Would the runaway engine have come close? I don't recall enough of the details.

Or, it has a higher aspect ratio.

You keep talking about how big the tail members are, but your image was a rear view. Look at them from the side. They aren't very wide. I'd say that both the tail members and the wing are pretty high aspect.

Using the chock as a reference, and assuming it's 3" wide (about the average), we get the following:

Chock: 51 px - 3"
Tail Base: 471 px - 27"
Tail Top: 276 px - 16"

but look how long they are! since they are angled you cant use your 3 inch reference but the look half as long as the wing, maybe even longer!

I'd be glad to help you out Mike.

In return, I'll ask you work on communicating respectfully with the rest of us BTrs. I'm not sure its intentional, but you don't come across very cleanly. We have a great group here....for a reason. Let's keep it that way.

To the yaw issue, Barry Schiff did a test and wrote an article in the early '80s (Bonanza Besieged? iirc) where he fitted 33/35/36 models with accelerometers. While the test showed the 33 was slightly better than the other two models on paper (yes, better than the 36), he noted that the difference between the 33 and 35 was imperceptible from the pilot seat.

Best,

Why do I get PMs and posts every time I encourage respect with Mike?

It's like the guy needs a PR team.

One example is posting Crandall's flight aware. That is specifically mentioned in the terms of service as a violation of member's privacy. I don't want him posting my stuff either.

I'm not the hall monitor here, but I do not want to see BT deteriorate. I can't stand the BS at the other forums and I've been spoiled by BT.

What's wrong with communicating respectfully?

Best,

I'll be the first to say Mike is a really sharp, technical guy. I would also like to be able to say I'd be willing to go have a beer with him.

Maybe he is just misunderstood.....

:D

I don't disagree. I love BT too. I missed the flight aware posting. Good call!

That NACA report is awesome, thanks for finding that!


That's it... if the V-tail really did create more drag, they'd have said so.

Basically, if you read that report, it says that V-tail or convention is about equal except for the case of high aspect ratio V-tails, which can be lower drag.

I think I found a scan of its text here:

http://bonanza.org/documents/AOPA%20ASF%20Bonanza%20Debonair%20Safety%20Review%20(compressed).pdf

PDF page 203. Contains a few OCR errors, but workable.


He doesn't mention accelerometers that I could find, nor performing any testing on his own. Perhaps I missed that.

He does confirm the V tail isn't as stable in yaw:

Independent flight-test data and Beech's stability calculations confirm that the Model 35 (V-tail) has 93 percent as much directional stability as the Model 33 (straight tail).

His article was mostly about in flight breakups which is an entirely different aspect of the 35 and not really an intrinsic issue with being a V tail per se.


He said it was "subtle".

It does manifest itself in certain ways, for example, he said:

It does, however, Dutch roll in turbulence more than most other general aviation airplanes (a yaw/roll oscillation consisting mostly of yaw). This trait may influence ride quality and pilot work load in turbulence but has no bearing on safety.

I expect reducing the 33 tail to 93% of what it is would also be subtle, particularly to a pilot not trained how to observe stability like a test pilot.

Tail sizing is a very fungible parameter, it is like adjusting the suspension on a car. If you want equal ride quality, you need equal tail area.

Mike C.

That's it... if the V-tail really did create more drag, they'd have said so.

Basically, if you read that report, it says that V-tail or convention is about equal except for the case of high aspect ratio V-tails, which can be lower drag.

Mike,

I consider myself somewhat in tune with the planes I fly. I would not venture to say I could perceive less than 1/10th difference in yaw.

I can tell you that a V35b with a properly functioning yaw damper is extremely stable in yaw. It is more stable than a 58 without a properly functioning yaw damper.

How much time do you have in Vtails Mike? Other Beech?

They all have similar flying characteristics, including the boogie. They make up for it in many other ways.

Unfortunately I cannot quantify them for you. That is to say, you've just got to fly them.

If you ever lose interest in this thread you should do a write up on owning, operating, and flying your Mits.

I understand you were part of an AMOC as well. Let's hear about it.

Best,

The runaway engine incident at KMDW was a likely fatal accident averted by a very cool headed pilot.

Eclipse provided a "safety feature" to their throttle system such that if the position sensor on one throttle lever failed, you could control BOTH engines with the ONE remaining good throttle lever. It worked by detecting if a throttle sensor was out of valid range, and if so, use the other throttle position sensor to control that engine. So, say, the RIGHT throttle sensor goes bad, then the right engine would be throttled by the LEFT throttle lever. Once a sensor is deemed bad, then it locks out.

Gee, what could go wrong with that?

At KMDW, a pro pilot trained on other jets experienced a microburst. Training says FULL POWER. Due to the "flexible" throttle quadrant, he managed to push the lever just a little bit TOO FAR and the FADECs both thought the throttle lever was out of range. This is a case of the computer geek setting the parameter tolerance too close plus the flimsy mechanical arrangement.

Now BOTH engine FADECs said "use the other throttle". This resulted in BOTH engines being at full power, the last valid power position. BOTH engines no longer respond to throttle lever inputs.

They touch down on the runway and they can't stop, blowing out the tires trying. KMDW is not very long. In a brilliant and amazing move, the pilot decides to take off again and gets airborne. The engines are still under full power and he can't control them.

After he levels off, he soon gets an overspeed warning. It is common for turbine airplanes to be able to exceed Vmo at 100% power at low altitude. He either has to climb (into IMC) or do something else, so he decides to shut down ONE engine. Essentially, that was the only "throttle" he had.

As soon as he shuts down that engine, the FADEC on that engine releases control and then the remaining operating engine rolls back to flight idle. Now he went from FULL power to NO power with one engine shutdown and the other at flight idle. He has become a glider. He manages to glide the airplane back to KMDW (not a particularly big target, mind you) and land, safely, with no injuries.

The pilot of that Eclipse gets a medal in my book. Stick 100 pilots in that situation unannounced and I think 90 of them end up in a fireball in the LOC antenna array. By comparison, Sully in the Hudson was almost trivial.

This episode is illustrative of how well intentioned "safety" things can go awry and cause more problems than they solve. Be particular aware of any place a computer is making decisions for you, especially if cross connected with another system. Computers are lousy at detecting insane inputs and even when you try to teach them, they can get it wrong as in this case.

There was an emergency AD. A comical temporary fix was taping some blocks on the throttle console to prevent pushing the levers too far. The final fix was a software update.

Would a chute have made a difference? Not on the initial part where they were on the ground, obviously. When he got the overspeed, you are probably far outside the chute envelope, so no good there, either. When he became a glider would be the moment, I suppose.

Mike C.

That's precisely the definition of high aspect ratio. Long and not very wide.

If it created more drag, they would have said that. They didn't. They said it "would tend to require increased weight". Engineering papers are nice in that there are usually no hidden elements. No extrapolation is required. If an effect exists, they'll tell you.