Jump to content

Thoughts on Velocity aircraft


par

Recommended Posts

With an upcoming move to Texas, I am looking to step into a faster plane to accommodate future trips to NY and CA (family visits) because my C just won't cut it. I considered everything from twin's to an M20k but for the cost (especially with twins), the speed factor still isn't there. I need something that can do at least close to 200kts TAS for this adventure to appeal to the wife. At that speed, I'd be looking at around a 7-8hr one way trip with a fuel stop to either coast.

I have always been interested in Velocity aircraft and being experimental, the money saving factor/upgrade ease is certainly appealing. On top of that, these are fast airplanes and I would be buying one with a 300hp conti. They are also very roomy and should be able to accommodate my small family for at least 5 more years. Unfortunately, there is no "velocityspace" on the internet and that is why I am here to see if any of you have experience with these aircraft. I am at least 1 year away from purchasing one so there is no rush. I am here to learn so please enlighten me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the airplane. Useful load is roughly the same as Mooney.

It's a crapshoot buying one already built unless you know the builder. You can research the builder and how many planes they built.

I HATE the company reps. They are always snooty at OSH and I feel like I just walked into a Lamborghini dealership in jeans and ripped up t-shirt.

Overall, the plane is cool, but the performance is roughly the same or slightly less than an Ovation. Of course, cost of ownership will be significantly less than an Ovation.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bonal said:

I dont know looking at the costs seems like for the money a 231 or 252 might fit the bill and just think how much knowledge you already have about the make.

The ability to do pretty much all of your own work and buy non certified avionics tips the scales. A lot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bonal said:

I dont know looking at the costs seems like for the money a 231 or 252 might fit the bill and just think how much knowledge you already have about the make.

The cost of acquisition may be similar but the cost of ownership between the two is significantly in favor of the velocity. Also, the Velocity XL-RG is certainly roomier than a 252 with a little more payload to boot. Add to this the ability of using non certified avionics, the velocity is a winner. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the 252 doesn't really com close to 200kts at my sub 12k' planned altitude since the kids won't want anything to do with O2. The velocity is able to hit 200kts at less than 10k'. This isn't too bad for a non-turbo 4 seater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by jkhirsch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-I've owned a Varieze.
-Velocity has no practical luggage space.
-Meticulous behind the firewall hygiene is in order to avoid minor or worse prop and engine issues.
-Canards enjoy good glide ratios but the safety circle diminishes proportionate to the lower altitude you intend to fly.
-Engine-out touchdown speeds on the canards are well into the red zone if not decelerating smoothly on touchdown.
-Composite structures do not deform well unless designed to do so, and in these planes, they are not.  In an accident sequence where energy must be dissipated, one would   
     generally choose another type of construction (if worried about the unlikely scenario of an off-airport landing).
-I'd factor in the price of a set of Continental jugs into the maintenance equation.
-The difference in cost between experimental and certified panels is decreasing by the day. 
-If you're comfortable tinkering with the Velocity's panel and innards, a friendly IA will keep your maintenance costs minimal.
-TN 20Fs hit the market for far below the price of a Velocity and it'd take many years of maintenance costs for a TN F to equal the out-of-pocket cost for the Velocity.

I'd borrow/rent/steal a TN Mooney or TR-182 for one of these trips before going to the Velocity.  The kids may not like the 02 but you'd probably like the extra altitude capability.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked seriously at the large 5 seat Velocity before buying the 252. I joined the forums, and exchanged a lot of email. I also flew to OK to look at one for sale. I also looked at several others via pictures and video.

The things that concerned me...

  • sitting there watching the canard vibrate, even in light chop. I know they don't break off, but it's still very disconcerting with it vibrating directly in front of you the whole flight.
  • Build quality seems to be a crap shoot. There is so much variation in quality. With a riveted airplane, you can look at rivets and see if it was quality or not. It just seems more difficult to me to judge whether someone mixed the chemicals correctly when laying up the fiberglass.
  • The retractable main gear seems a bit finicky. Mooney gear is simple and bullet proof. The Velocity gear reminded me of a Cardinal RG.
  • Low clearance on the pusher prop. Both takeoffs and landings, don't flare too much or risk a prop strike.
  • Short fields and engine out landings off field looked to be quite a bit more difficult than in the Mooney.

