Anyone Flying a Velocity V-Twin?

donjohnston said:
The max GW is what the builder defines. Mine has aluminum boots on the main gear legs.
Click to expand...
So it should be pointed out that you compared your made up GW to the published GW of the RV10 and implied your plane was better because it carries more. Not exactly a valid point there, is it?
 
German guy said:
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...

This is true of all canard aircraft, and is indeed one reason that many choose the traditional route. I become a Velocity builder after flying an Arrow for 600 hours and realizing all my missions were typically 5000 foot runways anyway, and I never cared to play in the grass.
 
German guy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed, for me the Velocity (std) was way more affordable than an RV-10.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
So it should be pointed out that you compared your made up GW to the published GW of the RV10 and implied your plane was better because it carries more. Not exactly a valid point there, is it?
Click to expand...

I think Don was pointing out that the builder has leeway in some of the operating limitations.
 
Datadriver said:
I think Don was pointing out that the builder has leeway in some of the operating limitations.
Click to expand...
Oh I know that. But he said this:
donjohnston said:
Also, my Velocity has a max GW of 3,600lbs. 900 more than the RV
Click to expand...
Kinda sorta sounds like a my plane is better than your plane statement there doesn't it? And it'd be great if it were accurate, but it isn't. What's accurate is to say the Velocity has recommended gross of 2900lbs while the RV10 has a recommended gross of 2700lbs for a 200lb difference. But wait, there's more. The projected empty weight of a Velocity is 1790lbs while the projected empty weight of an RV10 is somewhere between 1520lbs and 1630lbs so lets split the difference and call it 1575lbs.

So what'd ya know? Turns out the Velocity has a recommended gross that's 200lbs more than the RV10 but it also weighs 215lbs more empty. So turns out his plane that has a gross weight of 900lbs more than an RV actually carries 15lbs less spec for spec. Now he (or whoever built his plane) assigned some other number for gross which is perfectly legal. But its also perfectly legal to give your RV 3400lb gross. Experimental guys sure are passionate about their planes and that's great. But boy that passion sure can lead to some mighty creative math sometimes when it comes to defending their pride and joy.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Oh I know that. But he said this:
Kinda sorta sounds like a my plane is better than your plane statement there doesn't it? And it'd be great if it were accurate, but it isn't. What's accurate is to say the Velocity has recommended gross of 2900lbs while the RV10 has a recommended gross of 2700lbs for a 200lb difference. But wait, there's more. The projected empty weight of a Velocity is 1790lbs while the projected empty weight of an RV10 is somewhere between 1520lbs and 1630lbs so lets split the difference and call it 1575lbs.

So what'd ya know? Turns out the Velocity has a recommended gross that's 200lbs more than the RV10 but it also weighs 215lbs more empty. So turns out his plane that has a gross weight of 900lbs more than an RV actually carries 15lbs less spec for spec. Now he (or whoever built his plane) assigned some other number for gross which is perfectly legal. But its also perfectly legal to give your RV 3400lb gross. Experimental guys sure are passionate about their planes and that's great. But boy that passion sure can lead to some mighty creative math sometimes when it comes to defending their pride and joy.
Click to expand...
Note: i only researched experimental and did demo flights before switching back to certified.
Only point you are missing is factory support for modifying the plane.
Van's was unwilling to provide support for me to due a significant gross weight increase so I could fly with an effective ferry tank built into the plane.
The Velocity factory was willing to provide directions and details on how to increase the MTOW to 3400lbs, and were open to a possible 3600lbs MTOW if I set a MLW of 3400. Now there are restrictions on what the Velocity factory is willing to do. Mostly around if others will want it. They really try and avoid complete one off solutions.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
Juliet Hotel said:
So it should be pointed out that you compared your made up GW to the published GW of the RV10 and implied your plane was better because it carries more. Not exactly a valid point there, is it?
Click to expand...
My gross weight is not "made up". It's on the paperwork.

I was not trying to say "my plane is better". Sorry if you got that impression.

I was in no way trying to make a blanket statement that one plane is better than another because there are way too many variables. An RV can land slower and on MUCH shorter runways than a Velocity. And just about any shop will work on a Mooney. Not so with an E/AB.

The point I was trying to make is that if you want 200kts cruise in a Mooney, it's going to cost a lot more money. Want to get an RV? Fine. But it's not going to be as fast as an XL-RG Velocity.

You want to split hairs about GW? That's fine too. But you're on your own there.
 
Split hairs? No. Just pointing out that the statement about gross weight, which you brought up by the way, was a bit misleading.
 
I know this is an old thread.. but I read somewhere that there are up 14 of these flying now..

It's a pretty cool looking and very capable plane.

Also, hidden in a YouTube video by Velocity from 2019 the guy calmly mentions they're working on a 6-7 seat version

I *really* want one of these. Damn. Maybe I'll save my money and save for this.. at 13 minutes in he mentions a turbine version and also sneaks in that they stretched the fuselage and are making a 7 seat version.. "some day"

 
Serial Number 20 started Phase I last month so I guess that's possible.

