Two Velocitys currently on TAP

The LX has an LS1 engine.
thinking-hmm.gif
 
Guess I’m out of touch with the market because I’d say way over priced on both. An SE with bare bones interior / exterior and an XL with an LS-1 engine? I’d pass on both. I’d sell my 173 with a decent panel and a 200 SMOH (2014) for maybe $80K. More than what I paid.
 
Velocity173 said:
Guess I’m out of touch with the market because I’d say way over priced on both. An SE with bare bones interior / exterior and an XL with an LS-1 engine? I’d pass on both. I’d sell my 173 with a decent panel and a 200 SMOH (2014) for maybe $80K. More than what I paid.
Click to expand...

Put me on the short list as a buyer if you decide to sell.
 
My XL-RG with an IO550 and no interior sold for $160k two years ago so I guess that sounds about right.

But I’d pass on an auto engine.
 
The rule of thumb on experimental prices used to be: Engine plus avionics cost = price.
For these two planes, it is not being followed. However, I wonder if this has held true....

Tim
 
tspear said:
The rule of thumb on experimental prices used to be: Engine plus avionics cost = price.
For these two planes, it is not being followed. However, I wonder if this has held true....

Tim
Click to expand...

Not anymore in the RV-10 & 14 market.
 
Velocity173 said:
Guess I’m out of touch with the market because I’d say way over priced on both. An SE with bare bones interior / exterior and an XL with an LS-1 engine? I’d pass on both. I’d sell my 173 with a decent panel and a 200 SMOH (2014) for maybe $80K. More than what I paid.
Click to expand...
That's what the "experts" said about my Mooney, which is having its prepurchase inspection on Saturday.
 
On these Velocity planes, I always wondered, is there any luggage space? It doesn’t look like it but maybe someone who owns one can confirm?
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
On these Velocity planes, I always wondered, is there any luggage space? It doesn’t look like it but maybe someone who owns one can confirm?
Click to expand...

The luggage space are the strakes left & right. You can fit a few duffle bags in there. Really, unless you plan on flying 4 people, plenty of room on the floor in the back.
 
tspear said:
The rule of thumb on experimental prices used to be: Engine plus avionics cost = price.
For these two planes, it is not being followed. However, I wonder if this has held true....

Tim
Click to expand...
Key phrase: "used to be"

I haven't seen a good E/AB sold for those prices in a while.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
On these Velocity planes, I always wondered, is there any luggage space? It doesn’t look like it but maybe someone who owns one can confirm?
Click to expand...
Yes. There is baggage space behind the back seats. I bit of pain to get to. Most have fold down rear seats which increases the baggage space and makes for easier loading.
 
steingar said:
That's what the "experts" said about my Mooney, which is having its prepurchase inspection on Saturday.
Click to expand...

And that’s the status of the market today. A few years back that SE would go for $80K and that XL would go for $130K. Not today.
 
Velocity173 said:
And that’s the status of the market today. A few years back that SE would go for $80K and that XL would go for $130K. Not today.
Click to expand...

That XL is Canadian registered, too. Could be interesting bringing it back.
 
Just out of curiosity, what are the pro/cons with using an auto motor like the LS-1? I mean they are great engines with a lot of support.
 
francisco collazos said:
Just out of curiosity, what are the pro/cons with using an auto motor like the LS-1? I mean they are great engines with a lot of support.
Click to expand...

Pro: less expensive
Widespread parts availability

Con: lowers aircraft value
more failure modes
PSRU units have history of issues
heavier
 
Con: shrinks pool of future buyers
Con: reliant on builder’s engineering and fab/mechanical skills to safely integrate with the airframe
Con: liquid cooling system
Con: added complexity via PSRU

Pro: maybe more reliable.

All of the cons (and more) can be found in the Raptor saga.
 
TCABM said:
All of the cons (and more) can be found in the Raptor saga.
Click to expand...

Not really, the raptor saga had a lot less to do with the engine than everything else.

Tim
 
francisco collazos said:
Just out of curiosity, what are the pro/cons with using an auto motor like the LS-1? I mean they are great engines with a lot of support.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally, the issue is very simple. Auto conversions have a much more limited body of knowledge upon which people can lean to solve problems.
The result, auto conversions basically require you to be a problem/solver or effectively an engineer so "discover" and answer the questions.
There is a P51 knockoff, I forget the name, which used the LS1 for a long time. It was a fairly successful design.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Not really, the raptor saga had a lot less to do with the engine than everything else.

Tim
Click to expand...

Well, the fact that he had the wrong turbos for the application, and a completely ineffective cooling system wasn't helping his cause, either. Then add the PRSU failure, he pretty much had a trifecta of poor design choices.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Well, the fact that he had the wrong turbos for the application, and a completely ineffective cooling system wasn't helping his cause, either. Then add the PRSU failure, he pretty much had a trifecta of poor design choices.
Click to expand...
Bad alignment of prop, PSRU.... Engine mounts, radiators....
Besides making the videos, i am not sure what, if anything they did correct on it.

Tim
 
TCABM said:
Con: shrinks pool of future buyers
Con: reliant on builder’s engineering and fab/mechanical skills to safely integrate with the airframe
Con: liquid cooling system
Con: added complexity via PSRU

Pro: maybe more reliable.

All of the cons (and more) can be found in the Raptor saga.
Click to expand...

