This is an interesting history, particularly in relation to the AJS-37 Viggen. Though not a delta-wing plane, it also shares ideas with Viggens predecessor, J-35 Draken. Look at the main wing: It has a long inner component and a much slimmer but wider outer component. Then look at pictures of Draken; it has nearly the same strange profile kink, though as a delta wing. The reason was partly to get better low-speed functions when going road landings on 1000-yard road bases, both in Sweden and Finland.
Excellent video. thanks so much for creating and sharing this. (instant sub!) I've always been a fan of EZ, long EZ, Cozy and Velocity! I really wish the two models in MSFS that are available had better physics closer to the real way the craft operates, but I'm pretty sure it's a roadblock on Microsoft's part. I'd pay pretty good money for that upgrade (also a cozy would be my biggest MSFS wish!)
GA aircraft with piston engines are NOT pressurized for good reason, cost and lack of need. Unless the piston engine is also a turbo, you can't fly anywhere near the flight levels anyway. And deicing systems are only useful if you plan to challenge IMC regularly.
“Why doesn’t every hone build have a BRS?” Because a BRS is fucking expensive and must periodically be professionally serviced which costs even more money. Most of us folks work for a living m8.
If you have an engine out, the large rudder in the slipstream of the still running engine, makes it easier to handle with one engine, Plus it straightens out the airflow when both engines are running.
@@benjaminowen6181Yeah, but that's greatly mitigated by the engines closeness to the aircraft center. Much less engine out yawing and less likely to do the deadly VMC Roll.
Totally false. I have taken ice in a push pull canard twin Defiant. I am alive because of the safe behavior. The Rutan Defiant is safer than this twin. Do your homework.
@johnsteichen5239 John, I'm a commercial pilot from Scandinavian and know a thing or two about ice. Beautiful plane, great fuel economy.Great aircraft. The ice accumulation, I don't like it.
Considering it is a kit-built experimental plane, you have the oppoerunity to have some kind of anti-ice system added. In the case of this aircraft, I would probabky go with an extra battery and a set of thermal de-ice boots on the leading edges of the wings and stabilizers.
@@SpectorOfDoomYT thermal wouldn't be boots, boots are pneumatic - thermal would be stainless steel leading edges that you would heat up to get rid of ice. Also need a hot plate for your windscreen so you can see to land. Hot pito tube etc.
@@stevemyers2092 I was referring to larger versions of the electrically powered de-ice boots commonly attached to propellers. I would probably prefer to use pneumatic boots but, considering the wings are made of fiberglass, I do not know how the consistent pressure of inflating and deflating would affect the structural integrity of the leading edge.
never exceed speed is based on indicated airspeed (measured using ram air) which is different than true airspeed. IAS and TAS separate further apart the higher you go. This means 200 knots on the airspeed indicator reflects a 230 knot true airspeed in standard conditions at 10,000ft. In this case, never exceed speed has not been exceeded, yet the true airspeed is 230.
Actually no, with regards to Vne and indicated vs true. While it's true the Vne is an indicated airspeed, altitude limits are always given with it. That might just be the service ceiling, but in faster aircraft you'll generally see a table of Vne for different altitudes. Or in even faster things, Mmo in addition to Vne. This prevents the following problem. For certified aircraft, there is only a guarantee of no flutter up to Vd. Vne is defined as .9*Vd. A factor in flutter is true airspeed. If you have a Vne of 200kias. Vd=222TAS. As you go up and that 200IAS=222TAS, you're now in an untested area and susceptible to rapid unplanned deconstruction of your aircraft via flutter. This is a experimental aircraft, so none of this necessarily applies(we don't know what testing they did).
@@Balthazar744 In GA Vne is commonly based on TAS because flutter margin is always based on TAS rather than indicated. As one flies higher the TAS increases for a given IAS but you're reducing the margin you have to avoid flutter.
Sadly I don't know any Velocity pilots :( I usually research the aircraft from the historical point, as I find it interesting to see how it evolved from the idea in someones head to the actual aircraft up in the sky. For the technical part, I usually rely on the forums and threads of the pilots who fly it.
