Thoughts on Velocity aircraft

[bradp]

Would you rather fly with 1) a pressurized turbo charged big bore air cooled engine in the flight levels (Malibu - and we all know the engine longevity issue with those) or an 2) experimental (although known entity) turbodiesel that is liquid cooled relying on a engine recirculating heating pump to keep the diesel from geling in the flight levels?  It’s more the accessories and temp excursions that would concern me rather than the ability of the engine to make compression and spark in the later case.  

I honestly don’t know.  I’d have an o2 mask handy in either circumstance I think.  

 

[Guitarmaster]

12 minutes ago, bradp said:

Would you rather fly with 1) a pressurized turbo charged big bore air cooled engine in the flight levels (Malibu - and we all know the engine longevity issue with those) or an 2) experimental (although known entity) turbodiesel that is liquid cooled relying on a engine recirculating heating pump to keep the diesel from geling in the flight levels?  It’s more the accessories and temp excursions that would concern me rather than the ability of the engine to make compression and spark in the later case.  

I honestly don’t know.  I’d have an o2 mask handy in either circumstance I think.  

 

I had the same concern with gelling.  Having a coolant/fuel heater (exchanger) solves the problem.  It's no different than a jet. If you are worried about gelling, add Stanadyne to the fuel.  

The water pump is certainly a single point of failure with regard to cooling, but even if a water pump failed, the engine would not immediately quit. 

Of more concern is the single ECU.  ECU's rarely quit, but it would be nice to have redundancy there.  I would like to see two ECUs that flip/flop at shutdown.

I love diesels; but I know diesels so I am comfortable with them.  Not having mags, wires or sparkplugs is a big bonus!

I guess I am in the camp of it's easier to control temp on a liquid cooled engine.  You might check out Viking engines.  Their's is a liquid cooled Honda derivative.  I saw it in a Sonex a few years ago.  Neat motor!  

[carusoam]

Following Matt on this one...?

https://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/welcome.html

Best regards,

-a-

[mccdeuce]

On 9/30/2017 at 5:13 PM, Guitarmaster said:

I had the same concern with gelling.  Having a coolant/fuel heater (exchanger) solves the problem.  It's no different than a jet. If you are worried about gelling, add Stanadyne to the fuel.  

The water pump is certainly a single point of failure with regard to cooling, but even if a water pump failed, the engine would not immediately quit. 

Of more concern is the single ECU.  ECU's rarely quit, but it would be nice to have redundancy there.  I would like to see two ECUs that flip/flop at shutdown.

I love diesels; but I know diesels so I am comfortable with them.  Not having mags, wires or sparkplugs is a big bonus!

I guess I am in the camp of it's easier to control temp on a liquid cooled engine.  You might check out Viking engines.  Their's is a liquid cooled Honda derivative.  I saw it in a Sonex a few years ago.  Neat motor!  

Some great points on your earlier post about "experimental" vs "kit" and not using a traditional engine. Agree 100%.

My point on engine choice was only that I prefer converting Rotary engines for airplane use over the diesel. 

And for my rotary I have a 2 ECU system. Cause you are right it just doesn't make sense to only have one. The weight is miniscule. The cost is miniscule. (In comparison to traditional means)

[peevee]

1 hour ago, mccdeuce said:

Some great points on your earlier post about "experimental" vs "kit" and not using a traditional engine. Agree 100%.

My point on engine choice was only that I prefer converting Rotary engines for airplane use over the diesel. 

And for my rotary I have a 2 ECU system. Cause you are right it just doesn't make sense to only have one. The weight is miniscule. The cost is miniscule. (In comparison to traditional means)

I'd be more concerned with cooling. Especially with the water seals on a rotary and doubly so with the rotor housings getting older and that channel wearing some.

[M20FanJesse]

Lancair IV?

 

[DaV8or]

Oh jeez... this thread just gets more an more life threatening as I read on! Might as well finish the job with a Lancair IV-P running some sort of auto conversion engine. 

[peevee]

8 minutes ago, DaV8or said:

Oh jeez... this thread just gets more an more life threatening as I read on! Might as well finish the job with a Lancair IV-P running some sort of auto conversion engine. 

I'd do terrible things for a iv-p and someone else paying the insurance.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, peevee said:

I'd do terrible things for a iv-p and someone else paying the insurance.

Piston or Turbine?  I know - its easy to say turbine....but that piston version has a CRAAAAAZY range.

[Hank]

49 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Piston or Turbine?  I know - its easy to say turbine....but that piston version has a CRAAAAAZY range.

Used to be based with a guy who had a turboprop IV-P. He made it nonstop, Oregon to WV, 300+ knots the whole way . . . . But landed crazy fast on our 3000' field, using Beta to stop before the end. He was used to it, his other plane was a single-place Pitts with my O-360 on the nose. S2 maybe?

[aviatoreb]

9 minutes ago, Hank said:

Used to be based with a guy who had a turboprop IV-P. He made it nonstop, Oregon to WV, 300+ knots the whole way . . . . But landed crazy fast on our 3000' field, using Beta to stop before the end. He was used to it, his other plane was a single-place Pitts with my O-360 on the nose. S2 maybe?

