A2A Simulations BONANZA ACCU-SIM V35B User manual

A2ASIMULATIONS
BONANZA
ACCU−SIM V35B BONANZA

ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA
© 2018 A2A Simulations Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by A2A Simulations Inc.
ATTENTION!
Accu-sim V35B Bonanza, including sounds, aircraft, and all content
is under strict, and enforceable copyright law. If you suspect anyone
has pirated any part of Accu-sim V35B Bonanza, please contact
[email protected]
RISKS & SIDE EFFECTS
Ergonomic Advice
• Always maintain a distance of at least 45cm to
the screen to avoid straining your eyes.
• Sit upright and adjust the height of your chair so that
your legs are at a right angle. The angle between your
upper and forearm should be larger than 90º.
• The top edge of your screen should be at eye level or
below, and the monitor should be tilted slightly back-
wards, to prevent strains to your cervical spine.
• Reduce your screen’s brightness to lower the con-
trast and use a icker-free, low-radiation monitor.
• Make sure the room you play in is well lit.
• Avoid playing when tired or worn out and take
a break (every hour), even if it’s hard…
Epilepsy Warning
Some people experience epileptic seizures when viewing ash-
ing lights or patterns in our daily environment. Consult your doctor
before playing computer games if you, or someone of your family,
have an epileptic condition.
Immediately stop the game, should you experience any of the
following symptoms during play: dizziness, altered vision, eye or
muscle twitching, mental confusion, loss of awareness of your sur-
roundings, involuntary movements and/or convulsions.

A2ASIMULATIONS
BONANZA
ACCU−SIM V35B BONANZA

4A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
CONTENTS
6 FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
36 DEVELOPER’S NOTES
38 FEATURES
40 FSX QUICKSTART GUIDE
42 P3D QUICKSTART GUIDE
44 ACCU-SIM
48 ACCU-SIM AND THE COMBUSTION ENGINE
54 PROPELLERS
59 GENERAL
64 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
69 NORMAL PROCEDURES
74 PERFORMANCE CHARTS
86 WEIGHT AND BALANCE
90 SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION
100 AUTOPILOT
106 2D PANELS
110 CREDITS

www.a2asimulations.com ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS 5
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY

6A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA www.a2asimulations.com
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
Flying Into The Future
Virtually everyone who gazes upon the
fair proportions of a “V”-tail Beechcraft
Bonanza has come to feel deeply about its
striking appearance. All who have had the
privilege to y a Bonanza have come to
appreciate its excellent and unique hand-
ing and performance. From its 30º (later 33º) “V”-tail to its
tight and trim cowling Bonanza stands out from the rest.
Bonanza is unlike any other General Aviation (GA) aero-
plane. In the pilot’s seat Bonanza feels dierent than other
similar aeroplanes, more solid, sturdy and substantial. All
who may be so fortunate as to y in a Bonanza immedi-
ately perceive the extraordinarily high quality of everything
therein, from the seats, windows and curtains, to the t-
tings, switches, knobs and levers. Flying a “V”-tail Bonanza
is a unique and satisfying experience. From engine start to
shut- down and throughout the ight “V”- tail Bonanza
handles surely, lightly and quickly, more like a ne- tuned
piston- engine ghter than any other GA aeroplane of its
kind. Whilst Bonanza’s handling characteristics are likely
to get low-time pilots into trouble in a hurry, experienced
and knowledgeable pilots have universally found Bonanza
to be a joy to y. However, none of this came about acci-
dentally but was a direct result of Beech’s deliberate concept
and design.
Upon its introduction to the public in March 1947 it was
clear to all that this aeroplane was miles and years ahead
of any other light civilian aeroplane, past or present. All
Bonanzas feature a ush- riveted NACA 23000 airfoil wing
which Beech had also used on its Model 18 “Twin Beech,”
a circular, ush riveted stressed aluminium fuselage, fully
enclosed electrically retractable undercarriage, a retractable
by Mitchell Glicksman © 2018
BEECHCRAFT
BONANZA
boarding step, gap- sealed recessed ap tracks, cockpit-
adjustable cowl aps, internally hinged control sur-
faces and, at rst, an electrically pitch- adjustable 2- blade
wooden propeller which soon afterwards was replaced by
a metal constant-speed prop. Most of these features were
commonplace for ghter aircraft of the 1940s but had rarely
ever before appeared on a light civilian aeroplane.
When it was introduced Bonanza did not merely look
supremely clean and fast, its overall drag coecient (Cd)
was, in fact, the lowest of any light aeroplane in the civil-
ian market.
Beech publicity has often attributed much of Bonanza’s
excellent performance to its unusual “V”- tail. However, as
we shall see, it played virtually no part in contributing to
such and actually had more than a small negative impact on
the aeroplane’s reputation.
SETTING THE SCENE
In January 1945, company ocers and engineers at Beech
Aircraft Company, Inc. began to have serious discussions
about what kind of aeroplane they were going to produce
when World War II was over and crucial materials such as
aluminium, steel, rubber and such once again became avail-
able for civilian use.
By this time most of the world had been engaged in the
most savage and deadly war in all of human history in
excess of six years, four months since the Nazi invasion of
Poland, 1 September 1939. Since 7 December 1941 The United
States had been engaged in all theatres of this worldwide
conict for more than three years and would ultimately
suer 1,076,245 casualties, the great majority of which had
already been inicted by January 1945.

www.a2asimulations.com ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS 7
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
However, by January 1945, seven
months after the Allied invasion of
France at Normandy on 6 June 1944,
the hoped-for light of peace in Europe,
which for six years had but dimly
twinkled down at the distant end of
the war’s terribly long, dismal tunnel,
now burned ever more clearly and
brightly as a bold torch of triumph.
The rolling collapse of Nazi mili-
tary forces put them nally and irre-
vocably in full retreat after the fail-
ure of one last, desperate Wehrmacht
oensive (The Battle of the Bulge - 16
December 1944 - 25 January 1945).
By the middle of January 1945 Soviet
armed forces, having essentially
ground the Nazis’ eastern armies and
amour to dust, casting their survivors
into a frozen, deadly retreat, were
in Poland and were pushing rap-
idly, inexorably and mercilessly towards the very heart of
Germany. Daily and nightly thousands of Allied bombers
were pounding Germany’s factories and cities into rubble,
bringing the American public’s appreciation and awareness
of aviation to its zenith.
By January 1945 in the Pacic Theatre the largest part of
Imperial Japan’s army, naval and air forces, save for a few
isolated battalions which were left alone, bereft of support
to haplessly and hopelessly defend the innermost Japanese
islands, had been utterly destroyed, essentially neutral-
izing Japanese aggression. During January 1945 U. S. and
Allied forces, suering great casualties, landed at Luzon,
Philippines and liberated Manila.
AT HOME
Even in the years before the war began for the United States
a sober look at that which was occurring in Europe engen-
dered a ramping up of industry throughout the country
which facilitated the end of the Great Depression. Once at
war, virtually all industries, workplaces and factories in the
United States were intensely focused upon producing what-
ever was required to assure the ulti-
mate victory. This was no less true
in the aircraft industry. By January
1945 the Allies’ spectacular military
advances on all fronts were a clear
indication to even the most hard-
ened cynic that victory was forth-
coming. Whilst horric combat would
still continue for a time in Europe and
even longer in the Pacic, by January
1945 the general feeling was that an
end to this monstrous blood bath was
indeed nigh.
Meanwhile, as 1,000 plane bomber
raids were regularly reported in
newspapers and shown in news-
reels between features in cinemas,
the public in the U.S. became more
and more air-minded. Accordingly,
articles speculating on the future of
civilian aviation were published in
many magazines and Sunday supple-
ments particularly regarding what
was called, among other things, the
“Everyman Airplane.” In the late
1940s and early 1950s this often took
the shape of a new and then highly
misunderstood type of aircraft, the
helicopter.
In the February 1951 issue of
Popular Mechanics an illustration of
a two-seat, jet-powered helicopter
was shown being pushed back into its
garage by a suburban man in his hat
and overcoat having ostensibly just
own it back from work. An identi-
cal red helicopter is seen above his neighbour’s house. The
article “reported” that anyone could learn to y one of these
machines in only two hours.
Along with this kind of nonsense, fanciful drawings of
boat-aeroplanes and automobile- aeroplanes abounded.
One of these, designed to be a true-functioning automo-
bile as well as a true-functioning aeroplane, “Aerocar”
towed its folded wings and tail section behind whilst on
the road which, when ight was desired, were assembled
and own away. Sounds crazy, does it not? The thing is,
it actually worked. Taylor “Aerocar,” the exception to the
wildly improbable contraptions that had been permeating
the press, was both successfully driven and own in 1949.
Along with so many less practical conceptions, “Aerocar”
was also intended to be the “Everyman Airplane”, however,
only six were built and sold. All six still exist, four of them
are reportedly in yable condition and one, N102D, is still
own.
It was in this chimerical aeronautical atmosphere that
aircraft manufacturers planned to sell (real) aeroplanes to
the public in huge quantities as soon as the war ended.
N192D, the only still-flying “Aerocar”.