Canards are more suited for laminar flow as the prop slipstream is dirty and turbulent, so basically everything behind it cannot be laminar. A pusher canard, on the other hand, doesn't have that issue and the fuselage as well as the inboard portion of the wing and canard are able to go through laminar flow...it doesn't mean they ARE laminar, it just means they have the potential to be if designed in such a way. The downside is that this works against a pusher as well. In a tractor configuration, the propeller is going through stable laminar air and as such the blades are able to make more efficient thrust for more performance. In a pusher, the prop is guaranteed to see dirty turbulent air and loses that advantage. It all comes out in the wash for the most part unless you're able to make the entire aircraft fuselage laminar flow at all times, which is something the Celera 500 is attempting.
Vne is Indicated AirSpeed (IAS). The 230kt cruise speed at 75% power is True AirSpeed (TAS). It does not say in those specs what altitude they achieved those speeds, but the higher the altitude, the bigger the difference between IAS and TAS. And by the way, there is no plural for the word Aircraft. You can have one Aircraft or many Aircraft. There is no such word as Aircrafts.
Velocity makes an extraordinary product. The fiberglass frame is hyper sturdy, exceeding the carbon fiber designs from Cirrus. The twin will appeal to those that want engine redundancy, but is substantially slower than the single engine XL-RG. Both planes use the same fuselage, the Twin adds the tail (where the engine mounts for the XL), and the nacelles for the engines mounted on the wings. But all else is the same.
The first Velocity you showed is a "standard" 180 or 200 HP 0-360 engine. It's the one where you got to jump up on the wing to get in. I fly one. The SE is the next model where there is door to get in.
Laminar flow. Can’t comment whether the canard contributes. Propellers create low pressure ahead of themselves. Pusher mounted on the wing thus suck the air over the wing assisting the boundary layer. No idea of the drag reduction, likely not much and proportionally less the faster the plane goes.
I think it is also the case that the canard is a lifting surface whereas the horizontal stabilizer in a conventionally configured plane produces down force.
Thank you a really interesting airplane would be great to hear about the diesel option which appears to outperform the a gas models and at a better fuel economy Wonder if it is possible to add in STOL modifications ?
The 180HP Delta Hawk diesel now has 235 HP available from the same engine with different fuel delivery and turbo. This will be a certified engine not some unreliable over boosted backyard build. That’s 470 HP installed instead of 360 HP. You get a super efficient bird with really impressive climb and cruise.
Oh yes it is extremely expensive. What I don’t understand is the huge price difference between the normal velocity (100-150k) to the twin/XL (500k). And why a airplane engine that’s build form an automotive one costs 4-6 times as much?!
Fo me the V-twin with those 235 DH engines is perfect in the 6 seater option once that properly launches, BUTT since there is also turbine model being played with it could get very interesting cost/performance side which way to go.
Canard configuration has the biggest problem that it is naturally unstable. Same problem that Wright brothers had. Canrd configuration does not have positive dynamic stability.
The issue with canard craft, and this is coming from a pilot who has test flew a Velocity, there are no flaps. You take off and land fast, around 90-100knts. Its not unmanageable and many planes land at those speeds but its a big jump up from you typical Cessna. People want to get in this after their PPL (me included) with 100 hours and end up falling behind the plane.
Stay away from a Cirrus SR22T then, its over numbers speed is the same, 82ktas. But that does not mean you are behind anything. A stable landing approach is required no matter what aircraft you are flying. In fact, sometimes a little speed over the numbers is more stable than barely squeaking over the threshold in a snail-pace LSA or Cessna. The main difference is needing a little more runway.
@@speedomars Sure but the SR-22 will go down to 60 before stalling, while a velocity cant really go any slower than 75 knts before it starts bobbing. But its irrelevant, the argument I am making is neither an SR 22 or a Velocity is a good plane for a new PPL.
@@CrossWindsPat The stall speed for the CirrusSR22T with flaps is 60 but as a former owner of the plane with 500 hours in it, the approach speeds never drop below 85 kts or over the numbers at 80kts similar to what the Velocity is. Both planes are high performance and require high pilot skills. I bought my Cirrus with 120 hours in the logbook and was required to fly 25 hours with a Cirrus CFI (CSIP) before the insurance company would allow me to fly alone.
Test flew a Velocity -- one time? The V-twin is not comfortable to land under 90 knots, especially because of adverse yaw. Over the fence is best at 100 knots, then retard power as needed. 1500 at sea level is an honest short field landing distance.
