Why we chose to buy and build a Velocity Aircraft 

If you're getting ready to hand over money, get in touch and you can come down and see the kit.

@@AusVelocity Thanks for the offer Clint. As much as like the Velocity there is a few points that I am concerned about. First the option of a BRS, second is pressurized cabin and third is the front wheel shimmy and the companies attitude towards that. Right now I am thinking of holding out a little longer and going for the Lancair Evolution, it's a lot more money (and a lot more aircraft) but less build time.

@@XXXXIndices Yep you've done some research. The BRS would be great for night flying and mid air collisions and good for every other situation. It would take significant thought and design to get a parachute in the back. Hard points can be made up and added for sure, just make sure the engine is well and truly stopped before its pulled. Velocity won't do pressurized, more work and too much weight I suspect. Since I'm going turbo (not the best turbo for really high alt) I'll be adding oxygen after flight testing if it performs better above 10k feet. As for the shimmy, there is the dampener they sell, not sure if it eliminates it or minimizes it. There's an upright fork design that I think they use on the XL or RG??? I'd say that eliminates the shimmy. I don't have that and I'll figure something out when the time comes. The design is very similar to the RV-14 castored fork, might see why that's not an issue and copy that. Lancair Evolution...That's next level... but also next level pricing. If you got the coin, and pros outweigh the cons for you, go for it.

@@AusVelocity I had been following the Raptor project but that seems to have lost its way after the crash. It had BRS, etc but needed more development, now he has gone in anther direction. It would be nice if Velocity was going toward pressurization, Lancair have been doing it for years. But it seems they are happy to continue with the same basic design which is a fantastic aircraft. It may be they are aiming to keep price where it is also, the would probably have to go to Carbon Fibre. In the meantime I need to work on the coin department :).

The Raptor had no realistic chances. The Velocity is way better. Even the Twin is awesome. To go pressurized and into high performance, well in my opinion you need a turbine. To get the numbers right. This is more than next level to the velocity and can not be compared. The velocity RG is the best option to go in great numbers with a payable budget, it you can afford to do so. Even for beginners. So I guess you have a good choice, but watch the nose gear. Good luck and congratulations to your new project.

Thanks James, will do.

Yeah, It was the only car I had with a tow ball. It was just a short 10 minute trip. I used it to pull small trees down and out of the ground to make room for my workshop.

Yep It's a challenge. Not sure where I'll operate from but either YCAB or YRED depending on the performance I get out of it.

Thanks.

Haha, sorry about that. The kit plane scene is jam packed with aluminium planes and the composites are hard to find in the crowd. I think cannards are a revolution in GA, but unfortunately (almost) everyone likes to stick to the same old thing. A Cozy mk4 !!! Nothing wrong with that. South Africa hey, no shortage of places to visit with that speed and range. I admire the tenacity it takes to build from scratch. I might get better access but you'd get better visibility.

@@AusVelocity No worries at all, just taking a friendly jab. Canards have their quirks and as with anything aviation familiarity and track record also feeds into the perception of safety. The conventional planes are getting pretty fast anyway and I can see why people wouldn't want to live with some of the tradeoffs (like front seat weight, ballast, off field operation ...) that canards sometimes come with. In honesty, I think they may have been a fad that is dying in the general consciousness of aviators, and we shouldn't begrudge that. It just didn't work for the majority of folks. That's the way of evolution. I just don't see myself doing "another" RV so I'll do what I love/want, and everyone else can do their thing. It is "experimental" aviation after all. We can exist in our own little niche. The upside is that uniqueness is what makes the necks snap on the ramp.

Thanks. Skills from being a truck driver. Your snowy mountains video is awesome. To experience that kind of stuff is why I'm building a velocity. I might rummage through more of your vids if you don't mind and probably learn a thing or 2.

@@AusVelocity No worries, fill yer boots. A Velocity over the Snowies would be a sight to behold!!

Wow. Yeah, it's easy to rack up hours and feel like you're not getting anywhere. Especially at the beginning with no experience. Hopefully as skill and confidence increases, so does productivity. Thanks for the comment.

6300 x $20 (min wage in Australia) = $126,000 (and he is still not done). Add $40,000 for the kit and you get $166,000 so far. Still cheap for a 4-seater but he is still not done and has to add engine, avionix and interior finishes and test flying expense.

Hey ,Thanks for the suggestion. I'm trying to film as much as possible and when I've done a sizable portion I'll summarize the progress and the challenges that portion of the build posed. Keep an eye out for the first build video.

Thanks. The sooner you start the sooner you finish.

Yes of course you're right. AOA decides when a wing will stall or fly, speed is just a rough proxy. I could have explained it bit better, but to get the point across, speed is an easier concept to understand for non pilots rather than lose people trying to explain AOA as well. Thanks for the comment and hopefully we've educated some people.

@@AusVelocity What is the permitted load for this Velocity aircraft? Can the engine fuel/oil system handle -g and some transient 0 g???