8A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA www.a2asimulations.com
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
A TWINKLE IN WALTER BEECH’S EYE
By 1945, along with virtually every U. S. manufacturer Beech
Aircraft Company which was founded in Wichita, Kansas in
1932 by Walter Beech, his wife Olive Ann Beech and a few
others began to plan for the coming post- war era. However,
by the late 1930s Beech had designed and produced only
two aeroplane types in any quantity, the 1933 Model 17
“Staggerwing” and the 1937 Model 18, commonly called
“Twin Beech.”
The 1933 Model 17 is called “Staggerwing” because the
upper wing is placed rearward of the lower wing. Model 17’s
airframe is fabric-covered wood and steel, typical of aircraft
of the early- to- mid 1930s, It initially had a xed and later a
retractable undercarriage.
Along with most of the aircraft manufacturers in the
United States in the early 1930s a number of circumstances,
particularly the deadly crash of TWA Flight 599 in which the
beloved Notre Dame University football coach Knute Rockne
was killed,1informed Beech that all-metal aircraft were the
wave of the future. Not content to merely build a simple
all-metal single-engine light aeroplane Beech jumped into
these new waters with both feet by producing Model 18, a
far heavier and more complex aeroplane than it had ever
built.
Beech’s second aeroplane, Model 18, is an all-metal
twin-engine light transport which, since its introduction in
January 1937 has been a popular and highly successful civil-
ian and military aeroplane. The rst Model 18s were pow-
ered by two 330- hp (250- kW) Jacobs L- 6 or by two 350- hp
(260- kW) Wright R- 760E radial engines turning cockpit-
adjustable- pitch Hamilton Standard propellers. Model
18’s engines were soon upped to 450- hp (336- kW) Pratt &
Whitney R- 985 radial engines turning the new Hamilton
Standard three- blade constant- speed propellers. However,
the construction and manufacturing methods required for
building Model 18 were entirely new to Beech. In fact, Beech
Model 18 was a quantum leap from Model 17 in every way.
A beautifully restored Belgian-
registered Beech Model 17S
“Staggerwing.” This unique and
striking design is a massive and
complicated fabric-covered wood
and steel structure powered by a
450 hp Pratt & Whitney R-985-AN-1
“Wasp Junior” radial engine. With a
top airspeed of 212 mph (184 knots,
341 km/h,) it was a fast biplane in
the 1930s, but became less and less
competitive as an executive transport
with the emergence of the new and
more eicient all-metal aviation
technology of the 1940s.
■ Beech Model 18, here as
Royal Canadian Air Force
(RCAF) transport. This
aeroplane’s resemblance
to the larger Lockheed
“Electra” is likely not
entirely a coincidence.
■ Beech AT-11 “Kansan”
bomber trainer over
Texas in 1943. One of
49 military variants of
Model 18, AT-11 was the
U. S. Army Air Force’s
(USAAF) primary bombing
trainer during the war in
which more than 40,000
bombardiers were trained.
Modifications included
a transparent bomber’s
nose, an internal bomb
bay and bomb racks and
a dorsal gun turret for
gunnery training. Photo
from “Western Trips”
■ The second and last
prototype Beechcra
XA-38 “Grizzly” shown
here was produced with
an operational 75 mm
cannon. It beggars one’s
imagination to think
that the same company
which was still producing
the fabric-covered
“Staggerwing” biplane
also designed and built
this formidable-looking
and performing modern
warplane. Photo from “Old
Machine Press”
■ 1947 Piper J-3 “Cub.”
The great progenitor
of all general aviation
light aircra, what Piper
oered in 1947 was
indistinguishable from the
pre-war “Cub.”

www.a2asimulations.com ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS 9
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
Model 17 seats a pilot and three passengers, is a single-
engine, fabric-covered biplane with a wingspan of thirty-
two feet weighing 4,250 lbs. fully loaded. By comparison, a
typical late 1930s Model 18 seats two pilots and up to eight
passengers, is a twin-engine, all-metal, cantilever (no
external struts) monoplane with a wingspan of forty-seven
feet, eight inches weighing 7,500 lbs, fully loaded.
After selling only thirty-eight Beech 18s before the United
States’ entry into W.W. II including one to Sweden as an air
ambulance and six to the Nationalist Chinese Government as
M18R Light Bombers, once the war began the various U. S.
armed forces, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and the
Royal Air Force (RAF) purchased more than 4,000 Beech 18s.
Beech built two other aeroplanes during the war. One
of these was the twin- engine Beech Model 26 AT- 10/11
“Wichita”/”Kansan,” a militarized derivative of Model 18.
This aeroplane was built in response to the U. S. Army Air
Corps’ (USAAC) requirement for a twin-engine, retract-
able undercarriage, multi-engine trainer similar to Cessna’s
AT-8.
The second military aeroplane that Beech designed
and built during the war was the remarkable 1944 Beech
XA-38 “Grizzly”, an experimental twin-engine ground
attack ghter of which only two prototypes were con-
structed. “Grizzly” was a completely original design cre-
ated in response to the USAAF’s requirement for a replace-
ment for the Douglas A- 20 “Havoc” which by 1944 was
long past showing its age “Grizzly” was powered by two
2,300 hp Wright R-3350-43 air-cooled radial engines.
Unfortunately these engines were already in use by Boeing
B-29 Superfortress which had the highest priority for them.
In early 1944 an invasion of Japan was deemed to be likely
and the USAAF wanted a fast, powerful and lethal ground
attack aeroplane which could be employed to neutralize
Japanese fortied ground installations and artillery. For this
purpose Beech designed XA-38 around the most powerful
engines available (or unavailable as it turned out) install-
ing a 75 mm cannon in its nose as the aeroplane’s primary
weapon in the same fashion as North American B- 25G/H
“Mitchell.” “Grizzly” also had two remotely operated
machine gun turrets similar to those in B- 17, P- 61, B- 29,
Me- 210 and He- 177A. With a total 4,600 hp, it had a blister-
ing top speed of 370 mph at sea level, faster than most of the
Japanese ghters that it was likely to encounter. Although
the war ended before XA-38 “Grizzly” could go into pro-
duction and prove its worth in combat, it was, in its day,
an extraordinary and unmatched achievement in design and
sophisticated construction technique for what had previ-
ously been a light aeroplane company. Beech’s production
of both Model 18 and “Grizzly” set the stage for another
aeronautical achievement still to come.
The extraordinarily prolic Beech Model 18 “Twin Beech”
was produced in 25 USAAF variants, 14 U. S. Navy (USN)/U.
S. Marine Corps (USMC) variants and 9 RAF and RCAF vari-
ants as well as being in operation in 43 foreign air forces.
But for this versatile and excellently performing modern
aircraft Beech might have continued to produce only its
■ 1946 Taylorcra BC-12D. C. G. Taylor’s clean design made BC-
12DA a slight refinement of his 1938 Model “BC,” which was itself
a refinement of the 1938 Piper J-3 “Cub.” BC-12 has dual control
wheels instead of control columns and a door on each side of the
cabin for easy entrance and exit. Whilst Taylorcra’s side-by-side
seating is better for instruction as well as for pilot-passenger
communication in general, these aeroplanes are not very wide and
their snug interiors are insuicient for two “full-sized” adults.
■ 1947 Stinson 108-2 “Station Wagon.” A roomy four-seater,
interior wood panels and a reinforced floor permit 600lb (272kg)
of baggage to be carried in the passenger compartment. Its 165
hp Franklin 6A4-165-B3 engine can use automotive fuel with the
installation of a converter kit. The Stinson’s wings’ fixed leading-
edge slats make the 108 series excellent and reliable slow fliers,
enabling them to easily get into and out of small tree-lined fields.
■ 1947 Aeronca “Champ.” Another refinement of the J-3 “Cub”
design with similar tandem seating and similar performance. Solo
from the front seat is a definite improvement over “Cub’s” rear
seat solo station and “Champ’s” large windows make visibility
in all directions much better. Having had a number of hours in
a “Champ,” this writer has found this responsive and sprightly
aeroplane to be the best of the lot of this type.
■ 1947 Luscombe 8A “Silvaire” on floats. Rather fast for its 65 hp
engine with a top airspeed of 85 mph or so, the aeroplane in the
photo is identical to the “Silvaire” in which this writer first received
instruction and learned to fly the age of 12. Luscombe “Silvaire”
has dual control sticks rather than control wheels making it a very
fun and responsive aeroplane.