Great video, but may I suggest changing your speaking tone to be slightly livelier. It's odd days we live in, and I can't quite tell if this is human speaking or an advanced AI voice model, and videos with AI voice models get far less views. If it is an AI voiceover, unlike most AI videos, I can tell some serious research and thought went into this and want to make sure you get the most views for doing real work.
The idea that the canard airplanes are safer has not worked out in practice. They’ve had their share of accidents. While you can’t stall them (unless you exceed the aft cg limit, then you’re screwed) the cost of the canard presents other risks, like high approach speeds, long takeoff and landing distances, non conventional handling characteristics etc. and if you mismanage your energy and get too slow you will still crash. There’s a great video on youtube of a long ez crash landing at an airshow after screwing up a landing. It goes splat and rips off the gear and goes skidding along the grass. So don’t believe the safety hype of canards.
@@domteufel there are some differences in flying technique. This was the cause of several accidents with early Rutan designed aircraft when the pilots didn’t understand these differences
@@domteufel and i agree that there are lots of canard pilots that fly them safely every day and love them. They have to be flown within their safe envelope and all will be well.
The canard increases efficiency because it is a lifting surface. A normal airplane with the tail in the back has a downforce surface which has to be overcome by lift from the main wing. Lift equals drag which equals lower speed.
No, two things. The desire to keep it very conservative taking into consideration the vastly different builder skill levels. Secondly, without flaps they had to keep the wing loading low with a fairly high lift wing to get into smaller fields. High lift also means higher drag. A long time ago they built a XL fuselage with a smaller model’s wings. It was a near 250 kt screamer but didn’t like short runways at all.
You're going to have a hard time adding a parachute. I believe you technically can because it's experimental, but I doubt Velocity wants you messing with their kit very much.
Nice review but your comparison missed the very impressive, in production and expensive, Piaggio Evo Avanti P180 which is all that the Beech Starship hoped to be. The Piaggio is way more efficient and fast than other twin turboprops!
Evidently you aren't as smart as you want yourself to appear to be to everybody - the Piaggio is +$7 MILLION DOLLARS. Hell, a Cirrus Jet that seats 7 comfortably, has a safety parachute, automatic return/autopilot landing if some catastrophe happens, is only around $4 Million Dollars. The Velocity V-Twin is + - $1 Million Dollars, very, very different neighborhoods.
they got 230kts based off of True airspeed, not indicated, which is what the VNE is based off of. if you go high enough you'll reach 230 TAS whilst less than 200 IAS
looking at the high mount rear engine, i speculate it has a tendency to nose up in flight that canard and the lack of flap seems to suggest that. the canard would push the nose down for level flight.
canard aircraft don't stall. if the main wing loses lift because the pilot has screwed up badly either in weight and balance or with the flight controls, the aircraft falls in a "falling leaf" pattern, almost always staying upright. the sink rate of this falling leaf is roughly the same as the sink rate of an aircraft under a parachute. crash statistics do not justify canard aircraft would benefit from a recovery parachute. government regulation and bureaucratic interference in aviation is why general aviation and specifically experimental aviation in Europe are a tiny fraction of the industry in the US. If you want to destroy innovation and eliminate the industry, let the regulators loose.
Canards do stall -- but not in conventional ways. A high sink rate is considered akin to a stall. That said, you bring up power and -- if the aircraft is designed properly -- you counter the stall.
The canard increases efficiency because it adds lift instead of decreasing it. Standard horizontal tail stabilizers create downforce which the wing must overcome.
Except for the expense of the diesel engines. You can put in two gas engines for the price of one diesel. It also adds a bunch of weight and this plane likes to fly light.
In regards of John Denver,the type of plane had nothing to do with the accident,from what I gather is that alcohol and lack of fuel were the main causes.Irrespective of fault may mr Denver rest in peace,God bless.🙏🕊️
Wow. Electric works well for people who want to fly for 30 min and then charge it overnight. Not to mention the risk of a Lithium Ion battery fire. We need a better battery technology before electric flight is viable. Kinda the same with electric cars...
@@FlyMeAirplane Agreed. Ultra capacitors are getting more energy dense, and don't have the thermal runaway issues as with Lithium ion. If only there was a technology to more appropriately leverage the battery we live in.