In the end, I'm just more comfortable flying a certified, solid wing, steel cage equipped, airplane. And especially on long cross country's which is what we do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jkhirsch said:

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine who built a Velocity loves it, he hangars near me with another Velocity guy who just sheared off his nose gear pole/strut/whatever on landing. Some minor belly damage. Apparently the Velocity nose "Rod" support is a weak spot.

That's just one data point, otherwise my friend and his Velocity group seem to love them.

i can get you in touch with my friend if you are real serious, I'm sure he'd love to chat about Velocities with you.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Buster1 said:

A friend of mine who built a Velocity loves it, he hangars near me with another Velocity guy who just sheared off his nose gear pole/strut/whatever on landing. Some minor belly damage. Apparently the Velocity nose "Rod" support is a weak spot.

That's just one data point, otherwise my friend and his Velocity group seem to love them.

i can get you in touch with my friend if you are real serious, I'm sure he'd love to chat about Velocities with you.

That would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some instrument panel shots around here somewhere that I believe were velocity.

See @Randyott for his latest G5 addition to his collection of color screens...

To get 200kt speeds, you will need a Turbo to produce a high %hp at altitude where the air resistance is thin.  The economics of speed...

I am still in the Factory built camp until I can afford to pay for factory quality built by somebody other than me.

Then we'll talk about what powers the homebuilt...  a pair of TN'd IO550s or a small Turbine like the YooperRocketman.

None of this is done on a CB budget.

Consider this idea... 

1) get Rocket.

2) start building homebuilt project.

3) 18 years from now, start your demonstration flights...

Best regards,

-a-

Edited by carusoam
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, carusoam said:

There are some instrument panel shots around here somewhere that I believe were velocity.

See @Randyott for his latest G5 addition to his collection of color screens...

To get 200kt speeds, you will need a Turbo to produce a high %hp at altitude where the air resistance is thin.  The economics of speed...

I am still in the Factory built camp until I can afford to pay for factory quality built by somebody other than me.

Then we'll talk about what powers the homebuilt...  a pair of TN'd IO550s or a small Turbine like the YooperRocketman.

None of this is done on a CB budget.

Consider this idea... 

1) get Rocket.

2) start building homebuilt project.

3) 18 years from now, start your demonstration flights...

Best regards,

-a-

Anthony, Anthony, Anthony,

I LOVE that post!!!

Not every home builder takes 18 years!  :>)  Just the really anal ones trying to raise kids at the same time (and save the money to buy that 724HP turbine).

The more sensible ones buy a completed one from one of those builders more enthused about building than flying.   Standard Lancair IVP's, pressurized 4 place machines with 350 HP Continental's, are selling pretty reasonable today.  Clearly for less than build cost.  You could run LOP at 16-18 gallons an hour, in the flight levels, at cruise speeds around 240-250 knots.  If you need full coverage insurance, that would likely kill the option though.  Liability only is not too bad.

Tom

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, peevee said:

The ability to do pretty much all of your own work and buy non certified avionics tips the scales. A lot.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 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.

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by par
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just look at short field performance and emergency off field performance. That's all it took for me to write off velocities. If you do nothing but fly into long runways and you are absolutely sure the motor will never quit, go for the Velocity.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare against any tc'd, TN'd, or IO550 powered Mooney...

TN'd F looks good from the capital required...

A Missile is economical to acquire... and good on maintenance as well...

Flying hard for speed can use a set of cylinders along the way....

Flying an Acclaim gently can be pretty economical, once you get past the initial acquisition...

Things that come to mind....

Best regards,

-a-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.