While not as cool, the Twin Comanche can. About 165k TAS at around 14 gph, IIRC.

Not nearly as cool, and SE ceiling much lower.

I assume it is also resistant to IMC rolls. I've done a few IMC rolls and I'll stick to VMC rolls, thank you. If I had a twin, I'd avoid Vmc rolls as well.

Personally, I prefer EGG rolls.

Personally, I prefer EGG rolls.

I actually like it because it does not have winglets. The single engine Velocity, with it's huge winglets and no tail looks just too weird to me.

Seriously, though, this thing comes as close as I've ever seen to a twin which can operate at comparable efficiency (with comparable speed) to a similarly-sized single. That's quite an accomplishment.

The downfall, of couse, is the price. Paying $250K for a bag of parts which you still have to put together does not make any fricking sense. What I don't get is, single kit is only $55K, and the twin uses almost the same parts. Since the engines are not included in the kit, why does it cost twice as much?

I assume it is also resistant to IMC rolls. I've done a few IMC rolls and I'll stick to VMC rolls, thank you. If I had a twin, I'd avoid Vmc rolls as well.

Tootsie Roll.

Would you like some jelly with that roll?

When I looked at the Velocity Twin at OSH I tried to get some figures on the take off and landing distances. Nothing official had been published, and I have not seen anything specific to date. After my asking a pilot member of the group at the Velocity booth about the figures, the best answer I got was "you just fly it on".

Subjective comments in the flying reports of the landings seem to me to indicate it is an "airport" airplane and not an "airstrip" airplane.

I admire the speed, controlability, and efficiency, but my feel is that it will need plenty of runway. I don't recall if it has flaps.

AHP

No flaps. Hard to do with a canard airplane. And you can't use a stall landing because the canard is designed to stall before the wing, dropping you on your nose wheel.

I think the AOPA article mentioned 1800 feet (TO or LDG)

I flew it the Monday after Osh last year and wrote an article that will be in the upcoming issue of Kitplanes...

I am not a Canard fan, but it is by far the nicest flying Canard I have flown.... It is not a short strip airplane and not a speedster like the S/E turbo versions, but it is 10 to 15 kts faster than a Twinkie on the same power with a comfortable cabin for 4 adults, or 2 plus 3 small folks.

I was favorably impressed....

I actually like it because it does not have winglets. The single engine Velocity, with it's huge winglets and no tail looks just too weird to me.

Seriously, though, this thing comes as close as I've ever seen to a twin which can operate at comparable efficiency (with comparable speed) to a similarly-sized single. That's quite an accomplishment.

The downfall, of couse, is the price. Paying $250K for a bag of parts which you still have to put together does not make any fricking sense. What I don't get is, single kit is only $55K, and the twin uses almost the same parts. Since the engines are not included in the kit, why does it cost twice as much?

Warning...a little off topic

The biggest reason not to make significant changes to any build is that it adds exponentially to the build time.

Robert

What would be cool is to hang a couple of DeltaHawk disel engines on this thing. I am a little too chicken to put a DeltaHawk on a singe engine airframe, but for a twin that would be a cat's meow.