dogpilot wrote:T-tails where a design fad. Since at the time many T-tailed commercial jets where coming out and proving to be quite popular and profitable. So GA jumped onto the style wagon and made T-tailed versions of a lot of aircraft, King Airs, Saratogas, Lances, Tramahawks...the list goes on. It turns out most of those aircraft didn't need T-tails in the first place, it was just styling. It ended up decreasing performance and increasing weight, in the tail. To make the tail strong enough to accept all that was demanded of it by placing the horizontal on top of it, a lot of structure was required. Structure that already existed in the rear fuselage. Adding weight that far back made for less load in the load areas. Performance suffered as well, King Air 200's are generally slower than King Air 100's and have that famous King Air tail walk more pronounced. So much so that the B200 added strakes, which where initially added to regular 200's to reduce the wag in STC's introduced by Raisebeck. The trend continued on with the Beech 1900, which has more accessory wings, strakes and tailets than any other aircraft since the 20's just to make it go straight and level!

So short answer, while one might potentially see less damage to the underside of your horizontal, the weight/aerodynamic penalty would hardly be worth it. If you want to talk style wins over all points of the performance compass, then lets talk Beechcraft Duke, best aircraft to potentially decorate a pole ever made.

Battson wrote:...

If V tails or T tails were a good idea in backcountry aircraft, there would be more around. I can hardly think of one.

Hammer wrote:

Battson wrote:...

If V tails or T tails were a good idea in backcountry aircraft, there would be more around. I can hardly think of one.

The Piper Tomahawk is pretty well respected by the bush crowd.