Veloce 400?

Sifossifoco

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 12, 2021
Messages
183
Display Name

Display name:
Sifossifoco
Anybody with experience/knowledge of Veloce planes? I have been looking at the 400, which in theory seems damn close to a Cirrus for a much cheaper price. Not sure about the Aero Momentum engine either, so any informed opinion would be greatly appreciated. $247,000 for a fully built new plane sounds almost too good to be true. I was looking at the Sling TSi, which also comes with a build-assist option, when the Veloce 400 popped out of Kitplanes. The company that makes the Sling seems somehow more reputable, and I would probably feel more comfortable with a Rotax engine, but what do I know... Thoughts?
 
The guy in this review of the Veloce had a Sling until recently. After considering the RV-10/Sling options, the only negative I could find between those two options was the Rotax is horsepower limited and added complexity with the psru. And that exhausts my knowledge of it all.

 
Thank you, it is reassuring to see that the Veloce has been around for a while. The one in the review has a classic Lycoming O-360, but now Veloce really seems to push the Aero Momentum. I had a look at its features, and I don't know if I would feel comfortable without two magnetos and a redundant ignition system. Otherwise, I quite like that the Aero Momentum does not have any belts and uses a fixed pitch propeller, limiting the potential failure points. Would anybody fly an airplane with no redundant ignition? The redundant magnetos have been hammered in my brain since the very beginning of my flight training...
 
I dunno man, would anybody drive a car without dual redundant ignition? No siree, that's why I ride a bicycle. In the roughly 1M miles I've put on cars, trucks and motorcycles, ignition has failed me...


never.
 
I dunno man, would anybody drive a car without dual redundant ignition? No siree, that's why I ride a bicycle. In the roughly 1M miles I've put on cars, trucks and motorcycles, ignition has failed me...


never.

In fact, that's what I am telling myself too. Magnetos are 100 year old technology, after all...
 
I dunno man, would anybody drive a car without dual redundant ignition? No siree, that's why I ride a bicycle. In the roughly 1M miles I've put on cars, trucks and motorcycles, ignition has failed me...


never.

I had a Honda VF500 that would fail a coil about once a month.

I won’t get into anything with Lucas electrics or Fiat Spyders, either. Not enough bytes on the internet to cover the ignition system problems there.
 
I had a Honda VF500 that would fail a coil about once a month.

I won’t get into anything with Lucas electrics or Fiat Spyders, either. Not enough bytes on the internet to cover the ignition system problems there.
Well I did have a Yamaha XT that left me on a mountain once, when I was much younger, for an ignition problem, but I blame a black cat that crossed in front of me a minute before. And the Veloce apparently has the autoland button as a standard plus the parachute option (not that I would like to test any of them...)
 
… And the Veloce apparently has the autoland button as a standard plus the parachute option

giphy.gif
 
Thank you, it is reassuring to see that the Veloce has been around for a while. The one in the review has a classic Lycoming O-360, but now Veloce really seems to push the Aero Momentum. I had a look at its features, and I don't know if I would feel comfortable without two magnetos and a redundant ignition system. Otherwise, I quite like that the Aero Momentum does not have any belts and uses a fixed pitch propeller, limiting the potential failure points. Would anybody fly an airplane with no redundant ignition? The redundant magnetos have been hammered in my brain since the very beginning of my flight training...

Only because mags have such horrible failure rates.

Tim
 
In fact, that's what I am telling myself too. Magnetos are 100 year old technology, after all...

They are rock solid. Your Briggs and Stratton mower isn't going to fail because its magneto died, you just hadn't changed the oil in twenty years.
 
I dunno man, would anybody drive a car without dual redundant ignition? No siree, that's why I ride a bicycle. In the roughly 1M miles I've put on cars, trucks and motorcycles, ignition has failed me...


never.
ONE time for me. 80s Chevy Corsica. One coil shorted and took out 2 of the six cylinders. But that was not n ‘87 or ‘88. You were probably in diapers then. Suffice to say I trust automotive ignitions too.
 
ONE time for me. 80s Chevy Corsica. One coil shorted and took out 2 of the six cylinders. But that was not n ‘87 or ‘88. You were probably in diapers then. Suffice to say I trust automotive ignitions too.

What’s different between a modern automotive PCM system and, say, a 40-60 year old aviation magneto system?
 
What’s different between a modern automotive PCM system and, say, a 40-60 year old aviation magneto system?

The mag will likely start to fail in the next 500 hours; with an increasing probability of failure as time goes on.

