beasly
Well-Known Member
Ignoramous neophyte question here, what do you call those "doo-hickeys" on the end of the horizontal stabilizers?
Also, I agree--that is a sweet looking a.c.
Cordially,
b.
"Vee" Tail Bonanza?
- Thread starter clayfenderstrat
- Start date
Ignoramous neophyte question here, what do you call those "doo-hickeys" on the end of the horizontal stabilizers?
Also, I agree--that is a sweet looking a.c.
Cordially,
b.
beasly
Well-Known Member
As for Mooney's, I have always liked those. I also like almost all Al Mooney work from Bellanca, through Monocoupe, to Culver, to Mooney.
I have always thought that I would like to have a Mite. It would be an awesome and cheap commuter to get me between KC-Springfield-Jefferson City - St. Louis - Columbia - KC which is a route I currently do every couple months by car.
120-130 MPH on 4 gallons per hour and 900 FPM climb. Not bad for 65 horsepower.
Holy Flirking Snit!
What's up with that stabilator? is it hinged at aft? Is it a stabilator?
That is a beautiful machine, Waco, thx.
b.
WacoFan
Bigly
No - it is an elevator with the stick apparently tied back with the seat-belt.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Some old Mooneys move the whole tailfeather (horiz. stab, vert. stab, and tail cone) assembly to accomplish pitch trim.
beasly
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the advice. I sincerely appreciate it.
Beasly is ultra-conservative to the point of ridicule sometimes, but relishes doing it right. "Doing it right" also entails taking a V-Tail, cross controll stalling it, getting inverted, recovering and all the while explaining to my student what is going on. Now, if I only had the cash to do this, I would be on it like a j.c. forum poster on a cheerleader pic or Waco on a Bellanca.
Please translate "my buddies who fly RV....that you are boned while stalling in a -6"
Cordially,
b.
beasly
Well-Known Member
EDIT: DISREGARD....BELOW ASSININE POST.
I am confused. I thought an elevator was the moveable control surface on the trailing edge of the fixed horizontal stabilizer while a stabilator is a combo of the two in one airfoil where the entire assembly pivots. I googled it (and the first reference, btw, was a J.C link !!). and I don't see it.
Sincerely,
b.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Thanks for the advice. I sincerely appreciate it.
Beasly is ultra-conservative to the point of ridicule sometimes, but relishes doing it right. "Doing it right" also entails taking a V-Tail, cross controll stalling it, getting inverted, recovering and all the while explaining to my student what is going on. Now, if I only had the cash to do this, I would be on it like a j.c. forum poster on a cheerleader pic or Waco on a Bellanca.
Please translate "my buddies who fly RV....that you are boned while stalling in a -6"
Cordially,
b.
Ah, just to be clear, I missed the whole sarcasm thing.
Anyway, I don't fly the RV's or anything, but the RV guys say it can go flat on you in a spin and they compare it to mooney's or the Tramahawk. Get the nose down early so it doesn't happen in other words.
beasly
Well-Known Member
Sorry about that, my sense of humor is not for everyone and I go over the top on it too often.
Seriously,
What is a RV? I assume "boned" is dead. I don't know what "-6" refers too.
Thanks for your patience.
b.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
The RV-6. It is a really popular experimental. At one time I know there were more of those flying than any other experimental.
beasly
Well-Known Member
The RV-6. It is a really popular experimental. At one time I know there were more of those flying than any other experimental.
Thank you!
and the "-6" part?
Sincerely,
b.
EDIT: Disgregard---the -6 is part of the RV.
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
I'd imagine you could call them vertical stabilizers. Not sure if there is a more technical term for them, but I'd imagine the above would suffice. I never understood why they did it on the 14-19-2. I understand the logic behind the triple vertical stabilizer on the Lockheed Constellation, but not on the Bellanca.
WacoFan
Bigly
If you look at the picture closely, you can see the horizontal stab, and the part that is upturned is the elevator. Somewhat hard to see in the picture because of the red color and how it blends. Mooneys have never had "stabilitors" ala Pipers and Cessna 177's.
