What was wrong with V-tail Bonanza pilots?

V tail Bonanza ad

The Beech ad promises businessmen can "just step in and fly."

I sort of stirred up a hornet’s nest with a recent post about Cirrus airplanes and Cirrus pilots. A few commenters compared the discussion with ones about the Beech V-tail (Model 35) Bonanzas a long time ago. That airplane was actually referred to by many as the “V-tail doctor killer” back in its heyday. If anything, the V-tail Bonanza was even more controversial than the Cirrus is today. As with the Cirrus, the problem was more with pilots than with the airplane.

When the Bonanza came out in 1947, it was unlike anything else. It was aerodynamically clean and the very first ones would cruise 175 mph with a 165-horsepower engine. That speed came at 10,000 feet where the engine would develop but 115 horsepower.

The cabin was roomy and comfortable for four and the baggage compartment was spacious.

The initial price of the Bonanza was $7,345 and as production was beginning, Beech projected a production rate of ten airplanes a day. It was marketed as a business airplane.

The V-tail evolved from the 35 through most letters of the alphabet (A35, B35 and so on) to the V35B, the last one built in 1982. A total of 10,403 were built. They didn’t quite make the 10 a day production as the first 12 months saw 1,209 airplanes roll off the line. That is still pretty robust production.

I flew every model of the V-tail built and despite some controversy about the structure of the airplane, I felt comfortable flying them all. They did have early wing and center section problems with the 35 but that was made right and, starting with the A35, there we no further real problems except for one thing: The airplane had a high incidence of in-flight structural failures.

In virtually all the structure-related accidents the airplane was flown outside the envelope. Often as not this was the result of the pilot losing control. The airplane had light and delightful control forces and while it was stable in pitch it was less so in roll. If a pilot was going to hand-fly in clouds he had to be both good and attentive. Left to its own devices, a V-tail would be in a spiral dive in a heartbeat. A VFR pilot in clouds was almost autodead.

Bonanza pilots were either veterans or made up of a population much like today’s Cirrus pilots. The ex-military pilots were almost all bomber or transport pilots. I guess most fighter pilots wanted to just put the risks of flying behind them.

That means that most Bonanza pilots were not used to such a clean airplane that was not stable in roll. Unlike the Cirrus, not much early Bonanza flying was IFR. It could be done but the system was pretty crude in the years after the war and there was little capacity.

Not many of the ex-military pilots had instrument ratings as they were issued only to a limited number based on military experience. Even fewer civilian pilots had instrument ratings. So in the beginning, most Bonanza operations were VFR.

The Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association shows the overall Cirrus fatal accident rate to be 1.63 per 100,000 flight hours. I calculated a slightly lower rate and their number and mine are close enough together to validate the methodology in both cases.

If you are holding your breath waiting for me to tell you the early Bonanza flying was a blood bath by comparison, wait no longer. As calculated by both Beech and the CAA, (forerunner of the FAA) the Model 35 fatal accident rate was, through 1952, 4.90 per 100,000 hours. The Models A35, B35 and C35 were at 2.50. By comparison, the Cessna 195 was about 2.0 and the Beech 18 twin was lowest at .80.

Beech Bonanza model 35

The "V-tail doctor killer" in flight over Oshkosh.

In later years the V-tails had comparable accident rates to other high-performance singles, including its Model 33 and 36 siblings with regular tails. There was a self-serving faction in general aviation, though, that went on a crusade to demonize the V-tail because of the in-flight structural failures.

Grist for the mill was the fact that Bonanzas with regular tails seldom had structural failures. They did have just as many loss of control accidents. The difference was they were in one piece a millisecond before becoming thousands of pieces after a collision with the ground. The V-tails didn’t make it to the ground in one piece,

Investigators did find a common thread in V-tail accidents. Effective with the C35, the chord of the tail surfaces was increased by seven inches but the internal structure remained the same. As a result, the tail stabilizer is extended to 16 inches ahead of the spar on C35 and later airplanes.

In the 35, A35 and B35 the airframe failures were usually a result if the wings failing first. From the C35 on, the first failure was usually of the tail with the wings next failing in a downward direction.

It was determined from wreckage that when the airplane was operated in excess of the never exceed speed, the unsecured leading edge of the stabilizer would fail first, in an up or down direction. Even though the airplane met the certification standards, it was determined that anchoring the leading edge of the stabilizer to the fuselage at the root would minimize this and give the pilot a little extra time to recover from an overspeed condition.

