From christophercampbell@NOSPAMhotmail.com Sat Apr 26 20:45:53 2003 Path: newssvr15.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "C J Campbell" Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning Subject: Re: V-tailed Bonanza report Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:56:48 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 51 Xref: newsmst01.news.prodigy.com rec.aviation.owning:126279 Beech for a long time denied that there was any problem with in-flight breakups with the 35, claiming that these losses were due to pilots flying into weather beyond their skill level. Sales plummeted, however. The American Bonanza Society asked the FAA to investigate the problem and eventually the Department of Transportation appointed a panel of experts. These experts decided that the V-tail Bonanzas met certification requirements, but they recommended further testing anyway. Beech sued the FAA and DoT to prevent further testing and tried to suppress the report. The judge ruled that the public interest outweighed their private interest. Beech then threw themselves wholeheartedly into the problem and conducted a series of wind tunnel and flight tests and discovered that the airplane did not meet certification requirements after all. It was possible to overstress the tail while remaining within the legal envelope of the airplane. The FAA issued AD 86-21-07, which effectively (and drastically) lowered Vne until some other fix could be approved. Beech then came out with a tail strengthening kit, purchasing the rights for a virtually identical kit from B&N. This became the "official" fix. Beech and the ABS counseled Bonanza owners to avoid kits by Mike Smith, B&N, and Knots 2 U on the ground that their kits might actually make things worse. The tail strengthening kit is AD 87-20-02. The original 35, A35 and B35 are not covered by this AD, however, even though more than a hundred of these particular models have disintegrated in the air over the years. I did not research these aircraft further, but I seem to recall that there were further ADs in recent years that may have covered the earlier models, imposing speed limits and possibly tail kits for them. An additional problem was found with rudder balance. If the rudder is out of balance at all it will flutter or cause vibration and metal fatigue. The FAA issued a special airworthiness alert to V-tail Bonanza owners with procedures to guard against imbalance. Since 1947 there have been about a dozen cases of airframes damaged in this way. So in sum, there were really two problems. The first problem is the weak tail, which was fixed with a series of ADs. The strengthened tails seem to be holding up well, but the earliest models of Bonanzas which are not covered by these ADs continue to break up in flight. The second problem is rudder flutter caused by improper balancing, especially after painting. This does not appear to have torn any aircraft to pieces, but there are a number of cases of twisted and damaged tails resulting from it. The problems from the rudder appear to be not nearly as common as the inflight breakup caused by the weak tail. My conclusion is that you have nothing to worry about if the tail is strengthened with the factory kit and you follow the procedure to make sure the rudder is balanced. I would also follow maneuvering speed limitations religiously.