Now, to address the other posts - Mooney's, rather than having trim-tabs have "all flying tails" meaning that the entire tail moves with trim changes - even the vertical portion will go fore and aft.
Now, Waco's for example don't have trim tab's - they have the entire horizontal stabilizer move. Mooney's take this a step further and move the entire tail. I am not sure what model of Mooney this started on - I believe the M20 series - I do not think the Mooney Mite had an all flying tail. The Mite's claim to fame was 2 MPH per horsepower (65hp - 130MPH) making it the most efficient airplane in the world. Here is from an interweb thing I found:
My best guess is that the Guiseppe Bellanca was a pretty robust engineer and his airplanes were exceptional. Everyone raves about the flying qualities of the Bellanca, and I would imagine that Bellanca wanted a certain amount of tail area for stability/handling reasons. When the Viking was created they simply added the surface area of the tail-tips into the larger vertical stab - giving the tail the same area as it had with the two tail-tips. Now, another guess is that with the Cruiseair's and Cruisemasters being taildraggers, Bellanca may have thought that was a good way to add vertical tail surface without increasing the "billboard effect" that the Viking tail would present - the smaller profile would perhaps create less surface area for a crosswind to act upon (a good thing in a taildragger), yet also give the desired surface area for stability/handling. This is a wild ass guess on my part. Here is a good article about Bellanca's.
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepBellancaCruisair.html
You got it. I actually posted an entire scenario to this if you care to read. Really consider each of the questions and give a simple, but detailed, answer to each. It should help you see how this unfolds into a real deadly situation, in any aircraft, not just the bonanza. Of course high performance A/C are more susceptible than your average trainer.
Here: http://forums.jetcareers.com/1356909-post8.html
EDIT: FWIW, the higher performance a/c tend to have an elliptical (is this the right word aero gurus?), or rounded wing-tipped, wings as apposed to a square wing. Their stall propagation is leading edge to trailing edge versus inboard leading edge to outboard trailing edge. Meaning, a higher performance aircraft will loose aileron authority sooner and the act of using ailerons near stall is much more likely to further stall the wing, giving negative, instead of positive control. IE Turn right near stall, left wing becomes further stalled. Result: Wing drops left. Reaction, turn more right...see the problem?
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Climbing too fast is an indicator of too much wing area to my way of thinking. If you want to climb fast, get on an elevator. If you want to GO fast, get in an airplane with a sensible amount of wing area. This is amongst, albeit by no means exhaustive of, my complaints with flying the 99. Thing climbs like a raped ape, but in cruise it's A)slow and B)bouncy, due to an unnecessarily large amount of wing bolted to it.
Also: Coming from a family of heirloom woodworkers, the notion of entrusting my life to wood that has been covered and ignored for decades on end gives me the Howling Fantods. Nothing wrong with wood, God love it, but it ain't metal, and can't be treated as such.
I got within a genital hair's breadth of buying a Mite back in the day, in spite of my wooden reservations, if you'll pardon the term. What an awesome airplane. If beauty is efficiency in an airplane, the Mite is a very petite "10". A "spinner", if you will. Wound up with an AA-1 Yankee, which, to be fair, had its own attendant confidence problems, except those involved Glue instead of Wood. All hail the oddballs.
beasly
Well-Known Member
Thx Shdw.
Should I disallow my working assumption that all this is manageable and teachable with altitude? i.e. x-control stall a v-tail bonanza on base to final == your dead. x-control stall a v-tail bonanza at 6K its a training exercise ? ???or dead?
From reading and learning from this (baby seal clubbing) forum I am thinking I have been working in "trainer land" and things are much more interesting than I have been led to believe.