There is probably a slightly smaller percentage of high speed loss of control accidents in the Cirrus but when there is a loss of control, the airplane is in the same jeopardy as a Bonanza because the airframe parachute recovery system doesn’t work at high speed. The Cirrus probably isn’t as aerodynamically clean unless, that is, it can cruise at 175 miles per hour on ten gallons of fuel per hour.

Piper PA-32 and Cessna 210 airplanes have airframe failure rates similar to the V-tail Bonanza, always when they are operated outside the envelope.

About three-fourths of the V-tail Bonanzas are almost 50 years old or older so they don’t fly much now. They are more objet d’art than they are serious transportation machines. There are not good enough numbers to calculate a remotely accurate accident rate on the older Bonanzas today. It is probably safe to say that they do reasonably well because pilots don’t push hard in them to complete missions.

Pilots loved their Bonanzas, too, but in a somewhat different way from Cirrus pilots today. As the controversies raged about weak wings and failing tails and unfortunate accident rates, most Bonanza pilots couldn’t care less. They knew they were flying the fastest and sexiest single out there and I guess they figured that its detractors were just jealous. Fly on.

TAGS: , ,

37 Comments

  1. Ben Conley says:

    I flew a ’48 V35 for many years, the absolute greatest airplane I have ever owned or flown… the best of the best. From T-crafts to 172′s to Bonanza’s… I am a VFR private… that is it, no IFR, or any other ratings… loved that airplane.

  2. Peter says:

    Hmmmmm, I was the proud owner of a 1964 S model, a beautiful jewel of a very efficient travel machine. I really, really loved this wonderful flying machine. True, not for a novice pilot but in the hands of someone who took their flying seriously, it was a joy to fly, both VFR and solid IFR. I do agree, keep it within the operating envelope. Wish I still had it, put in over 2,000 hours

  3. John says:

    What a great ad. it says landing speed 46 mph..ha! love it!

  4. Larry Slade says:

    Why was the Beech 18 so safe? That’s a good number today and they were flown in weather for serious transportation with no radar, no satellite , and many places in 1952 no ILS.

    • OldBob Siegfried says:

      Good Morning Larry,

      That is an easy one. Most Model 18s were flown by professional pilots that flew them IFR when IFR was the better way to go!

      The “Forked Tail Doctor Killer” was generally owned by a good guy who had a lot of money and didn’t learn to fly IFR early enough in his or her career.

      For what it is worth, I bought my first Bonsanza in 1954 (Seven years old and considered to be an antique at the time, but it was all I could afford)and I flew it IFR whenever needed.

      It was not equipped with an artificial horizon, but it did nhave a directional gyro in addition to the factory stock needle ball, airspeed and altimeter. At that time, the directinal gyro and artificial horizon were not required for IFR flight. There were no autopilots available either, but we also did not have to talk to the FEDs all that often. The Bonanza has always been a dream of an instrument platform. When the FEDs decreed in 1956 that we had to have a “full” panel to fly IFR. it made it even easier!

      Happy Skies,

      Old Bob

  5. Sage T says:

    Attitude is the difference, there is this strange thing that happens to people when they get more performance from something. Drivers go faster, turn harder and stop quicker when they trade in the Impala for a Camaro. Pilots are no different, when we can go faster, haul more, and shed some ice we have to try it even if our skills are not ready. Strap a parachute on the plane and there is nothing that can stop us from pushing the envelope, right?

    We are not invincible, bad things can and will happen. The POH and FAA are there for a reason. Bad weather can’t last for ever, the search party will almost always find a crash when it is sunny. Weigh the risks, how many options will you have when things go wrong? Indecision and ignorance are the cause of most pilot error.

  6. Edouard says:

    Thank you Mr. Collins for always speaking the truth about the Bonanza. My family has own the same one since its inception in December 1950 (B35) and I love flying it. It is very much in its original shape except for the painting. A lot was wrong with Bonanza drivers but people do not accept the fact that they are less than perfect. Unfortunately this process will only increase with governments taken away people responsibilities. Pilots have to accept the fact that flying is unique and with this come risks and responsibilities. If they or their family don’t accept, than they should not fly.

  7. Russ says:

    I am a 500 hour instrument rated pilot, who currently flys a 1964 S model, after flying a 182. The 182 could haul alot, but,oh, the speed of the Bonanza! My Bonanza does not have an autopilot, and I’ve been in hard IFR twice, once with moderate turbulence and a little ice. I have to say, I was a little worried, trying to keep it right side up.

