Velocity XL - any PIREPs?

PedroB801

PedroB801

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
22
Location
Conroe, TX
Display Name
Display name:
PedroB801
Looking at Velocity Aircrafts. Does anyone have any experience with them?
 
The XlRG is at the top of my list if I go exp.
 
I really liked the looks and performance of them, but there was a guy on the field who had a different canard plane and when I mentioned "like a Velocity" to him his response was that I compared a Kia to a Mercedes. FWIW...
 
No PIREP as I have never flown one, just observations. I have read that you need a fair amount of runway due to every landing being a no flaps landing and also take offs. So if you're OK with not going to short runways, otherwise the plane is great. Being stall and spin proof is a big benefit. They're pretty efficient too.

The ones I have seen don't impress me with build quality. They always look kind of rough. I know it's up to the individual builder to some degree, but I've seen the factory demonstrators that the factory put together and they looked rough to me. However, this is common amongst kit planes for the most part. Very few look as refined as a factory built certified plane.

There are people on this board with Velocity time, I'm sure they'll get here soon. Good luck on the hunt!
 
No XL time, just 173. Can't really compare a 173, an SE or a Cozy to an XL. The XL is on a completely different level. If you're serious about the XL then I'd suggest schedule a demo flight with their chief pilot in Sebastian. If you don't have time to go down, then order their DVD.
 
We are planning on a trip to Florida in the next few weeks to visit the factory.
 
Finally got time to head down to Sebastian and check out the factory and do a demo flight.


The RG we demoed was FAST. Got up to 180 indicated within the first 500 ft while climbing at 1000 ft/min. Because of the canard design it won't spin, and the stalls simply brings the nose down.
In the air this plane was awesome.

While we were not allowed to land it, the chief pilot did that, I was able to take it all the way down to short final. One thing about it, in slow speeds the ailerons are really unresponsive. Touchdown is at 95. Since it is a free castering wheel you have to steer with differential breaking, so need to be careful not to overbreak or you end up on the grass. Also the original breaking system did not include toe breaks, therefore if you are landing with full rudder you have to be extra careful you're not touching down with breaks on.

We saw a about 6 different airplanes while at the factory. Build quality was all over the place. Some were very good and some were very bad.

After the tour, demo flight and lots of looking at velocities I've decided they are not for me.
 
PedroB801 said:
Finally got time to head down to Sebastian and check out the factory and do a demo flight.


The RG we demoed was FAST. Got up to 180 indicated within the first 500 ft while climbing at 1000 ft/min. Because of the canard design it won't spin, and the stalls simply brings the nose down.
In the air this plane was awesome.

While we were not allowed to land it, the chief pilot did that, I was able to take it all the way down to short final. One thing about it, in slow speeds the ailerons are really unresponsive. Touchdown is at 95. Since it is a free castering wheel you have to steer with differential breaking, so need to be careful not to overbreak or you end up on the grass. Also the original breaking system did not include toe breaks, therefore if you are landing with full rudder you have to be extra careful you're not touching down with breaks on.

We saw a about 6 different airplanes while at the factory. Build quality was all over the place. Some were very good and some were very bad.

After the tour, demo flight and lots of looking at velocities I've decided they are not for me.
Click to expand...

That is a shame....

If I was 10 years younger, I would build the baddest XL that ever existed....

I LOVE those planes....:yes::yes::)
 
N801BH said:
That is a shame....

If I was 10 years younger, I would build the baddest XL that ever existed....

I LOVE those planes....:yes::yes::)
Click to expand...

This is the baddest:

Velocity-V-Twin-0413a.jpg
 
PedroB801 said:
After the tour, demo flight and lots of looking at velocities I've decided they are not for me.
Click to expand...

Was there any one thing that forced that decision?

I sat in one at Oshkosh and I didn't like the high line of the side windows but it's probably something I could get used to.
 
Flown in an XL.. helped a friend build a SUV (yokes, fixed gear).. with auto conversion. He got it flying, but finally ripped out the auto conversion and is getting ready to install the lycosaurus...