10 A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA www.a2asimulations.com
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
■ Ryan (originally North American L-145 ) Navion B Super 260 C-
FCTI. It is not merely a coincidence that airframe of this excellent
four-seat aeroplane is reminiscent of P-51 “Mustang” upon
which its design was based. Introduced in 1948, the retractable
tricycle undercarriage Navion is powerful and fast. 260 hp
Navion variants have a useful load of 920 lbs, a top airspeed of
175 mph, can carry four passengers in comfort over a range of
595 miles, take-o in 400 feet and land in 466 feet. Navion was
Bonanza’s closest rival in the late 1940’s and during the 1950s,
outperforming Bonanza in many ways. Celebrities Veronica
Lake, Arthur Godfrey, Mickey Rooney and Bill Cullen were among
those who owned and flew Navions. Many are still flying and
whilst oering something of an awkward climb to enter they are
considered to be a great bargain on the used aeroplane market.
Photo by Barry Griiths.
■ Piper Pa-22 “Tri-Pacer.” Introduced in February 1951, this
comfortable four-seat aeroplane is essentially a Piper PA-20
“Pacer” with a nose wheel. Although rather a throwback with
its fabric-covered aluminium frame and stodgy appearance
(derisively nicknamed “Flying Milk Stool,”) 160 hp versions of
this fine aeroplane give it useful load of 890 lbs, a top airspeed of
141 mph, an 800 fpm climb rate and a range of 650 miles, all with
four 170 lb passengers on board. This writer has enjoyed many
pleasant hours flying Tri-Pacers as well as its two-seat version,
PA- 22-108 “Colt.” Tri-Pacer was introduced six years ahead
of its chief tricycle-undercarriage rival, the all-metal Cessna
172. As good as Tri-Pacer was and is, it has never been serious
competition for Bonanza. A John Marco photograph
fabric-covered “Staggerwing” bi-plane as it had before
the war. As it was, Beech produced 16 variants of Model 17
“Staggerwing” for the USAAF, the USN/USMC and for fteen
foreign air forces. However, it was Beech’s mass production
of the sophisticated Model 18 “Twin Beech” which consid-
erably informed the company regarding modern metal con-
struction methods and gave it otherwise unobtainable and
invaluable experience regarding the construction and pro-
duction of complex all-metal aircraft. This precious experi-
ence gave Beech a great advantage over virtually all of the
other U. S. light aircraft manufacturers when it conceived
and designed Model 35 “Bonanza” in 1944.
Whilst Model 18 was a great success, the production of
which continued until 1970 with more than 9,000 ultimately
produced, Walter Beech and his sta had been optimisti-
cally looking toward the post-war civilian aviation world
to come. The plan they developed was to produce a high-
performance, luxury, all-metal, four seat, single-engine
light executive aeroplane that would be relatively simple
and ecient to operate.
Except for Cessna’s AT-8/AT-17/UC-78/JRC “Bobcat”/
“Crane” primarily wooden “Bamboo Bomber” bomber
trainers during the war, the other light aeroplane manu-
facturers primarily produced only slightly modied military
versions of what they had been producing before, i.e., light,
low-powered, two-seat, “low and slow” fabric-covered
aeroplanes.
Piper produced O- 59/L- 4, the military version of its
“Cub” and few glider trainers. Stinson produced a military
version of its 105 “Voyager’ designated L- 5 “Sentinel,” a
military version of its pre-war SR- 10 “Reliant,” designated
UC- 81, as well as Model 74/L- 1 “Vigilant,” a larger, more
powerful light observation aeroplane. Aeronca produced a
military version of its tandem-seat trainer, “Champ.” des-
ignated O- 58/L- 3 “Defender” and like Piper, a number of
glider trainers. Taylorcraft produce a military version of its
Model D, designated O- 57/L- 2.
After the war these manufacturers made few if any modi-
cations to their aeroplanes and those which simply were
essentially their early 1940s designs were put back onto
the market. Photographs on Page 9 show some of Beech’s
“competition” were oering in the post- war, late 1940s:
Of course, more powerful and sophisticated aeroplanes
such as Cessna 190/195 (see further discussion of this aero-
plane below,) Ryan Navion, Piper Tri- Pacer, Cessna 172
and Bellanca 14-19 would soon be produced; however, until
Piper’s 1958 PA-24 “Comanche 250,” nothing came close
to ousting Bonanza from its position at the top of the heap.
“I SEE A NEW SUN UP IN A NEW SKY”2
It is an oft-told tale that by the end of W.W. II, U. S. light
aeroplane manufacturers, all of whom had been forced to
curtail their usual retail businesses during the war to supply
aircraft for the armed services, looked forward with anxious
hearts and open coers to the soon- to- come peace during
which they hoped and believed that the tens of thousands
of returning military pilots, having experienced the “joy”3
of ight, would wish to continue the same and would gladly
purchase low-priced, simple aeroplanes by the bushel-full.
The Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, popularly

www.a2asimulations.com ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS 11
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
■ 1949 Bellanca 14-19 “Cruisemaster.” An upgrade of the pre-war
Bellanca 14-7 and the post-war Bellanca 14-13, 14-19 has a large,
comfortable cabin for four and is powered by a Franklin 6A4-335-B3
190 hp engine. “Cruisemaster’s” triple tail and its wooden wing
garnered it the nickname “Cardboard Constellation” aer Lockheed’s
“Constellation.” However, like Lockheed’s triple-tail marvel,
“Cruisemaster’s” performance was in many ways better than its similar
contemporaries, including Bonanza, with a useful load of 1,025 lbs,
a top airspeed of 174 mph, a rate of climb of 1,250 fpm and a fully-
loaded range of 435 miles. A tailwheel aeroplane with retractable main
undercarriage in the new tricycle undercarriage world, its retro wood
and fabric construction and undeniably quirky appearance did not aid
its overall public acceptance. Whilst in 1959 14-19 would be converted
to a retractable tricycle undercarriage by “Downer Aircra” (Bellanca’s
new name,) only around 600 of the original 14-19 “Cruisemasters” were
produced. Whilst in many ways “Cruisemaster” is a better-performing
aeroplane, Bonanza remained unchallenged.
■ Cessna 172. Introduced in 1956, it was the direct competitor of Piper
Tri-Pacer. All metal and looking far more modern than Tri-Pacer, C-172
is a Cessna 170 with a nose wheel. Despite its sleek appearance, C-172
does not perform as well as Tri-Pacer in many areas. 160 hp versions
of C-172 give it a useful load of only 758 lbs, a top airspeed of 140 mph,
a rate of climb of 721 fpm and a possible range of 696 miles, but with
only two rather slim passengers on board. Cessna 172 might have well-
competed with Tri-Pacer but it, too, was no competition for Bonanza.
known as the “G. I. Bill,” designed and largely drafted by
the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, was
a Federal entitlement program which provided a range of
nancial benets, including free ight instruction all the
way to an Airline Transport Rating, for returning WWII vet-
erans. Aircraft manufacturers were all quite aware of this
and they saw it as a boost to what they believed would be a
glorious new, commercially lucrative general aviation boom.
The aeroplanes that they had been producing before being
interrupted by the war - Piper J-3 “Cubs”, Taylorcrafts.
Stinsons and the like would be just perfect, or so they
thought. What was not spoken of if it was thought of at all
was that immediately after the end of the war a tremendous
glut of surplus “grasshoppers” (all of those high-wing, low
powered, mostly two- seat aircraft) would be oered as sur-
plus to the public at very low prices. For instance, in 1945
the Oce of Price Administration (OPA) made surplus two-
seat Aeronca L- 3B “Champs” in virtually unused condition
available for $1,788.00 ($19,963.94 in 2018 at a cumulative
rate of ination of 1,016.6%) and four- seat Stinson UC- 81/
AT- 19 “Reliants” available for $6,736.00 ($75,210.91 in
2018 at the same rate of ination.)
However, Walter Beech and his sta had a completely
dierent view of what Beech’s role would ideally be in the
post-war future. Their experience with light aircraft had
solely been with Model 17 “Staggerwing”, a fairly large and
expensive executive aeroplane. Beech’s plan was that its
new post- war aeroplane would well- t this role.
In 1945 and for a decade and a half thereafter, the now-
familiar culture of the casual weekend pilot who usually ies
locally in good weather with friends and family to sight-
see and perchance to purchase a few of those $100 dollar
hamburgers at a far- o little airport’s snack bar, the vast
majority of whom have little ight time and are not instru-
ment (IFR) rated, did not yet exist. Accordingly, once plans
for what became Bonanza began to develop, an important
aspect of this aeroplane’s design was that it did not include
compromises which would make it especially forgiving or
gentle- ying, particularly not at the expense of perfor-
mance. Thus, Bonanza was not intended to cater to the
aforementioned not-yet- existent culture of casual pilots.
Rather, it was designed to be a business tool, an executive
transport aeroplane which would be owned by success-
ful businesses and own by professional pilots who would
transport those executives who required quick, private and
convenient transportation to places that were too distant or
inconvenient for ecient ground travel. Oh yes, and lest we
forget, Bonanza was also intended to be an exclusive, con-
spicuous totem of nancial accomplishment.
Since its introduction in 1936, and into the early 1940s,
Walter Beech and Co. had been well and painfully aware of
their greatest competitor in the corporate aviation genre:
Spartan Aircraft Company’s 7W “Executive.” This highly
advanced aeroplane is a sleek and muscular-looking, all-
metal, retractable undercarriage, low-wing monoplane
which exhibited spectacular performance for its time, with
a top airspeed of 257 mph (223 knots, 414 km/h) whilst

