 was submitted to obtain Model 35’s certificate and was extensively flight tested, including a dive test to 286 mph in the manner in which military aircraft of that era were tested. This very aeroplane is pictured in numerous Beech promotional advertisements and, as usual regarding
such promotions, Beech populated it with the smallest people it could find in order to make its cabin appear more capacious.
In March 1949, Bonanza prototype version 4, named “Waikiki Beech” and piloted by Captain William Odom, flew from Honolulu, Hawaii to Teterboro, New Jersey, establishing the existing non-stop long- distance record for light general aviation aircraft of 4,957 miles. Between 7 October 1951 and 27 January 1952, Congressman Peter F. Mack, Jr. completed a solo, easterly around the world flight from and back to Springfield, Illinois in this same aeroplane, which he named “Friendship Flame,” flying 33,789 miles in 223 hours (113 days) and stopping at 45 cities in 35 countries.
tests were made, the findings 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 post- war 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 off-putting to conservative airline purchasing executives in 1948, many of whom thought that passengers might balk at flying 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
18 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
|
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 benefits, 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 configurations 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 first light general aviation aeroplane to be thoroughly and extensively wind-tunnel tested before its first flight.
Many are not aware that there were actually five 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 five of these pre-production airframes were tested in
Beech’s ten-foot diameter wind tunnel for, amongst other things, structural integrity, flutter and the integrity of the
“V”-tail surfaces. Pre-production airframes 1, 2 and 5 were built and so tested but not flown. Airframe version 3 was the first Bonanza to be actually flight 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
www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION 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-flow wing to reduce drag, an airfoil innovation made famous for its use by the USAAF’s then first-line fighter, 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 fly; however, its wing has a conventional airfoil.
The first 40 or so production Model 35s were not all- metal as advertised. Their ruddervators, flaps 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 fighter aircraft were metal-covered because, as the British discovered when Spitfire Mk. I flew at air- speeds greater than 260 mph and the fabric covering on its ailerons ballooned away from their underlying frame adding drag and reducing their effectiveness. Whilst Beech Model 35 is not capable of flying at airspeeds where this phenom- enon would occur, the ailerons on all Bonanzas after the first 40 were covered with thin magnesium alloy plate and later with aluminium.
Bonanza pre-production airframe 3’s original lami- nar flow wing did not appear on production Model 35s. All Bonanzas, except the experimental one-off laminar-flow wing 1961 O35, have conventional airfoils derived from the popular and often used NACA 23000 series, specifically NACA 23016.56 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 first Model 35 Bonanza, prototype 4 during its final testing stage. This is a rare photograph of this aeroplane at rest. Note the laminated wooden two-blade propeller. It was pilot-variable but not a constant-pitch unit. The pilot had to manually set the desired propeller pitch for any power setting.
It curiously seems to be particularly out of place on such an otherwise sleek and modern aeroplane. Beech factory photograph, March 1947
www.a2asimulations.com
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 coefficient, 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 off 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 VS- 326 (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 fighter/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 find- ing themselves in a stalled aeroplane at low altitude, always a blueprint for calamity.
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
19 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
However, it is well to remem- ber that Beech did not expect their Bonanza to be flown by amateur weekend sports filers. It was expected to be flown 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 less- than-benign flight character- istics. It is surely an important factor regarding Bonanza’s poor initial safety record7 .
Notwithstanding Beech’s expec- tations, from its introduction Bonanza was neverthe- less owned and flown by many
1940 ERCO “Ercoupe”, a very cozy side-by-side two-seater. Ercoupe’s can still be seen from time-to-time at airports throughout the US.
modernity by designing a freely swiveling nosewheel, requiring differential 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 first- class, top shelf and very expensive machine. Apparently Beech received sufficient complaints to warrant a change and as a result the 1949 Model 35A had a rudder pedal-steerable nosewheel as
pilots whose training and experience in such a spirited and demanding thoroughbred was woefully insufficient.
The engine powering prototype #4 and the first 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,comparedtothecontemporary1947Cessna195’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 first in its class, Model 35 has an electrically and fully retractable tricycle (nosewheel) undercarriage. Even more unusual for a light aeroplane and another first, the under- carriage when retracted is completely enclosed.
