Anyone Flying a Velocity V-Twin?

DJTorrente

DJTorrente

En-Route
PoA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
3,416
Location
NJ
Display Name
Display name:
DJTorrente
Perhaps I'm forever influenced by the picture of the elusive Beech Starship from my youth, but I was interested when I saw the Velocity V-twin make a splash in AOPA mag a couple of years ago.

Anyone seen any of them "in the wild"?
 
I was a bit surprised at the direction given the fate of twins in general. Saw their prototype, thought it was real spanky.
 
Nope, but I do like it. What would be really cool is to put that centerline rocket motor in it, that ought to cure the 'runway hog' rep, at least on take off. :lol:
 
Velocity173 said:
I believe only the prototype is flying. N360VT was a beautiful aircraft until it was wrecked at Sebastian earlier this year. Hopefully they'll get it back flying soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le6DCAxMq1E
Click to expand...

What happened to it? Landing or take off accident?

I like this plane, but sadly, I don't think it has much future. As kit plane it just cost too much and is too complicated to build. Just as with the certified market, when confronted with the cost, scope of the build and the requirement for a new rating, most will opt for a high performance single instead.

If only it had shown up in the '60s, or '70s, we would likely see them all over the place. Now IMO, the best chance this awesome concept has at serial production, is to pitch the concept to the Chinese. I can see them really getting excited about it and dumping a load of money into it.
 
Dav8or said:
What happened to it? Landing or take off accident?

I like this plane, but sadly, I don't think it has much future. As kit plane it just cost too much and is too complicated to build. Just as with the certified market, when confronted with the cost, scope of the build and the requirement for a new rating, most will opt for a high performance single instead.

If only it had shown up in the '60s, or '70s, we would likely see them all over the place. Now IMO, the best chance this awesome concept has at serial production, is to pitch the concept to the Chinese. I can see them really getting excited about it and dumping a load of money into it.
Click to expand...

Hard to tell what actually happened. Obviously some engine problems and then botched landing.
http://kathrynaviationnews.com/?p=219589
 
Does it have a bit of negative dihedral, or is that an illusion created by the swept wing?
 
Just read the NTSB preliminary. Cites directional control problems on the first maintenance shakeout flight following a prop change on the left engine. Odd thing is, it first says the problem was pulling left on takeoff roll, and engine RPM mismatch -- 1200 less on left side, makes sense. Pilot reported he cut power over the numbers, but bounced the landing, and it pulled RIGHT when he advanced throttles to go around.

I suppose it almost doesn't matter what happened or why, or whether it was correctible. Anytime a first in type suffers that kind of mishap, its going to sour the whole line.

I was having visions of this mini-Starship with Deltahawk diesel engines. Price tag of $400k with the diesels (+$80k for builder assistance) seems a big nut to crack, but considering you'd get a new twin retract for that - a new Baron is over $1MM.
 
DJTorrente said:
I was having visions of this mini-Starship with Deltahawk diesel engines.
Click to expand...

Was just looking at the builder's blog for N360VT. He decided to eliminate the strake tanks to provide gunwale storage in the back seat. He calculated his desired endurance, and decided that reducing fuel capacity by 5 gals each side was acceptable, which was exactly the capacity of the strake tanks.

In thinking about diesel power, I didn't want to pay the weight penalty for diesel's higher density than 100LL. I calculated that reducing full fuel capacity from 100 gal to 85 gal gave the same weight of full fuel, but still increased cruise endurance by about 1.5 hrs (7.8 hrs total). I doubt I'd want to fly any leg close to that long, but that would really look like a full tanks/full seats kind of airframe.
 
If they're still offering them when I retire from Delta I plan on having one. No need for a go fast airplane now.
 
Instead of a twin Velocity I would have rather seen them put a parachute in the airplane, figure out how to get more baggage room, and add de-ice. In all the twins I have owned I have bought them primary for their ability to haul the people and bags I want along with fuel for a 900+ NM trip, have de-ice, and another engine just in case. Only the Cirrus G5 and newer will do this, but at $700k I will pass. A turbo 540 would give you the power you need and a parachute would satisfy me. I would think a Therma Wing de-ice system could be developed for the Velocity. You would be money ahead in maintenance with a single 540 Turbo and would be faster as well.
 
toddsanderson said:
Instead of a twin Velocity I would have rather seen them put a parachute in the airplane, figure out how to get more baggage room, and add de-ice. In all the twins I have owned I have bought them primary for their ability to haul the people and bags I want along with fuel for a 900+ NM trip, have de-ice, and another engine just in case. Only the Cirrus G5 and newer will do this, but at $700k I will pass. A turbo 540 would give you the power you need and a parachute would satisfy me. I would think a Therma Wing de-ice system could be developed for the Velocity. You would be money ahead in maintenance with a single 540 Turbo and would be faster as well.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which, is Kelly selling their therma wing system yet?
 
Should a 172 pilot be concerned about a ship that stalls at 72 kias, with a vref of 94 kts? Together with a 20 psf wing loading, that sounds like it might be a handful.
 
DJTorrente said:
Should a 172 pilot be concerned about a ship that stalls at 72 kias, with a vref of 94 kts? Together with a 20 psf wing loading, that sounds like it might be a handful.
Click to expand...

