Anyone Flying a Velocity V-Twin?

donjohnston said:
Sorry. I meant full size winglets. Those little ones are up to the builder. They are aesthetic only and serve no function.
Click to expand...

Scott Swing told me today they got 6 more kts in cruise with the new winglets.

Sounds like they're nearing completion of the turbine V-Twin.
 
Last edited:
Velocity173 said:
Scott Swing told me today they got 6 more kts in cruise with the new winglets.

Sounds like they're nearing completion of the turbine V-Twin.
Click to expand...

Turbine? :eek: And I thought the piston version was pricey; yeah, yeah a lot cheaper than a new Baron.

Not sure what that helps, as the Vne is 200 KIAS and don't turbines burn a lot of fuel down low? I wonder if the engines be mounted like the Honda Jet to reduce FOD issues?

I've wondered what the V-Twin performance would be with two turbo normalized 200-215 hp engines. :cool:

From the photos it doesn't look like there's a lot of luggage space.
 
They are using two TJP-100. Last I checked, list was around 85K Euros.
Going on memory.
Around 10K MSL they burn around 20GPH each and produce about 240HP.
In theory, they will get a cruise speed around 230KTAS
With hollow wings, they are looking to stuff around 140 Gallons of Jet-A.

So a descent range, and rather quick...

Tim
 
I never could figure out why Velocity went with a twin, given what's happened to the GA twin market. Then again, the things are pretty cool.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
I never could figure out why Velocity wen twitch a twin, given what's happened to the Ga twin market. Then again, the things are pretty cool.
Click to expand...
Because people like me want one.
If you fast build, the budget price is close to an XL.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
dell30rb said:
Single with BRS is the new twin IMO
Click to expand...

Yup. Ideally I want a twin or a chute. I life to fly at night, I fly a fair amount of IFR at 10K....
From a statistics standpoint, likely not a realistic factor. From an emotional standpoint, having that last ditch option is worth a lot.

Tim
 
steingar said:
I never could figure out why Velocity wen twitch a twin, given what's happened to the Ga twin market. Then again, the things are pretty cool.
Click to expand...
Based on what I've seen at the factory, they are selling at least as many twins as singles. So I'd say it was a pretty good decision.
 
Okay gang -- here's the update. I apologize that I still need to see if we can post a builder's log BUT....
1) 12 hours flight time from Sebastian to Oxnard, CA -- 161 knots average ground speed -- and I don't have an exact handle on fuel burn because we were fighting oil temperature problems with the O360s -- which have appear to have been resolved by the way. That's 1 1/2 days door to door -- including fighting a dryline across Texas -- really rough. The plane handles extremely well in turbulence.
2) The airplane has been flying mostly around KOXR and KCMA as we sort problems with oil temps and gear out. BUT Mugu approach is still -- more or less -- having kittens when they ask for "best forward speed" on an approach. We deliver and they haven't figured out that we aren't an RV or something else. There is one female controller that keeps asking me for the N-number when I respond "experimental & N number". Tonight, however, marks the start of how we will fly approaches -- 2300 rpm and 15" equals S&L at 3500' for 120 knots clean -- 2" reduction, no trim change, 500' / min descent. Climb is 2300 and 21" for 500 fpm. Plan on the V-twin being the bottom end of Cat C.

Bottom line -- the performance appears to be equivalent (slightly or much better -- still TBD) to a Bonanza in terms of speed, range, and fuel burn. 65% power is resulting easily 170 knots true through 10,000. The airplane is quick and responsive to pitch and power changes, as I suspect the single is. You have lots of rudder authority but you need to understand how to fly the airplane in case of loss of an engine -- you may not want to apply full power as you learned in the Duchess or Seminole.

More later and open to questions as we continue to understand the plane.
 
Why do you have to get permission to post the build log? I would settle for a series of pictures, there's not a lot out there on these planes.

I'm curious on landing... you crossing the fence about 80 and just letting it settle?
 
OkieAviator said:
Why do you have to get permission to post the build log? I would settle for a series of pictures, there's not a lot out there on these planes.

I'm curious on landing... you crossing the fence about 80 and just letting it settle?
Click to expand...

We'll get pictures up -- as far as speeds in the pattern and on final - Vr is about 80 KTIAS, climb at 100 to 105 through 500', then climb about 130 at 25 square. Downwind is ~ 115 to 120 (gear speed is 120), landing 100 to 110 -- less than that the airplane is 'mushy'. Instrument approach will be around 120 (2300 and 15"), with a two inch reduction in MAP to 500'.
 
