Thoughts on Velocity aircraft

[Yooper Rocketman]

31 minutes ago, takair said:

I beleive you need to have a repairman certificate to do your own work even on an experimental (or A&P) and I think you need to have built 51% to get the repairman certificate.  That said, it is probably easier to find hangar eleves to work on an experimental.

No.  Any owner can work on it.  The only requirement for the Repairman's license is to perform the Annual "Condition Inspection", which is the equivalent of an Annual.  In absence of the Repairman's license any A&P can perform the inspection.   No IA or Repair Station license required.  

[takair]

15 minutes ago, peevee said:

That is not my understanding. As I understand it you need the repair station certificate to do the annual condition inspection, other than that it's wide open.

I stand corrected.  looks like you are correct.  I should have checked first.

[gsxrpilot]

38 minutes ago, par said:

200kts is the goal but I'd be happy even at 190kts while burning less than 20gph, which Appears to be very feasible in a velocity. What will a 252 do o a good day at 12k'?

My favorite twin, if I could afford it, is the Cessna 310. On a good day it may do 190 running ROP at around 30gph, which just doesn't make sense on my budget. 

On another note, what do you guys think of express aircraft? They seem to promise a lot on paper but you don't see many of them around or for sale. 

I think you can get 185kts ROP at 14gph in the 252 at 12K.

[kerry]

A turbo viking does the 190 knot range and the price of one is not bad.  As mentioned above I think the comanche 400 would be cool plane to have.  My Dad owned one and traded it for a C310 years ago.  He tells me it was worse thing he ever did and says the 400 was the best plane he had.  Although at the time fuel was probably .80/gal.

[Andy95W]

5 hours ago, M20Doc said:

I'd suggest a Comanche, maybe even a 400.  There are several around for J model money. At altitude mine is starting to bump into 200KTS.

130 gallons of fuel and still carry 700 pound of other stuff.

Clarence

Yeah, but really how useful is an airplane with only a 2 hour range?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Yeah, but really how useful is an airplane with only a 2 hour range?

3 hours if I run lean od peak, but that's hard with 8 cylinders.

Clarence

[Wayne Cease]

16 hours ago, jkhirsch said:

Still waiting on the Velocity V-Twin.

I know you said 200kts, but certain Twin Comanches are feasible to maintain and operate and a second engine over mountains might make the significant other just as happy as the speed.

There are at least a few flying and several more under construction.

The specs say 215 kts @ 20 gph or 195 kts @ 16 gph for the 180 HP (per side) version and 185 kts @ 16 gph / 175 kts @ 12 gph for the 160 HP version.  I swapped emails with one of the builders that has his flying, he said the numbers are rather optimistic.

[Wayne Cease]

12 hours ago, rpcc said:

JetBlue is your friend for the long hauls  - no way to beat the time or economics traveling that distance with family and the speed delta.

^ This.

Flying to anywhere east of the Mississippi River works well from Virginia in a single engine piston plane.  Going to California will be more of an adventure than a flight, especially for the whole family.

[Wayne Cease]

8 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Yeah, but really how useful is an airplane with only a 2 hour range?

Means it won't fly longer than your bladder will hold out.

 

[jkhirsch]

13 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Twin Comanches are 165 kt airplanes. Even the full Miller conversion doesn't get above about 180.

That's exactly why I said..."I know you said 200kts, but" I certainly never claimed anything about the speed of a Twin Comanche.

[jkhirsch]

1 hour ago, Wayne Cease said:

There are at least a few flying and several more under construction.

The specs say 215 kts @ 20 gph or 195 kts @ 16 gph for the 180 HP (per side) version and 185 kts @ 16 gph / 175 kts @ 12 gph for the 160 HP version.  I swapped emails with one of the builders that has his flying, he said the numbers are rather optimistic.

Good information, thanks for sharing. Based on the available data from Twin Comanches I imagine they'd have to have reached "aerodynamic perfection" to come anywhere near that.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, jkhirsch said:

Good information, thanks for sharing. Based on the available data from Twin Comanches I imagine they'd have to have reached "aerodynamic perfection" to come anywhere near that.

A clean and modified turbocharged Twin Comanche should do 175-180 KTAS

Clarence 

[jkhirsch]

It seems likely that I will own a Twin Comanche eventually. I'd love to get one with the Robertson 200 max gross increase.

Clarence, do you know much/have much experience about the Twins?

Edited March 31, 2017 by jkhirsch

[par]

A part of my soul died when I came to the realization that I can't afford a 310...I would truly love to have one to keep for a lifetime. I guess I'll have to wait for the kids to grow up and move out before I can realize this dream. Hell, by then I'll probably be able to afford a sweet Turbo 310R.

After reading all the posts here, I think I need to re-evaluate the "need" for 200kts. I think the kids and wife could take advantage of a single with club seating and the speed I lose by doing so will not be noticed due to the comfort factor this arrangement will bring. A Beach 36 or a Saratoga could work well and they are significantly cheaper than any Velocity I am interested in. What thoughts do you all have on these birds?

