Capt.Crash'n'Burn
Cleared for Takeoff
Does anyone know what the safety record of Velocity Aircraft is??
Specifically the XL and TXL models.
Specifically the XL and TXL models.
Crash data for Velocity?
- Thread starter Capt.Crash'n'Burn
- Start date
Doggtyred
En-Route
How do you quantify that? Accident rate versus one of the following?:
By number of kits bought?
by number of kits built?
by number of kits finished and flying?
By number of hours flown?
Tough call.
My ONLY concern with the velocity is with the seats. Flimsy as hell. Lost a friend in a SIMILAR airframe with SIMILAR seats in Alabama a few years back during an otherwise survivable off airport landing.
Hard data notwithstanding, if you build it right, flight test it right, and put a reliable powerplant on it, my opinion is that its just as safe as the pilot flying it.
Capt.Crash'n'Burn
Cleared for Takeoff
One of those two, or both.
That's good to know. Perhaps there's some alternative seats that are a bit more robust??
Doggtyred
En-Route
If you want to get info from the folks who are building and flying canards, I'd look for those online forums. There USED to be a CanardZone and a Canard Aviation Forum, both with the same software used for this board...
I was involved with a Velocity build for a few years right up the road, and its getting close to flight. I know the airframe in and out.
Not many accidents out there on the NTSB.. as long as you can keep it out of a deep stall (damn near impossible to do with a properly built plane without concerted effort) and dont hit anything immoveable when you land..... you should be fine.
Lands fast.. not a short/rough field plane at all... You need to manage your speed like you would in a Mooney or Tiger or something else slick.
I was involved with a Velocity build for a few years right up the road, and its getting close to flight. I know the airframe in and out.
Not many accidents out there on the NTSB.. as long as you can keep it out of a deep stall (damn near impossible to do with a properly built plane without concerted effort) and dont hit anything immoveable when you land..... you should be fine.
Lands fast.. not a short/rough field plane at all... You need to manage your speed like you would in a Mooney or Tiger or something else slick.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
This is totally unscientific but I've had two friends killed in/by Velocitys in separate accidents. One was apparently the victim of his own carelessness in that he ran out of gas on an IFR flight at night and died in the subsequent off airport "landing". The other was a bit more unusual in that my friend was taxiing on the ground in an RV6 that was hit by a Velocity flown by someone neither of us knew that lost control during what should have been a routine landing.
Does this make them inherently unsafe? Probably not, but that doesn't erase my emotional fear of them.
Does this make them inherently unsafe? Probably not, but that doesn't erase my emotional fear of them.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Since there are no flaps I assume the landing is fast, like another poster mentioned. Therefore, if you loose your engine, you're going into terrain fast. Wit the added speed one would need a larger area in which to set down. Since the energy of the impact increases with the square of the velocity, and one needs a pretty good sized field to set down, there might be a bit or peril there.
All that said, I imagine something that slick would glide fairly well, so you would increase your chances of finding a suitable landing strip if the mill took a dump.
All that said, I imagine something that slick would glide fairly well, so you would increase your chances of finding a suitable landing strip if the mill took a dump.
wanttaja
En-Route
Canard Aviation Forum reposted (with permission) the article I wrote on canard safety statistics:
http://forum.canardaviation.com/showthread.php?t=5182
Ron Wanttaja
Doggtyred
En-Route
BUT... if properly built, flight tested and operated within CG limits, it WILL NOT STALL, so you dont have to worry about the whole "stretch the glide scenario" where you stall over the trees and then nose dive in.
Pulling back on the stick will result in bobbing of the nose from a canard stall but no main wing stall, so you can fly into the ground at your absolutely lowest possible speed in that airframe.
In a conventional aircraft design, your best bet (without an AOA meter) is to nail a predetermined speed on the ASI to avoid that stall.
I wouldn't be surprised if that predetermined speed in a Bonanza, Mooney or other fast 4-6 seater is pretty darn close to the minimum flying speed of a canard 4 seater similarly noted.
The aircraft lands hotter than most trainers, but good pilot technique and NAILING your numbers will result in landings on your average public airport without problems. This is not a short field/soft field plane however.
Edit: After reviewing Ron's PDF, the one thing that stands out about the Velocity is the Fuel Exhaustion rate. The fuel system consists of 2 wing tanks feeding into a 3 gallon sump without selectors. There are sight glasses in the wings, and builders may include gauge senders in each tank, but the 3 gallon sump has an idiot light on it. When that light goes off, you are already in trouble if you aren't within 5 mins cruise of a landing site, as you have about 15-20 mins fuel MAX unless you pull it way back.
Last edited:
steingar
Taxi to Parking
I would be very surprised. Stall on a Bo is 59kt, 70 for a Velocity.
Agreed. Hey, no need to get defensive. I think they're great aircraft, and would happily fly one if I had the AMUs. I was just pointing out that in a pinch you might loose a few options over their factory made brethren. On the other hand, fast landing speeds are not that uncommon for fast experimental aircraft.
Last edited:
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,553
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
One option for the canard crowd is VG's. Reputable people in the community have tested them (on the canard AND main wing simultaneously) and found a 5-7 knot decrease in minimum airspeed with minimal top-end speed loss.
Just a consideration.
But realistically, having a 300 lb engine in front of you is <usually> a good thing if you have an off-airport landing.
One thing that seems to be whispered but rarely openly discussed in the canard community is low speed roll authority, or lack thereof. A friend sold his Velocity because that characteristic was sufficiently bothersome.
Just a consideration.
But realistically, having a 300 lb engine in front of you is <usually> a good thing if you have an off-airport landing.