I don't know any builder who has a build log online. I would suggest joining VOBA (Velocity Owners & Builders Association) and asking if one of the V-Twin builders would share theirs with you.
 
donjohnston said:
I don't know any builder who has a build log online. I would suggest joining VOBA (Velocity Owners & Builders Association) and asking if one of the V-Twin builders would share theirs with you.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a V-twin other than the factory demo aircraft. How many (approximately) are flying? 2? 20?
 
RogerT said:
I'd love to see a builders log on the V-Twin. We're about 90% sure we're going to build
one of these.

RT
Click to expand...

I’d skip it unless you just want the performance of a twin.

I’d much rather fly the single. The performance is much better. The single will walk on the twin.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BellyUpFish said:
I’d skip it unless you just want the performance of a twin.

I’d much rather fly the single. The performance is much better. The single will walk on the twin.
Click to expand...
True. But everyone who's built or building the V-twin want the redundancy and are willing to sacrifice the speed for it.
 
donjohnston said:
True. But everyone who's built or building the V-twin want the redundancy and are willing to sacrifice the speed for it.
Click to expand...

Yeh, that’s what I said. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Don't need no two stinking engines! I’ve got like a 16:1 glide ratio. Plus, it’s just more exciting not knowing when or where your engine will fail. :)

Beautiful flying weather today. Unfortunately, after landing I found my gear fairing bracket had broken from the gear leg. :(
 
with 2 engines you just get to the crash quicker
 
Datadriver said:
with 2 engines you just get to the crash quicker
Click to expand...
Nah. Because of the pusher config the engines are so close together there is minimal yaw. And the huge rudder gives you great control. Basically no roll over issues, canard stalls before main wing on one engine....
Really nice plane.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
Datadriver said:
with 2 engines you just get to the crash quicker
Click to expand...
Actually its the opposite, you crash later. With one engine, you crash when the engine failure happens. With two engines, you crash at some point later when the pilot failure happens.
 
"The single will walk on the twin."

In what way? Other than the turbo .. the website shows better performance for
the twin.
I guess we'll find out ... the build's a go.

RT
 
That page shows 215k TAS with 360s for the twin and 195k TAS for the XLRG at 75% power. It show's
the twin at 195k at economy cruise. Do I think it'll true out at 215K? Not really. But given that the
friend I'm helping build it is talking about having engines built that are over 180hp .. who knows. At
any rate .. it's a very cool plane and you have the redundancy of 2 motors. Of course I always
thought the 2 Velocity singles at our airport up in Nebraska were awesome.
 
donjohnston said:
Oops. See that now.

I haven’t heard from any twin builder about a 200kts cruise speed.
Click to expand...
Don,

When I was on VOBA there were two twins which were being built with 200HP IO-390 engines. I thought one was completed and flying and saw 200 KTAS.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
I’ve got some time in a 180 Twin. 200kts isn’t happening unless you’re losing altitude at the same time...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
donjohnston said:
I don't know any builder who has a build log online. I would suggest joining VOBA (Velocity Owners & Builders Association) and asking if one of the V-Twin builders would share theirs with you.
Click to expand...

I never understood why people think that it is a good idea to have forums closed, unless one doesn't want to attract new builders? I am / was interested in Velocities and a Glasairs. There is however pretty much zero in depth information publicly available for either brand and the company websites are also not exactly overwhelming. Now, compare that with vansairforce or ransclan!

Most purchasing decisions start with daydreaming - few people will become members of an organization only to see if and what information might be available in some hidden forum.
By the time they become more serious abut buying, they have already spent tons of hours in the popular, open forums, where they know that they will get great community support. Guess, what most will end up buying?

The other thing is, that I was a bit disappointed about the performance of Velocities. With the same engine, it appears as whether Velocities are hardly any faster than a Mooney or a RV-10, but need much more runway, have higher landing speeds, what is also a concern in case of a forced landing and should better not be operated out of turf / dirt strips.

The twin is a unique product in the experimental market, I would guess that this is why they supposedly sell just as many of them, as they sell singles.

I still like Velocities, but think that they could do much better if they would improve their online presence and community support.
 
German guy said:
I never understood why people think that it is a good idea to have forums closed, unless one doesn't want to attract new builders? I am / was interested in Velocities and a Glasairs. There is however pretty much zero in depth information publicly available for either brand and the company websites are also not exactly overwhelming. Now, compare that with vansairforce or ransclan!

Most purchasing decisions start with daydreaming - few people will become members of an organization only to see if and what information might be available in some hidden forum.
By the time they become more serious abut buying, they have already spent tons of hours in the popular, open forums, where they know that they will get great community support. Guess, what most will end up buying?

