Cherokee 235 vs Trinidad vs Comanche

Newps wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:

It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe.
Mine is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also
the fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not
have an autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too much
and I paid $88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than $100K.



Do you have a 35? 36?


It's a real Bonanza, a 35.


The one where the tail falls off? :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Newps wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:

It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe.
Mine is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also
the fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not
have an autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too
much and I paid $88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than
$100K.




Do you have a 35? 36?



It's a real Bonanza, a 35.


The one where the tail falls off? :-)



The one that's stressed to a higher G loading than all the rest of the
airplanes here. The tails have only fell off when they have been
painted or otherwise repaired and not balanced properly.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:50:29 -0700, Newps wrote:


The one that's stressed to a higher G loading than all the rest of the
airplanes here. The tails have only fell off when they have been
painted or otherwise repaired and not balanced properly.

So how does the factory cuff (or the Smith stub spar) come into play
then?

TC

Newps wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:

Newps wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:

It's not as bad as the conventional wisdom would have you believe.
Mine is the first year of the big baggage area and engine and also
the fastest of all the normally aspirated models, 1964. I do not
have an autopilot, that's the only thing I miss although not too
much and I paid $88K. You can buy a lot of Bonanza for less than
$100K.





Do you have a 35? 36?




It's a real Bonanza, a 35.


The one where the tail falls off? :-)




The one that's stressed to a higher G loading than all the rest of the
airplanes here. The tails have only fell off when they have been
painted or otherwise repaired and not balanced properly.

I thought Beech came out with a cuff to place around the ruddervators
where they enter the fuselage after finding a particular load condition
that could overstress the tail.

From:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/GENERAL_AVIATION/bonanza/GA10.htm

"The 10,000th Bonanza came off the production line in February 1977, but
five years later, Beech discontinued production of the V-tail Bonanza to
concentrate solely on the straight-tail Bonanza 36. Concerns over the
safety of the V-tail design (and the resultant liability) undoubtedly
played a major role in that decision. Independent studies found that the
V-tail Bonanza had a fatal in-flight failure rate 24 times higher than
the straight-tail version; a possible cause is the greater stress placed
on the V-tail aircraft's tail and fuselage during pitch and yaw
maneuvers than on the straight-tail version."

Matt

Newps wrote:


The one that's stressed to a higher G loading than all the rest of the
airplanes here. The tails have only fell off when they have been
painted or otherwise repaired and not balanced properly.

Then why these problems?

http://bonanza.org/downloads/Dwerlko...l%20Report.pdf

Matt Whiting wrote:
Newps wrote:


The one that's stressed to a higher G loading than all the rest of the
airplanes here. The tails have only fell off when they have been
painted or otherwise repaired and not balanced properly.


Then why these problems?

http://bonanza.org/downloads/Dwerlko...l%20Report.pdf



It's turned out not to be a problem. A few cracks were found on high
time airframes, thus the AD. The same as the AD for the tail of 182's.