    Richard’s article was spot on. We all know pilot error causes the lions share of accidents. The hard part it, as we all know, is how to get experience and judgment without testing the boundaries. Testing the boundaries causes accidents sometimes. I know there is no magic bullet. Flying regurlary certainly is very important.

    I covet a Cirrus, but can see how having the chute could pull pilots in to places we should not be.

  8. Steve Mott says:

    Validates the adage: “Truly superior pilots are those who use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.” It’s on my iPad kneeboard as a constant reminder to me that good judgment is always ‘trumps’.

  9. Les Wallen says:

    I have flown 300hrs in a 1967 V Tail Bonanza, mainly through the outback of Australia. That aeroplane and me “became one”. I would confidently put it into a 450 metre bush airstrip and know it would stay where I put it. It was fast – 5Kts faster than my current A36.
    It was fully IFR equipped and never let me down. Wonderful aircraft.

    Les

  10. Lee Fitzpatrick says:

    I have 800 recent hours in a 1977 V35B – flown all over Australia. Lots of “bush” flying and lots of IFR. I have plenty of time in other high performance singles like the C210 and M20, but I just loved flying that V-tail.

    Lee

  11. John says:

    I don’t know what you mean about not flying much anymore I fly my s35 several hundred hrs a year all over the country ifr and VFR. I think cirus is suffering the same stuff the bonanzas used to suffer, pilots with a lot of money wanting the latest and greatest and they aren’t skilled enough. They take a lot for granted, parachutes and state of the art gizmos. Doesn’t help with out solid stick and rudder skills. Fly anything outside of the envelope and your gonna get in trouble.

  12. OldBob Siegfried says:

    Good Morning Richard I do agree that the E Series engine powered Bonanzas need to be in the hands of folks who love the machine as it takes a lot of scrounging to find parts for that engine and propellor, but from the H35 on we can drop in the very modern IO-550-B with any of many currently available propellors. The early airplanes are still the most delightful to fly, but the post 1956 airplanes can be used as every day transportation just as efficiently as can the new Cirrus.

    My old 1978 clunker will cruise right with a Cirrus on the same fuel flow and will carry at least one more passenger legally. The Cirri are great, but the good old Bo is yet to be beat.

    Within the last year, I have flown my V35B Bonanza nonstop from Palo Alto to Chicago twice and our son just returned from the west coast last week flying his S35. He reports they could have made it non stop, but a comfort stop was needed!

    Happy Skies

  13. OldBob Siegfried says:

    Good Morning Again Richard,

    Guess it is a slow day, but would like to comment on the photo you show of the Bonanza flying over Oshkosh.

    That airplane belongs to Wayne Collins. He is a business man from Texas who bought the airplane new in 1976. He has flown it around the world several times and often flys it to Australia to visit a son who lives there. He does have a set of the large Texas Tips (formerly known as Dolly Parton Tip Tanks) which he installs for those trips.

    Wayne is also the fellow who originally organized and led the group who fly to Oshkosh together as the B2OSH flight.

    Great guy with a great airplane!

    Happy Skies,

    Old Bob

  14. Brent Silver says:

    Still absolving Beech of any blame for the V-tail Bonanza inflight airframe failures, eh, Dick?

    Perhaps you have forgotten the Beech tests that led to the emergency airworthiness directive on the tail. That A.D. came out precisely because the V-tail did not meet FAR 23. The problem arose because Beech had not considered the torsion loading case when they extended the leading edge of the stabilizer. Under unusual conditions of high angle of attack on the tail, plus large control deflections of the ruddervators, the V-tail could then fail, not only within the design envelope, but (I believe) at less than maneuvering speed (!).

    Since the A.D. (and Beech stabilizer cuff) the rate of inflight airframe failures has been greatly reduced for the (long-chord) V-tail Bonanzas. (There remain some structural problems with pre-C-model Bonanzas that have never been adequately addressed, in my opinion.)

    I have carefully reviewed hundreds of accident reports on V-tail failures, and in most cases, it was not obvious whether the pilot lost control (as you assert) first, or whether the tail failed first (and then control was certainly lost). How can you say with such confidence that those accidents were pilot error?

    It’s so easy to blame a dead pilot. If they could speak though, I suspect that many would have a different explanation.