Not sure I'd necessarily call the liquid cooling system a CON. Sure it has potential failure modes, but it also allows for much more consistent heating/cooling of the engine. Rotax doesn't seem to have too much trouble doing it.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Not sure I'd necessarily call the liquid cooling system a CON. Sure it has potential failure modes, but it also allows for much more consistent heating/cooling of the engine. Rotax doesn't seem to have too much trouble doing it.
Click to expand...

It’s a con in unknown engineering to optimize the LCS for aviation application. It’s also a con for adding complexity.

Rotax had to skill to get their motors and associated systems certified. Builder Bob just decides to LS swap it. Gotta trust him on that one. Starting with things like custom fab’ing not just the motor mounts, but essentially developing his own firewall foreword package.

If the E/AB market found value in LS swaps, you’d see more of them and you’d see a premium for them. But you don’t.
 
Are canards still a thing? Seems like back in the 90's they were going to take over the world. Can't remember the last time I saw one flying.
 
TCABM said:
It’s a con in unknown engineering to optimize the LCS for aviation application. It’s also a con for adding complexity.

Rotax had to skill to get their motors and associated systems certified. Builder Bob just decides to LS swap it. Gotta trust him on that one. Starting with things like custom fab’ing not just the motor mounts, but essentially developing his own firewall foreword package.

If the E/AB market found value in LS swaps, you’d see more of them and you’d see a premium for them. But you don’t.
Click to expand...

part of the decline in auto conversion is the fundamental shift in experimental aviation. the "experiment" part has all but died. it has shifted to people wanting say, an Rv, carbon cub ect and not wanting or having the knowledge to 'experment'. they follow the manual to the tee and will not deviate.I see it everyday on the vans board. people freaking out if they mis-drilled a hole and have to call van to find out if the other 14k rivets will hold. the educational part of EAB has been replaced by the tab a and slot b mentality. is this bad? maybe, maybe not. people now cringe at the thought of buying a core engine and rebuilding it, they want a new factory engine and new everything. they have no desire to experiment, and doing an auto conversion IS and engineering experiment. again, Im not judging, its just the way EAB has evolved.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Are canards still a thing? Seems like back in the 90's they were going to take over the world. Can't remember the last time I saw one flying.
Click to expand...
I saw a catfish recently that looked like quite a thing.
 
schmookeeg said:
They are great auto engines with a lot of auto support.
Click to expand...
The main issue, I think. Setting aside the higher rate of mechanical issues auto engine conversions suffer in general, remember, if you buy this airplane, you'll need an A&P to do the yearly condition inspection. Suggest before buying the plane, you line up the A&P first. You might have difficulty getting a local A&P to put their ticket on the line for your engine.

Ron Wanttaja
 
unsafervguy said:
again, Im not judging, its just the way EAB has evolved.
Click to expand...
Maybe just a little judging…?

Could be the pendulum swing…a couple decade of “here’s the plans, go build it!” And turns out that maybe they had some issues in practicality of build or support was lacking. Now it has swung to, “here’s a kit you can fly your family in.” The last experimental I watched with interest start strong and then wither on the vine was the Open Airplane.
 
unsafervguy said:
part of the decline in auto conversion is the fundamental shift in experimental aviation. the "experiment" part has all but died. it has shifted to people wanting say, an Rv, carbon cub ect and not wanting or having the knowledge to 'experment'. they follow the manual to the tee and will not deviate.I see it everyday on the vans board. people freaking out if they mis-drilled a hole and have to call van to find out if the other 14k rivets will hold. the educational part of EAB has been replaced by the tab a and slot b mentality. is this bad? maybe, maybe not. people now cringe at the thought of buying a core engine and rebuilding it, they want a new factory engine and new everything. they have no desire to experiment, and doing an auto conversion IS and engineering experiment. again, Im not judging, its just the way EAB has evolved.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I'd also like to point out that Ex/Ab used to be insanely dangerous. Experimenters flying their experiments with little training and crashing on the first flight, happened routinely. I think if Ex/Ab went back to that (which it might) the FAA might start laying the heavy hand.
I was just talking to a Sonex builder who claims to be almost done with his aircraft. I asked him if he was going to get some transition training, he said that was now all but impossible. He thinks he's Odin's gift to taildragger pilots, and I hope he's right. Don't want him to die.
 
steingar said:
Maybe, but I'd also like to point out that Ex/Ab used to be insanely dangerous. Experimenters flying their experiments with little training and crashing on the first flight, happened routinely. I think if Ex/Ab went back to that (which it might) the FAA might start laying the heavy hand.
Click to expand...
EAA and the FAA track fatal accidents in Special airworthiness aircraft (including homebuilts, but also including Light Sports and Experimental Exhibition aircraft), with the agreement that no action needs to be taken unless a certain threshold is breached. Unfortunately, FY 2022 saw that threshold exceeded. Not sure if anything will come out of it. My opinion is that it's just normal statistical variation.

It's not hard to see how the safety record for homebuilts has improved over the years. This plot show the number of accidents due to Pilot Miscontrol and due to mechanical issues with the aircraft for the past 20 years.
accidents per year.JPG
Miscontrol is roughly the same...but the homebuilt fleet has increased by about 20% over this time period, even with a massive reduction during the 2010-2013 implementation of the re-registration process.

What's more impressive is the reduction in accidents due to mechanical issues. I attribute this mostly to the rise in kit aircraft, with fewer construction or design decisions having to be made by amateur builders. Don't think it's a coincidence that over the same time period, the number of RVs increased by over five times.

I may kid RVs ("Vancans" or "JAFTHAs") but really think the designs have had a positive effect on overall homebuilt safety. And I think they've driven the rest of the industry to be safer, as well.

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top