12 A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA www.a2asimulations.com
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
comfortably carrying up to four with a range of 1,000 miles.
Spartan “Executive” boasted such notable owners as indus-
trialist and lm mogul Howard Hughes, oil magnate, nan-
cial wizard and overall S. O. B., J. Paul Getty, and no less
than His Royal Highness, King Ghazi of Iraq. To Beech’s
chagrin, from its rst appearance Spartan “Executive” was
universally considered to be the “Rolls-Royce” of pre-war
executive aeroplanes which even Walter Beech would have
had to reluctantly admit, deservedly so.
Compared to the potent and swift-looking Spartan 7W
“Executive,” Beech’s contemporary Model 17’s top speed
is 45 mph slower and its range of 670 miles is 330 miles
less. Walter Beech had to admit, at least inwardly, that his
Model 17, while an excellent aeroplane in its own right, was
clearly and eminently inferior to Spartan 7W. To make mat-
ters even worse for Beech, both Model 17 and Spartan 7W
were powered by the same Pratt & Whitney R- 985- AN- 1
“Wasp Junior” radial engine producing 450 hp (340 kW) at
2,300 rpm.
Whilst Model 17 was attractive to the military in small
batches during the war and each of fourteen foreign nations
operated a scant few of them, Model 17 never arose to the
level of a truly mass-produced aeroplane with a total of
only 785 examples having been produced from 1933 to 1949.
Spartan 7W was in production for only ve years (1936 to
1940) and only 34 examples were produced; however, 7W’s
spectacular, striking appearance and blazing performance
epitomised the value of the practical application of advanced
aerodynamics, modern construction methods and materials
and the latest concepts in aeronautical structural engineer-
ing in the arena of executive aircraft. While no-doubt pain-
ful, this lesson was not lost on Walter Beech, who would
soon put it to good use.
To be fair, Model 17 “Staggerwing” is a unique and extraor-
dinary design particularly for a biplane, and it is certainly
impressive to the eye (many consider “Staggerwing” to be
the most beautiful biplane ever built.) Despite its inherent
disabilities, the extra wing along with the struts and wires
required to keep it in place, “Staggerwing” performed very
well indeed. However, aside from its inferior overall perfor-
mance compared to Spartan 7W whilst powered by the same
engine, “Staggerwing” was also very costly to build and
delicate to maintain. Its old-school wood and steel-tube
construction with thousands of intricate structural parts
and connectors covered by stitched and doped fabric, the
entirety of which must be meticulously assembled by many
skilled hands, was highly labour-intensive (i.e., expensive)
to construct. Additionally, “Staggerwing” and all fabric-
covered aeroplanes’ owners always have a terrible “Sword
of Damocles” hanging over them in the form of an inevita-
ble and expensive re-covering and paint job awaiting them
in the future. Altogether, it is no wonder that by mid-war
Beech was beginning to have serious thoughts about a more
modern, more ecient and less complicated replacement
for Model 17.
Walter Beech, a man of a considerably forceful person-
ality was, to his credit, not at all hidebound to the past or
by traditional methods of building aeroplanes. Additionally,
he was determined that his “star” aeroplane would never
again be so outperformed as had been Model 17. In January
1945, with the war still raging all around the world but with
imminent peace and a bright, shimmering future clearly
in sight, Beech, unlike virtually every other light general
aviation aeroplane manufacturer, began to draw plans for
something entirely new that would be an icon for and of
that bright future.
Restored Spartan 7W
“Executive” previously owned by
Texaco, Inc. in the late 1930s.
Spartan 7W “Executive.” The name says it all.
Sleek, modern, powerful and sensual, this was
top shelf, first-class personal transportation for
the super-rich corporate executive in the mid
1930s and early 1940s. Photo from Flickr.

www.a2asimulations.com ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS 13
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
Rolled out of the factory on 9 September 1940, this was the last Spartan 7W, later called
“Mrs. Mennen.” It was originally purchased by Texaco, Inc. (now a subsidiary of Chevron
Corporation) for corporate use in the New York State/New England area. This magnificent
aeroplane cost $26,200.40 in 1940 ($467,029.62 in 2018 at a cumulative rate of inflation of
1,682.5%) and was one of five Spartan 7Ws owned by Texaco, who based this aircra at
Roosevelt Field located in Mineola (now Garden City), New York.
This aeroplane was purchased by George
Mennen of the Mennen Company, Morristown,
New Jersey in the spring of 1969. It was then
painted “Mennen Green” and named “Mrs.
Mennen.” “Mrs. Mennen” was sold, traded and
bought by many dierent owners over the
years until it was purchased in October 2004 by
Will Mennen, George Mennen’s grandson.
“A BUILT-IN TAILWIND”
Walter Beech wanted his new aeroplane to set the standard
for quality and performance. It was to be something not yet
seen, something that one might to y into the future.
He told his design sta to come up with something not
merely of 1945, but of 1955 and 1965 - and beyond. It had
to be a sleek, clean design, all-metal, simple (inexpensive)
to build, look sexy, go fast, carry four in comfort and have
a range of around 700 miles. These factors were imperative
if Beech was going to lead the post-war pack and attract
wealthy corporate customers.
It is well to recall that in 1945, as Walter Beech and his
team’s ideas for a new light aeroplane were accumulat-
ing, the current stars of aviation were all-metal, single-
engine, retractable undercarriage piston- engine ght-
ers – Mustangs, Corsairs, Spitres, etc. These powerful,
sleek aeroplanes appeared fast even when sitting still and
they made the blood rush and the imagination soar just to
look upon them. Beech was determined that his new aero-
plane would be just like that. He wanted to build a high-
performance, light executive transport aeroplane with, as he
put it, “a built-in tailwind.”
At Walter Beech’s behest, Ted Wells, Beech’s Vice-
President of Engineering who had been instrumental in
the design of both the Model 17 “Staggerwing” and Model
18 “Twin Beech,” together with project engineer Ralph
Harman, set about the task of putting together a team of
creative aircraft designers. Their mission was to design an
entirely new single-engine aeroplane not only for the post-
war era, but for decades to come. Such an aeroplane had also
been Harman’s dream and he was highly delighted to have
the opportunity to be able to make it a reality.
It is reported that Beech’s employees and company ocers
were extremely optimistic about Beech’s future given its
wartime experiences building powerful and sophisticated
all-metal aeroplanes. They rightly felt that they had a sig-
nicant “leg- up” on their competition and they were anx-
ious and ready to prove what they could do.
The design of what was to become “Bonanza” was very
much a team eort. Ralph Harmon was the overall Project
Engineer, also taking on responsibility for the design of the
interior and undercarriage. Jerry Gordon, Beech’s Chief of
Aerodynamics, created the shape of the wing and tail sur-
faces. Wilson Erhart designed the interior structure of the
wings. Alex Oderse designed the fuselage. Noel Naideno
designed the fuel system and engine compartment. It is
a great compliment to the skills of these engineers that
Bonanza ultimately appeared to be the conception of a
single brilliant individual rather than the product of a com-
mittee that it was.
No doubt greatly inuenced by Beech’s past success with
Model 17 as well as the success of rival Spartan Corporation,
Walter Beech decided from the outset not to include a trainer
or low-cost cruiser in Beech’s post-war menu.4 That eld,
it was thought, would soon be overlled with “Cubs”,
“Champs” and the like. No, Beech’s new aeroplane was to
be aimed solely at the highest end of the light general avia-
tion aeroplane market. It was to be more than a means of
transportation; it was to be an objet de prestige like a Rolex or
a Rolls-Royce, something literally exclusive which only the
wealthiest could aord to obtain, the possession of which
would openly attest to the owner’s prosperity, sophistica-
tion and good taste.
As mentioned, Walter Beech was known to be a very for-
ward character in both his conceptions and his mode of
expression. Who else but such a very condent “Type A”

