big pimpn'
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Posts
- 274
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
velocity XL-RG
- Thread starter big pimpn'
- Start date
- Watchers 4
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
rubicon789
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Posts
- 178
rubicon789
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Posts
- 178
Ok have fun with that one...
One thing I will tell you is that the stability of the BE58 in my sig will run circles around anything in the sky "piston", especially the Velocity. Also, the ice performance will kick a$$ against any piston bar-non. And yes I know it's not the fastest, but with the Velocity's 185 KIAS "it is compariable", more room, and more reliablity. That all I have to say about it. And yes while the Velocity is a cool looking plane and probably works for some, but he asked if anyone knew anything about it, I just told what I knew. Happy Flying
Last edited:
Well, the Velo is an "affordable" high performance for many. the cozy is much more affordable.
at those speeds, an airframe that is EXTREMELY robust and the fuel burn of a piston - hard to beat. Maintenance can be done by someone you trust and who will not take shortcuts - you - the builder
airframe problems will not be argued about with the mfg and the faa - builder groups find out about them and everyone just makes the changes. The velo is a mature design - very few "problems" have not been worked out already.
heh heh heh - what is the fuel burn on that twin? How much was the last annual.
I have a blue mountain glass panel in my plane - cost with 2 axis autopilot - 13,000. A backup glass panel that will also drive the autopilot. complete backup panel for 3,000 with all flight instruments and gps.
A third gps for terminal ifr and - shall i go on
Building your own plane gives you allot of options that you cert people just can not do. you have to put up with antiquated panels and airframes, as builders - we do not
When was the airframe designed?
I understand your job - but do you have this performance personally? if you do - great. next year my plane will be at the airport, 5 miles away, ready at an instant, ready to fly 260 knots at 10 GPH.
On icing - the stats show that in GA aircraft - those with icing "protection" get into more trouble than those that do not. i'll be with the do not.
Sorry - the POS sort a gets me goin. Can't believe i am supporting a velo - i'm a cozy builder.
at those speeds, an airframe that is EXTREMELY robust and the fuel burn of a piston - hard to beat. Maintenance can be done by someone you trust and who will not take shortcuts - you - the builder
airframe problems will not be argued about with the mfg and the faa - builder groups find out about them and everyone just makes the changes. The velo is a mature design - very few "problems" have not been worked out already.
heh heh heh - what is the fuel burn on that twin? How much was the last annual.
I have a blue mountain glass panel in my plane - cost with 2 axis autopilot - 13,000. A backup glass panel that will also drive the autopilot. complete backup panel for 3,000 with all flight instruments and gps.
A third gps for terminal ifr and - shall i go on
Building your own plane gives you allot of options that you cert people just can not do. you have to put up with antiquated panels and airframes, as builders - we do not
When was the airframe designed?
I understand your job - but do you have this performance personally? if you do - great. next year my plane will be at the airport, 5 miles away, ready at an instant, ready to fly 260 knots at 10 GPH.
On icing - the stats show that in GA aircraft - those with icing "protection" get into more trouble than those that do not. i'll be with the do not.
Sorry - the POS sort a gets me goin. Can't believe i am supporting a velo - i'm a cozy builder.
rubicon789
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Posts
- 178
Dustmaker....
Well as for fuel burn you got us there @ about 36gph the Baron burns more but there is trade-offs. Yes, your right GA and icing don't mix very well statistically. Most people aren't trained very well to deal with ice. I do agree with you also on the facts that building your own airplane has to be awesome and very rewarding. I just know a few people that have had problems with the Velocity so I guess that I have a bias opinion.
On the statement about a/c design and how old the BE58 is, well they still build them the same b/c they are rock solid. Yes some minor improvements have been made but basically still the same.
This is fun huh we could go on for days about pro's and con's but in the end we are all doing the same thing. Fly safe!!!
Well as for fuel burn you got us there @ about 36gph the Baron burns more but there is trade-offs. Yes, your right GA and icing don't mix very well statistically. Most people aren't trained very well to deal with ice. I do agree with you also on the facts that building your own airplane has to be awesome and very rewarding. I just know a few people that have had problems with the Velocity so I guess that I have a bias opinion.
On the statement about a/c design and how old the BE58 is, well they still build them the same b/c they are rock solid. Yes some minor improvements have been made but basically still the same.
This is fun huh we could go on for days about pro's and con's but in the end we are all doing the same thing. Fly safe!!!
big pimpn'
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Posts
- 274
rubicon789 said:
mmmm - i know of a problem velo, but it is not an airframe problem - it was weak engine and bad engine install problem. Don't know of any basic problems with the Velo, other than it needs allot more hp than a cozy to fly at the same speeds - heh heh heh.
What problems do you know about?
and yes - always fly safe
big pimpn'
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Posts
- 274
my opinion, mmmm, well - the rotary is a very strong and easy to rebuild engine, but the fuel economy is a question at this time.
If i were not going continental in my cozy, i would go subaroooo.