Tim
 
They say they use a Bosh 'FEDEC' engine control system and a dual coil ignition. My understanding is that automotive PCM systems are very reliable and normally wouldn't fail shutting down the engine completely, while the dual coil is a poor relative of two fully redundant ignition circuits. I still see the configuration, at least psychologically, as a limiting factor, but when I read that they perform a full overhaul at TBO (2,000 hours) for $2,450 I start feeling tempted... And they sell the engine for $25,000, so even if you just replaced it for a new one at TBO that would cost $12.50/hour
 
…My understanding is that automotive PCM systems are very reliable…
What makes those PCM systems reliable? Solid state electronics?

What’s interesting is solid state electronics have improved avionics and jet/turboprop systems. They are the heart of a FADEC system.

Yet firewall forward, piston GA OEMs largely want nothing to do with it. Regulatory burden is often cited. If Congress can drive the cost of non-dispatchable wind and solar power production below market prices via subsidies, you’d think they could scrounge up enough budget dust for this not to be an issue.

But it be what it be.
 
The only reason for two magnetos in aircraft is because engine designers knew owners would neglect mag care and feeding. So we see them left til failure - and that other one better be working.
 
What makes those PCM systems reliable? Solid state electronics?

What’s interesting is solid state electronics have improved avionics and jet/turboprop systems. They are the heart of a FADEC system.

Yet firewall forward, piston GA OEMs largely want nothing to do with it. Regulatory burden is often cited. If Congress can drive the cost of non-dispatchable wind and solar power production below market prices via subsidies, you’d think they could scrounge up enough budget dust for this not to be an issue.

But it be what it be.
I am definitely not an engineer or an expert in ignition systems, but I would think that an electronic system with no moving parts could outlast a magneto. What I really would like to know is what happens in case of electrical system failure. I know that magnetos would keep going, but what about PCM systems? Would they just die in 20-30 min together with the battery?
 
They generally all have backup power for 30 minutes to an hour I believe. You should get plenty of alerts when the system goes into reserve power.
 
I am definitely not an engineer or an expert in ignition systems, but I would think that an electronic system with no moving parts could outlast a magneto. What I really would like to know is what happens in case of electrical system failure. I know that magnetos would keep going, but what about PCM systems? Would they just die in 20-30 min together with the battery?

Certified systems, like Surefly, or the Diamond Austros and CMI engines all have local power. Some are a dedicated generator built into or attached to the system; however I believe most are battery based.
If experimental, SDS sells a really nice battery designed for their EFI/EFII systems.

Tim
 
What makes those PCM systems reliable? Solid state electronics?

What’s interesting is solid state electronics have improved avionics and jet/turboprop systems. They are the heart of a FADEC system.

Yet firewall forward, piston GA OEMs largely want nothing to do with it. Regulatory burden is often cited. If Congress can drive the cost of non-dispatchable wind and solar power production below market prices via subsidies, you’d think they could scrounge up enough budget dust for this not to be an issue.

But it be what it be.

There is a certified one available from one of the two big legacy companies. It is called the IE2 system. However, not even Lancair selling the evolution could get prospective owners to make the leap.
The reality is pilot/owners talk a good game; but very rarely have they been putting their money where their mouth is.

Tim
 
I am definitely not an engineer or an expert in ignition systems, but I would think that an electronic system with no moving parts could outlast a magneto. What I really would like to know is what happens in case of electrical system failure. I know that magnetos would keep going, but what about PCM systems? Would they just die in 20-30 min together with the battery?
Homebuilt aircraft, especially auto-engine conversions, use electronic ignition with varying degrees of success. The usual point of failure is the controller itself or the ability of the aircraft to supply power to the controller. A usual factor in accidents with these systems is the existence of single points of failure. A good example is ERA19LA253, where the aircraft had a certified aircraft engine using dual plugs and dual electronic ignition system, but both systems were powered by the same battery. A crimp failed, and power was lost to both ignitions.

In comparison, the four-stroke engines produced by Rotax are having few ignition-related accidents in homebuilt aircraft. For instance, from 1998 through 2021, of the 475 accidents involving homebuilts using these engines, there were six accidents causes by failures of the ignition systems or associated controllers. In contrast, out of 499 accidents involving homebuilts with auto-engine conversions, 35 were due to ignition or controller faults.

