Quantcast

Wanted V Tail Bonanza ruddervator control mixer diagram

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Lucrum

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
956
Location
Canton, GA
Anyone have a copy or photo of a 35 Bonanza elevator/rudder flight control mixer diagram from a maintenance or parts catalog maybe they could post or email me?

Thanks
 

Lucrum

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
956
Location
Canton, GA
Thanks Tom, it's a bit small to make out the details but useful non the less.
I should have specified diagrams of any V tail/ruddervator flight control mixers anyway. It doesn't have to be a Bonanza.
 

Vector

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
345
Location
Pacific
Rather than starting another thread, I thought I should revive this old one. What are some design consideration and challenges one should keep in mind. Speed is definitely an attraction but what could I be missing?

Thanks
 

BoKu

Pundit
HBA Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
2,823
Location
Western US
...What are some design consideration and challenges one should keep in mind. Speed is definitely an attraction but what could I be missing?...
I think we're going to need a bit of context before anybody can provide any meaningful information. Are you interested in the tradeoffs between V-tailed and more conventional configurations? Between different mixer arrangements (cable vs push-pull based)?

I can say that there is no particular speed advantage to the V-tail configuration. In terms of static and dynamic stability per unit wetted area, they are pretty much a wash with conventional tails. They might offer a slight advantage in intersection drag, but it can be a challenge to give them good pitch feel without compromising yaw effectiveness.

--Bob K.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
12,513
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
...
I can say that there is no particular speed advantage to the V-tail configuration. In terms of static and dynamic stability per unit wetted area, they are pretty much a wash with conventional tails. They might offer a slight advantage in intersection drag, but it can be a challenge to give them good pitch feel without compromising yaw effectiveness.

--Bob K.
Although I agree with you, I feel obligated to point out the outstanding, clean, classic aesthetics of the HP-18. (Since I'm not flying sailplanes, I am entitled to opt for looks over performance.)


BJC
 

BoKu

Pundit
HBA Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
2,823
Location
Western US
Although I agree with you, I feel obligated to point out the outstanding, clean, classic aesthetics of the HP-18. (Since I'm not flying sailplanes, I am entitled to opt for looks over performance.)
I really liked the HP-18 until I had one of my own. It is indeed a very pretty glider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BJC

Vector

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
345
Location
Pacific
I think we're going to need a bit of context before anybody can provide any meaningful information. Are you interested in the tradeoffs between V-tailed and more conventional configurations? Between different mixer arrangements (cable vs push-pull based)?

I can say that there is no particular speed advantage to the V-tail configuration. In terms of static and dynamic stability per unit wetted area, they are pretty much a wash with conventional tails. They might offer a slight advantage in intersection drag, but it can be a challenge to give them good pitch feel without compromising yaw effectiveness.

--Bob K.
Why would an Experimental homebuilt such as the Sonex/Onex use one if the speed gains aren't appreciable.
 

BoKu

Pundit
HBA Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
2,823
Location
Western US
Why would an Experimental homebuilt such as the Sonex/Onex use one if the speed gains aren't appreciable.
Let's be clear here, unless you're adding horsepower, speed comes from drag reduction. Drag comes from parasitic things like intersections and protuberances, is also an inescapable cost of producing lift (induced drag) and is an equally inescapable cost of maintaining stability (trim drag).

V-tails are pretty much dead even with conventional tails in terms of drag per unit effectiveness. When you size a V-tail so that it has the same effectiveness as it's conventional equivalent, you almost always end up with a tail that has the same wetted area, the same induced drag, and near enough the same parasitic drag as makes no difference. In my experience, when you analyze V-tailed aircraft that have lower than expected overall drag, you usually find that it comes at the expense of static stability, with commensurate increases in pilot workload.

From the perspective of one who's actually made and sold V-tail kits, the real benefit of V-tails pretty much comes down to two words: parts count. If you treat each half of the horizontal stabilizer as a separate surface (not universally valid, but close enough), the V-tail gives you one less surface to kit out, and gives the builder one less surface between starting and done. And in a market where tail kits are often the gateway lure, that can be big.

Whenever you want to see what a low-drag aircraft looks like, have a look at modern racing sailplanes. What you see is that even contest-optimized sailplanes like the Diana and the Duckhawk, sailplanes that trade a bit of operationality for that last quarter-percent of performance, have conventional T- or cruciform tails, not V-tails.

--Bob K.
 

Vector

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
345
Location
Pacific
Let's be clear here, unless you're adding horsepower, speed comes from drag reduction. Drag comes from parasitic things like intersections and protuberances, is also an inescapable cost of producing lift (induced drag) and is an equally inescapable cost of maintaining stability (trim drag).

V-tails are pretty much dead even with conventional tails in terms of drag per unit effectiveness. When you size a V-tail so that it has the same effectiveness as it's conventional equivalent, you almost always end up with a tail that has the same wetted area, the same induced drag, and near enough the same parasitic drag as makes no difference. In my experience, when you analyze V-tailed aircraft that have lower than expected overall drag, you usually find that it comes at the expense of static stability, with commensurate increases in pilot workload.

From the perspective of one who's actually made and sold V-tail kits, the real benefit of V-tails pretty much comes down to two words: parts count. If you treat each half of the horizontal stabilizer as a separate surface (not universally valid, but close enough), the V-tail gives you one less surface to kit out, and gives the builder one less surface between starting and done. And in a market where tail kits are often the gateway lure, that can be big.

Whenever you want to see what a low-drag aircraft looks like, have a look at modern racing sailplanes. What you see is that even contest-optimized sailplanes like the Diana and the Duckhawk, sailplanes that trade a bit of operationality for that last quarter-percent of performance, have conventional T- or cruciform tails, not V-tails.

--Bob K.
What about in the case of Scaled Composite V-Jett II or the new Cirrus Jet. Could it be that engine placement constrict options? In both instances, a single engine was used. Not arguing with you but trying to understand the decision making of a potential aircraft manufacturer.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
14,176
Location
Memphis, TN
V tail on the Cirrus jet made the fuselage 100 times simpler to make. No long engine ducts and no structure that had to miss an engine. It looks cool.
 

BoKu

Pundit
HBA Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
2,823
Location
Western US
What about in the case of Scaled Composite V-Jett II or the new Cirrus Jet. Could it be that engine placement constrict options? In both instances, a single engine was used. Not arguing with you but trying to understand the decision making of a potential aircraft manufacturer.
V tail on the Cirrus jet made the fuselage 100 times simpler to make. No long engine ducts and no structure that had to miss an engine. It looks cool.
Yeah, good point. In some cases packaging constraints make the V-tail the more effective option.

As for the V-jet, I don't know why they used a V-tail. It appears to combine the suboptimal access of buried engines with the structural awkwardness of ring spars required to react bending moment around each engine, and then tops it off with a generous helping of intersection drag. At a guess, I'd say they did it that way because they could, and because the Williams guys footing the bills (with Uncle Sam's help) thought it looked awesome radical way kewl.

Oh, yeah, there are also sometimes observability issues, as on the F117. But that's on a way smaller wavelength.

--Bob K.
 
Last edited:

Vector

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
345
Location
Pacific
Back again. Could the Long Eze be fitted with a ruddervator to overcome some of its short field characteristics thereby improving performance. Most things are possible but what is the problem with this thinking? For example, doing away with the canard but implementing a flap system along with the belly board could allow the wing itself to be reduced in span thereby increasing cruise speeds. While the canard has been successful, rethinking the pusher configuration is welcomed I think.
 
Top