What are Velocities like?

SixPapaCharlie

May the force be with you
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
16,501
Display Name

Display name:
Sixer
Pros and Cons?

They are growing on me. I won't get one any time soon but I could see it being a 2nd plane down the road. I have been looking at them and initially I thought they were a little weird and kinda like a cozy 2.0 but I am starting to think they are sweet looking. And 4 seater to boot.

What are they like to fly?
What sort of speed, fuel burn, visibility, useful load?
 
Paging McFly. I love the way they look, but have never been in one.
 
I have no idea what they fly like as I have never flown one. They do seem great, but like everything in aviation, there is a trade off. If you like flying into short fields, that is one of them.
 
It's after midnight, why aren't you sleeping???:D

I fly a 173 RG so it's probably not what you're looking for. It would be a step down from an SR22. An XL is definitely worth looking into.

I'll give you a brief review on the basics of a 173 and flying a canard. It was designed by the original designer / owner of Velocity to compete as a trainer with the C-172...hence the 173. With its longer wing and canard it was to be an easier more docile aircraft than the SE.

On the ground you've got a castering nose wheel so like the SR22, you can turn on a dime. Obviously differential braking for turns while taxiing. Mine, like others uses a go cart tire up front. Without tread, you don't run the risk of rocks getting spun into the prop.

Mine has a Catto cruise prop so I use a good bit of runway on takeoff. I only get around 2300 RPM on takeoff roll and it takes almost 2300 ft to get airborne. Once cleaned up with the gear up I get about 1100 FPM climb with me and full fuel at 100 Kts. Very little right rudder required.

Leveling off in cruise I'll get 160 KTAS running 2500 RPM. Most comfortable plane I've ever flown. You sit semi reclined with your right arm resting in the middle cushion and your left on the strake recess. Roll rate is light but pitch is pretty stiff. Pitch and roll are both electrically trimmed. It's easily flown hands off. I have a basic heading hold but I never use it. Actually flew IMC from Savannah all the way to Sebastian (1+30) hands in the whole way. Not fatiguing at all.

The rudders only deflect outward and because they're mounted so far out from the longitudinal axis, they induce a lot of roll. So much so that I guarantee I could bank 60 degrees just with pedal as fast as a C-172 can with yoke. Not a very good x-wind trait though. A far amount of cross controlling involved. Also the winglets or "tip sails" are said to produce a slight amount of thrust to offset their drag.

The big selling point is not being able to stall the main wing. Your canard will be stalled and you'll be coming down at around 58-60 kts and around 500-700 FPM but the main wing will keep flying. Yes, a higher speed than a comparable tractor configuration (RV-10) but you'll never spin in even if you panick. Just the other day I took a guy up for a demo and had the throttle at idle, stick all the way back to the stop and I kicked full pedal left and right; no spin. Obviously you can turn with ailerons in this stalled mode as well. I've attached a vid of the pitch buck at stall. Oh yeah, while I would agree that 60 kts sounds excessive to be coming down engine out, these aircraft are so clean and wing span so long that they have excellent glide ratios. I've never been able to find one on the Velocity but I've seen other similar canards listed anywhere from 15:1 to 18:1.

Book approach speeds are 90-100 kts but that's crazy fast. I use 80 kts final and she'll still float a ways down the runway. On landing they can be a handful. Several pilots have gotten into PIOs because of over controlling. They end up forcing the aircraft down and crushing the gear. Mine is particularly sensitive in pitch with a change in CG. Its really easy to land single pilot but throw in two pax and it really becomes a bear. It's not like a Cessna where you do a big flare just prior to stall either. You'll find yourself with a stalled canard and the nose slamming into the pavement.

Really the only complaint with mine is the "top lid" door. Huge pain in the butt to get people in and out. I trained in the 173 FG at the factory and it had gullwing doors. So easy to get in and out of. Believe that thing just went up for sale as well. I would really prefer the added speed with the SE's shorter wings and canard also.