14 A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA www.a2asimulations.com
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
elevator at its trailing edge, often split into left and right
horizontal stabilizer/elevator units acting in unison, one on
each side of the rearmost end of the fuselage. Accordingly,
the position of the rudder aects the yaw axis and is con-
trolled by the pilot by pushing the left (left yaw) or right
(right yaw) rudder pedals in the cockpit. The position of the
elevator aects the pitch axis and is controlled by the pilot
by either pushing (nose down) or pulling (nose up) a control
stick or a yoke. Conventional rudder and elevator control
surfaces are completely independent of each other.
On a “V”-tailed aeroplane, however, the rudder and ele-
vator are not separate and independent control surfaces.
Instead, the moveable control surfaces at the trailing edge
of the two tail surfaces, the ruddevators, act just as the
name indicates, each one controlling both the yaw and pitch
axes simultaneously. A fairly complex system of rigging the
ruddervators permits a pilot to y a “V”- tailed aeroplane
exactly as he or she ies a conventional- tailed aeroplane
using normal rudder pedals and control stick/yoke inputs.
Note: What follows is a description of the operation of an
aeroplane’s movable control surfaces where these surfaces
are located at the rear of the aeroplane and does not apply
to aircraft with elevators ahead of the wing (canard) or air-
craft equipped with elevons or ailevators (elevator and aile-
ron operating in a single control surface as found on many
“Delta” winged aircraft).
ELEVATOR/PITCH CONTROL
The following drawings show the control surface move-
ments and tail forces for “V”-tailed aircraft when the stick/
yoke and rudder pedals are operated as viewed from the rear.
As shown, because the control surfaces are oset from
horizontal and vertical, the forces created when the rudder-
vators are displaced are similarly oset.
individual would plan for his company to enter a new and
unknown aviation market with the most advanced and
expensive aeroplane of the lot? Whilst Beechcraft would
eventually see the ecacy of producing less sophisticated
and less expensive aircraft (see endnote 4,) this rst post-
war Beech was intended to come out of the box rmly sit-
ting atop of the aviation mountain, condently and reso-
lutely daring all comers to topple it. As history has shown,
despite a most valiant but ultimately failed eort by Piper
to do just that with its superb PA-24 “Comanche,” no aero-
plane, so far, has quite been able to do so.
WHY “BONANZA”?5
In Walter Beech’s own words in 1946, “Airplanes have been
named after stars, galaxies, constellations, animals, sh,
birds, and natural phenomena such as hurricanes, lightning
and thunderbolts. For our new Model 35, Beech Aircraft has
sought to nd a name that would be descriptive of the extra
value oered in the way of economy, performance, and
pleasure to the owner. We examined the word ‘Bonanza’,
which in English has a common meaning of a rich source of
prot or gain or an unusual value.”
Whilst there is no evidence to the contrary that Mr. Beech
sincerely intended that owners of his new aeroplane would
feel that they had indeed purchased a “bonanza”, I think that
we may be forgiven if we strongly suspect that he sincerely
intended that his new aeroplane would be a “bonanza” for
Beech Aircraft as well – and so it has been on both counts.
Additionally, Mr. Beech said, “We found that it (‘bonanza’)
... also has an additional meaning of ‘fair weather’ in cer-
tain foreign languages.”
In Spanish and Portuguese, “bonanza” means prosperity,
success and fair weather;
In French, “bonance” means calm, tranquil and smooth
seas.
In Italian, “bonaccia” means prosperity, calmness and
tranquillity.
THE “V”
During WWII, as aeronautical engineers in Great Britain and
the United States began to think about how the airspeed of
currently operational aircraft might be increased, the idea
of using a “V”-tail as a replacement for a conventional tail
arrangement was raised. “V’- tail was not, however, a new
concept at that time.
The rst “V” or “Buttery” tail surface arrangement (an
aircraft tail- surface conguration combining rudders and
elevators into two, single control surfaces called “rudder-
vators” was invented and patented in 1930 (Patent Polksi #
115938) by Polish pilot and aeronautical/aerospace engineer
Jerzy Rudlicki (14 March 1893 – 18 August 1977.)
(For the purpose of this discussion, the term “rudder-
vator” will refer to each separate “V” surface as well as to
the hinged, movable control surfaces at their trailing edges)
A conventional-tailed aeroplane has one or more vertical
ns with a hinged, movable rudder(s) at its (their) trail-
ing edge and a horizontal stabilizer with a hinged movable