@@electricaviationchannelvid7863 velocity say it's designed to +10/-7 and tested to 6. Good question about the oil sump pickup. Dont know, but i have to assume quick 0g and very quick negative g is okay and its the same as any non-aerobatic engine. Less time in 0g the better.

Yes, I'm keeping track of the spending and to my surprise, I've spent very little (in comparison) after the initial purchase. Any Vans kit builder would be in utter disbelief. I still have to buy avionics and propeller, so when I get a good estimate on those numbers I'll do a video on the complete purchase price. Thanks, I'll add that video to the list.

Not sure how but if you want to copy it just convert the money to usd by multiplying by 0.75. The petrol and avgas prices will be different for you. I just made it up to weigh up the benefits of the velocity and see if it was worth the purchase for my situation. The aircraft prices are also Australian and probably cheaper in the US.

Haha. Yep okay, hitches may have been present. Also that wasn't quite true. I had one of the tie down straps get caught under the trailer wheel around 200 meters into the trip. Scared the fudge out of me.

😄😄😄

I don't think the Velocity is classed as high performance, at least here in Australia, I don't think we even have that as a type rating and I think the closest type rating that would apply is complex systems such as CSU and RG. I'll definitely need to be checked out in a velocity before I fly solo though. I'm considering a trip to Florida for that but there's guys in Australia who can check me out if need be. Yes the thing can go fast and keeping ahead of the aircraft is hard for the inexperienced. But being a velocity, it can also safely fly slow without the threat of a stall and annoyance of stall alarms. It may feel a bit spongy at 100 knots but it can be done when time to think is premium. Importing wasn't a problem, the importation Tax was 10% and you can't have your plane until you pay that. Unfortunately the cost of shipping has doubled from a couple of years ago. Sorry to hear Greece can't be bothered to deal with experimentals. Lucky you're in the Schengen zone if your circumstances permit. Thanks for the comment.

@@AusVelocity Its both high performance and complex. It has retractable gear, constant speed prop and flys at 180kts cruise.

@@speedomars3869 yes it is high performance in USA. It doesn't have to be complex since you don't need to install a constant speed or RG. I have a complex rating but i wont be building an RG version. As for high performance here in Australia, i still dont know about that, i could be wrong, ive looked on the CASA site and no reference to high performance. If someone wants to find out for me I'll be thankful and get that rating when the time comes.

@@AusVelocity I thought the FARs were hard to follow but Australia is worse. In the US anything over 200hp is considered high performance. And anything with retractable gear and a constant speed prop is considered complex. Since nothing appears to exist that specifically defines these characteristics in Australia maybe you can just do anything you want. Just don't fly the aircraft anywhere near the US unless you have the correct endorsements.

www.velocityaircraft.co.uk/ info@velocityaircraft.co.uk Try that. I'm pretty sure that's the dealer for velocity in the UK. They should be able to get your questions answered.

This is experimental aircraft, can you use it over thereM

Well, a few reasons. 1. cost. The XL was out of my budget. 2. the engine. I didn't want a 540 or bigger engine horizontally opposed engine. I wanted something more modern, simple, and something i could easily maintain, service, and repair. It also had to be weather proof and unaffected by internal corrosion if it was sitting around for long periods. 3. Engine cost. Even a used traditional engine can cost more than a new car. Heaven forbid you buy one and then it needs an overhaul. That was a risk i wasn't willing to take, so i was limited to something with less power that i liked the look of.

Thanks for the comment. A few people might be interested in the points you've raised. Australia is big but It's all owned by someone and surprisingly land and building materials are still at a premium. A 3 bedroom house on a 1/4 acre block in our area goes for over $500,000 USD. A single car garage would be a challenge, so I built a 6m (20ft) X 9m (30ft) garage which is plenty enough room. The sink rate, not sure what to make of that, maybe helpful if too high, maybe not if too low? I have a brother who is an electrical engineer, If it's a problem I'll get some assistance making an alarm or something. He does that sort of stuff in his day job. Yes the prop and nose wheel issue was something I wrestled with before the purchase. I plan on building a stone deflector that sits behind the front wheel that deflects stones 90 deg to both sides. I have family that are engineers and they are keen to help. It may be a bit more draggy than nothing. There is a speed brake on the belly that will collect most of the debris on landing. Since I have small kids I plan to make an extra set of hard points for the rear seats so they can be moved forward few inches, making more room behind the rear seats. The CG wont be changed since the rear seats are very close to CG. With the takeoff and landing distance. The challenge is to get to 80kts on the ground as fast a possible. I''ll be using a turbo charged 195HP engine combined with a 5 blade CS prop by DUC propellers. That combination should give me a lot more thrust than a 2 blade fixed pitch cruise prop which is usually put on the Velocity SE. I'm confident this will shorten up the takeoff run a fair bit. The down side of the 5 blades is the extra drag cutting the top speed a few knots. I'm hoping the turbo charging will pick up the lost knots at altitude. Remember it's experimental, the features and performance numbers are what you make them. As for the landing distance, This is an interesting project which I'll be making into a video a bit later on...well a lot later on.