You need to land crazy fast in that thing - cuz the stall is not so...polite.

[jetdriven]

I read somewhere like a third of IV-P have crashed. 

[Guitarmaster]

I read somewhere like a third of IV-P have crashed. 

Sounds like a case of too much money and too little experience with fast aircraft.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

30 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

I read somewhere like a third of IV-P have crashed. 

I read that too.

[Hank]

30 minutes ago, Guitarmaster said:

Sounds like a case of too much money and too little experience with fast aircraft.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

My friend's IV-P didn't crash, but his Range Rover rolled down the interstate . . . .    Not sure what became of the plane, but it was a beauty!

[Guitarmaster]

My friend's IV-P didn't crash, but his Range Rover rolled down the interstate . . . .    Not sure what became of the plane, but it was a beauty!

Ouch!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[DaV8or]

6 hours ago, peevee said:

I'd do terrible things for a iv-p and someone else paying the insurance.

Ya gotta wonder, why is the insurance so high?

[peevee]

4 hours ago, DaV8or said:

Ya gotta wonder, why is the insurance so high?

Wish I knew, tough to separate the myth from reality. The ES-P doesn't seem too bad though.

[jetdriven]

7 hours ago, DaV8or said:

Ya gotta wonder, why is the insurance so high?

Beucause of the terrible loss rate. 

[bradp]

The mako looks pretty interesting. Has the look of a velocity with that nose gear. 

 

http://www.flyingmag.com/lancair-shows-off-four-seat-mako-at-airventure

[peevee]

29 minutes ago, bradp said:

The mako looks pretty interesting. Has the look of a velocity with that nose gear. 

 

http://www.flyingmag.com/lancair-shows-off-four-seat-mako-at-airventure

They claim 7kts for a folding nose gear.

If I could build one for the same cost as a used sr22 I'd strongly consider it.

[N252WD]

I used to think I would like to own a turbo prop (like the PC-12, but out of my price range), but after 3 years with the M20k 252, I lost all desire for a different plane. The 252 is one of the best planes I ever flew when you take in the speed, range, fuel, UL, and landing distances. Just amazing plane. 

[DaV8or]

2 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Beucause of the terrible loss rate. 

Yep. The airplane has a terrible reputation for a reason. I have heard that some insurers now refuse to insure them. In the words of Dirty Harry- "A man's gotta know his limitations." and I know mine. I'm not getting in a Lancair IV unless it stays on the ground.

[gsxrpilot]

17 minutes ago, N252WD said:

I used to think I would like to own a turbo prop (like the PC-12, but out of my price range), but after 3 years with the M20k 252, I lost all desire for a different plane. The 252 is one of the best planes I ever flew when you take in the speed, range, fuel, UL, and landing distances. Just amazing plane. 

This!

[Yooper Rocketman]

14 hours ago, jetdriven said:

I read somewhere like a third of IV-P have crashed. 

 

14 hours ago, Guitarmaster said:

Sounds like a case of too much money and too little experience with fast aircraft.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

I suppose you guys were wondering when I would chime in?  Bryon; the crash rate is no where near one third, but it IS pretty horrible.  It's not a real forgiving plane if you don't fly it right.  Two things absolutely necessary are to keep it in coordinated flight (it will swing fuel out to the wingtip FAST if you are not coordinated, which with under half tanks can be a real problem) and stall characteristics are all over the board, based on each builders work.  The accident rate decreases something like 10 fold when you get over 150-200 hours on the plane (in a reasonable time frame, not 5 years).  I am over 165 hours in 9 months on mine, for that very reason.

Too many accidents come back to pilots buying this slick airplane with light logbook hours and/or more money than common sense or experience (V-tailed Doctor killer of the 60's comes to mind).  I doubt there has been a Lancair IV, IVP, or IVPT accident since 1999 that I have not reviewed and studied the accident reports.  Although a few are head scratchers, most are so flagrantly obvious what was done wrong I just shake my head.  LOBO (Lancair Owners and Builders Organization) has been advocating a program for the Lancair's much like the FAA did with the MU-2's when their record was so bad.  The program brought the accident rate down on that plane tremendously with the mandated training.  Amazingly enough, the very people (owners) that would likely benefit the most from this program with the Lancairs (lower accident rate means affordable insurance and a truly justifiable resale value) seem to be against the concept, even if THEY are grandfathered in and not required to get the training.  This proposed mandate would mostly address new owners of these planes.

Here is a really interesting development for this air frame.  Mark Manke and company at RDD (Mark worked on my plane in 1999 with me during my factory assist program as a Lancair employee) have developed a new wing and new tail for the plane, as well as incorporate the BRS recovery parachute in the LX7.  They are targeting the "new" Cirrus customer looking for more speed and pressurization with an equally safe airplane.  Preliminary feedback from insurance companies has been they will be near the same price point as the Cirrus fleet.  This thing stalls like a certified airplane, has 6 hours of range which can be done in pressurized comfort, and is probably 40-50 knots faster in cruise.

http://www.rddent.com/lx7.html

Tom