www.a2asimulations.com ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS 15
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
1. When the yoke is pushed
forward to lower the nose, the
ruddervators move downward
as does a conventional elevator
control surface. However, they
also necessarily create additional
forces which push and pull to
each side (yaw axis) as well.
Each ruddervator osets the
other’s yaw force, but because
of the dual direction of forces
created by ruddevators, they are
functionally less aerodynami-
cally ecient than a similarly
sized and displaced horizon-
tal control surface. Accordingly,
rudddervators must be larger
and/or be displaced farther than
a conventional horizontal ele-
vator surface to create an equal
force in the pitch axis.
2. When the yoke is pulled
rearward to raise the nose, the
ruddervators move upward as
does a conventional elevator control surface. However, they
also create additional forces which push and pull to each
side as well, as described above. The ineciency caused
by the oset forces is similar to when the ruddervators are
pushed downward.
3. When the right rudder pedal is pushed to yaw the nose
to the right the ruddevators both move to the right. In order
for the left ruddervator to move to the right it must also
move upward creating an additional nose up force, and
when the right ruddervator moves to the right it must also
move downward creating an additional downward pitch
force. The ruddervators’ up and down pitch forces cancel
each other out so that only a right yawing force is created.
The canceled-out upward and downward forces create inef-
ciency as stated above.
4. When the left rudder pedal is pushed to yaw the nose
to the left, the ruddevators both move to the left. In order
for the left ruddervator to move to the left it must also move
downward creating an additional nose down force, and
when the right ruddervator moves to the left it must also
move upward creating an additional nose up force. Each of
the ruddervators’ up and downward pitch forces cancel each
other out so that only a left yawing force is created. The
canceled- out upward and downward forces create ine-
ciency as stated above.
5. When both the yoke and either rudder pedal are moved a
combination of the above control surface movements is cre-
ated so that the nose may be raised or lowered while simul-
taneously yawing the nose to the left or right as desired.
As you may imagine, the linkages required to move the
ruddervators to comply with the exact forces which a pilot
may require are quite complicated.
On a “V”-tail Bonanza, with full up elevator and with no
rudder input, the left rudderva-
tor is displaced 22½º upward.
With full right rudder and with
the elevator neutral, the left
ruddervator is displaced 23º
upward, and with full up eleva-
tor and with right rudder simul-
taneously, the left ruddervator is
displaced 44º upward. By con-
trast, the elevator of the con-
ventional tail of an A36 Bonanza
is limited to 23º upward and 20º
downward displacement, while
the rudder is limited to 25º left
or right displacement.
“V”-TAIL DISADVANTAGES:
■Weight
While Bonanza’s “V”-tail is leg-
endary, the myriad aeronautical
claims that Beech has perenni-
ally made for it do not entirely
or even partially live up to that
legend. Bonanza’s “V”-tail is
not lighter than a conventional tail arrangement as the two
ruddervators must each be larger than any of the three con-
ventional tail surfaces. Because the control force of the two
ruddervators must equal the control force of the conven-
tional three-surface design, the two ruddervators, in sum,
must have approximately equal or greater area because of
“V”- tail’s aerodynamic ineciencies when compared to a
conventional tail. Additionally, the complex control linkage
of the “V”-tail arrangement is heavier than the far simpler
conventional-tail linkage and is located at the most rear-
ward position. For example, a 1968 E33A Debonair, which is
virtually identical to a similarly equipped 1968 V35A “V”-
tail Bonanza except for the tail surfaces, is 45 lbs lighter
than V35A. However, this is not the total story of the disad-
vantages of the “V.”
■Greater interference drag
NACA wind- tunnel studies of the generic “V”- tail design
have found that a small amount of interference drag is
reduced by the reduction of one intersection of tail surfaces
(two instead of three.) However, what small advantage may
be gained thereby is virtually eliminated by the increase of
interference drag created at the proximate inside surfaces of
the “V” surfaces where they are attached to the aft fuselage.
Interference drag caused by the proximity of the inside base
of each “V” surface occurs in this manner: Air molecules
moving past the lower inside surfaces of the ruddervators
become commingled and disorganized creating a disturbed
airow which creates interference drag.
■Greater induced drag
In order to ensure pitch stability, the aft pitch controlling
surfaces of any aeroplane must be set at such a positive
“V”-tail mixing linkage: The blue section shown is the fuselage’s
rearmost end looking up from underneath. There are two rods
extending o to the le of this photograph that connect to the
actual ruddervators. Rightward motion of the top rod (due to
either rightward motion of the entire mixer assembly due to a
pitch command, or clockwise rotation of the assembly due to
a yaw command) will deflect the ruddervator one direction;
leward motion will deflect it the other direction. This is the same
for the other ruddervator similarly connected past the bottom of
the photograph. Simple, eh?

16 A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA www.a2asimulations.com
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
(nose up) incidence when the elevator is neutral that suf-
cient “decalage” (also known as “horizontal dihedral”) is
created relative to the wing’s angle of incidence. The non-
horizontal ruddervators, when at neutral, are less ecient
in creating sucient decalage than a conventional horizon-
tal stabilizer/elevator and therefore must be set at a greater
positive incidence. Being at greater incidence puts each of
the ruddervators under a greater positive aerodynamic load
at all times and thereby creates greater induced drag (drag
which occurs whenever an aeroplane’s wing and/or tail sur-
faces positively redirect the oncoming airow) than are cre-
ated by conventional horizontal surfaces.
Additionally, in Bonanza, the right ruddervator is oset a
few degrees more to the right than the left ruddervator to
counter P- factor, also called “asymmetric blade eect” and
“asymmetric disc eect” (relocation of a spinning propel-
ler’s centre of thrust when the propeller disc is at a positive
angle of attack [Alpha] which in a right hand-turning pro-
peller exerts a left yawing moment on the aircraft and vice
versa). To reiterate, because each ruddervator is oset from
vertical, they must be set at a greater degree to the right to
counter P- eect than a conventional single n/rudder sur-
face would need to be to exert the same force.
■Form/pressure drag
In order to preserve pitch and yaw stability as well as to
grant ecient control displacement forces, the wetted area
(the area exposed to the oncoming air) of the ruddervators
must be roughly equal to that of conventional tail surfaces.
Accordingly, each of the “V” surfaces must be larger both
in chord and/or span than that of equally- eective conven-
tional tail surfaces. Accordingly, the ruddervators’ wetted
area produces form/pressure drag equal to or greater than
that produced by conventional tail surfaces.
■Yaw/Roll Instability or “Dutch Roll”
Properly applied, a small amount of dihedral creates a stabi-
lising force in a wing or horizontal tail surface so that when
it is displaced in the roll axis by turbulence, a gust of wind
or after the aircraft is deliberately banked, it will tend to
return to level ight. However, when tail surfaces are radi-
cally oset upward (as in a “V”- tail,) a very strong dihedral
force is created at the rear of the aeroplane.
Some aircraft are designed with some amount of horizon-
tal tail surface dihedral to increase roll- axis stability. Less
commonly, some aircraft are designed with some negative
(downward) horizontal tail surface dihedral, called “anhe-
dral” or “cathedral,” to decrease what is considered to be an
excess of roll-axis stability. It is understood that extreme
dihedral (or extreme sweepback) tends to instigate a con-
dition called “Dutch Roll,” a series of out-of-phase turns
in which an aeroplane tends to roll from side to side whilst
also yawing in the opposite direction of the roll and not
remaining at or returning to level ight without engaging
a yaw and/or pitch damper, an auto pilot and/or the pilot’s
corrective control input.
Accordingly, Bonanza’s 30º-33º ruddervators tend to
cause Dutch Roll at the rear of the aeroplane, which has
been reported to cause both yaw and pitch “wandering” and
pitch “seeking” at cruise airspeeds.
ADVANTAGES:
■Airspeed?
Beech’s claim that a “V”- tail design suciently reduces
drag so that it increases the aircraft’s airspeed as com-
pared to the same aircraft with a conventional tail has been
shown not to be so. If any such advantage exists at all, it is
de minimus at best. Even Beech (which some have claimed
has not always been known to have played entirely fairly
with regard to its aeroplanes’ published airspeed speci-
cations) lists the cruising airspeeds of the last “V”-tail
Bonanza, V35B, as being the same (172 knots) as an equally
powered F33A (a conventionally-tailed Bonanza.)
■Appearance
Many would agree that the undisputed advantage that a
“V”-tail has over a conventional tail is its appearance. It is
certainly eye-catching and unless the truth of the matter is
known to the observer, a “V”-tail appears to be cleaner and
more ecient. Beechcraft apparently heavily relied upon
this erroneous assumption and armatively added to it for
decades in order to generate Bonanza sales. As stated before,
despite its exotic appearance and appeal, the “V”-tail actu-
ally does not improve aircraft performance in any measur-
able amount as compared to a conventional tail.
A RARELY ADOPTED TAIL DESIGN
There are so many ineciencies and control rigging com-
plications involved with the “V”-tail design that it is not a
surprise that it has been so rarely used.
Whilst at least 15 jet engine-powered military aero-
planes and at least one helicopter incorporating a “V”-tail
are known to exist at this time (2018,) the only piston-
engine ghter known to have been built with a “V”- tail is
the experimental Bell P- 63A- 8 “Kingcobra”. This one- o
aeroplane was a test bed to nd out if such a tail congu-
ration might increase the top airspeed of the already quite
fast P- 63D “Kingcobra”. Powered by an Allison V- 1710- 109
engine producing 1,425 hp and with a top airspeed of 437
mph at 30,000 feet (on par with P-51 “Mustang’ and P-47
“Thunderbolt”), P- 63A- 8 was already ying nearly as fast
as a propeller- driven ghter could be made to y. This
P- 63D was so modied and was designated P- 63A- 8. It
broke up during diving tests before it could be determined
whether the substitution of the “V”-tail produced less drag
than the conventional tail surface arrangement and accord-
ingly produced any increase of airspeed. It is not reported
whether the “V”- tail was the cause of P- 63A- 8’s in- ight
breakup but speculation thereof abounds. Experiments with
“V”-tails were not made thereafter.
In 1944 Beech built an interesting experimental Model 18
“Twin Beech” designated A-19 on the airframe of a USAAF
A-10 “Wichita.” A large “V”-tail was substituted for the
conventional tail surfaces. Extensive stability and control