Whilst every USAAF bomber after the 1935 B-17 had tricy- cle undercarriage, most American WWII era fighter 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 fighter. 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 define 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 flown 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
20 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
|
well as a slightly higher permissible takeoff 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 first 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, fixed undercarriage, radial engine(s) and tail wheel are most defi- 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 Cessna 195. Produced in 1947, this sleek and truly beautiful aeroplane surely looks classic – that is, a classic from the 1930s. Like Bonanza, C-190/195 was intended to be a high-end business transport. Also like Bonanza, it was sleek, fast and expensive. Unlike Bonanza, however, C-190/195 was never a popular ride and relatively few were sold during its seven year production period. In fact, Beech sold more Bonanzas in 1947, over 1,500, than all of the Cessna 190/195s ever built (approximately 1,180.)
www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
overall weight would sit on the main undercarriage. This arrangement facilitates easier rotation on takeoff, better braking after touchdown, lighter steering on the ground and promotes less wear on the nosewheel system itself.
Additionally, Bonanza sits relatively higher off 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 flying Bonanzas and who, surprisingly, turned out to be largely ex-bomber and transport pilots. Most ex-fighter pilots apparently had enough of the “joy of flying” -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
effect8 upon landing
When an aeroplane is in ground effect, airspeed tends to decrease more slowly and the aeroplane tends to float just above the runway for a time, complicating the flair and touchdown and making the exact moment of touchdown more difficult to anticipate. Beech’s engineers believed that by lengthening Bonanza’s undercarriage, the consequences of ground effect would be diminished and landings would therefore be far more predictable. The fact is, however, that a few inches, more or less, makes little difference in this matter. Bonanza floats along in ground effect 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.)
Personal side note: There was a Cessna 195 on floats
(coincidentally in the same colours 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 afternoon 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
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. Takeoff 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
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 heft of this aeroplane was a new
experience for me. I remember that it was a responsive, satisfying, solid and overall enjoyable aeroplane to fly.
www.a2asimulations.com |
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
21 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
From May 1947 Holiday Magazine. This advert pictures prototype version 4 of the five original Model 35 prototypes.
Another 1947 Beech advert showing how easily Model 35 could beat all that snail- like automobile traffic below. Pictured here again is 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 first flight on December
22, 1945. Beech then announced that Model 35 would not go into full-scale production for a further fifteen months so that Bonanza could be further tested and refined before commencing production. Between the initial announcement of Model 35 by the publication of press releases and adver- tisements and its first 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 “Butterfly” 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 constant- speed propeller which would have greatly enhanced Bonanza’s performance, Model 35’s original equipment
22 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
|
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 throw- back and inefficient propeller system on its new flagship high-performance aeroplane. Acting much like a fixed- 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 efficient and appropriate metal, two or sometimes three-blade constant-speed types.
■■ Aileron/Rudder Interconnect
All “V”-tail Bonanzas from the first 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 flight.
This feature also was installed in Piper Tri-Pacer, introduced in 1950. Of course, right-rudder input is still required on takeoff to overcome P-factor and the flexible 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.
www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
■■D17S “Staggerwing” instrument panel and its throw-over control wheel. Note: No rudder pedals at the right seat.
■■Late 1950s Bonanza instrument panel with its throw-over control wheel and with no right seat rudder pedals or toe brakes. This aeroplane has non-standard gyro instruments installed and a very old-school “Radio Compass” indicator, but no instrument or receiver for ILS (glide slope) operations and a single primitive, very elementary 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 flights in Bonanzas with a throwover yoke ille- gal, with exceptions for instrument flight instruction under specific conditions as stated in the footnote below according to The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)9 . Adding right- 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 flying clubs and schools.
www.a2asimulations.com
1950 Model B35 Bonanza.
1974 Model A36 Bonanza with its longer fuselage.
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
23 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
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 suffer 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 takeoff and during approach and landing – both being low altitude conditions in which stall/ spin recovery is unlikely.
■■ 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 takeoff, the safe and normal position of the CG is always ahead of the CL. The horizontal stabilizer at the rear of the aeroplane produces sufficient nose up (tail down) force to counter the
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.
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 V35B BONANZA |
www.a2asimulations.com |
|
FOR SIMULATION 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 fly.
Here is an actual diagram of the weight and balance enve- lopes 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 specific 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 fly.
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 flown very close or exactly at the aft edge of its weight and balance envelope and NEVER flown 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 off, Bonanza’s CG moves aft.