Great cross country plane. NOT a good soft/short/bush strip plane. Long paved runways.

You need to be good with speed management. Flying a tiger or a mooney or other slick airframe is good prep for flying fast-glass canards..

You can make just about anything look good with fiberglass, and do-over if you need to.. as opposed to replacing or riveting a patch on a botched job on a metal plane.

Building? Well... metal planes take lots and lots of riveting, deburring, etc..

With Fiberglass, the adage is.. "back to sanding"... Lots and lots of fill/sand to get your contours.
 
Good plane. Fast, but no flaps. Landing speeds are high. Off field landings are a problem in my book, but they don't seem to be doing that ever day. Landing speeds are why I love RVs.

I know of a bitching one for sale if you are a serious buyer. Amazing panel, Continental engine. 230 knot cruise.
 
Doggtyred said:
Flown in an XL.. helped a friend build a SUV (yokes, fixed gear).. with auto conversion. He got it flying, but finally ripped out the auto conversion and is getting ready to install the lycosaurus...

Great cross country plane. NOT a good soft/short/bush strip plane. Long paved runways.

You need to be good with speed management. Flying a tiger or a mooney or other slick airframe is good prep for flying fast-glass canards..

You can make just about anything look good with fiberglass, and do-over if you need to.. as opposed to replacing or riveting a patch on a botched job on a metal plane.

Building? Well... metal planes take lots and lots of riveting, deburring, etc..

With Fiberglass, the adage is.. "back to sanding"... Lots and lots of fill/sand to get your contours.
Click to expand...


I am assuming this is Chris with the Rotary?
 
paflyer said:
Was there any one thing that forced that decision?



I sat in one at Oshkosh and I didn't like the high line of the side windows but it's probably something I could get used to.
Click to expand...


The landing speed and controllability at slow speeds. Maybe once I get more hours in my logbook I would feel differently.
 
N801BH said:
I am assuming this is Chris with the Rotary?
Click to expand...
'

Yes, it was Chris's velocity. I was on the rotary boards until I quit participating in the build. I still have a key to the hangar and several of my tools are still in his hangar for airplane use. That's the nature of long term friendships.

He had the redrive and mount from Tracy, I had the Mistral Intake (a beautiful work of art)... and I had contributed to the avionics before he went with the Dynon. Our first engine was cobbled together from 3 junk cores I bought from a racer in Ocean Springs Mississippi a couple months before Hurricane Katrina made landfall in the area. We had some teething problems and put a couple more rotaries on there before finally throwing in the towel... sold the rotary/redrive/prop to pay for the Lycoming.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Good plane. Fast, but no flaps. Landing speeds are high. Off field landings are a problem in my book, but they don't seem to be doing that ever day. Landing speeds are why I love RVs.

I know of a bitching one for sale if you are a serious buyer. Amazing panel, Continental engine. 230 knot cruise.
Click to expand...

230 KNOTS??? :yikes::yikes:
 
Doggtyred said:
'

Yes, it was Chris's velocity. I was on the rotary boards until I quit participating in the build. I still have a key to the hangar and several of my tools are still in his hangar for airplane use. That's the nature of long term friendships.

He had the redrive and mount from Tracy, I had the Mistral Intake (a beautiful work of art)... and I had contributed to the avionics before he went with the Dynon. Our first engine was cobbled together from 3 junk cores I bought from a racer in Ocean Springs Mississippi a couple months before Hurricane Katrina made landfall in the area. We had some teething problems and put a couple more rotaries on there before finally throwing in the towel... sold the rotary/redrive/prop to pay for the Lycoming.
Click to expand...

I am on the same board.. Altho I am piston guy I try to add some data for cooling, exhaust and engine mount fabrication... There are some REALLY dedicated rotorheads in there and I commend them on their mission.. Some are pretty sketchy though....