If I'm not mistaken John Denver ran out of fuel.

"Remember it's experimental, the features and performance numbers are what you make them" Huh? There is Physics, you know. Who was that Australian guy who designed, built and crashed his Canard design At least he doesn't have kids

@@dnomyarnostaw Well I don't make the numbers, The builder can build the aircraft to make the numbers he wants. I'm keeping the airframe stock, but the engine and prop choice will outperform an IO-360 with a fixed pitch prop, changing the aircraft's stated performance figures. Even though the raptor project failed, I thought Peter did a pretty good job for a one man operation. He probably should have worked with a couple of subject matter experts a little closer and taken some advise on the turbo setup and PSRU but it was his project to do as he wished. We all learnt something from his multiple failures.

@tonylam9548 John Denver crashed because: 1- his plane had the fuel selector valve repositioned into an awkard place, 2- he already knew it wasn't safe to fly until the valve was installed in its original place (the center console) yet he decided to do it anyway because... 3- he wanted to do a quick take-off and landing. However... 4- he altered his planned flight to do a longer trip while airborne, 5- after a while he realized there was not enough fuel in the Nr. 1 tank to neither complete the flight nor return to the airport, 6- when he tried to switch to the other fuel tank, the awkward location of the valve (behind his seat) forced him to accidentally disturb the controls, 7- the airplane went into an PILOT INDUCED spin at low altitude, 8- so there was no way to avoid the accident. As you can see, it had nothing to do with being a canard airplane.

Yes speed and efficiency, but needs paved... well there are velocities using grass, very few. A lot of the weakness in the pusher for non-paved runways is the prop. The prop often takes a beating from FOD. Catto and MT props are popular on the velocitys, and they are known to not handle FOD well, Catto apparently better than MT, with their core made of wood. They just aren't durable for off pavement use. If they have a nickel leading edge, they are better, but the chips and damage often occur on the flat side near the weak trailing edge. Pusher's tend to have broader and more blades so that exacerbates the problem. That being said, there isn't a wide range of options for pusher blades, a few more if you don't want a variable pitch. However with no variable pitch, you're probably going to choose to lose takeoff thrust for a higher cruise speed. Lower takeoff thrust means a longer takeoff roll that is exacerbated by a non-paved or soft runway. I'm still looking at options for a variable pitch pusher prop. It wont be an MT or Catto prop. If i could get carbon blades with a larger nickel/inconel outer layer, that would perfect, but I don't know who is willing to make that yet.

but cant use for time building?

@@burakaskin27 Unlikely when building time for a commercial. if you can convince the right people your platform is suitable, then maybe. I could be wrong on the matter. If you want to trade avgas for hours on a budget, then buy the slowest flying, smallest engine thing you can, then pull the throttle half way back and count clouds all day.

@@burakaskin27 building time is definitely something to consider few people can take off a couple of months to build an airplane

Thanks for the comment and adding to the discussion. It's not as bad as you're thinking. Takeoff distance - Depends on engine, prop, turbo (power and thrust). Same power to weight ratio (at gross) as a cirrus SR22. Same rotation speed as a cirrus. Approach speed - Same as a cirrus. Landing distance - A little longer, some velocity's have reverse thrust. Stall speed is around 5-10 knots higher than a cirrus, less with VGs. The nose on the Velocity is actually lower than if it had an engine and prop in front. No Stall, No spin. Just like a regular plane, you know when you stall the front wing. No Prop wash on the windscreen, noise behind you, depends on the engine and number of blades. Cooling is engine specific. Air cooling needs a lot more air than liquid cooling.

Ignore him he is simply hating on the aircraft. They all have pluses and minuses.

@@speedbird7976 sorry, I was about the first European who bought Cozy plans. But the cockpit was much to small. I only hate fanboys not canards

You forgot very fast cruise and the long range plus the jet like ifr performance. Most of the things you listed can be solved with training and a conservative approach

@@cartmanrlsusall compare the size of the cabin and engine, a canard is allways behind.

Yes, everyone has an idea of what looks good. I can't believe cessna still makes and even manages to sell skyhawks and skylanes and abandoned the TTX, but I guess some people think they look good enough to spend 500k on.

@@AusVelocity yeah, those are also ugly planes. I hope you are going with a retractable landing gear.

Why so negative? Why must he do RG? To each their own, right? Your comments, remind me of my Liberal “friends”, sadly … a very negative and miserable sort, filled with negativity. It’s quite obvious that you’re not an actual pilot. I sincerely hope that you find some inner happiness and peace in your life … really.

@@lcprivatepilot1969 Correct. I'm only a student pilot. The rest of your post was just utter jibberish.