The velo rg is a big plane and needs at least 300 hp in my opinion
The evidence is that the rotary takes 30% more fuel than a lycoming, but there is not much evidence as many rotary installations are under way and many are planning on running LOP
time will tell
start buildin and make your engine choice later - plenty of build time to do before the engine must be decided on
If i were not going continental in my cozy, i would go subaroooo.
The velo rg is a big plane and needs at least 300 hp in my opinion
The evidence is that the rotary takes 30% more fuel than a lycoming, but there is not much evidence as many rotary installations are under way and many are planning on running LOP
time will tell
start buildin and make your engine choice later - plenty of build time to do before the engine must be decided on
rubicon789
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Posts
- 178
One thing to consider when using a "automobile" engine in an airplane is this:
Aircraft engines are build to produce max. or peak HP at what 2700rpm and still 75% at around 2400rpm. Where as automotive engines do so at much higher RPM's. My inline 6 for example, not a performance engine at all, but at 2000-3000 RPM is only putting out about 100HP or so of the 190 available. However rotary engines need to turn quite high in the RPM department to produce peak HP as quoted from here
So thing long and hard before doing an automotive conversion. Mooney tried this with a Porche engine and quickly stopped offering it due to maint issues. My opinion for what it's worth, keep that auto engines in auto's and, aircraft engines in airplanes.
Yes, you will have people one here that have done them and swear by them, however the numbers speak for themselves. Think how long your car engine would last if you were running it at 75% HP alll the time... well you would probably have to rebuild it every so often because it would just fall apart.
Aircraft engines are build to produce max. or peak HP at what 2700rpm and still 75% at around 2400rpm. Where as automotive engines do so at much higher RPM's. My inline 6 for example, not a performance engine at all, but at 2000-3000 RPM is only putting out about 100HP or so of the 190 available. However rotary engines need to turn quite high in the RPM department to produce peak HP as quoted from here
http://www.rotaryengineillustrated.com/renesis.php
So thing long and hard before doing an automotive conversion. Mooney tried this with a Porche engine and quickly stopped offering it due to maint issues. My opinion for what it's worth, keep that auto engines in auto's and, aircraft engines in airplanes.
Yes, you will have people one here that have done them and swear by them, however the numbers speak for themselves. Think how long your car engine would last if you were running it at 75% HP alll the time... well you would probably have to rebuild it every so often because it would just fall apart.
Last edited:
Well rubicon789 i used to think that also. but the reality of it is it just does not hold up. the rotary installs are starting to really prove themselves with many 1000 hour + birds flyin. the subaroos are even more proven.
the problem with auto conversions is weight and systems. most of the engines weigh way too much, so do not make a good conversion candidate and on the ones that do, it is hard to get all of the systems right.
in the 30's, 40's and 50's aviation led in making improvements fast and furious. unfortunately, those days are long gone and it is basically up to people in thier garages to improve the state of the art.
the aircraft engine mfgers have such a small market that they cannot make any real headway in engine development. heck, in the auto world the annual production run for an aircraft engine would not even be big enough for a prototype run.
Now, since you can rebuild a rotary for about $1,000, if they continue to prove themselves as they are, you will also become a convert. the subes are also inexpensive to rebuild and have an excellent track record.
thielert took a mercedes auto diesel and converted it to aviation diesel and under powered for my bird - it is doing very well and is available in many certificated planes.
on the surface - you would seem to be right, but, MANY are proving that the auto engines are more than robust enough.
the problem with auto conversions is weight and systems. most of the engines weigh way too much, so do not make a good conversion candidate and on the ones that do, it is hard to get all of the systems right.
in the 30's, 40's and 50's aviation led in making improvements fast and furious. unfortunately, those days are long gone and it is basically up to people in thier garages to improve the state of the art.
the aircraft engine mfgers have such a small market that they cannot make any real headway in engine development. heck, in the auto world the annual production run for an aircraft engine would not even be big enough for a prototype run.
Now, since you can rebuild a rotary for about $1,000, if they continue to prove themselves as they are, you will also become a convert. the subes are also inexpensive to rebuild and have an excellent track record.
thielert took a mercedes auto diesel and converted it to aviation diesel and under powered for my bird - it is doing very well and is available in many certificated planes.
on the surface - you would seem to be right, but, MANY are proving that the auto engines are more than robust enough.
Not a velo, but i believe it stands for "Piece of Sh*&". i would like to know of the problems the fliers have had and would guess that they were systems, spelled "builder design" rather than airframe
Nothing wrong with builder designed - i am doing it now, but that is where most problems in experimental aircraft come from on a widely built and flown airplane like the velocity.
it is not a one, two or even ten of a kind. I would guess there are hundreds flying. plenty enough too have worked out any airframe problems.
Nothing wrong with builder designed - i am doing it now, but that is where most problems in experimental aircraft come from on a widely built and flown airplane like the velocity.
it is not a one, two or even ten of a kind. I would guess there are hundreds flying. plenty enough too have worked out any airframe problems.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