@@tomlorenz4344 I agree. So let's not use batteries. Let's use a different technology that maintains it's state of health over 100x more cycles than batteries, yet is now coming closer to having a similar energy density with LiPo batteries.
Very interesting tech, for an interesting-looking aircraft. That said, at nearly $150K for an engine-less airframe, this is a toy for those hoping to be among the 1% - a trophy that, like much of the rest of private aviation, has some incidental usefulness.
@@DblIre @dalecounihan1632 The systems are around $50,000, I'm sure someone could engeneer the retrofit for another $150,000 tops so still cheaper than a Diamond 😉
The maintenance on it is a concern, Florida is where you'd have to fly it to for maintenance more than likely, I don't have the time to go build a plane, it's hard enough to learn to fly it, so I'd have to buy one built by the factory, and I can't deal with the No Flaps part of it. There needs to be a way to slow the stall speed and shorten takeoff's and Landings, and to make it grass strip landing worthy. I'd rather fly this plane for speed, efficiency, and fun and looks, but the negatives and the unknowns outweigh the possibilities unfortunately. I'm looking for a Cessna RG with a turbo, then I can go near as fast and not far off on efficiency, maintenance locally and cheap, re-sale is good, and grass strip worthy, STOL kits available, and Much safer landings and take offs. I hate it but that's the best for me.
Your absolutely right. But the other day we priced an oil pressure sensor for a Columbia 300. $1000. The prices for certified parts has gone absolutely ballistic.
They are testing a 6-seat V-Twin as we speak can't wait to see that one
This is an interesting history, particularly in relation to the AJS-37 Viggen. Though not a delta-wing plane, it also shares ideas with Viggens predecessor, J-35 Draken. Look at the main wing: It has a long inner component and a much slimmer but wider outer component. Then look at pictures of Draken; it has nearly the same strange profile kink, though as a delta wing. The reason was partly to get better low-speed functions when going road landings on 1000-yard road bases, both in Sweden and Finland.
Excellent video. thanks so much for creating and sharing this. (instant sub!) I've always been a fan of EZ, long EZ, Cozy and Velocity! I really wish the two models in MSFS that are available had better physics closer to the real way the craft operates, but I'm pretty sure it's a roadblock on Microsoft's part. I'd pay pretty good money for that upgrade (also a cozy would be my biggest MSFS wish!)
Thanks so much! Glad you enjoyed it!
6:08 the cruise speed is in knots TRUE airspeed. The VNE is in INDICATED airspeed.
Now, if Velocity would introduce a stretched fuselage, allowing 6 or even 7 total seats...
They had been testing a 6 seater until they crashed it in 2023. Haven’t heard any updates since the crash. There was a fatality sadly
pressurize it and put deicing on the leading edges FL 26 would be great - P210 can have it why not this?
Having a cabin capable of pressurization would exponentially increase the price
GA aircraft with piston engines are NOT pressurized for good reason, cost and lack of need. Unless the piston engine is also a turbo, you can't fly anywhere near the flight levels anyway. And deicing systems are only useful if you plan to challenge IMC regularly.
“Why doesn’t every hone build have a BRS?” Because a BRS is fucking expensive and must periodically be professionally serviced which costs even more money. Most of us folks work for a living m8.
So why add that big tailfin/rudder? Why not at the wingtips, like the others?
Twin engine needs a lot of yaw stability if it loses an engine.
without the center tail the two props create cavitation and drag on the rear of the plane... If I remember correctly lol
If you have an engine out, the large rudder in the slipstream of the still running engine, makes it easier to handle with one engine, Plus it straightens out the airflow when both engines are running.
@@benjaminowen6181Yeah, but that's greatly mitigated by the engines closeness to the aircraft center. Much less engine out yawing and less likely to do the deadly VMC Roll.
Stupid graphics, what's with all the flashy lights, let the story through without the eye fatigues
Just close the vid man. Just so you know, you are not forced to watch it.
You will not be safe in ice with a canards system.
Totally false. I have taken ice in a push pull canard twin Defiant. I am alive because of the safe behavior. The Rutan Defiant is safer than this twin. Do your homework.