www.a2asimulations.com ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS 17
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
■ 1948 Beech Model 34
“Twin-Quad”
■ Bell P-63A-8 (also
designated RP-63G). This one-
o experimental aeroplane
was based upon the basic
airframe and engine of P-63D
“Kingcobra” which usually has
a bubble canopy in place of
P-39 “Airacobra’s” automotive-
style doors. However, P-63A-8
retained the old-style doors,
possibly to ensure a safer
emergency in-flight exit.
1944 Beech built a one-o A-19, which was a USAAF A-10 “Wichita” with an experimental “V”-tail. A-19 was the first and largest Beech aircra to
that date with such. At the time, many might have wondered why Beech was experimenting with a “V”-tail. Time would soon solve that mystery.
A-19 would certainly be a challenging subject for a “can you name this aeroplane” contest. USAAF archive photo, circa 1944.
■ Eclipse Aviation 400. If you’re going to put a single
jet engine on top of the fuselage a “V”-tail seems like
your best, if not your only bet.
■ Robin ATL Beyond appearance, there seems to
be no real need for a “V”-tail in this design. As can
be seen, the ruddervators are so large that they
are surely as heavy and produce as much drag as a
conventional cruciform tail.
■ H-101 Salto aerobatic sailplane. Here, the “V”- tail
makes some sense. Without the need to oset a
spinning propeller’s P-Factor, the ruddervators can
be smaller (as they clearly are in this design) than
on a propeller-driven aircra, and accordingly may,
in fact, be lighter and less drag-producing than a
conventional tail would be.

18 A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA www.a2asimulations.com
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
tests were made, the ndings of which were that the “V”
empennage was altogether satisfactory. These tests con-
tinued into 1945 and provided valuable information for the
design of the “V”-tail Model 35 “Bonanza.”
With its strange appearance and confusing name, Beech
produced “Twin-Quad” to meet the newly re-born post-
war need for short-haul airline transport aircraft. Quite
innovative, its name comes from its four air-cooled, eight
cylinder horizontally opposed Lycoming GSO- 580 (GSO
denoting Geared Supercharged and Opposed engines,) each
producing 400 hp at 3,300 rpm. Two engines are mounted
inside each wing, each pair of engines driving a single pro-
peller through a gear-box. Model 34’s enormous “V”-tail,
while visually fascinating, was somewhat o- putting to
conservative airline purchasing executives in 1948, many of
whom thought that passengers might balk at ying in such
a curious-looking contraption.
Whilst timing may not be everything, it is a very important
thing. With spacious seating for 20 and/or cargo, excellent
performance (top airspeed of 240 mph and a fully-loaded
range of 1,456 miles,) Beech 34 fell victim to the post- war
era’s enormous military surplus of similar aircraft such as
the larger and ubiquitous Douglas DC-3/C-47 “Skytrain,”
Lockheed’s rugged and better performing Model 18/C- 60
Lodestar, as well as, ironically, Beechcraft’s own smaller
Model 18. In the face of this formidable array of relatively
inexpensive and readily available surplus aircraft, Model 34
was ultimately not a viable alternative.
These aeroplanes aside, a few light aeroplanes have
adopted the “V”-tail. Some of these are: Eclipse Aviation
400, a single engine, four- seat light jet; Robin ATL, a single
piston- engine, two- seat Avion Très Léger (“Very Light
Aircraft,”) and H- 101 Salto, a single- seat aerobatic pure
sailplane (no engine).
TO “V” OR NOT TO “V?”
When designing Bonanza, Beech’s engineers considered
both a conventional and a “V”-tail until Beech aerodynami-
cist Jerry Gordon convinced the rest of the team that a “V”-
tail, such as had been successfully installed on the experi-
mental A-19 variant of Model 18 (see above,) would save
weight and reduce drag by eliminating an entire surface and
might possibly be helpful regarding spin prevention and
recovery. Unfortunately, none of Mr. Gordon’s speculative
claims for Bonanza’s “V”-tail turned out to have any basis
in reality. Whatever Walter Beech may have thought of the
“V”- tail’s aerodynamic benets, he was most enthusiastic
about it for aesthetic and commercial reasons. He correctly
understood that even if the “V”-tail did nothing at all about
improving performance, it certainly made Bonanza the most
distinctive light general aviation aeroplane in the world. So
it was and so it remains.
BONANZA’S GRAND DESIGN
Beech’s team set about creating the new aeroplane in the
usual way, drawing various congurations and concepts
until one emerged which was deemed best. However, one
aspect in the creation of Bonanza was unique for its time:
Model 35 was the rst light general aviation aeroplane to
be thoroughly and extensively wind-tunnel tested before its
rst ight.
Many are not aware that there were actually ve pre-
production airframe prototypes of what became Model 35,
all which were designed, built and tested before Model 35
Bonanza became Beech’s general aviation standard bearer.
All ve of these pre- production airframes were tested in
Beech’s ten-foot diameter wind tunnel for, amongst other
things, structural integrity, utter and the integrity of the
“V”-tail surfaces. Pre-production airframes 1, 2 and 5 were
built and so tested but not own. Airframe version 3 was
the rst Bonanza to be actually ight tested on 22 December
1945. It was powered by a 4- cylinder Lycoming GO- 290
which was an experimental, geared version of the 125 hp,
horizontally opposed Lycoming 0- 290 CP, which was in this
1947 Beech Model 35 Bonanza prototype version 4
of the 5 Bonanza airframes which Beech built and
tested. Version 4 was submitted to obtain Model
35’s certificate and was extensively flight tested,
including a dive test to 286 mph in the manner in
which military aircra of that era were tested. This
very aeroplane is pictured in numerous Beech
promotional advertisements and, as usual regarding
such promotions, Beech populated it with the smallest
people it could find in order to make its cabin appear
more capacious.
In March 1949, Bonanza prototype version 4,
named “Waikiki Beech” and piloted by Captain William
Odom, flew from Honolulu, Hawaii to Teterboro, New
Jersey, establishing the existing non-stop long-
distance record for light general aviation aircra of
4,957 miles. Between 7 October 1951 and 27 January
1952, Congressman Peter F. Mack, Jr. completed a
solo, easterly around the world flight from and back
to Springfield, Illinois in this same aeroplane, which
he named “Friendship Flame,” flying 33,789 miles in
223 hours (113 days) and stopping at 45 cities in 35
countries.