Poor Chris had more trouble then 100 other auto engine conversion people combined.. Glad he didn't kill himself during his "experimentation" :yikes:
 
Last edited:
PedroB801 said:
After the tour, demo flight and lots of looking at velocities I've decided they are not for me.
Click to expand...

I think lots of people come to that conclusion also. Same thing over at Lancair and Glasair. Those buyers usually end up over at Vans. People want more versatility, more build support, faster builds and a better known quality. Plus not many people really like sanding fiberglass all that much.
 
I think they look like amazing aircraft and have decent payload as well for the XL/XL-5 variants. The fast landing speeds and need for long paved runways would deter me, personally. If my flying were exclusively 500+mi XC's into airports with 4Kft+ runways, I'd think it'd be one of the best aircraft to have for the job, short of maybe a Lancair.
 
Dav8or said:
I think lots of people come to that conclusion also. Same thing over at Lancair and Glasair. Those buyers usually end up over at Vans. People want more versatility, more build support, faster builds and a better known quality. Plus not many people really like sanding fiberglass all that much.
Click to expand...

If I had the funds to build, it'd be a vans mostly because of the support and metal construction.
If I bought a completed plane I'd look at the rest, because I think they're a much better value used. Especially the older glasair..
 
Dav8or said:
It's for sale. It could be yours.
Click to expand...

I think the V-twin is sexy as hell; I blame in on 'coming of age' in GenAv at the time of the Beech Starship. I've thought (only thought) about building a V-twin with diesel engines.

As far as I know, only one copy of the V-twin has been built "in the wild", and that one crashed during a maintenance flight to debug an engine problem (pilot/builder/owner survived). The pioneers take the arrows. Like PG says, there's a real benefit in metal construction and proven track record of the RV line.
 
DJTorrente said:
Like PG says, there's a real benefit in metal construction and proven track record of the RV line.
Click to expand...
I agree with your point, though it wasn't the point I was trying to make. With glass as I understand it you can have defects in the glass and not see (or hear..) them.
My point was simply I don't have the patience for glass work.
 
DJTorrente said:
I think the V-twin is sexy as hell; I blame in on 'coming of age' in GenAv at the time of the Beech Starship. I've thought (only thought) about building a V-twin with diesel engines.
Click to expand...

Too funny - I've been fiddling with an Excel spreadsheet, trying to figure out the build cost of a V-Twin with the Austro AE300, FADEC, perhaps a Thermawing and a BRS for good measure. Easily a $500k plane and then some...
 
Flying Viking said:
Too funny - I've been fiddling with an Excel spreadsheet, trying to figure out the build cost of a V-Twin with the Austro AE300, FADEC, perhaps a Thermawing and a BRS for good measure. Easily a $500k plane and then some...
Click to expand...

I didn't get as far a a spreadsheet, more cocktail napkin, but I came up with about $500k as well, using Deltahawk diesels; didn't think about ice protection. For comparison to certified, you'd get the speed and payload of a B58 Baron which easily tops $1 MM new; plus head-turning factor on FBO ramps. :eek:
 
DJTorrente said:
I think the V-twin is sexy as hell; I blame in on 'coming of age' in GenAv at the time of the Beech Starship. I've thought (only thought) about building a V-twin with diesel engines.

As far as I know, only one copy of the V-twin has been built "in the wild", and that one crashed during a maintenance flight to debug an engine problem (pilot/builder/owner survived). The pioneers take the arrows. Like PG says, there's a real benefit in metal construction and proven track record of the RV line.
Click to expand...

The Starship was a beast. Coolest plane ever made.
 
PeeGee said:
If I had the funds to build, it'd be a vans mostly because of the support and metal construction.
If I bought a completed plane I'd look at the rest, because I think they're a much better value used. Especially the older glasair..
Click to expand...

Until you say to your wife on a warm summer day, "Let's go get a hamburger over at KXXX for lunch and realize that the runway is only 2800 ft long. Then the Vans looks much, much better.