@johnsteichen5239 John, I'm a commercial pilot from Scandinavian and know a thing or two about ice. Beautiful plane, great fuel economy.Great aircraft. The ice accumulation, I don't like it.
Considering it is a kit-built experimental plane, you have the oppoerunity to have some kind of anti-ice system added. In the case of this aircraft, I would probabky go with an extra battery and a set of thermal de-ice boots on the leading edges of the wings and stabilizers.
@@SpectorOfDoomYT thermal wouldn't be boots, boots are pneumatic - thermal would be stainless steel leading edges that you would heat up to get rid of ice. Also need a hot plate for your windscreen so you can see to land. Hot pito tube etc.
@@stevemyers2092 I was referring to larger versions of the electrically powered de-ice boots commonly attached to propellers. I would probably prefer to use pneumatic boots but, considering the wings are made of fiberglass, I do not know how the consistent pressure of inflating and deflating would affect the structural integrity of the leading edge.
never exceed speed is based on indicated airspeed (measured using ram air) which is different than true airspeed. IAS and TAS separate further apart the higher you go. This means 200 knots on the airspeed indicator reflects a 230 knot true airspeed in standard conditions at 10,000ft. In this case, never exceed speed has not been exceeded, yet the true airspeed is 230.
Oh, now this makes sense, thanks for explaining this!
Actually no, with regards to Vne and indicated vs true. While it's true the Vne is an indicated airspeed, altitude limits are always given with it. That might just be the service ceiling, but in faster aircraft you'll generally see a table of Vne for different altitudes. Or in even faster things, Mmo in addition to Vne. This prevents the following problem.
For certified aircraft, there is only a guarantee of no flutter up to Vd. Vne is defined as .9*Vd. A factor in flutter is true airspeed.
If you have a Vne of 200kias. Vd=222TAS. As you go up and that 200IAS=222TAS, you're now in an untested area and susceptible to rapid unplanned deconstruction of your aircraft via flutter.
This is a experimental aircraft, so none of this necessarily applies(we don't know what testing they did).
Actually it depends. For example, Vne on my RV-9A is stated in TAS, not IAS.
I always thought V speeds were indicated (calibrated) airspeeds. Interesting to read that some aircraft like RV 9 are based on TAS.
@@Balthazar744 In GA Vne is commonly based on TAS because flutter margin is always based on TAS rather than indicated. As one flies higher the TAS increases for a given IAS but you're reducing the margin you have to avoid flutter.
Did a demo flight in a Vtwin... easily the most impressive light aircraft I have ever been in.
I would like to see more up to date videos on the V-Twin , owners posting the pros / cons / cost / performance
Thanks for showing this video.
.
Sadly I don't know any Velocity pilots :( I usually research the aircraft from the historical point, as I find it interesting to see how it evolved from the idea in someones head to the actual aircraft up in the sky. For the technical part, I usually rely on the forums and threads of the pilots who fly it.
@@bigmetalbirds Well -- you have had one post tonight. N527VT. l8r.
Canards are more suited for laminar flow as the prop slipstream is dirty and turbulent, so basically everything behind it cannot be laminar. A pusher canard, on the other hand, doesn't have that issue and the fuselage as well as the inboard portion of the wing and canard are able to go through laminar flow...it doesn't mean they ARE laminar, it just means they have the potential to be if designed in such a way. The downside is that this works against a pusher as well. In a tractor configuration, the propeller is going through stable laminar air and as such the blades are able to make more efficient thrust for more performance. In a pusher, the prop is guaranteed to see dirty turbulent air and loses that advantage. It all comes out in the wash for the most part unless you're able to make the entire aircraft fuselage laminar flow at all times, which is something the Celera 500 is attempting.
All comes out in the prop wash
Vne is Indicated AirSpeed (IAS). The 230kt cruise speed at 75% power is True AirSpeed (TAS). It does not say in those specs what altitude they achieved those speeds, but the higher the altitude, the bigger the difference between IAS and TAS. And by the way, there is no plural for the word Aircraft. You can have one Aircraft or many Aircraft. There is no such word as Aircrafts.
The plural of aircraft is aircraft. I hate poor grammar.
Velocity makes an extraordinary product. The fiberglass frame is hyper sturdy, exceeding the carbon fiber designs from Cirrus. The twin will appeal to those that want engine redundancy, but is substantially slower than the single engine XL-RG. Both planes use the same fuselage, the Twin adds the tail (where the engine mounts for the XL), and the nacelles for the engines mounted on the wings. But all else is the same.