Cordally
b
WacoFan
Bigly
I think that the Bellanca article I posted states that Bellanca's have had far fewer wing failures than Bonanza's - it would be interesting to find a per-capita answer for wing failures of the Bellanca's vs. Bo's and for the Money M20A's vs. Bo's. My guess is that Bellanca's will win. Now, you bring up an exceptional point - the wood structure, then covered with the thin plywood veneer and then fabric makes it exceptionally hard to see "inside" the wing. Howard DGA's had a wing like that too - the internals were covered with a thin plywood veneer, giving an incredibly smooth surface, but you really couldn't see what was going on inside the wing. Also, it is a trick to build wings such as this - the veneer part is difficult to apply. Current price for newly built Howard wings (as of about two weeks ago when I checked) was $15k per wing. I think this is money well spent in evaluating a Howard project (I was/am) and I immediately tacked this onto the price I have floating in my head. Hanger is exceptionally important.
I am not sure that the Bellanca has too much wing - they are much better short field airplanes than Bo's. You like airplanes with no wing at all...simply "nacelle holders" ala the MU2.
As for the mite - they made one called an M-19 that had a thirty-caliber machine gun in each wing for a COIN aircraft. I do believe a Mite with machine guns would be a wet dream.
Tld
Waffles Brah.
+1...nuff said. im suprised that this comment isnt where the thread stopped....cause it's the be all, end all.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
I appeal to your love of the GeeBee, my friend. What is an airplane but a contrivance committed to the notion of going way faster than one has any right to go? If you're slinging 65hp, by all means, buy a Cub. But when you start burning more gas than is by any measure "sensible", you might as well be going far faster than prudence dictates, or you're just wasting dead dinosaurs. I realize that I'm outtting myself as not the perfect Purist by saying so, but anything over 100hp that doesn't have an absurdly high stall speed/wing loading leaves me...flacid. I should add, just in the spirit of being contentious, that the marvel of aeronautical engineering that is the MU-2 achieves ludicrously low landing distance numbers not through bolting a barn door to the fuselage, but through the ingenious use of high lift devices (in this case, full span flowler flaps) and ridiculously strudy gear (and God's gift to the turbine...reverse). I am nothing if not a lover of Tradition, but Tradition is Beautiful because Tradition is Elegant. There is nothing more Elegant than passing airliners on the downwind and landing in 500ft. This applies equally to less exalted metal. Let us not fall in to the all too common trap of NIH (Not Inveted Here) and give full props to the Nips for showing us the way to Have It All. Not to say, btw, that I wouldn't accept a ride in your riced out Waco when our book hits the best-seller list. I will, with pleasure. But a little perspective is key.
At least here is something we can all agree on. Aircraft held together with baling wire and a prayer but still packing a middle finger to point back at the insurgents? God Bless. It's a little bit Zero-San for my personal safety's liking, but I can't help but appreciate the notion.
In summary, if you aren't going faster than your more matronly peers deem wise, you're Doing It Wrong.
I cannot personally attest to this as I have not flown a bonanza. Nor have I ever performed this maneuver in anything not certified for spins and not in the utility category. Maybe we have someone here that can speak in more detail on the characteristics of non spin certified, or normal category, complex aircraft with this maneuver.
However, to my knowledge, bonanza's, are normal category. As per the normal category certification they must demonstrate a recovery (by a test pilot mind you) from a one turn incipient spin.
A cross controlled stall, skidding, performed properly, that is, to its worst (since this is a demo, the worst is your goal), will toss you inverted and a half a turn into your 1 turn. Recover quickly enough and you can demo it. Would I do it without sufficient practice, probably with a test pilot or a highly capable aviator first, no way in hell.
FYI I am talking 20-30 of these with a highly capably instructor/test pilot and another 20-30 solo. You really want to know your bird in this sort of case and you should fly it as a demo. Letting the student do it in an advanced bird like this, without 100s+ entries yourself and more special training, is suicide IMO.
In a trainer/aerobat, in utility category, as long as it isn't certified 'no spins,' have at it. It is a wonderful experience and really hammers home the "don't skid base to final" lecture provided in that link I gave you. The 'utility-no spin' certification has the same requirement as a normal category certification, recovery from a 1 turn incipient.
If you get past 1 turn, in a norma/utility (no spins) certificated aircraft, you are now mr beasly the super test pilot.