There's a turboprop single flying in Texas. And the twin turboprop has got to be close to flight flight.
 
Tantalum said:
Also, hidden in a YouTube video by Velocity from 2019 the guy calmly mentions they're working on a 6-7 seat version
Click to expand...

When I was looking at a V-Twin, I discussed the larger 6-7 version. At the time, they felt they had completed the engineering aspects, but needed a group of customers to band together and kick it off.
I do not recall how many they needed.

Tim
 
Some guys in Texas bought one (maybe two) airframes, stretched them and were going to be 6 place turboprops. They were working on them in Sebastian in 2015. Then they all got loaded into trucks and went to Texas. I haven't heard a thing about them since.
 
Ten years ago I stopped in to drop off the Velocity for condition and Duane was there building the prototype. The place was a ghost town then but recent pics show the V Twin is thriving down there. I think it saved the company. Duane said he wanted investors to bring the aircraft to certification but I think they’re doing fine with the EAB route. It might become my forever plane. Then again, there’s the Raptor...
 
Velocity173 said:
Ten years ago I stopped in to drop off the Velocity for condition and Duane was there building the prototype. The place was a ghost town then but recent pics show the V Twin is thriving down there. I think it saved the company. Duane said he wanted investors to bring the aircraft to certification but I think they’re doing fine with the EAB route. It might become my forever plane. Then again, there’s the Raptor...
Click to expand...
raptor I think will be heavier than he planned
 
I have a lot of hours in a Vtwin... well in a video game (Xplane 11). I also have a huge interest in them but it's hard to find info out there about them.
 
OkieAviator said:
I have a lot of hours in a Vtwin... well in a video game (Xplane 11). I also have a huge interest in them but it's hard to find info out there about them.
Click to expand...
The sight lists some good details, as well as a page on their 6 seat and turbine versions under development

https://www.velocityaircraft.com/v-twin

but yeah, there's not much real world videos or info out there. 200 KTAS for around 15-20 gph with an almost 1,400 lb useful is pretty good. I wonder how fast it could go with two big turbo Conti 550. Fuel flow would be trash but you could probably get close to 220-230 KTAS at altitude and some monster climb performance with the nearly 70% increase in power
 
Velocity173 said:
Ten years ago I stopped in to drop off the Velocity for condition and Duane was there building the prototype. The place was a ghost town then but recent pics show the V Twin is thriving down there. I think it saved the company. Duane said he wanted investors to bring the aircraft to certification but I think they’re doing fine with the EAB route. It might become my forever plane. Then again, there’s the Raptor...
Click to expand...
There's a good chance the Raptor will be a waiting for it forever plane!
 
Over the last few weeks I’ve talked with Velocity. I now have a much better understanding of the process. It’s actually a bit more straight forward than I had thought. Think of it as a velocity XL RG build with two engines.

There’s a fairly high probability this might be my next build. Not really in a place right now to start a new project, but in a few years if my time is freed up then who knows. Good news is looking at some build logs (XL RG) none of the techniques are foreign to me.
 
i think I would go with turbo XL RG with a chute (if that is still an option) IMO, Twin velocity needs to get more load or speed to be worth the trouble of an xtra engine
 
tceq24443 said:
i think I would go with turbo XL RG with a chute (if that is still an option) IMO, Twin velocity needs to get more load or speed to be worth the trouble of an xtra engine
Click to expand...
I think that's a common theme with most twin-engine general aviation.. you're not really getting double of anything performance wise. But, for over water flying or flying over mountains or inhospitable terrain I'd still prefer a second engine than a chute. If you're competent you can still fly the plane and land at an actual airport
 
Saw my first Velocity in person last weekend. It was a Turbo XL retract and very nicely done with full blown interior, glass panel, built in oxygen, etc.

Enjoyed talking to the builder/owner. We talked about the build process, a bit about the twin and a handful of other things. He was nice enough to let me sit in it which was really comfortable, more like a sports car than I was expecting.

It was interesting to compare it against the 10. His is obviously much faster and a much more capable XC machine with oxygen and turbo. Much easier for passengers to get in than the 10. There's less visibility than I have in the 10, however could have been just the way I was sitting.
 
tceq24443 said:
i think I would go with turbo XL RG with a chute (if that is still an option) IMO, Twin velocity needs to get more load or speed to be worth the trouble of an xtra engine
Click to expand...
I've never heard of a Velocity with a chute. I'm not convinced it would work with a pusher anyway. And it would chew up a lot of the already tight baggage space.

Besides, many people don't get a twin for carrying more or going faster. They get for the extra engine. And there aren't many twins that are as easy to fly on one engine as the twin Velocity.
 
The one thing I never liked about Velocities (and canards in general) is that rapid landing speed. Chips are down they do glide well, but if you still can’t reach a nice big airport that’s a LOT of energy to dissipate (square of the velocity, never mind the pun) with a bunch of fiberglass and with the heaviest part of the airplane right behind you.
 