The first Velocity you showed is a "standard" 180 or 200 HP 0-360 engine. It's the one where you got to jump up on the wing to get in. I fly one. The SE is the next model where there is door to get in.
Laminar flow. Can’t comment whether the canard contributes.
Propellers create low pressure ahead of themselves. Pusher mounted on the wing thus suck the air over the wing assisting the boundary layer. No idea of the drag reduction, likely not much and proportionally less the faster the plane goes.
Love the looks of this new model.😊
The Velocity XL and V-Twin are two of my favorite planes!
I think it is also the case that the canard is a lifting surface whereas the horizontal stabilizer in a conventionally configured plane produces down force.
Thank you a really interesting airplane would be great to hear about the diesel option which appears to outperform the a gas models and at a better fuel economy
Wonder if it is possible to add in STOL modifications ?
The 180HP Delta Hawk diesel now has 235 HP available from the same engine with different fuel delivery and turbo. This will be a certified engine not some unreliable over boosted backyard build. That’s 470 HP installed instead of 360 HP. You get a super efficient bird with really impressive climb and cruise.
but boy is it expensive!
Oh yes it is extremely expensive. What I don’t understand is the huge price difference between the normal velocity (100-150k) to the twin/XL (500k).
And why a airplane engine that’s build form an automotive one costs 4-6 times as much?!
Fo me the V-twin with those 235 DH engines is perfect in the 6 seater option once that properly launches, BUTT since there is also turbine model being played with it could get very interesting cost/performance side which way to go.
@@NotSean269
Turbines are great until fuel burn is factored into range.
@@DKofDAH Which automotive engine do you speak of? The Deltahawk diesel was designed and built from the ground up as an airplane engine.
Canard configuration has the biggest problem that it is naturally unstable. Same problem that Wright brothers had. Canrd configuration does not have positive dynamic stability.
The issue with canard craft, and this is coming from a pilot who has test flew a Velocity, there are no flaps. You take off and land fast, around 90-100knts. Its not unmanageable and many planes land at those speeds but its a big jump up from you typical Cessna. People want to get in this after their PPL (me included) with 100 hours and end up falling behind the plane.
same with a lanceair and glassair fast slippery aircraft - with flaps though .
Stay away from a Cirrus SR22T then, its over numbers speed is the same, 82ktas. But that does not mean you are behind anything. A stable landing approach is required no matter what aircraft you are flying. In fact, sometimes a little speed over the numbers is more stable than barely squeaking over the threshold in a snail-pace LSA or Cessna. The main difference is needing a little more runway.
@@speedomars Sure but the SR-22 will go down to 60 before stalling, while a velocity cant really go any slower than 75 knts before it starts bobbing. But its irrelevant, the argument I am making is neither an SR 22 or a Velocity is a good plane for a new PPL.
@@CrossWindsPat The stall speed for the CirrusSR22T with flaps is 60 but as a former owner of the plane with 500 hours in it, the approach speeds never drop below 85 kts or over the numbers at 80kts similar to what the Velocity is. Both planes are high performance and require high pilot skills. I bought my Cirrus with 120 hours in the logbook and was required to fly 25 hours with a Cirrus CFI (CSIP) before the insurance company would allow me to fly alone.
Test flew a Velocity -- one time? The V-twin is not comfortable to land under 90 knots, especially because of adverse yaw. Over the fence is best at 100 knots, then retard power as needed. 1500 at sea level is an honest short field landing distance.
Great video, but may I suggest changing your speaking tone to be slightly livelier. It's odd days we live in, and I can't quite tell if this is human speaking or an advanced AI voice model, and videos with AI voice models get far less views. If it is an AI voiceover, unlike most AI videos, I can tell some serious research and thought went into this and want to make sure you get the most views for doing real work.
“Of course it’s Beechcraft St … I mean Piaggio Avanti”
yes, clearly a pirated version of Avanti
Great video, thanks! JMB VL3 might be a great next video.