[peevee]

I always thought the turbo toga wasn't a bad value other than being slow and thirsty. If I needed to haul a ton of people I'd consider it.

I'd love a 310 too.

[NotarPilot]

On 3/30/2017 at 10:01 AM, par said:

The cost of acquisition may be similar but the cost of ownership between the two is significantly in favor of the velocity. 

I also looked at the Velo before buying my J.  I even test flew an older 4 seater with the single door.  I got an insurance quote on the J and the Velo and insurance for the the Velo was almost 2.5 times higher than the Mooney.  I want to say $2,300ish vs $1,000 a year.  However, according to the seller, annual "condition" inspections only ran about $800.  

I love the plane but one thing always struck me strange about the ones I saw for sale.  Most were low time with only a few hundred hours.  Some were low time airframes with higher time engines (Indicating the builders installed used engines).  Being a believer in the theory of "infant mortality" rates, sorry those planes just didn't appear "proven" to me.  I'd probably feel more confident if I could find one with 2,000 hours for sale.

Lastly, the one I looked at had a Franklin engine.  What the hell?  I didn't even know they made those anymore.  Apparently they make them in Poland now.

[KSMooniac]

Many people are builders instead of flyers, and get bored flying their project.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using Tapatalk

[rainman]

I'm on the list for a Raptor aircraft. It will be a pressurized version based on a Velocity using an Audi twin turbo diesel engine. The prototype construction can be. viewed at the raptor aircraft website. Can you wait a few years? Jet fuel, 220 kts.  Ve

[peevee]

1 hour ago, rainman said:

I'm on the list for a Raptor aircraft. It will be a pressurized version based on a Velocity using an Audi twin turbo diesel engine. The prototype construction can be. viewed at the raptor aircraft website. Can you wait a few years? Jet fuel, 220 kts.  Ve

My impression... Vaporware. Hope I'm wrong.

[par]

On 4/7/2017 at 7:17 PM, rainman said:

I'm on the list for a Raptor aircraft. It will be a pressurized version based on a Velocity using an Audi twin turbo diesel engine. The prototype construction can be. viewed at the raptor aircraft website. Can you wait a few years? Jet fuel, 220 kts.  Ve

If they can actually make everything the promise there, I'll be a buyer. Looks great on paper!

Edited April 10, 2017 by par

[mike_elliott]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 7:17 PM, rainman said:

I'm on the list for a Raptor aircraft. It will be a pressurized version based on a Velocity using an Audi twin turbo diesel engine. The prototype construction can be. viewed at the raptor aircraft website. Can you wait a few years? Jet fuel, 220 kts.  Ve

I met Peter Mueller yesterday at SNF. Very intelligent gent with a well thought out plan. His transparency of the whole project and out of the box thinking of solutions to problems using existing methodology was quite refreshing. His Aero engineer is the same guy that did the Velocity

[peevee]

5 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

I met Peter Mueller yesterday at SNF. Very intelligent gent with a well thought out plan. His transparency of the whole project and out of the box thinking of solutions to problems using existing methodology was quite refreshing. His Aero engineer is the same guy that did the Velocity

It's a very very cool project, I hope he's successful but I don't have enough faith in them to put 2k down on one.

The deicing is particularly interesting.

[mike_elliott]

The 2k deposit is in escrow, your down side is $65 escrow fee. I guess you could keep it in a savings account and earn .05% interest or you could play a Raptor deposit like a long call option position capable of earning 10x with little ($65) downside.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Guitarmaster]

I'm on the list for a Raptor aircraft. It will be a pressurized version based on a Velocity using an Audi twin turbo diesel engine. The prototype construction can be. viewed at the raptor aircraft website. Can you wait a few years? Jet fuel, 220 kts.  Ve

 

Me too. Been following him from almost the beginning and talked with him twice at KOSH.

 

I'm number 540 on the list.

 

If you're coming to Oshkosh, take some time and go talk with him. I love his attitude toward the project. So many aircraft manufacturers get hamstrung about why they can't do something. He came at this asking, "why can't we do this?"

 

The best way to describe MY attitude toward it? Skeptical but hopeful! It's really no-risk proposition until the time you have to put your first third down.

 

Just remember, everything's impossible until somebody does it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[peevee]

There's a few things that I'm super skeptical about...

Auto engines never work well in airplanes. Eggenfelner, rotary, i haven't see a builder happy with the performance and in the RV world you see those guys selling them and going Lycoming. Asking an auto engine to run at 100 percent power for 20 minutes and 75 percent for several hours isn't really what they're designed for.

 

The cooling system. I'm dubious at best. It's a neat idea but seems problematic. 

 

Gear reduction. These things tend to not be very reliable.

 

It sounds like they're gonna build one airplane, test it, and start selling "kits" 6 months later. That isn't much testing. With such a radical departure from common systems I would expect problems. Lots of them.

 

I hope it works, it will revolutionize GA