Velocity V twin

[bmcconnaha]

Anyone ever flown one? I have to say, I’m really intrigued by it.  In lots of ways a twin fits my mission a bit better.  Half tempted to fly down to the factory in Daytona and take a demo.  

[carusoam]

Looked at it from afar…

It can carry a pair of IO550s….

By biggest fear of twins… is single engine ops during T/O….

Their thrust centerlines are quite close together… lessening my big fear by a touch… 
 

Gaining experience with the IO550 has helped a bit too…

I have only had one engine problem during T/O and climb out…. It was an O360, 20+ years ago, with no engine monitor…

 

So… it’s got twin engine economics… and it’s not factory built…. So it fell by the wayside for my needs…

Pusher props have a tendency to collect rock dents… keep an eye on the blade leading edges…

 

I don’t recall… do you get pressurization with that?

Best regards,

-a-

[bmcconnaha]

1 minute ago, carusoam said:

Looked at it from afar…

It can carry a pair of IO550s….

By biggest fear of twins… is single engine ops during T/O….

Their thrust centerlines are quite close together… lessening my big fear by a touch… 
 

Gaining experience with the IO550 has helped a bit too…

I have only had one engine problem during T/O and climb out…. It was an O360, 20+ years ago, with no engine monitor…

 

So… it’s got twin engine economics… and it’s not factory built…. So it fell by the wayside for my needs…

 

I don’t recall… do you get pressurization with that?

Best regards,

-a-

I think the biggest engine the have flying is the same I have in my J, an IO390.  The singles can take an IO550 I believe.  No pressurization 

[Greg Ellis]

On 3/14/2022 at 11:07 PM, bmcconnaha said:

I think the biggest engine the have flying is the same I have in my J, an IO390.  The singles can take an IO550 I believe.  No pressurization 

According to their website, there are 3 engine options for the V-twin... Lycoming IO320, Lycoming IO360, or Titan IO370.

[aviatoreb]

I always admired that design!

[DCarlton]

On 3/14/2022 at 8:54 PM, bmcconnaha said:

Anyone ever flown one? I have to say, I’m really intrigued by it.  In lots of ways a twin fits my mission a bit better.  Half tempted to fly down to the factory in Daytona and take a demo.  

If you fly, please report back.  I looked at a gorgeous Velocity RG at our airport a few months ago getting maintenance.  It had been flipped upside down on the ramp by a passing jet.  It's one of the few airplanes I'd like to build but I'm not sure I could tolerate working with composites.  It also has a higher landing speed than many homebuilts so I'm guessing, only guessing, off airport survivability is not as good.   

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by DCarlton

[WaynePierce]

I watched a video on YouTube this morning of a guy "Plane Crazy" (not BrIan) and the factory guy said the single can cruise at 200 mph at 4 gph. Now that's economy even if it's salesman hype and truth expansion...

 

 

[bmcconnaha]

11 hours ago, Greg Ellis said:

According to their website, there are 3 engine options for the V-twin... Lycoming IO320, Lycoming IO360, or Titan IO370.

Well one of there’s that they have at the factory for sure has 390s in it.  

[bmcconnaha]

10 hours ago, DCarlton said:

If you fly, please report back.  I looked at a gorgeous Velocity RG at our airport a few months ago getting maintenance.  It had been flipped upside down on the ramp by a passing jet.  It's one of the few airplanes I'd like to build but I'm not sure I could tolerate working with composites.  It also has a higher landing speed than many homebuilts so I'm guessing, only guessing, off airport survivability is not as good.   

 

Yeah, I don’t have any interest in the single for that reason.  Higher approach speeds, and no flaps.  The twin looks better anyways, and I like the thought of the redundancy.  

[carusoam]

Single engine and high landing speeds don’t go together well enough for me…

Makes the scope creep for turbine sound logical….

Performance numbers given below aren’t much different than an Ovation…

The magic of canard layouts, requires the front wing to not interrupt the airflow over the main lifting wing…  not all designs execute this strategy very well…

The magic of composite construction… takes a lot of iterations to get the excess weight out….

Al Mooney’s last airplane design, was a composite twin canard…  clever, as usual… didn’t get enough iterations to meet its weight goal… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avtek_400A

Speaking of iterations… see how many are actually flying…

Things to keep your eyes open for….

Is there a turbo option?

-a-

https://www.kitplanes.com/velocity-v-twin/

[A64Pilot]

On 3/16/2022 at 2:19 PM, WaynePierce said:

I watched a video on YouTube this morning of a guy "Plane Crazy" (not BrIan) and the factory guy said the single can cruise at 200 mph at 4 gph. Now that's economy even if it's salesman hype and truth expansion...

 

 

What burns 4 gl an hour? My C-85 burns 5.5 at 2400, normal cruise

[WaynePierce]

13 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

What burns 4 gl an hour? My C-85 burns 5.5 at 2400, normal cruise

The Velocity.

 

[alextstone]

13 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

What burns 4 gl an hour? My C-85 burns 5.5 at 2400, normal cruise

The Velocity, when flying in the lunar atmosphere

[Jim Peace]

On 3/14/2022 at 11:54 PM, bmcconnaha said:

 Half tempted to fly down to the factory in Daytona and take a demo.  

Daytona?  

[Kmac]

1 hour ago, Jim Peace said:

Daytona?  

Last I saw was Sebastian.

[philiplane]

On 3/14/2022 at 11:54 PM, bmcconnaha said:

Anyone ever flown one? I have to say, I’m really intrigued by it.  In lots of ways a twin fits my mission a bit better.  Half tempted to fly down to the factory in Daytona and take a demo.  

