Just got AOPA Pilot with an article on Velocity V-twin. This thing is amazing. It will do 170 kts on 12 gph total burn. It will not Vmc roll. It will climb full gross on one engine. Single engine ceiling 12,000 ft. Plus it looks beautiful... sort of miniature Starship. I want one!

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2 ... -twin.html

Check out the video at the end of the article.

Yeah Yuri, I saw it too, if only it had turbos and a few lbs of pressurization I'd be all over it.

Rick

I like it and the single engine Velocity but there isn't much room in there if you have ever sat in one. I'll stick with the Bo.

de ja vu


viewtopic.php?f=7&t=69661&hilit=velocity+turboprop

170 kt. t.a.s. @ 10000 ft., full throttle, and 2500 r.p.m.?

The efficiency is great, and I'm firmly in the twin camp for power plant and system redundancy, but if I have to maintain the extra complexity of a twin, I want something that will fly faster than the fifty year old v-tail parked beside it on the ramp. There's also no chance of a VMC roll in that v-tail.

Seems like a solution to the wrong problem, in my opinion. Of course I've long lamented manufacturers trying to make flying so easy anyone who rode the short bus to school can get a license.

According to the article, the plane is highly resistant to VMC roll. It also gets its top speed at around 18 gph, which is pretty good for a twin.

Cabin height is very limited, however: I'm 6'3" and had to recline the seat to keep my head off the headliner.

The Velocity is inherently efficient because of the canard: all surfaces are lifting, and it's virtually unstallable. However it does need a fair amount of runway, in part because of having no flaps.

I recall the article saying they used about 1800 for TO and LDG

Why is it that, going back 50 years or more, that airplane manufacturers always put out first production models that are pathetically underpowered, then a few years later increase HP and put out a model that is just underpowered, then after another few years get it right with appropriate horsepower. Why not get it right the first time? This airplane is really pretty cool but how about IO360's at least, or go right to the finish line with a couple of IO550's. I guess that's why I'm just a dumbass and not a "Dreamer" in the airplane business.

All surfaces of the Bonanza are also lifting. I believe that George Braly and company discovered during certification testing of the TAT Bonanza that the tail surfaces actually produced positive lift during cruise, contrary to everything we have always been told about stability in aircraft. As I recall, the situation reverses with flaps down and the tail produces down force rather than positive lift.

That only applies to V-tails. On a fully grossed straight tail, the amount of downlift can be upto 150 lbs with a full forward allowable CG.




All surfaces of the Bonanza are also lifting. I believe that George Braly and company discovered during certification testing of the TAT Bonanza that the tail surfaces actually produced positive lift during cruise, contrary to everything we have always been told about stability in aircraft. As I recall, the situation reverses with flaps down and the tail produces down force rather than positive lift.

I read the article this morning and found it pretty interesting. For one thing I am excited anytime I read about someone putting money into a skunkworks project. For another they seem to have found a real, legitimate way of dealing with one of the scariest risks of twin engine flying. And they seem to have designed a plane with twin engine redundancy, reasonable speed and fuel burns that are very attractive at today's gas prices.

The killer, of course, was at the end when the author pointed out the basic futility of the project when he mentions the $110,000 kit price. He doesn't give the rest of the numbers because he probably doesn't need to but the plane is likely well over a quarter million dollars for a homebuilt. He is right in that at that price point there probably aren't too many people willing to put the money up AND the time.

Unfortunately, if they do go the certified route the plane will likely come back in a few years with many of it's advantages engineered away at a price point 3 times higher (or more).

I like it, but they made it too small and too underpowered. Make it cabin class and give it some horses!

I was going to get one until I noticed it didn't have winglets

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?

Well, there's some development cost to recover over a small volume of sales...