FAA certification rules are quite stringent about ignition reliability. Most production aircraft have a single potential point of failure in their dual ignition systems, but the failure doesn't usually cause loss of power. There were almost 2600 Cessna 172 accidents from 1998 through 2015 (note the shorter time period). Only ten were due to ignition faults.

Ron Wanttaja
 
There is a certified one available from one of the two big legacy companies. It is called the IE2 system. However, not even Lancair selling the evolution could get prospective owners to make the leap.
The reality is pilot/owners talk a good game; but very rarely have they been putting their money where their mouth is.

Tim

I’m aware of ie2 and didn’t want to go there just yet. I didn’t want to hit the PFM, either. Where we do see FADECs though are in the push-button start diesels (Diamond) and in turboprops. It can be done.

The regulatory burden challenge is probably what’s keeping anybody from seriously pursuing a retrofit STC though.
 
In comparison, the four-stroke engines produced by Rotax are having few ignition-related accidents in homebuilt aircraft. For instance, from 1998 through 2021, of the 475 accidents involving homebuilts using these engines, there were six accidents causes by failures of the ignition systems or associated controllers. In contrast, out of 499 accidents involving homebuilts with auto-engine conversions, 35 were due to ignition or controller faults.
That's very helpful, thanks for sharing. Any idea of the absolute numbers of Rotax and auto conversion experimentals out there? It would be nice to have an approximate specific risk for comparison. I suspect that being auto conversions a very heterogeneous group, their specific risk must be higher than Rotax. I believe that the number of 172 flying during the period you examined must be significantly higher than experimentals, which makes their reliability stand out even more.
 
That's very helpful, thanks for sharing. Any idea of the absolute numbers of Rotax and auto conversion experimentals out there? It would be nice to have an approximate specific risk for comparison. I suspect that being auto conversions a very heterogeneous group, their specific risk must be higher than Rotax. I believe that the number of 172 flying during the period you examined must be significantly higher than experimentals, which makes their reliability stand out even more.
I gave a whole talk on this at the EAA Online Homebuilt Week last month. Where were you? :)

I've got the charts available for free download:

http://www.wanttaja.com/eaa23.pdf

As you'll see in the presentation, the question of "How many Rotax 912s or VWs are in the homebuilt fleet" can't really be answered, as the FAA data is not precise. This is a plot similar to what I show in the presentation. It shows only engine makes that have 100 or more entries:
engines on EAB aircraft.JPG
About 13% of all homebuilt aircraft are listed as having "AMA/EXPR" engines. The FAA registry is not one discrete file; it combines an aircraft definition file and an engine definition file with an owner data file. When a new homebuilt is presented for registration, a new entry is made in the aircraft definition file even if other aircraft of that type exist*. If the engine corresponds to an entry in the engine database, that engine is then listed...but if not, the FAA may list it as "AMA/EXPR" instead. So we don't KNOW how many of those 3500 AMA/EXPR engines are Lycomings, Continentals, Rotaxes, etc.

This especially came into play with the rise of what I call "Aftermarket Traditional" engines... the Superiors, Mattitucks, etc. When these engines were first introduced, all the aircraft were listed as AMA/EXPR engine. As time went on, though, and more of these engines appeared, the FAA relented and assigned a designator to them. But it *didn't* change the registry entry for existing planes.

The plot above show by engine make; model is another kettle o' fish entirely. Until about 2008, all Rotax engines (be they two stroke, four stroke, etc.) were just listed as "ROTAX" (or BOMBARDIER). So there are 4700 Rotax engines in the registry, of which ~2200 or so don't list the engine model. Almost 1400 do list the Rotax 912 engine, but there are undoubtedly hundreds more in service. Note that this doesn't include Special Light Sport Aircraft or Experimental Light Sport Aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja

* I've seen some multiple uses of entries for common homebuilt types, such as the RV-7
 
I gave a whole talk on this at the EAA Online Homebuilt Week last month. Where were you? :)
Most likely in... the Cayman Islands, because that's where I work (and dive)! :)
Thanks again for the data and the explanation. My current understanding, that may be wrong, is that there is such a difference between a certified engine and an auto conversion that I wouldn't want to use the conversion for anything more serious than a $100 burger trip over flat land.
Sounds like I should join the EAA and learn more anyway!
 
What’s different between a modern automotive PCM system and, say, a 40-60 year old aviation magneto system?
Lemmesee… I’m pretty sure that would be everything except the fact that they are both intended to produce a spark.
 
Interesting... Did your friend decide on a different 4-Seater, or abandon the idea of building altogether?
 
Back
Top