Well that's all I can think of for now. My recommendation if you did become serious in buying one, would be to get a demo ride in the XL. 300 HP, about 210 KTAS and way more room than mine. If you can't go down there, they have a good sales DVD that covers building and flying an SE and an XL. I really could've gotten a nice used M-20C or even that Debonair that's for sale on POA but the looks, the handling and the ability to use cheaper, non certified avionics are what sold me. Definitely attracts attention on the flightline as well.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0821.MOV
    2.3 MB · Views: 144
Last edited:
I always liked their looks and thought that a Velocity might be a potential candidate for a next plane. But 2,300 ft just to get of the ground and limited crosswind capabilities - our entire runway is just 2,300 ft long and 18/36, what usually means crosswind.

Does the non-treaded front wheel keep all the stones and debris away from the prop or is it a permanent concern that it might become damaged?
 
Pros and Cons?

They are growing on me. I won't get one any time soon but I could see it being a 2nd plane down the road. I have been looking at them and initially I thought they were a little weird and kinda like a cozy 2.0 but I am starting to think they are sweet looking. And 4 seater to boot.

What are they like to fly?
What sort of speed, fuel burn, visibility, useful load?

I'm with you on this, I could see it as a second plane for family travelling. They look comfy and at least book cruise speeds and fuel burn is pretty good.

If that ever happens, I'd probably want to have access to a second, smaller plane for nearby $100 hamburger runs and local stuff.
 
Actually the 173 would fit the bill. Most strips I fly on are 3500 or more.
This would be a 2nd plane and I want something that is more like a 172.
I am actually going to looking at a 172s

I would like to get the 172 for a couple years then reevaluate what my fun flying needs are. The SR22 will always be there for long hauls.

What is the Useful load?
 
Guy at my airport had one, loved it. Had it built for him, said it was comparable to a Bo in speed and payload at half the price.

I just remember him taking a saw to the thing to cut in an extra vent. Had trouble keeping the engine cool. I was just impressed at the cojones it takes to use your saw on your very impressive aircraft.

Yeah, not for short runways and you won't be landing any either. If that's your thing go buy a Skylane. They do that schtick well.
 
And if you get really serious and fly into Orlando to go look at them, I'll give you a lift down to Sebastian. One of my favorite trips...

John
 
I always liked their looks and thought that a Velocity might be a potential candidate for a next plane. But 2,300 ft just to get of the ground and limited crosswind capabilities - our entire runway is just 2,300 ft long and 18/36, what usually means crosswind.

Does the non-treaded front wheel keep all the stones and debris away from the prop or is it a permanent concern that it might become damaged?

As far as I know I've never gotten a pebble from the nose wheel. I've had a couple screws go thru the prop though (photo). As long as it doesn't penetrate the wood, you just fill it in with epoxy flox and keep on trucking. Rain will erode the crap out of the leading edge of the prop too. I wish I would have taken pics a few years ago when I dropped it off at Velocity for the condition inspection. I flew IMC in moderate rain pretty much the whole way. When I landed, I looked at my prop it was shredded. Looked like mice ate the leading edge. I don't fly IFR anymore so there's really no reason to upgrade to Catto's newer metal leading edge prop.

Velocity aircraft have never been standouts on short field performance. Book calls for 1,400 ft roll for an SE. That could be doable with a climb prop or an MT CS prop. My aircraft is heavier than an SE and I have a cruise prop. I operate out of a 5,000 ft strip so it's not a problem. About a month ago I did several take offs and by looking at the runway remaining boards, I determined I was using 2,250 ft. That's a normal takeoff and rotating at 70 kts. I believe the book calls for 65 kts but 70 gives a more positive rotation. That reminds me, on these aircraft the CG is located a good ways ahead of the main wheels. Therefore it requires a pretty good pull aft to rotate or a good amount of up trim. Once the nose lifts, I immediately counter with forward trim.