    Nice airplane, the Bonanza. I enjoyed flying it for several years. But it did have a structural flaw that Beech denied for decades — while people died. I tried for a long time to get it fixed, but was stymied by an unresponsive NTSB, an FAA apparently intimidated by Beech, and a manufacturer in total denial that there could possibly be a flaw in their beloved product (even though they had investigated hundreds of V-tail inflight failures). Eventually, however, I and some others (none “self-serving” as far as I know) got the problem addressed. Beech was required to perform tests and the airplane, as I understand it, would have failed those tests within the FAA design envelope if Beech had not halted the tests — due to diverging deflections. Thus the emergency A.D.

    Brent Silver, Ph.D. (Aero/Astro, Stanford)

    P.S. I appeared on “60 Minutes” and wrote the articles in Aviation Consumer that led, eventually, to the DOT study and, finally, the FAA demand that Beech substantiate the V-tail design. After all these years — and stalwart defenses of Beech in the popular aviation press — I believe it is fair to say that I was right and Beech was wrong. There was once a very serious structure defect with the V-tail Bonanza — and there probably still would be if Beech defenders like you and prime Beech-apologist Barry Schiff had had their way. But, please, don’t re-write history to cover up the reason for the A.D. (nor to blame that on “self-serving” folks who wanted the defect fixed — while the manufacturer wanted the problem ignored — which is really “self-serving” there?).

  15. Ian says:

    Old Bob Siegfried : enjoy your posts in the comments section.
    Thanks.

  16. Gene Stevens says:

    As a 50 hour pilot I purchased my S35 in 1980. I did promise that I would have my instrument rating within a year or I would sell the plane (got it within 6 months). I even installed the smith stub kit spar on the tail before I had (mandated by the FAA) the cuff added on top of the stub spare. With more than 1000 of my 2500 plus hours in the Bonanza, it has been a wonderful people mover for these 30+ years to include a flight to the west coast (LA olympics) and more than 20 flights to the Bahamas. My son and son-law both know they have to have their instrument rating in our 172 before I will turn them loose in the Bonanza. The wife was convinced of its use when her trip to CT with the kids went from 7 hours of driving to 2 hours in the Bonanza.

  17. Warren Smith says:

    In the late 60′s I was fortunate enough to have access to a C model with many upgrades. I was indoctrinated by an expert instructor to always respect its maneuvering limits. I flew it day and night and IFR on occasion and went from border to border and coast to coast twice.
    This gem would cruise at 175 burning 9.5 gph. I was trapped once under a suckerhole over the coast of Louisiana and orbited an island at 500 – 600 ft. msl for several heart in mouth minutes trying to raise Lake Charles radio to file IFR to Lafayette. I made sure the speeds were always within the maneuvering envelope. The only other hair raiser was having a climbing United B-727 cross my bow by less than 100-yds at 8,000-ft! [Think of that...a small private airplane almost flew into an airliner!]
    I saw him come up from below my left wing just a moment before the crossing, I chopped the power, and started to roll to the right to turn away. I briefly noticed folks looking out at me, and if I had known any I could have recognised them. The result was a fast roll over 180-deg. and as I recovered I was tossed into a 180-deg roll to the left while the odor of burning kerosene permeated the cockpit. Once back in control I noticed I had lost but 50-ft of altitude. Yes, I had been in touch with LAX Departure Control just moments before.
    I just loved flying that bird as it seemed to want to fly anywhere I did. Keep the remarks coming, they’re interesting. Warren Smith

    • Jim Frankenfield says:

      Warren, in about 1974, my wife Mary (back cockpit of our bipe, with all the ‘dials’ and me in pax seat (front cockpit) were Pompano Bch. to Marathon, Keys, for the weekend. We were staying low under the TCA and I observed Boeing on climbout from MIA. He (or she) passed in front of us and I knew what was comming. I’d have allerted Mary but we had no intercom, so I just hung on as we flew into the wake. Pretty good ‘jolt’ but no problem.

      My buddy Tom took off from PHL in a Tri Pacer with two passengers, and hit ‘heavy’ wake at about 400 ft. This put him in knifedge, he elected to ‘go with it’ to complete the roll. Tower asked if everybody was OK….yep, no problem. I hit a bunch of it in a C-172 after flare at Washington National, did a lovely ‘dance’ at ten ft. altitude. One night, landing a 172 on runway 29 Newark, there was this Connie running all four at a pretty high power setting, blowing all his ‘bad’ air over my touch-down point. Tower, on discrete freq. got an earfull from me. Same thing at night, runway 32 at Allentown, a Connie again, high rpm blowing bad air over TD point. Another earfull from me.