Accordingly, a well-fuelled Bonanza may have been loaded within its weight and balance envelope at takeoff, however, whilst in flight 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 flight 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 fifth and sixth passenger seats in the rear which if filled 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 specifically and firmly 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 effective method to increase its load capacity and flexibil- ity 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 ear- lier Bonanza models (see envelope diagram above).
■■ The Elevator Downspring
From the first 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 inflation 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 V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
25 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
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 significantly 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 defined 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 flavour of this post-war feeling:
It was into this supercharged, sociologically, historically
No wonder he’s smiling.
26 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
www.a2asimulations.com |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
www.a2asimulations.com |
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
27 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
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 effi- cient cruisers. They get the most out of the power avail-
able 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 flight 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 flown. 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 sufficient 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 effectively lowers the airspeed must be done right now! Closing the throttle is, of course, the first thing to do in such a situation, but that might not be suffi- cient to avoid a tragedy. If you have a speed brake, of course,
28 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
www.a2asimulations.com |
|
FOR SIMULATION 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 flaps 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 flown outside its normal flight enve- lope (i.e., flying 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 fly in what is called “instru- ment flight rules” (IFR) conditions, which are essentially those in which the pilot is unable to see the horizon and is unable to accurately and safely fly the aeroplane without reference to instruments. At this time not even many ex- military pilots had much IFR training or experience and the vast majority of civilian pilots had even less. The IFR navi- gation system, so sophisticated, efficient 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 flight, 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 flight becomes dependant upon the pilot’s abil- ity to fly the aeroplane with sole reference to and reliance upon what instruments may be on the panel. Yes, IFR flying can be done without gyros and learning to do so is a part of
IFR training, but doing this effectively requires professional instruction and lots of practice.
Unless an auto-pilot has been engaged, even a well- trimmed aeroplane will not maintain straight and level flight 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 flight conditions and is considered to be unre- liable as the sole source of heading information during IFR flight. An aeroplane out of true rigging, subtle trim inaccu- racies, 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 fly in IFR conditions.
www.a2asimulations.com
As mentioned, pilots have reported that “V”-tail Bonanzas are very light and sensitive in pitch to the extent that flying 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 flight. Beech designed Bonanza for maximum performance with little to no considerations or compromises for flight by low-time pilots. Whilst Bonanza’s “sportscar-like” – perhaps even
“warbird-like” – flight characteristics may be quite satis- fying 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 flight 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 flight instructors that if a pilot without an instrument rating tries to turn around in IFR conditions to fly back to clear weather he /she is likely to mishandle the turn by not applying sufficient 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 flies into a low -visibility weather con- dition and soon loses sight of the horizon. If not trained to fly 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 flying level, the nose has also begun to drop. As men- tioned, 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 flow 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 flight time, crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off 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
ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS |
29 |
|
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
been delayed by business and did not takeoff from Essex County Airport, near Fairfield, New Jersey to attend the wedding of his cousin Rory Kennedy at Martha’s Vineyard,
Massachusetts until almost sunset. He soon found him- self flying in the dark of the evening in very hazy, humid low-visibility weather, always a perilous flight condition for VFR flying. At some point he apparently lost clear sight and sense of the horizon and became spatially disoriented (see footnote below.) The installed sophisticated three- axis 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 flight and were not considered to be a significant 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 officially 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 acci- dents occurred after the aeroplane had been flown at air- speeds 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 fix was effective and thereafter the number of
Bonanzas which crashed due to tail surface collapse or departure decreased. Recovering to level flight from air- speeds 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 flight without incident.
Piper PA-32R “Saratoga.” This advanced and very high-performance aeroplane was initially called “Piper Lance,” a retractable undercarriage Piper PA-32 Cherokee Six. As this aeroplane evolved it became known as Piper “Saratoga.” Similar to Lance in most ways, Saratoga has a tapered wing, whilst Lance’s wing is Cherokee Six’s un-tapered “Hershey Bar” type.
30 |
A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA |
|
“ALRIGHT, WE GET IT”
Whilst spokespersons for Beech are not known to have actually publicly said this or acknowledged “V” -tail
Bonanza’s deficiencies, Beech cer- tainly 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 intro- duction of the conventional-tail
Model 36 “Bonanza.” The introduc- tion of “Debonair,” a new non-“V”- tail Beech aeroplane, was Beech’s clear invitation to “V”-tail sceptics
www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
Loading...