They have their qwerks but they're not difficult aircraft to fly. Everyone I've taken up that flys conventional aircraft have expressed how nice they handle. Good vis, no prop out front, noise is reduced with the engine in the back and smooth handling.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    415.9 KB · Views: 110
I love the looks of the Velocity. A friend is building one in Dayton. No sure of the actual model but I think he is putting a 520 on it
 
Actually the 173 would fit the bill. Most strips I fly on are 3500 or more.
This would be a 2nd plane and I want something that is more like a 172.
I am actually going to looking at a 172s

I would like to get the 172 for a couple years then reevaluate what my fun flying needs are. The SR22 will always be there for long hauls.

What is the Useful load?

Useful load is around 1,000 lbs. Payload is around 600 lbs. The strakes are used for baggage but you really can't fit much in there. Maybe a couple of duffle bags a side. They're excellent for maps, food or anything you need to access while flying. They're good for when you have a passenger sitting next to you and you need to stow some things. It's really a three place aircraft and the bulk of your bags placed on the seat / floor next to the passenger in the back.

One thing I didn't mention is the CG with one pilot on board. Mine shows a minimum of 190 lbs up front. I'm 20 lbs below that that but I have no issues in handling. I've stalled it at its full aft CG point and it still recovered with a release of the stick. The flat stall issues with the early models were worked out years ago with the increased angle of incidence on the canard and vortilons on the wings.

You mentioned Cozys. I looked at those as well. Heard nothing but good reports on them except for once again, STOL performance. They're smaller than a Velocity so you'll get a good 10-15 kts better cruise. I've heard they're a tight fit and some will tell you that's why they call them a "Cozy." They also have a hefty min pilot weight up front. I think theirs is well over 200 lbs though. From what I've read, most use ballast in the nose for single pilot. Of course you have to park them on the nose as well.
 
As far as I know I've never gotten a pebble from the nose wheel. I've had a couple screws go thru the prop though (photo). As long as it doesn't penetrate the wood, you just fill it in with epoxy flox and keep on trucking. Rain will erode the crap out of the leading edge of the prop too. I wish I would have taken pics a few years ago when I dropped it off at Velocity for the condition inspection. I flew IMC in moderate rain pretty much the whole way. When I landed, I looked at my prop it was shredded. Looked like mice ate the leading edge. I don't fly IFR anymore so there's really no reason to upgrade to Catto's newer metal leading edge prop.

Can't you just put a "normal" Hartzel metal CS prop on there? Is it a clearance issue?
 
I think you mean "Vectors" :p
 
Can't you just put a "normal" Hartzel metal CS prop on there? Is it a clearance issue?

Weight (cg) and prop harmonics pretty much rule out pushe props on Rutan inspired canards.
 
Can't you just put a "normal" Hartzel metal CS prop on there? Is it a clearance issue?

I think it's possible but with pushers the mating of the prop with that particular model is crucial. I've heard of weight issues with the metal props. I've heard of vibration issues with the metal props. Plus certified is more expensive than experimental stuff.

I don't think there would be a clearance issue with a Hartzel. Even with my current prop, I'd have to rotate pretty hard to get it to hit. Off hand I don't know of anyone who's hit their prop from over rotating. Plenty of FOD though. As the canard guys say, it's not if something will go thru your prop, it's when.

Guys like Catto have developed a relationship with EAB pilots. He designs the prop for that particular model. If the results aren't satisfactory, you send the prop back to him and he'll re pitch it. He did that to mine a few years back. If I move out west and need more RPM on takeoff I'll either get him to re pitch or most likely I'll just buy a new Nickel leading edge prop with less pitch. I've heard they're pretty backed up so it might take awhile.
 
I had been doing some reading on Velocity aircraft and canards as well. The most interesting aspect of these aircraft is that it seems you are not to flare the aircraft on landing and rather just fly it on. The canard is designed to stall before the mains so the mains continue to fly on landing. It seems a flare on landing to stall the wing will do nothing other than to stall the canard and pitch the nose downward.

