BeechTalk - BT - Velocity V-Twin: Mini Starship?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 09:25

This just popped up on AOPA website. I've never seen it before but it looks fascinating.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 09:35

Username Protected wrote:

This just popped up on AOPA website. I've never seen it before but it looks fascinating.

Impressive.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 09:40

Great looking airplane!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 09:50

I flew it on the Monday after OSH and it is a nice airplane. It handles well on one engine, has reasonable S/E performance, and with a real rudder it flies MUCH nicer than the typical Rutan Canard variants. The only drawback is speed, it is probably 10 -15 kts faster than a twin Comanche with the same engines, but the same fuel burn in a S/E velocity would be 20 to 30 kts faster than that.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 10:26

Username Protected wrote:

I flew it on the Monday after OSH and it is a nice airplane. It handles well on one engine, has reasonable S/E performance, and with a real rudder it flies MUCH nicer than the typical Rutan Canard variants. The only drawback is speed, it is probably 10 -15 kts faster than a twin Comanche with the same engines, but the same fuel burn in a S/E velocity would be 20 to 30 kts faster than that.

You get to fly all the cool $hit, don't you?

I am trying wrap my head around what you said and what I heard on the video:

Video: 185kts TAS, 75% power, O-320's
My guess: maybe total burn at 16gph?
Your comment: Twinkie (10-15kts slower), 170-175 kts on same burn
Your comment: SE Velocity with same fuel burn "20-30kts faster" - 205 to 215kts

Am I following?

I assume 16gph would be from an IO-550?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 10:35

Had a ride in a single engine version - once.

I'd have to be being chased by armed bad guys to get in another heavy, ground-hogging one again.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 13:42

When I looked over the Velocity Twin at OSH I asked about the landing and take off distance figures and could not get an answer. Same story on stall speed. I get the impression it is an "airport" airplane designed for high speed/cruise at the expense of short field performance.

They had a handout comparing the airiplane to the Twin Comanche, but no data was shown for the short field items. I need acceptable short field ability for my use of an airplane, and a Robertson PA30 provides this.

AHP

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 14:12

In reading the article the airplane TO with 1800' of ground roll and burned 12 gph while doing 170 ktas

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 14:13

It's difficult to land short without flaps, which is the main problem with canard airplanes. iirc Rutan experimented with flaps but nothing was really satisfactory.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 16:19

Username Protected wrote:

I flew it on the Monday after OSH and it is a nice airplane. It handles well on one engine, has reasonable S/E performance, and with a real rudder it flies MUCH nicer than the typical Rutan Canard variants. The only drawback is speed, it is probably 10 -15 kts faster than a twin Comanche with the same engines, but the same fuel burn in a S/E velocity would be 20 to 30 kts faster than that.

Hi Doug,
How big is the cabin? It looks like a 6 place plane from the photos. What if they put a couple of IO-550s on that thing? Looks like it would scream.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 16:36

Username Protected wrote:

I flew it on the Monday after OSH and it is a nice airplane. It handles well on one engine, has reasonable S/E performance, and with a real rudder it flies MUCH nicer than the typical Rutan Canard variants. The only drawback is speed, it is probably 10 -15 kts faster than a twin Comanche with the same engines, but the same fuel burn in a S/E velocity would be 20 to 30 kts faster than that.

Hi Doug,
How big is the cabin? It looks like a 6 place plane from the photos. What if they put a couple of IO-550s on that thing? Looks like it would scream.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 18:19

Love it! Starship was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the video.

How have I missed seeing it before now?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 19:00

Beautiful!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 21:28

I really like it!!! :thumbup:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 31 Aug 2012, 23:34

I built a Velocity RG Back in 1994. Had an IO-360 in it and would cruise an honest 180 knots on 12 GPH. It had some shortcomings with the non-existent baggage space being the worst.

In my opinion, this airplane suffers the same problem and the engines are too small. It should have at least 2x200 HP engines.

Better yet, it should have a single Allison C18 in it. About 15-20 GPH and nothing to mess with. With the saved weight of the single C18 you could have rear baggage as well. The Swings do run a good company and are helpful.