The other thing is, that I was a bit disappointed about the performance of Velocities. With the same engine, it appears as whether Velocities are hardly any faster than a Mooney or a RV-10, but need much more runway, have higher landing speeds, what is also a concern in case of a forced landing and should better not be operated out of turf / dirt strips.

The twin is a unique product in the experimental market, I would guess that this is why they supposedly sell just as many of them, as they sell singles.

I still like Velocities, but think that they could do much better if they would improve their online presence and community support.
Click to expand...

Because it costs a fair amount of money and/or time to run such forum.
If you are not IT oriented, you end up with solutions like Club Express, which charge a couple grand a year. With only 200 members, the nominal charge covers the annual costs to run the forum, and cover a few extra costs. From previous discussions, they do not really make money on it. Vans Airforce on the other hand, has a large enough community, had an IT savvy individual who founded it, that advertising plus donations pays the bills. The other extreme is COPA and ABS type clubs. In that case, they have a formal board, provide financial reports to the members, sponsor training, knowledge bases... Same is true for the Cessna twin flyers, the Aerostar Owners... It costs money and time.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Because it costs a fair amount of money and/or time to run such forum. [...]
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, but there is also a middle ground, like that everybody can see the forum, but in order to post one either is limited to an open section of the forum or be a registered and paying member. I bet that with this approach, the organization would end up with a lot more paying members.

Personally, I would feel a lot more compelled to sign up for a membership if I would know what to expect. This is of course assuming that the forum is reasonably active. If not, collecting cash before granting access is probably indeed the better approach. :rolleyes:;)
 
German guy said:
The other thing is, that I was a bit disappointed about the performance of Velocities. With the same engine, it appears as whether Velocities are hardly any faster than a Mooney or a RV-10, but need much more runway, have higher landing speeds, what is also a concern in case of a forced landing and should better not be operated out of turf / dirt strips.
Click to expand...

According to the Mooney website, an Ovation Ultra with the NA 310hp continental engine cruises at 197kts. Which is only 2kts slower than my XL-RG. But it’ll set you back $700,000! And if memory serves, the RV10 trues out at 175kts with the larger engine. Also, my Velocity has a max GW of 3,600lbs. 900 more than the RV and 200 more than the Mooney.

But you are correct, the Velocity website isn’t exactly the best out there.
 
donjohnston said:
According to the Mooney website, an Ovation Ultra with the NA 310hp continental engine cruises at 197kts. Which is only 2kts slower than my XL-RG. But it’ll set you back $700,000! And if memory serves, the RV10 trues out at 175kts with the larger engine. Also, my Velocity has a max GW of 3,600lbs. 900 more than the RV and 200 more than the Mooney.

But you are correct, the Velocity website isn’t exactly the best out there.
Click to expand...

After being frustrated because of some unexpected, extremely expensive repairs of our Mooney, I was looking at Experimental options, to replace it. Nice RV-10s sell for over $200k, what was beyond our budget, but nice older Velocities can be bought for under $100k, so this is what I started to look into.

Anyways, one thing was, that I had a hard time finding any information about them and even 'popular' canard forums like Canardaviation.com are pretty much dead.

I also contacted two Velocity pilots and asked them for some real world performance. One person (from PoA but I don't know if he is OK with me mentioning his name) gave me this:
Velocity 173RG, IO360, 200 hp, 158 KTAS, ~10-11 GPH at 7,500 ft.

Another pilot from the Velocity Facebook group provided me with this data:
Velocity SE FG, IO360, 200 hp, 160 KTAS, ~11.5 GPH at 10,000 ft.

With our Mooney M20E (with some speed mods), IO360, 200 hp we're typically seeing around 151 kts, 9.8 GPH at 8,000 ft.

For a RV-10, around 165 KTAS, ~11 GPH at 10,000 ft. seems to be fairly typical.

I couldn't find any real world data for the Velocity XL models, but have some doubts that they will make the numbers on their website, considering that the SE specs also appear to be fairly optimistic.

I really don't want to bash Velocities and still like them, but for us the slightly faster speed does not really justify the drawbacks. Others might of course come to a different conclusion.
 
donjohnston said:
At 6,000', I get 198kts at 13GPH
Click to expand...

Wow, this is awesome and much better than anything I have seen so far! Would you mind sharing your engine and what type of Velocity you are flying?

Edit:
Found your website - Velocity XL RG, 310 hp Conti IO-550-N
So, you are pretty much achieving factory performance! They claim 205 KTAS at 75%, but your 13 GPH reflect probably quite a bit less power.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top