Sadly, the Glasair seems to be a niche airplane that fulfills the needs of the air racer, the speed demon hobbyist and the business commuter. The average GA pilot comes to the conclusion that they don't want to give up short runways and can visualize an off field landing into a farmer's field at cabin twin landing speeds... in a fiberglass slipper.

I bet both Glasair and Lancair could sell more kits if they did the engineering to put in a parachute. On the other hand, I suspect that most kit buyers are solidly convinced that anything they build will never fail and that airplanes are safer than cars.
 
I don't know. I really don't care about getting into short runways. I very very rarely use anything shorter than 4000.
 
Dav8or said:
Until you say to your wife on a warm summer day, "Let's go get a hamburger over at KXXX for lunch and realize that the runway is only 2800 ft long. Then the Vans looks much, much better.
Click to expand...
I probably wouldn't go into a 2800' runway in our 231. But I live in the mountains, not a lot of short runways.
 
A Velocity with a constant speed prop can easily get in and out of a 2,800 ft runway. Rough River Fly-in has a 3,200 ft runway and none of the canards I've seen have a problem getting in and out.

I've never had any customer support problems with Velocity. I probably called a dozen times last year and got a hold of their chief mech or chief pilot every time. Parts? They have kits sitting on the shelves ready to ship. Besides the V-Twin, no one is buying kits these days so they have parts on hand. They're surviving mostly from the service center and brokerage. Not like you need them for most parts anyway.

Yes they land fast. Recommend approach speed is 85-90 kts with a 75 kt touchdown. I use 80 kts and a 70 kt touchdown. While the canard will stall anywhere around 60-65 kts, I've had it off the ground IGE at 55 kts.

The wing is swept with small ailerons. Low speed (70 kts) won't allow for responsive roll control.

I'm no Velocity fanatic. They have pros and cons. I've flown RVs. Yes they are a good aircraft. Difference is, my used 4 place 200 hp Velocity costs as much as a 2 place 200 hp RV-7. Personally I like the looks better and have no use for the aerobatic capability of the RV-7. I also like SR20s but at almost have the cost and a 10 kt advantage, I've got to go with the Velocity.

Only gripe is it takes forever to get off the flightline because I'm answering questions for people who come out to look at the aircraft.
 
PeeGee said:
I probably wouldn't go into a 2800' runway in our 231. But I live in the mountains, not a lot of short runways.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming Mooney 231 and if that's the case, why not go into a 2800' runway?? :confused: Your turbo would make that even easier. Plenty of room for 231.
 
Velocity173 said:
You're not gonna get chicks like this in a Mooney or a Bonanza:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWFoL1rr8YM
Click to expand...

Unless it has a jet engine on it and either a bathroom, or missiles and rockets installed, I'm pretty sure you can't get chicks with any airplane. That woman was paid to be excited.

The blue one was nice, but that other one... WTF!!! Who would spend all that time and money to build a custom plane and then paint it like it collided with a McDonald's playground?? :yikes:
 
Dav8or said:
Unless it has a jet engine on it and either a bathroom, or missiles and rockets installed, I'm pretty sure you can't get chicks with any airplane. That woman was paid to be excited.

The blue one was nice, but that other one... WTF!!! Who would spend all that time and money to build a custom plane and then paint it like it collided with a McDonald's playground?? :yikes:
Click to expand...

That light blue FG one was for sale down there when I bought mine. Nice but had the Franklin engine in it. Don't know anything about parts availability / price on those so I stayed clear of it.
 
Dav8or said:
I'm assuming Mooney 231 and if that's the case, why not go into a 2800' runway?? :confused: Your turbo would make that even easier. Plenty of room for 231.
Click to expand...
PSHHHHH not with an 80kt final speed and these horrible brakes. No thanks. :no:

Not saying it can't be done, but it isn't going to be done by me any time soon. Also because all the airports I go in to around here are 4-5k feet long anyhow.
 
ktup-flyer said:
This is pretty cool http://www.raptor-aircraft.com/models/dieselgtaudi30lv6tdi.html 230kts at 7GPH and 300kt top speed
Click to expand...

