Ferrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3 Posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12890 times:
Does anyone know if the Bonanza that broke up in flight and fell on Fort Stewart a few days ago was a straight or a
V-tail? ...The V-tails have a history of in flight failure.
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3262 posts, RR: 33 Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 12803 times:
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12676 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Wasn't there a wing spar issue with T-34s awhile back? Could the Bonanza's spar be susceptible to the same problems?
Ferrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12548 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 3):
Wasn't there a wing spar issue with T-34s awhile back? Could the Bonanza's spar be susceptible to the same problems?
I think that spar issue with T-34's is probably ongoing. And apparently that aircraft is derived from the early V35 Bonanza. Whether or not the main spar in an A36 is common to those earlier designed aircraft I have no idea.
...Actually I've got a few hours on various Beech aircraft and "I have always liked them a lot"
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5932 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12515 times:
I've flown a few retract types, but not a Bonanza.
The thing that can get you into trouble in many of them is the lack of drag-point the nose down with the gear up and in a clean configuration and they tend to build up speed quickly.
Does the Bonanza fit this description?
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12442 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5): Does the Bonanza fit this description?
I've flown the Debonair (cheap, straight-tail Bonanza) and don't remember it being overly slippery....
Ballpeeen From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 77 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12256 times:
The Bonanzas do have the same spar problem that the T-34s do: Overzealous pilots.
Seriously, other than some corrosion on the spar cap from poor water drainage, they are built like brick craphouses. The only cracks I've found were from people doing aerobatics (and doing them poorly).
Ferrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12166 times:
My experience in aviation has been that pilot ability varies enormously, ...quite literally like all the colours in the rainbow. Hotshot born to fly test pilots are at one end of the spectrum and the guys who are accidents waiting to happen are at the other end and there is every kind of variation in between. ...Quite often some of those with the least ability have the most confidence to go flying. So unfortunately there is and always have been plenty of guys around who are going to be in trouble real quick if their autopilots fail on them in IMC. Throw in turbulence and icing ...they will pretty soon be breaking up pulling g in the death spiral and it makes little difference then if their aircraft is a Beech, Cessna or Piper.
I have flown with more than a dozen pilots over the years who have died flying in a dozen different accidents. ...So many and now I am embarrassed to admit that I only just remembered when I read the last post that one of them fell to earth doing aerobatics in a Bonanza.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 12047 times:
The problem with the V-tails was (supposedly) cured by an AD which mandated reinforcing the leading edge of the stabilators; the breakups were caused by the stabilators fluttering and self-destructing, although I have heard anecdotal evidence that the problem has not entirely been cured. Supposedly only later-model V-tails were affected (the early ones were shorter) but I have no authoritative source on that; the AD I believe applies to all. In any case the A36 has always been a straight tail. As to the T-34 issue, the Bonanza is not approved for aerobatics and the T-34 is; the problem with the T-34 was fatigue failure of the spar which should not be an issue if aerobatics are not performed. Even occasional aerobatics should not be an issue; the T-34's that crashed had been used for years doing mock dogfights which stresses everyting way beyond what a normal GA aircraft will experience.
Quoting Ferrypilot (Reply 8): So many and now I am embarrassed to admit that I only just remembered when I read the last post that one of them fell to earth doing aerobatics in a Bonanza.
I doubt that the crash was caused by a spar failure-if it had been, you can be sure that the NTSB would have raised a fuss.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Airfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 12027 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10): I doubt that the crash was caused by a spar failure-if it had been, you can be sure that the NTSB would have raised a fuss.
This is the only entry I could find in the NTSB data base. It sites a loss of situational awareness as the cause of the accident.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 12014 times:
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 11): This is the only entry I could find in the NTSB data base. It sites a loss of situational awareness as the cause of the accident.
Thanks for the report; a very sad tale of a brand new pilot in a brand new plane that apparantly was a little too much for him. I've often said that airplanes are very forgiving, but you run out of that forgiveness very abruptly...
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Jerald01 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 161 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 11942 times:
Quoting Airfoilsguy (Reply 9): Why does the Flightaware site show him arriving if he never made it??
They had a choice: either show him arriving or show him continuing to fly. I don't think their tracking system extends to the hereafter...
"There may be old pilots, and there may be bold pilots, but there are darn few green cows"
Vzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 820 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11890 times:
As far as I remember, all of the V-tail Bonanza breakups occurred outside the approved flight envelope. The leading-edge reinforcement was a relatively simple improvement and provided an increased margin of safety.
I agree completely with SEPilot's take on the T-34 situation.
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11853 times:
Quoting Vzlet (Reply 14): As far as I remember, all of the V-tail Bonanza breakups occurred outside the approved flight envelope. The leading-edge reinforcement was a relatively simple improvement and provided an increased margin of safety.