A good read here.

http://www.velocityaircraft.com/newsv5/training.html



Sent from my GT-I9505G using Tapatalk
 
not a ton of help but fast forward to :01 of this video:

 
Wish I knew one locally, always loved the look and performance.
 
I'm surprised someone hasn't chimed in with "Get a Bonanza".....:rolleyes: :D

That's covered by the terms of use agreement of POA. When you click on it, you agree that the Bonanza is the best airplane of all for all missions, so you don't have to always bring it up. Pretty convenient, right?

These kinds of threads are more, "Other than the Bonanza, what plane..." or "If the Bonanza never existed, then..."

;):D
 
Last edited:
It is cool. No doubt! I can't say I'm impressed with the take off though. Looks kind of anemic. A little like a 152 or something.

Apparently they took the turbine off of a viper jet. 850lbs of thrust
 
How is the center stick and side throttles?I like the velocity but I'm not sure I'd be able to be proficient switching throttle/stick hands if I decided to rent a 182 or something.

I know there is an option for side sticks in the kits but can they be retrofitted on existing planes without major surgery?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I LOVE the Velocity.....
If I was 10 years younger, I would build an XL in a heartbeat and stuff one of my all aluminum V-8's in it. Turn up the power to 450 HP or so and let her eat.....
 
Wanted to get an intro flight at the factory,they quoted 400 which was refundable if you bought a kit. Have always liked the looks and burn rate.
 
How is the center stick and side throttles?I like the velocity but I'm not sure I'd be able to be proficient switching throttle/stick hands if I decided to rent a 182 or something.

I know there is an option for side sticks in the kits but can they be retrofitted on existing planes without major surgery?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Personally, I prefer the center stick with the left throttle. You sit back semi reclined with your right arm on the arm rest and your left arm resting on the strake. You have immediate access to stick and throttle without wearing yourself out. Makes flying formation a heck of a lot easier as well.

Not sure how much more difficult to modify with side sticks. With the center stick you have a direct push pull tube going to the elevator and going aft to two aileron cables. Electric trim for both pitch and roll.
 
I've been looking a lot into these lately, seem like really cool planes. As a potential builder, one thing that sucks is there doesn't appear to be an open forum for discussion like the RVs have. I haven't subscribed to their "official" forum yet ($35), so thats an unknown.

Crosswind landings were mentioned a few times. That I hadn't heard before. Are there official limits? What are yours?
 
I've been looking a lot into these lately, seem like really cool planes. As a potential builder, one thing that sucks is there doesn't appear to be an open forum for discussion like the RVs have. I haven't subscribed to their "official" forum yet ($35), so thats an unknown.

Crosswind landings were mentioned a few times. That I hadn't heard before. Are there official limits? What are yours?

I'm on their forum but having owned for 4 years gone thru the training at the factory, I don't get on the forum much. It's more for builders.

No crosswind max in the book but the link below the designer recommends 15-25. My personal is 15. If I had the modified landing gear with the aluminum reinforcement, I might venture a little higher. I crab all the way down but I do a slight cross control as I come out of the crab. You have to because applying pedal for alignment will induce a bank. It does align nicely though even if you touch down a few degrees off. The pitch sensitivity is the only thing I really don't care for. Also the link suggests 90 kits on final. No way I'd do that. I do 80 and even that gives me a good buffer. Flew into an air show yesterday following an ercoupe and I used 75 on final no problem.

http://www.velocityaircraft.com/manuals/16_GGG.pdf
 
Last edited:
I LOVE the Velocity.....
If I was 10 years younger, I would build an XL in a heartbeat and stuff one of my all aluminum V-8's in it. Turn up the power to 450 HP or so and let her eat.....

:yes:

I still have some out dated but brand new engines left over from my racing days. I have always toyed with the same idea....but add black smoke.:lol:

Or for just pure looks, I have one aluminum BBC block and an old Hilborn injection unit with the uneven looking stacks. That would really look odd in a plane.

You will never be any younger than you are now, so get 'r done..!!!
 
Back
Top