Check out their FAQ page-

[FONT=comfortaa, arial, sans-serif]Frequently Asked Questions[/FONT]

1. Do you have a flying aircraft yet?

 We do not. We are presently completing the design and will soon begin the tooling process and plan to have the first aircraft flying in about 18 months. Please read the Ordering page for more information on our approach to getting the first customer aircraft airborne.




2. Is the $130K price just the kit price or the finished price.

 This is the projected finished and flying price. We are hoping to bring it down to $100K once the construction process is streamlined and we have made further negotiations on component pricing.




3. How much time do I need contribute to the construction of the aircraft?

 The minimum requirement in order to still satisfy the 51% rule for experimental aircraft will be 2 weeks at a construction facility where you will be supervised in closing out various components of the airframe so you have a decent understanding of how your Raptor is constructed. For most people this will be a very fun and exciting adventure. Once the airframe is complete we can transfer it to a build completion center for the engine, avioincs, interior and paint or you can have it delivered and complete these items yourself. We are going to recommend a completion center as they will have a production line approach to completion and have your aircraft flying faster and for less cost than you can do it yourself. Again, the $130K price is the finished and flying price that we are presently projecting.




4. What about de-icing?

 Please see the De-Icing page on the Features menu.




5. Is pressurization an option?

 Yes, the cabin will be pressurized to 5.5psi to ensure an 8000ft cabin at FL250. Pressurization makes for a much more comfortable flight on long trips and also when climbing and descending. Your trips will be far more enjoyable.




6. How did you calculate your max cruise speed?

 Please watch the video on the Design page for a detailed analysis of the drag comparison with a Cirrus SR22 to see how the performance figures for the Raptor are calculated.




7. How have you determined the empty weight?

Actually we have been quite conservative with this number. We have based it on a similar canard aircraft with a TSIO-550 that weighs 550lbs. In our case however we may have a slightly larger airframe but we are using carbon composite and lighter construction techniques instead of foam cores in the wings or fuselage so basically that is a wash. (Note that foam cores absorb moisture in humid conditions and we will not have that problem). However, our diesel engine weighs less than the weight of the TSIO-550 at 374lbs. The aircraft we are comparing to has an empty weight of 1800lbs. Ours will be 264lbs less but may be more because of possibly heavier landing gear, seats and other accessories. So, we should conservatively be back at, but still under, 1800lbs. We will know for sure when it goes on the scales but we will be paying a lot of attention to minimizing weight without compromising the quality of the finished aircraft.




8. What kind of prop are you going to use?

For all models we will be using an MT composite constant speed propeller. It has 5 blades, carbon fiber skin and is reversible. The most likely model we will be using is the MTV-5.




9. Will the Raptor be certified?

Initially the Raptor will be brought to market as an experimental. This will allow us to come to market much quicker than taking the certified, standard category route. Once deliverable as an experimental, we will begin work toward the certified, standard category.




10. How will you be able to handle building over 1000 aircraft per year?

By taking the open source path, there should be no limit to capacity. By definition, open source will generate multiple vendors, in multiple countries very early in the life of the Raptor. By vendors we are speaking of suppliers of every single component of the Raptor. Our plan is to become the central knowledge/approval/control repository for all of the pieces/parts of the Raptor, then offer it to our customers, at our cost, as a completed package. The cost of this package would include everything a customer would need to finish their aircraft. As a buyer you would take delivery of the package at a designated facility where you would work with knowledgeable personnel to meet the 51% FAA rule during a two week program. When you arrive your airframe will already be almost complete. You will spend the two weeks closing out the various components under supervision. These designated facilities would also be located globally. Once the airframe is complete it will be transferred to a build completion center to have engine, avionics, interior and paint completed or you can take delivery and do all that yourself. These build completion centers will be located globally for your convenience.
Click to expand...

This has got be the brain child of a clueless techie. None of this makes any sense. I seriously need to bone up on my 3D graphics skills and web design. Not a bad business maybe... collecting $2000 deposits. :rolleyes2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top