The idea that the canard airplanes are safer has not worked out in practice. They’ve had their share of accidents. While you can’t stall them (unless you exceed the aft cg limit, then you’re screwed) the cost of the canard presents other risks, like high approach speeds, long takeoff and landing distances, non conventional handling characteristics etc. and if you mismanage your energy and get too slow you will still crash. There’s a great video on youtube of a long ez crash landing at an airshow after screwing up a landing. It goes splat and rips off the gear and goes skidding along the grass. So don’t believe the safety hype of canards.
Canards are like any airplane -- fly the airplane, listen to what it tells you, you'll be safe.
@@domteufel there are some differences in flying technique. This was the cause of several accidents with early Rutan designed aircraft when the pilots didn’t understand these differences
@@sblack48 I don't disagree -- and I completely agree with you. Probably should have added that to my comment. I stand corrected...
@@domteufel and i agree that there are lots of canard pilots that fly them safely every day and love them. They have to be flown within their safe envelope and all will be well.
I’m sure if carders were the way to go all airplanes would have them.
The canard increases efficiency because it is a lifting surface. A normal airplane with the tail in the back has a downforce surface which has to be overcome by lift from the main wing. Lift equals drag which equals lower speed.
I need a full sized, six seat, variant
I wonder what the limiting factor on Vne is? It looks to me like it could safely go a lot faster. The shape of the canard?
No, two things. The desire to keep it very conservative taking into consideration the vastly different builder skill levels. Secondly, without flaps they had to keep the wing loading low with a fairly high lift wing to get into smaller fields. High lift also means higher drag. A long time ago they built a XL fuselage with a smaller model’s wings. It was a near 250 kt screamer but didn’t like short runways at all.
i saw the starship fly back in the day
I’d fly one if I could afford to fly. And I would add a parachute to it just in case. It’s hard to believe there’s anything safer!
You're going to have a hard time adding a parachute. I believe you technically can because it's experimental, but I doubt Velocity wants you messing with their kit very much.
6:42 Good for lefties!
Why not a jet engine?
amazing aircraft video Slightly different from the others, the placement of the propeller is in the rear position
The twin is a looker.
Nice review but your comparison missed the very impressive, in production and expensive, Piaggio Evo Avanti P180 which is all that the Beech Starship hoped to be. The Piaggio is way more efficient and fast than other twin turboprops!
Yeah but it costs 7 million. Completely different beast.
And I am not sure the Piaggio is a true canard.
Evidently you aren't as smart as you want yourself to appear to be to everybody - the Piaggio is +$7 MILLION DOLLARS.
Hell, a Cirrus Jet that seats 7 comfortably, has a safety parachute, automatic return/autopilot landing if some catastrophe happens, is only around $4 Million Dollars.
The Velocity V-Twin is + - $1 Million Dollars, very, very different neighborhoods.
Need that TKS de-icing and we are good to go
Ask John Denver if they are any good
The balance makes the plane twitchy
they got 230kts based off of True airspeed, not indicated, which is what the VNE is based off of. if you go high enough you'll reach 230 TAS whilst less than 200 IAS
BRS requires few years maitenande/repleacemet. It is expensive - that is why.
It is not mandatory for european light sport equivalent aircraft to have a recovery parachute. We just do it cus' we like it
six seater ?
Cruise speed is in True Airspeed... VNE is indicated airspeed, that is why cruise speed can exceed VNE
looking at the high mount rear engine, i speculate it has a tendency to nose up in flight
that canard and the lack of flap seems to suggest that.
the canard would push the nose down for level flight.
I turned up the volume and still barely can hear you.
Richard rutan has got to be in there somewhere The Long easy
One problem with these designs is the turbulent air being taken in by the propellers.
Yes, and a good reason why a 3 blade prop is used instead of a 2 blade.
canard aircraft don't stall. if the main wing loses lift because the pilot has screwed up badly either in weight and balance or with the flight controls, the aircraft falls in a "falling leaf" pattern, almost always staying upright. the sink rate of this falling leaf is roughly the same as the sink rate of an aircraft under a parachute. crash statistics do not justify canard aircraft would benefit from a recovery parachute. government regulation and bureaucratic interference in aviation is why general aviation and specifically experimental aviation in Europe are a tiny fraction of the industry in the US. If you want to destroy innovation and eliminate the industry, let the regulators loose.