It's essentially a Twin Comanche, but with less room, and a higher landing speed, and not much of a track record so far, but one fatal crash last year:

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/02/velocity-v-twin-n13vt-fatal-accident.html#:~:text=On February 16%2C 2021%2C about,Both pilots sustained fatal injuries.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, philiplane said:

It's essentially a Twin Comanche, but with less room, and a higher landing speed, and not much of a track record so far, but one fatal crash last year:

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/02/velocity-v-twin-n13vt-fatal-accident.html#:~:text=On February 16%2C 2021%2C about,Both pilots sustained fatal injuries.

I disagree.  Its not a Comanche.  Not close.  The concept is sound - and dramatically different from a Comanche - two props that are so close to centerline that in engine out there is very little relevant asymmetric thrust.  So potentially nulifying the one downside of a twin which is a mishandled engine out on take off.  Yes it is still possible to crash any airplane, and one crash tells me very little. 

[A64Pilot]

5 hours ago, WaynePierce said:

The Velocity.

 

What engine? with a very efficient engine within reason, not using ship Diesel BSFC for instance about all the HP you can get out of 4 GPH is in the neighborhood of 60 HP.

And that would be a VERY efficient aircraft engine, so this Twin engine Velocity cruises on roughly 60 HP?

Unless my numbers are way off, but I think they are close.

I’ve seen Velocities of course they have been around for a long time, a cave diving friend actually has one, but as far as I know they haven’t set the world on fire, far from it?

Edited March 18, 2022 by A64Pilot

[philiplane]

4 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I disagree.  Its not a Comanche.  Not close.  The concept is sound - and dramatically different from a Comanche - two props that are so close to centerline that in engine out there is very little relevant asymmetric thrust.  So potentially nulifying the one downside of a twin which is a mishandled engine out on take off.  Yes it is still possible to crash any airplane, and one crash tells me very little. 

The  props are closer to be sure but nowhere near centerline. When you look at them from the rear, it's basically looking at a TC from the front. The prototype even used the engines from a Twin Comanche. The distance between prop hubs is not drastically different from the TC spacing, maybe they're a foot closer together, and, the distance from the thrust line to the rudder is dramatically shorter. Remember what makes twin less safe? An aft CG, because it shortens the effective arm of the rudder. In the V twin, the rudder is only a few feet away from the props, versus 15 feet away on the TC. Time will tell how successful this will be.  The Vmc is actually higher than the Twin Comanche, by a few knots. The big difference is that the V twin doesn't stall due to the canard design, so in theory, it won't roll over  or spin on a bungled engine out situation. 

And, I like the Velocity line up. I did my first demo flight 20 years ago, and almost bought an XLRG when they first appeared. I am thinking that I might build an XLRG using a TIO-540 Lycoming, rather than the TSIO-550 Continental, for a retirement plane. I've got time in several Velocities, and the canard is helpful but limiting at the same time. Short fields are difficult because there are no flaps, and there is limited ability to flare since you need to maintain prop clearance. Lots of Velocities have had prop strikes upon rotation or upon landing. 

The V twin is ten years old now. There aren't many flying, and N91VT doesn't go very far from home base in Sebastian. 

Here's a good review on the V twin:

 https://www.kitplanes.com/velocity-v-twin/

and one that flies more:

http://www.legacy-innovations.com/BuildingVelocityVTwin/photos-flying/

Edited March 19, 2022 by philiplane

[N201MKTurbo]

On 3/16/2022 at 11:13 PM, carusoam said:

.

Al Mooney’s last airplane design, was a composite twin canard…  clever, as usual… didn’t get enough iterations to meet its weight goal… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avtek_400A

 

Ive touched that plane. It is rotting away on the ramp at KCMA.

[NotarPilot]

50 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Ive touched that plane. It is rotting away on the ramp at KCMA.

Yup, right next to the fuel pump if I remembered correctly. Very sad. I remember watching it on an episode of Airwolf as a kid.

[A64Pilot]

They were going to build this at the Albany Thrush plant, interesting design, not sure why it didn’t make it, OMAC. was Old Mans Aircraft Company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMAC_Laser_300

but then except for possibly killing off the King Air, I don’t know why Starship didn’t make it, although I had heard it’s avionics suite was a mess.

Piaggio isn’t really a Canard, so is there ANY Certified canards?

[aviatoreb]

27 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

They were going to build this at the Albany Thrush plant, interesting design, not sure why it didn’t make it, OMAC. was Old Mans Aircraft Company

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMAC_Laser_300

but then except for possibly killing off the King Air, I don’t know why Starship didn’t make it, although I had heard it’s avionics suite was a mess.

Piaggio isn’t really a Canard, so is there ANY Certified canards?

Cessna 182 katmai.

[carusoam]

Looks like the certification process added additional structure to the Starship…

The added weight made it not as useful as the business plan required…

It looks like it didn’t get the iterations that would benefit such a new design…

Rumor has it… the V model is the sweet spot….  

 

So….

Go fly the Velocity Twin…

Compare to the 310hp Long Body…

 

Report back the +/-s…

Probably find it is hard to beat a factory built plane… that has had the benefit of many iterations, over decades…

 

Best regards,

-a-

[A64Pilot]

9 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Cessna 182 katmai.

Isn’t a Canard, not really. I think of a Canard as the forward lifting surface that is the sole elevator, not like the Piaggo or the Cessna, I’m not even sure they do much on the 182?