  18. Nico Meijer says:

    I recently bought a turbonormalized 1974 V35B with IO520BB engine and tip tanks, total fuel capacity 120gals. It is a wonderful handling aircraft and cruise performance is not far off a Cirrus, and it certainly makes a great travelling aircraft. One key point in its favour is its great short-field capabilities – a few weeks back I landed easily on a 2500ft grass strip which had just been ploughed clear of snow. Don’t think a Cirrus could do that.

  19. Jack says:

    I have owned and flown a 1960, M35 Bonanza since 1972 and love it. It is easy to fly, has a fairly accommodating CG, is fast and fuel efficient.

    When the Bonanza came out in 1947 there was nothing to compare it to. Instructors only knew fat engined, high drag airplanes and they got away from people – thus the “forked tail doctor killer” moniker.

    Today that is no excuse. We have had slick, smooth high performance airplanes for several decades. If instructors do their job, modern pilots should be able to handle modern designs like the Cirrus.

  20. John Valentine says:

    Dear Richard,

    Congratulations, again – because you just reiterated the one lesson you’ve taught me over the past 50 years.

    Fly the aircraft. I’m still indebted to you. Miss your name on the letterhead.

    All the best,

    Jase Valentine

  21. Jim Frankenfield says:

    Back in late 1969-70 My buddy Tom and I took our vacations from PA to Andros, Bahamas, via Charleston, SC and Palm Bch. in our newly-built (and EAA prizewinners, Rockford ’68) D-260 Senior Aerosport aerobatic bi-planes. Dick Birch owned the “Small Hope Bay Lodge”, and owned a C-172. Tom and I, both CFIs and me a DPE, gave Dick dual toward his Comm. Cert., Tom signed the reco. and I gave him the certification check ride. I also soloed Dicks wife Rosie. Anyway, one of the guests was the head of the computer science dept. at Duke University, and Dick asked me if I’d be interested in giving this fellow a lesson in basic aerobatics in his brand new V-tail 1970 Bonanza. I said lets give it a try . So off we go, with Dick in the seat behind the Professor and me in the right seat.

    At altitude, the Prof. flipped the wheel over to me for a try at a vanilla loop. I figured that on the downside of the loop, power off, the big prop disc would act as a brake, which it did, and held the speed in check. OK, now it was ‘his’ turn…flip the wheel over to him, and he did a nice loop, me talking him through it.

    Next, the bbl. roll….throw-over control column back to me, pull the nose up 30 degrees, left aileron and rudder, inverted, ease off on the back presssure, still holding left aileron and rudder, increase back pressure on the pull-out. Now it’s ‘his’ turn, me talking him through it. Did good, nice bbl. roll. Next came the Cuban Eight which went good.

    Finally we finish the session with an aileron roll…start with slight dive (below maneuvering speed). Me with the wheel in hand, nose up 20 degrees, crank in lots of aileron and we have an aileron roll. Wheel back to him…this is his graduation manaeuver…right over the lodge with a bunch of folks watching, and he does a fine roll. End of lesson. Since we were outside the states and far from airways we put no one in jeprody. I sure wouldn’t try this back home. So, if you keep the airplane within it’s speed and loading parameters, it’s no sweat. Jim

  22. Gary Grasma says:

    Gee, I guess that I am nervous now after reading about the V35 Bonanza’s wings and tails failing. I am retired from the charter work that I did in the early Seventies. I had Commercial license, Instrument and Multi ratings, but did most of the flying in the V tail. Funny thing about flying. If no one told you how dangerous the airplane was, you got along just fine. Thunderstorm at night and IFR in a Cloudy and Rainy day meant to pay attention and keep the speed down.

  23. steve N says:

    My dad was killed on Jan 9 1971 in a Beach 35 and i blame them for his death.
    The plane was as unsafe as advertised

  24. Ed Pull says:

    My V is. 1950 “B” ,model my intent is too emulate Bill Odum and go Honolulu New Jersey in 28 hours nonstop new technology with engines gas consumption and aerodynamic clean up will allow this wondrous machine do this record and on only 265 gallons of fuel — watch the news in fall of this year. ed

    • Albert Rutherford says:

      I have a 56 G 35, and want to fly it around the world. I am enquiring about the integrity of the wings of the Bonanza that Odum flew. Were the wings re-enforced or stock? That airplane had 60 gallon tip tanks, and I would like to know if my G model will carry that much without threatening the integrity of the wing. If you have this information, or know where to obtain it, please forward it to me. Thank you, Al Rutherford

      • Ed Pull says:

        As long as the spar goes all the way out too tip a fellow in Texas has 100 gal dolly patrons that u can hang on tips

  25. Ed Pull says:

    As long as the spar goes all the way out too tip a fellow in Texas has 100 gal dolly patrons that u can hang on tips

  26. After 35 years of flying and owning 12 aircraft including a former straight tail and a turbo v-tail, I am flying a ’65S-35 and it is simply the easiest and most forgiving airplane of all high performance airplanes.