One thing that seems to be whispered but rarely openly discussed in the canard community is low speed roll authority, or lack thereof. A friend sold his Velocity because that characteristic was sufficiently bothersome.
Doggtyred
En-Route
Not defensive... If anything, flying Tigers and Mooneys taught me that speed control was important if I wanted to actually land the plane rather than float. When transitioning to the Tiger, I went around more times than I cared to admit due to floating from coming in hot.
I will never take a Velocity into Wilson Bar or land it on the beach with the intention of taking off again... but unless you are the type who lands at strips shorter then 2500 feet or unpaved, you aren't trading off much.
High wing.. low wing....... bucking rivets... sanding glass... everyone has their preferences...
iflyforfun
Pre-takeoff checklist
Okay, Velocity owner / pilot chiming in.
1) Landing speed is higher than other planes I've flown, but I have no concerns at all in flying her on at minimum speed. On a smooth day, you can trim 3-5 knots over canard bobble and fly her on pretty slowly.
2) I was always worried about off field landings due to higher speeds. After an engine problem (swallowed part of the intake gasket and mixture was too lean ... discovered this during deep stall practices, oops), I had the pleasure of putting her down in a wheat field. This was a SMALL field with trees on one end and power lines / ditch at the other. Flew her down a smidge over bobble and rolled out (parallel to furrows). Total distance from trees to full stop wasn't much more than 1,000 ft. Didn't do any damage to the plane other than buffing the paint.
3) The seats are flimsy as heck ... this is an ongoing concern for me and something I plan to address. I agree with poster that this is likely a safety issue.
4) I have NO idea what this "low speed roll authority" thing is ... must really be whispered. How about having your friend explain what he means. You can fly final with nothing but the rudders if you want, they actually teach that during Velocity transition course. If you want a coordinated turn, get your feet off the floor. If you don't care, use the stick. The plane goes where it is pointed pretty easily.
5) The plane isn't a short field plane. Extremely light with no obstacles off the end, I use 2,500 as min runway. Gross (that's 1,000lb useful) at 4,500 density altitude, I use 4,000 as min runway. That said, my fixed pitch prop is just not right and the factory demo plane with a constant speed prop does MUCH better.
In my (somewhat biased) opinion, the Velocity is a BARGAIN. You can get a 150kt-160kt plane that burns 10gph for $60k with fixed gear simplicity and 1,000lb useful load. Maintenance costs are very low since you can do everything but the Annual yourself if you buy one. The factory support is good and I have them annual my plane every year. And, you have access to non-tso avionics ... can you say Dynon and TruTrak? No plane is perfect, but the Velocity is pretty solid. You get Mooney 201 performance with Skyhawk complexity and experimental maintenance costs ... and it WON'T stall.
Any questions, shoot.
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,553
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
My friend lives in an airpark that has a paved runway located between rows of trees. His comment was that the Velocity was touchy going in there because crosswinds caused roll excursions and the airplane lacked the aileron authority at low speed to quickly correct the excursions, or words to that effect. I've also seen comments on various canard forums which hinted at less than stellar roll authority.
By the way, I built an RV, but I'm hoping to get a ride in a Cozy Mk IV one of these days. We have a third family member now, and an extra seat or two would come in handy.
Richard
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 9,076
- Location
- West Coast Resistance
- Display Name
Display name:
Ack...city life
I find it interesting that I find this thread after just today seeing a Velocity ad in Kit Plane magazine which boasts 253 KIAS at 75% cruise. Yes, I did a double take to make sure it was kts and not mph.
iflyforfun
Pre-takeoff checklist
To be clear, I was comparing MY plane to a Mooney 201. My plane is a:
* small body (SE)
* fixed gear
* fixed pitch prop
* NA 200HP
The Kitplanes article is for the larger XL, retract, constant speed prop, turbo 350HP TSIO-550 (I think it is the 550).
The XL is a superior plane to the SE in my opinion. That said, you can get 2 of my plane for the cost of a nice XL and that just wasn't in the budget. I've flown the XL (briefly) and it is a delightful plane.
iflyforfun
Pre-takeoff checklist
I've never seen those comments and my first reactions was to call BS. That said, I'll ask you to follow up with your friend. Did he have a standard Velocity SE (small body), a Velocity 173 (small body with large wing) or an XL (large body, large wing)?
I've flown all three and they have different characteristics. I own the SE and have lots of time. I've done transition training as well as re-currency training a total of three times in the 173 and probably have around 10-15 hours in that plane. I've only flown the XL once and it was a short flight.
Both of the short body planes are much lighter in pitch than roll. Until you get some hours behind the stick, this does seem most noticeable on final as roll corrections with stick only easily affect pitch. This is easily learned, but it does take a bit of time. The 173 likes rudder for the turns more so than the SE, but has the same pitch/roll relationship. This means that roll control on final without fine control of pitch can result in what I'll call a "wallow". This is exacerbated if you have dead feet. In my limited experience with the XL, this was not near as noticeable (but I could be wrong).
The above means that, until you get comfortable with the plane, stable approaches are really helpful. I now have a bit more than 200 hours on my plane and this just isn't an issue. When I practice engine out at the airport, I have no problem chopping the power and doing a navy style turn to land rolling out just at the flare. Not something I would've tried 180 hours ago.
If I had to guess, your friend most likely had a 173 (maybe an SE) and didn't have that many hours on the plane. I'd own a 173 in a heartbeat ... nothing wrong with the plane at all. If your friend is complaining about lack of roll authority on final, it has little to do with actual roll authority and much more to do with lack of pitch/roll force coordination and the attendant need for additional time/training. An upset on final is simply not a problem ... at least for a well built SE.
Then again, he could have had a bad plane ...