Concerned? Sure, you should be concerned enough to get enough training to be comfortable in it. Should you be afraid of or avoid it? No, not really. Those are typical speeds for a 310 or Baron, neither of those is a difficult transition.
 
DJTorrente said:
Should a 172 pilot be concerned about a ship that stalls at 72 kias, with a vref of 94 kts? Together with a 20 psf wing loading, that sounds like it might be a handful.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. My Glasair is closer to 30 psf, stalls at 72 and is 100 knots across the numbers. Depending on how quick you pick up things it could take 1 hr or 10. A good airplane to get the feel of a high performance wing and light controls is a Grumman AA1A. When you get use to how it feels you will transition into other aircraft with the same feel very quickly.
 
Not sure if the Therma Wing is being sold yet. I think it was initially somewhat of a failure on the Columbia/Cessna series of aircraft. It sure would be nice for my Glasair. We have a lot of ice here in NE Indiana.
 
Well, 360VT has wound up at my local field and I may have the opportunity to play with it a bit.

Has anyone flown one?

PS.. I clicked the "I know this thread is old..." ;)
 
I haven't but I swapped some emails with a builder that did his first flight in July 2015, with over 100 hrs sometime last fall. I think there are 4 or 5 flying and several more under construction. He said he wasn't getting 215 kts, but was getting ~205 kts (if memory serves) with two 180 hp IO-360s.

Looks like a great traveling machine, but $350-400k. :eek: Plus building it. :eek::eek:
 
wayne said:
He said he wasn't getting 215 kts, but was getting ~205 kts (if memory serves) with two 180 hp IO-360s.

Looks like a great traveling machine, but $350-400k. :eek: Plus building it. :eek::eek:
Click to expand...

Book numbers are 175kts at economy cruise. If you want to dump the fuel in, Maybe hit 200 if you push it hard. But none of the V-twin builders I know are doing that. They're running economy cruise and seeing around 170-175.

If you check flight aware for the flying V-twins, you'll see that 175 is the average groundspeed.

Saying it's a 210kt aircraft is marketing, pure and simple.

The price for the basic kit is $120k. Engine and avionics will probably add $100k - $150k. Now if you do piecemeal factory assistance and get all the pre-made stuff then yeah, that number is going to go up... And fast. There's an advertised "builder assist" that is $80k, but I don't know if that's a hard number (ceiling) or a guesstimate.
 
That's economy cruise with the 160 hp engines. His has the 180 hp engines; economy cruise 195 kts. Doing 195 kts on 16 gph would be nice. This builder said he tried getting the demo model to do 175 kts at 12 gph and it wouldn't do it, not even light. Of course that is the first unit.

Yep, I missed the low end. The Velocity web site shows $325k to $405k with the builder assist; more for the 180 hp engines. I imagine all of the numbers are estimates, largely because the builder could make many different decisions. The V-twin only comes as a fast-build kit. There are still options that can add to the price, plus getting builder assistance. And of course the builder can go as nuts buying avionics and other things as they desire. :eek:

From what I've been reading on VOBA the Velocity planes sound like they involve a lot more "aircraft design" than what I've read about RVs. Aircraft building I might be willing to take on, I'm not so sure about aircraft design. Maybe it's just the Velocity builders doing more customization, but some of it sounds like unanswered questions. Did you build yours or buy it? How was your experience?
 
I understand that. But like I said, it's marketing. IIRC, there only two 180hp twins flying now. One is still in Phase 1. 200+ in level cruise is... unlikely. Or maybe a situation of finding the perfect altitude on the perfect day with just the right amount of weight.

"Aircraft Design"? Not sure what you mean by that. The airframe is what it is. Any changes there would be self inflicted and optional. If you're talking about the ability to deviate from the process (different throttles, building your own landing gear controller, etc.), well yeah. That's the whole idea. I don't think I've ever seen two Velocity's (or any other EAB) that are the same.

Yes, I built mine.
 
donjohnston said:
[...] Yes, I built mine.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, as we are currently building a RV-10, which typically seems to require 2,000 - 2,500 hr to complete: How many hours did you roughly put into building your Velocity?
 
FYI all -- I am flying our V-Twin and questions welcome. It's about 10 hours into Phase 1 but I suspect that the 170 to 175 knot range will be more than realized at high cruise. The airplane is exciting to fly but you need to acknowledge that this airplane, despite no traditional VMC, is -- while straight forward -- is both high performance and responsive. It is not a Cirrus.
 
Velocity has a turbine (T100) V-Twin in the works. The canard is suppose to sweep as well. Your own mini Starship!
 
Loved it as soon as I saw it at SnF a few years ago. Just recently noticing it has Seawind-ish main gear. I'd love the opportunity to fly one someday.
 
Eventually -- let me check with the other half.
 
Thanks I appreciate reading about other people's builds. I have a slight fascination with twin engine airplanes and being the only twin in kit form on the experimental market would like to see the process of building one. Did you put the IO-360s in or the 320s?
 
Thought again about this plane the other day as I was sanding fiberglass. Anyone know of a posted build log for one? Really would like to see what it takes to build. If I ever had a reason for a twin I would probably look into it.
 
Yes

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top