Canards do stall -- but not in conventional ways. A high sink rate is considered akin to a stall. That said, you bring up power and -- if the aircraft is designed properly -- you counter the stall.
The canard increases efficiency because it adds lift instead of decreasing it. Standard horizontal tail stabilizers create downforce which the wing must overcome.
The canard also decreases efficiency because it operates at a higher lift coefficient (angle of attack) to make sure it stalls first.
Great video!
Thanks!!
Like to try one.
Cessna 172 does not land at 75 Knots, closer to 60 Knots.
The 172 stall speed is 48 Knots. The Standard (early Velocity) stall speed is 60 knots. Yes, fast but that's what you get with a fast plane!
Those Deltahawk Diesel numbers seem too good to be true!
It is highly probable. Diamond also uses diesel/jet a1 Austro. It is very economical w/ availability in airports.
@@mahyadnaadlaw3112 The economy doesn't surprise me. Its the cruise speeds!
@@CrossWindsPat well, your statement implying about 'diesel'. And consumption a major factor regarding diesels.
@@CrossWindsPat i think those specific diesel engines are turbo and superchargers
@@CrossWindsPati think its about torque
Seems pretty cheap to fly with the diesel hawk.
Except for the expense of the diesel engines. You can put in two gas engines for the price of one diesel. It also adds a bunch of weight and this plane likes to fly light.
Awesome!
great twin❤
No, this aircraft is BS
This aircraft is not BS BUT it has to be taken with a dose of reality.
Isn’t that the plane John Denver died in?
No. If you look up what John Denver did wrong you'd see that any airplane could have killed him.
In regards of John Denver,the type of plane had nothing to do with the accident,from what I gather is that alcohol and lack of fuel were the main causes.Irrespective of fault may mr Denver rest in peace,God bless.🙏🕊️
Bullpup plane :)
Has anyone considered electrifying this bird?
Wow. Electric works well for people who want to fly for 30 min and then charge it overnight. Not to mention the risk of a Lithium Ion battery fire. We need a better battery technology before electric flight is viable. Kinda the same with electric cars...
@@FlyMeAirplane Agreed. Ultra capacitors are getting more energy dense, and don't have the thermal runaway issues as with Lithium ion. If only there was a technology to more appropriately leverage the battery we live in.
What about feathering a prop on an electric engine?
Batteries have a terrible power to weight ratio and are not practical for planes.
@@tomlorenz4344 I agree. So let's not use batteries. Let's use a different technology that maintains it's state of health over 100x more cycles than batteries, yet is now coming closer to having a similar energy density with LiPo batteries.
Very interesting tech, for an interesting-looking aircraft. That said, at nearly $150K for an engine-less airframe, this is a toy for those hoping to be among the 1% - a trophy that, like much of the rest of private aviation, has some incidental usefulness.
What could be worse?
Ice on the canard and now loss of lift.
Now your a lawn dart.
Get right with God.
With the savings as compared to the Diamond, Id imagine someone can rig a BRS on it, both take the cake for fun factor, geat video !
The design work for adding a BRS is pretty involved. Much more than just installing it.
@@DblIre @dalecounihan1632 The systems are around $50,000, I'm sure someone could engeneer the retrofit for another $150,000 tops so still cheaper than a Diamond 😉
The lines getting tangled in the prop is one issue. Imagine how they know that :)
The maintenance on it is a concern, Florida is where you'd have to fly it to for maintenance more than likely, I don't have the time to go build a plane, it's hard enough to learn to fly it, so I'd have to buy one built by the factory, and I can't deal with the No Flaps part of it. There needs to be a way to slow the stall speed and shorten takeoff's and Landings, and to make it grass strip landing worthy. I'd rather fly this plane for speed, efficiency, and fun and looks, but the negatives and the unknowns outweigh the possibilities unfortunately. I'm looking for a Cessna RG with a turbo, then I can go near as fast and not far off on efficiency, maintenance locally and cheap, re-sale is good, and grass strip worthy, STOL kits available, and Much safer landings and take offs. I hate it but that's the best for me.
Your absolutely right. But the other day we priced an oil pressure sensor for a Columbia 300. $1000. The prices for certified parts has gone absolutely ballistic.
Airplanes are designed for a mission -- fundamental part of airplane design. If you want grass strips and STOL, don't buy a V-twin.
beautiful plane