    I concur with Smith Spar stub…vital to this airplane. Nothing else holds a cancel to the Bonanza.

    Dr. Mike Schuster

  27. Jim Schultz says:

    First plane was a 1961 Piper Colt 108 (no flaps and a hand brake).Second plane was a 1964 Piper Cherokee 180. Third was a 52-C Bonanza with drooped wing tips. An old barn stormer in N/E Iowa named Ray Henry taught me to fly, and checked me out in all three of my planes.I so loved flying the Bonanza. Once in the late 70′s crossing Lake Michigan up near Green Bay,flying VFR I got into total cloud cover,and had to drop down to about 2,000 ft. and follow the railroad on into Owosso,Mi.Your absolutely correct about keeping her straight and level in those conditions.Not recommended. V35′s rock.

  28. Billbo Baggins says:

    My wife and I just purchased our 1955 V35 and we love it. The classic lines of this plane are visually as exciting as flying her. After reading all this stuff!

    I just can’t wait to fly her next week! Ceder Key Fl. Here we come! Oh, and I’ll be flying with Mrs. Daisy. Be safe to all!

  29. Capt. Glen C. Lambert says:

    As a veteran Bonanza pilot and mechanic I do have some insight into the “V” tail truths as well as myths. The 35, 35B and 35B had a short fuslage with an admirable safety record.
    To increase interrior room models C and higher were designed with a longer fuslage requiring a longer chord to the tailplanes. Rather than redesign the tail with the front spar moved forward the unsupported leading edge was extended. This leading edge was tapered and near the end was only a few inches but at the root was nearly a foot of unsupported leading edge.
    In normal “in envelope” flight there was no problem but in turbulence encounters near VMO the inboard corner of the tail could fold causing a high G pitch up or down breaking the wing “bottle bolts” These accidents although rare were of statistical interest prompting two Airworthyness Directives.
    The first AD limited the MMO remarking the airspeed indicator. The second AD added a pair of brackets attaching the forward inboard corner of the tailplane leading edges of the fuslage. Once the AD’s had been accomplished the accident rates on the “V” tail models became identical to thoses of those with conventional tails such as the Travelair or the Mentor.
    A myth associated with the “V” tail is that it causes the characteristic oscillation known as the “Witchita Wobble”. I have flown other models of Beechcraft including the 99 and they all exhibit the same characteristic. The actual cause of the oscillation is inherant to high efficiency laminar flow wings.
    Another myth is that because yaw and pitch the result of a vectored sum of forces from two different directions that overall drag is increased. This is true but only when significant control forces are applied and even then do not outweigh reducing the whetted surface of the tail by 1/3. In trimmed level flight the reduction in whetted surface is of significant advantage and part of what makes the Bonanza so fast.

  30. OldBob Siegfried says:

    Good Morning John,

    Actually, that 45 MPH landing speed was not far off for the prototype. The Bonanza was originally designed with a full Fowler flap that incorporated inner slats, slot doors and all along with 45 degrees of deflection. With that flap set up the straight 35 could get that slow on touch down. Unfortunately, the stall was vicious! It was also a very complex mechanism and cost a lot to build. Consequently, the slats were dropped and the flap extendsion limited to 20 degrees for the straight 35s and A35s. That raised the stall speed from 45MPH to 54 MPH.

    Such is life!

    Happy Skies,

    Old Bob

  31. Dick Collins says:

    The needle and ball panel was standard but a full gyro (horizon and DG) panel was optionl almost from the beginning.

  32. Old Bob Siegfried says:

    That is a true statement, but the first two I owned had only the T&B plus the DG. I never ran across one that did not have the DG, but I am sure some were delivered that way. The DG made Needle Ball and Airspeed very easy to fly. One thing I did add in every straight 35 I owned was an electric T&B. All the ones I owned originally had vacuum instruments including the T&B.

    I figured I had fantastic redundancy by adding that electric T&B. Two T&Bs in my panel. Who could ask for anything morr?

    My recollecton is that Beech started to supply the electric T&B as standard in either the B35 or C35. Great move I thought.

    Happy Skies,

    Old Bob