OkieAviator said:
Over the last few weeks I’ve talked with Velocity. I now have a much better understanding of the process. It’s actually a bit more straight forward than I had thought. Think of it as a velocity XL RG build with two engines.
Click to expand...
I need to hit them up to see if they want some air-to-air photos! They sure look cool in the air.
 
steingar said:
The one thing I never liked about Velocities (and canards in general) is that rapid landing speed. Chips are down they do glide well, but if you still can’t reach a nice big airport that’s a LOT of energy to dissipate (square of the velocity, never mind the pun) with a bunch of fiberglass and with the heaviest part of the airplane right behind you.
Click to expand...

I've been told that the landing speeds are similar to an Arrow II. Is 70kts over the numbers normal for an Arrow II?
 
steingar said:
The one thing I never liked about Velocities (and canards in general) is that rapid landing speed. Chips are down they do glide well, but if you still can’t reach a nice big airport that’s a LOT of energy to dissipate (square of the velocity, never mind the pun) with a bunch of fiberglass and with the heaviest part of the airplane right behind you.
Click to expand...

The listed landing distance for a Velocity XL is 1,500’. I haven’t flown one, so I don’t know how realistic that is. Maybe Don can provide some personal insight on that.
 
OkieAviator said:
It was interesting to compare it against the 10. His is obviously much faster and a much more capable XC machine with oxygen and turbo. Much easier for passengers to get in than the 10. There's less visibility than I have in the 10, however could have been just the way I was sitting.
Click to expand...

The -10 has amazing visibility. You sit up very high and the windows are quite large. I'm not aware of anything that has better visibility unless it has a bubble canopy.
 
wayne said:
The listed landing distance for a Velocity XL is 1,500’. I haven’t flown one, so I don’t know how realistic that is. Maybe Don can provide some personal insight on that.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely doable. But you have to bring your A game. I've made the 1,900' turnoff at my field quite a few times. But if you're 2 kts fast and 2' high over the numbers, you ain't gonna make it. Now that we have full length taxiways, I don't try as hard. ;-)

But that's me. I know Scott at the factory can make a 1,500' landing every single time.
 
wayne said:
The listed landing distance for a Velocity XL is 1,500’. I haven’t flown one, so I don’t know how realistic that is. Maybe Don can provide some personal insight on that.
Click to expand...
That's the landing distance for my aircraft OVER a 50 ft. obstacle. No obstacle and it's about 800 feet.
 
steingar said:
That's the landing distance for my aircraft OVER a 50 ft. obstacle. No obstacle and it's about 800 feet.
Click to expand...

Don can likely give more info.
Due to deep stall of the main wing potential, Velocity has no flaps.
Also, most Velocity have a very poor speed brake if any speed brake.
And this is generally a slick airframe. So you really on the brakes, and prop drag more than anything.

Tim
 
steingar said:
The one thing I never liked about Velocities (and canards in general) is that rapid landing speed. Chips are down they do glide well, but if you still can’t reach a nice big airport that’s a LOT of energy to dissipate (square of the velocity, never mind the pun) with a bunch of fiberglass and with the heaviest part of the airplane right behind you.
Click to expand...
I LOVED my Velocity and had one off-field landing in it. Speed management wasn't too much of an issue (stops FAST in a wheat field). Lack of turn to final stall concern allowed me to parallel a line of trees and pull a 60 degree bank to drop into a small wheat field. Then again, if I was in a 172 I probably would have had room to just drop it into the field. On a more serious note, while I absolutely loved the look, feel and ease of boarding of the gull wing doors, I was also always concerned about being trapped if the plane landed upside down. Part of my off-field check list (even before my actual off field) was to pop the doors the instant we were on the ground. Didn't flip and didn't lose a door on my one off-field, but it was something that regularly worried me.
 
iflyforfun said:
I LOVED my Velocity and had one off-field landing in it. Speed management wasn't too much of an issue (stops FAST in a wheat field). Lack of turn to final stall concern allowed me to parallel a line of trees and pull a 60 degree bank to drop into a small wheat field. Then again, if I was in a 172 I probably would have had room to just drop it into the field. On a more serious note, while I absolutely loved the look, feel and ease of boarding of the gull wing doors, I was also always concerned about being trapped if the plane landed upside down. Part of my off-field check list (even before my actual off field) was to pop the doors the instant we were on the ground. Didn't flip and didn't lose a door on my one off-field, but it was something that regularly worried me.
Click to expand...

Cirrus has a hammer in the cockpit, which is required, for that very reason. Would that have been enough to allay your concerns?

Tim
 
The windows are plexiglass fit into fiberglass door frames. You'd need a pretty big hammer to pound your way out. They are not going to shatter.
 
iflyforfun said:
The windows are plexiglass fit into fiberglass door frames. You'd need a pretty big hammer to pound your way out. They are not going to shatter.
Click to expand...

Cirrus is the same. In reality, the hammer is small, but it has a sharp enough point to work.

Tim
 
How practical/impractical would it be to deice the twin? ThermaWing was mentioned earlier in the thread.

With a pair of diesels and a deiced wing/canard this would be something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top