I don't believe that this is true, and it is demonstrated by the incident that provided the cure. It seems that a V-tail was in the landing pattern when one stabilator started fluttering, but it was so close to landing that it did land safely. The part of the stabilator that was forward of the spar was bent at 90 degrees to the rest; that is what led to the leading edge reinforcement. That it did not completely solve the problem is illustrated by another story I read. In this case a V-tail owner had arranged to sell his plane and was flying it to be inspected by the buyer's mechanic (the reinforcement having already been done on this plane) when he started experiencing severe vibration from the tail. Upon landing the entire rear fuselage was found to be structurally compromised by the vibration, which I think I recall was caused by control surface flutter. The point is that the balance of V-tail control surfaces is extremely critical and can be upset by very small things, such as improper painting.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Dstc47 From Ireland, joined Sep 1999, 1351 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11853 times:
A sad story
If I recall corectly the early V tail Bonanza was once called "the Doctor killer" as they were aircraft often bought by pilots with more money than hours, leading to low time pilots being caught out by the aircraft characteristics, in unexpected flight conditions, particularly the fondness for a fast descent.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 11849 times:
Quoting Dstc47 (Reply 16): If I recall corectly the early V tail Bonanza was once called "the Doctor killer" as they were aircraft often bought by pilots with more money than hours, leading to low time pilots being caught out by the aircraft characteristics, in unexpected flight conditions, particularly the fondness for a fast descent.
Absolutely true, and unfortunately has not changed.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 11743 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10): the Bonanza is not approved for aerobatics
Not that it matters with regard to the crash being discussed, but there was in fact a Bonanza produced that was certified for aerobatics.....the E33C (25 produced) and F33C (five produced). They were certified for just about all inside aerobatic maneuvers including snap rolls and momentary inverted flight.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 11722 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 18): Not that it matters with regard to the crash being discussed, but there was in fact a Bonanza produced that was certified for aerobatics.....the E33C (25 produced) and F33C (five produced).
I did not know that-thanks for the info. These would be V-tails and have lower gross weights than the A36; but it is not really that surprising that Beech would have built them, as the T-34 was fully aerobatic and built on the Bonanza wings and straight tail (the fuselage was different.) Were there weight restrictions on the E33C and F33C when used for aerobatics? I would expect that. I'm not surprised they didn't sell very well; most aerobatic planes have fixed gear, which is probably an advantage, limiting speed buildup in power dives. Also, when these were built I don't think that aerobatics were as popular as they are today.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 10946 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19): Were there weight restrictions on the E33C and F33C when used for aerobatics?
Good question...I'm not sure.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19): Also, when these were built I don't think that aerobatics were as popular as they are today.
1968 through 1970. As for the popularity of aerobatics at the time, you might be right, but I believe Bellanca was selling their Citabrias and Decathlons during that time period, too.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 10808 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 20): As for the popularity of aerobatics at the time, you might be right, but I believe Bellanca was selling their Citabrias and Decathlons during that time period, too.
These are still popular aerobatic planes; those that can afford better usually go for Extras or Yaks, which were not available then. I think at the time the more affluent probably sought out WWII fighters or trainers. I was a teenager then and not attuned to GA at the time, but my perception is that aerobatics is much more popular now. I used to run an airport, and during that time we hosted the first ever aerobatic competition in the area, and it has returned not every year but almost every year since.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Atcgod From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 658 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 10737 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
Does the Bonanza fit this description?
Yes. I've got several hundred hours in the A36 and I can tell you that several times I've been able to take it right to VNE in a slightly nose down position with full throttle and 2500RPM. It's quite easy to do. One time on approach to ABQ the controller told me to speed it up for an incoming 757 and I did the above. At about 2 mile final the controller told me I could pull it back since I was doing 40 knots faster ground speed than the 757. I've got several of those kinds of stories. The new G36 is quite impressive too, even if you've flown the A36.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 10245 times:
Quoting Vzlet (Reply 14): As far as I remember, all of the V-tail Bonanza breakups occurred outside the approved flight envelope.
IIRC, that's why there's just a service bulletin and not an airworthiness directive to apply the reinforcement.
Beech built a remote controlled Bonanza to dive test it and found that they ran out of control authority at 5G's and couldn't pull the tail off.
The Bonanza's are tough places, but you can get them into trouble if you get the nose buried with the gear in the wells.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 9961 times:
Quoting Sllevin (Reply 23): IIRC, that's why there's just a service bulletin and not an airworthiness directive to apply the reinforcement.
I did not realize that it was a service bulletin; I was under the impression that it was an AD.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
25 Ferrypilot: This other Bonanza accident I referred to and where the pilot was well known to me occurred in the U.K. around 17 years ago. He was a very experience
26 Ferrypilot: Regardless of all the above "I love the Bonanza" more than any single piston engine Cessna, Piper or Cirrus.
27 Hmmmm...: That's funny, few would argue they are at opposite ends. One would argue that a hotshot test pilot and an accident waiting to happen are very close t
28 Ferrypilot: Perhaps "hotshot" was an unfortunate choice of a word on my part. ...However, in the past I've sat next to a few British military test pilots and wat
29 SCCutler: The Bonanzas are magnificent aircraft, and will tolerate a great deal of abuse. But they cannot (and will not) save a pilot from his or her stupidity
30 SEPilot: I get your point; "hotshot" conveys a carefree attitude which true professionals abhor. The real test pilot is one who carefully assesses the risks a
31 RayChuang: I think one reason why the Cessna 15x/17x/18x series of generation aviation planes are so well-liked was the plane had excellent, benign recovery char
32 Ferrypilot: I would have to recommend the Cessna 172 and 182 in front of Beech, Piper and Cirrus to inexperienced pilots and especially to those pilots who suspec
33 SEPilot: The C-172 and 182 are certainly the most stable and forgiving light airplanes ever; most of my time is in them, although I have also a fair amount in
Sponsor Message: 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3262 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 1999, 1351 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