www.a2asimulations.com ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA ::: A2ASIMULATIONS 19
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
way coaxed and prodded into producing 160 hp. One may
justly imagine that this engine was greatly and unhealth-
ily stressed by its gearing in order to produce so much more
power than its design rating. Airframe version 3 also had
a laminar- ow wing to reduce drag, an airfoil innovation
made famous for its use by the USAAF’s then rst- line
ghter, North American P- 51 “Mustang.”
Pre-production airframe 4, which became the prototype
for the production Model 35 Bonanza, was the second of the
Model 35 airframe versions to y; however, its wing has a
conventional airfoil.
The rst 40 or so production Model 35s were not all-
metal as advertised. Their ruddervators, aps and ailerons
were fabric-covered, a common practice for many military
aircraft at that time. Fabric instead of metal covering for
control surfaces was considered to be a reasonable way to
save weight, and it was also believed to help to lighten the
ailerons’ feel. However, after a time, the control surfaces
of high- speed ghter aircraft were metal- covered because,
as the British discovered when Spitre Mk. I ew at air-
speeds greater than 260 mph and the fabric covering on its
ailerons ballooned away from their underlying frame adding
drag and reducing their eectiveness. Whilst Beech Model
35 is not capable of ying at airspeeds where this phenom-
enon would occur, the ailerons on all Bonanzas after the
rst 40 were covered with thin magnesium alloy plate and
later with aluminium.
Bonanza pre-production airframe 3’s original lami-
nar ow wing did not appear on production Model 35s. All
Bonanzas, except the experimental one- o laminar- ow
wing 1961 O35, have conventional airfoils derived from
the popular and often used NACA 23000 series, specically
NACA 23016.56 at the wing root and NACA 23012 at the tip.
Maximum camber of both of these airfoils is located at 15%
of chord aft of the leading edge, which is a bit more forward
that the usual 25 % of chord aft of the leading edge common
to most similar airfoils. A conventional airfoil’s point of
maximum camber is far more forward than that of a lami-
nar airfoil in which it is typically near 50% of the chord aft
of the leading edge. Maximum thickness of NACA 23016.5
at the wing root is 16.5% of the chord and the maximum
thickness of the thinner NACA 23012 at the wing tip is only
12% of the chord.
This airfoil has been used on all Bonanza wings as well as
on other Beech aircraft. The NACA 23000 series’ rather thick
forward section provides a capacious place for the retracted
undercarriage and fuel tanks while still showing an excel-
lent lift/drag ratio and close to a neutral pitching moment
coecient, providing a stable and predictable pitch axis
throughout its wide Alpha range although, as we shall see,
this stability was somewhat undone by the mildly destabi-
lizing characteristics of the “V”-tail.
Early Bonanza’s narrow weight and balance envelope
makes it all-too-easy to accidentally aft-load them beyond
its safe limit (see further discussion below.) Aft-loading
beyond an aircraft’s envelope creates a destabilized and
over sensitive condition in the pitch axis at all airspeeds. At
lower airspeeds, as when taking o and landing, over aft-
loading greatly exacerbates this condition. Accidental and/
or negligent over aft-loading has been a continuing and
serious concern for Bonanza owners and operators, particu-
larly with regard to the later, long cabin “V”-tail” models
which require particular care and planning when loading
the aeroplane.
Bonanza’s wing root is set at +4º and the tip of the wing
set at +1º to the datum line. This provides the wing with a
3º washout (leading edge lower than the trailing edge at the
outer portion of the wing.) Washout is commonly applied
in wing designs to reduce the tendency for tip stalling at
low airspeeds and in steep turns; i.e., in situations of high
Alpha.
Other familiar aircraft of the WWII era known to use
the NACA 23016.5 airfoil are: Avro bombers (Lancaster,
Manchester, Lincoln, etc.) Curtiss SB2C Helldiver; Douglas
DB-7 “Boston;” DC-4 (C-54, R5C); Focke-Wulf Ta-152;
Grumman F- 4- F “Wildcat,” F- 6- F “Hellcat,” F- 7- F
“Tigercat,” F-8-F “Bearcat” and TBF “Avenger;” Kawasaki
Ki- 56, 60, 102 and 108; Lavochkin La 5- 7; Lockheed “Electra
Junior” and P- 38 “Lightning;” Martin PBM “Mariner;”
Messerschmitt Me- 210, 310 and 410; North American
B-25/PBJ series; Sikorsky VS-44;
Taylorcraft BC- BL- 12; Vought VS-
326 (a straight wing “Corsair;”) and
Westland “Whirlwind.”
Bonanza’s airfoils provide it
with a laterally stable, if some-
what abrupt, stall. This kind of stall,
whilst unpleasant but acceptable in a
ghter/pursuit type, is an undesirable
and possibly dangerous characteris-
tic for a general aviation aeroplane. It
has been reported that Bonanza’s stall
has dangerously caught low-time
pilots unaware and suddenly nd-
ing themselves in a stalled aeroplane
at low altitude, always a blueprint for
calamity.
The first Model 35
Bonanza, prototype 4
during its final testing
stage. This is a rare
photograph of this
aeroplane at rest. Note
the laminated wooden
two-blade propeller. It
was pilot-variable but not
a constant-pitch unit. The
pilot had to manually set
the desired propeller pitch
for any power setting.
It curiously seems to be
particularly out of place
on such an otherwise
sleek and modern
aeroplane. Beech factory
photograph, March 1947

20 A2ASIMULATIONS ::: ACCU-SIM V35B BONANZA www.a2asimulations.com
FLYING INTO THE FUTURE
FOR SIMULATION USE ONLY
However, it is well to remem-
ber that Beech did not expect
their Bonanza to be own by
amateur weekend sports lers.
It was expected to be own by
professional, highly experienced
ex-military pilots who would
not (it was supposed) be at all
challenged or put at risk by this
or any other of Bonanza’s less-
than- benign ight character-
istics. It is surely an impor-
tant factor regarding Bonanza’s
poor initial safety record7.
Notwithstanding Beech’s expec-
tations, from its introduc-
tion Bonanza was neverthe-
less owned and own by many
pilots whose training and experience in such a spirited and
demanding thoroughbred was woefully insucient.
The engine powering prototype #4 and the rst produc-
tion Bonanzas is the now-familiar horizontally opposed,
six- cylinder, 165 horsepower, Continental E- 165. This
engine is reliable, cool running, economical and relatively
inexpensive to maintain. It does not require uncommonly
available aviation fuel and does not tend to burn oil at a
high rate. Only this engine’s six cylinders, two more than
in a Lycoming of similar power, might be a cause for some
objection regarding maintenance and inspection expenses.
However, compared to the contemporary 1947 Cessna 195’s
seven-cylinder radial 300 hp Jacobs R-755A2, Bonanza’s
Continental E- 165 engine is simplicity and economy itself.
Unusual for a light general aviation aeroplane of this time
and a rst in its class, Model 35 has an electrically and fully
retractable tricycle (nosewheel) undercarriage. Even more
unusual for a light aeroplane and another rst, the under-
carriage when retracted is completely enclosed.
Whilst every USAAF bomber after the 1935 B-17 had tricy-
cle undercarriage, most American WWII era ghter aircraft
had a tail- wheel, the few exceptions being Lockheed P- 38
“Lightning,” Bell P- 39 “Airacobra” and P- 63 “Kingcobra,”
and Northrop P- 61 “Black Widow” night ghter. However,
by 1945, the emerging jet aircraft all utilised a nosewheel.
Thus, tricycle undercarriage was clearly the arrangement
that virtually all military as well as general aviation aircraft
would come to adopt. In this light, it was Walter Beech’s
most fervent desire that this new aeroplane would be asso-
ciated with and dene the future of general aviation.
It is well to remember that up until 1945, tricycle under-
carriage was virtually an unknown feature on general
aviation aeroplanes. One of the very few of those with a
nosewheel was the brilliant Fred Weick’s innovative and
prescient ERCO “Ercoupe.” First own in 1937, it remained
in production by one manufacturer or another until 1969.
A nosewheel for Model 35 was an innovative feature for an
aeroplane of its type. Even rival Spartan 7W had a tailwheel.
However, Beech surprisingly held back a bit from complete
modernity by designing a freely
swiveling nosewheel, requiring
dierential braking for ground
steering. This was done, per-
haps, for economy of construc-
tion, or possibly because the
nose of Model 35 leaves little
room for steering linkages.
As one might suss, Bonanza’s
lack of direct nosewheel steer-
ing was unpopular in what was
loudly purported to be a rst-
class, top shelf and very expen-
sive machine. Apparently Beech
received sucient complaints to
warrant a change and as a result
the 1949 Model 35A had a rudder
pedal-steerable nosewheel as
well as a slightly higher permissible takeo weight (and
concurrently, a slightly lower top airspeed.)
With the exception of “Ercoupe,” all other mass pro-
duced pre-war light general aviation aircraft had a tail-
wheel. As mentioned, virtually every US aeroplane manu-
facturer who had survived the war planned to re-introduce
the same or very similar aeroplanes as those they had built
and sold before the war, tailwheels, fabric covering, strut-
braced high wings and all. Even Cessna’s rst post- war
aeroplane, the 1947 Cessna 190/195, which was introduced
almost simultaneously with Bonanza, has a tailwheel. While
C-190/195’s bow to modernity is its all-metal construction
and cantilever (no strut) high wings, its overall design, xed
undercarriage, radial engine(s) and tail wheel are most de-
nitely reminiscent of pre-war aircraft.
Bonanza’s nosewheel has always been and remains
mounted ahead of the engine, as far forward as possible.
It was placed there so that the direct weight of the engine
would not be upon it and a larger proportion of the aircraft’s
1940 ERCO “Ercoupe”, a very cozy side-by-side two-seater.
Ercoupe’s can still be seen from time-to-time at airports
throughout the US.
1947 Cessna 195. Produced in 1947, this sleek and truly beautiful aeroplane
surely looks classic – that is, a classic from the 1930s. Like Bonanza, C-190/195
was intended to be a high-end business transport. Also like Bonanza, it was
sleek, fast and expensive. Unlike Bonanza, however, C-190/195 was never a
popular ride and relatively few were sold during its seven year production
period. In fact, Beech sold more Bonanzas in 1947, over 1,500, than all of the
Cessna 190/195s ever built (approximately 1,180.)