bferrell

No need, I am here. Yes, Ray did make a successful first flight of about 30 minutes. I've been traveling a lot and didn't make our last meeting, so I don't know if he's flown again, though I would expect so. B

There is a gentleman retrofitting a jet engine to a Velocity, but I don't think they've flown yet, and I can't seem to find the link. B

Stay tuned, though, the folks at Velocity have a six seat twin engined and pressurized Velocity in the works. Supposedly a twin is the one thing that get asked for more than anything. I think they're working this behind the UAV and BRS chute projects, though. They've been shopping a model of the thing at all of the airshows to calibrate the true interest level. It's a lot like the Korean test version of the Velocity, with a boom central rudder. I personally think it's ugly and a bit silly, but there are folks that just won't fly with one motor. B

Don't mind if I do, Carlos! Although it's true that with both tanks connected to a single sump there's some possibility of issues (lost cap pulling a vaccum or siphon, though I think that's less likely since you'd be going uphill through a straw with very small pressure differences), I don't recall any actual reports of trouble in the Velocity. I also think they pale in comparison to having valves in the system. I've read many reports of accidents where there was fuel in the tank not selected, for whatever reason. A single sump does work quite well for most of the Velocity fleet, and people with a loose cap usually just notice that this tank will not drain. I don't know of any leak-related incidents. I think that Jim S has made some significant mods to his aircraft to resolve some sort of fuel flow issue, but I don't have the details committed to memory, I think it was a tank imbalance of some sort. It really is a personal choice, but a sump is pretty brainless. Like they said in engineering school, gravity is generally reliable. B

You are correct, I mistakenly reversed the direction. Brett

That's a good question. My wings are the airport or I'd mesasure them. The Velocity rudders are stopped inboard by the wing trailing edge, and won't flutter as long the winglet line is "inline" - or in other words the rudder is not deflected outward at rest. UPDATE: Just opened the manual online at the Velocity website. Rudders are 4 1/2" at the top and widen to 7 1/2" at the bottom. The only time folks have seen a problem is when they're "shimming" a rudder out to correct for a slightly off-center ball condition during test flying. Shimming a rudder can bring the plane inline and get it flying straight, but if you unload the rudder too much it will flutter. B

I can't imagine why either, the Velocity has full length rudders (well, not onto the lower winglet, but from the wing up) as well.http://www.velocityxl.com/Winglets.htm#Section%203.3%20Rudders

I also thank the folks involved, but take exception to the statement regarding deep stall. "A deep stall impact involves a much higher descent rate than a gliding descent entails, along with an inability to control the impact point, due to lack of directional and/or pitch control. {..}" The Velocity testing found that, in fact, deep stall entailed very low decent rates. They very likely are not survivable on land, but they certainly are at sea since more than one person has (with the old style Velocity seat, much like the Cozy). To quote the test pilot "Amazingly, Carl says that he could stick out a hand and feel hardly any air rushing against it as the Velocity descended ever nearer the ocean of St. Augustine. Although he was wearing a 'chute, he ultimately chose to ride the airplane down... and suffered no injuries." At high speeds water is only slightly less harmful than land. They reckoned that the descent rate was from 15-20 MPH. For reference 20 MPH is about 30 fps. See the discussion at http://www.velocityxl.com/Downloads/VelocityDeepStall.pdf

Wow. I can't speak to the number of Cozys flying as I'm building a Velocity (and the factory doesn't even track their own numbers), so I'll leave that for others. As for safety, all of the canard designs are safe in a general sense, and probably more safe than a lot of "conventional' aircraft in one sense. However, if you consider other factors, there are some watchouts too. Let me try to explain. The canard design is very safe from the standpoint of the most common accident type, the stall/spin. On any demo flight, the pilot will most likely show you how the canard stalls well before the main wing, and it's self-correcting. The nose will drop, the aircraft will accelerate, and the canard will begin flying again. Note that while the canard is stalled, the rudders and alierons are still effective, and the aircraft is completely stable. In my flight we slowed down, pulled the stick full aft, and did turns and the like with the canard stalled, but the coolest part was pushing the throttle in and getting 1,000 fpm climb rate with the canard stalled, demonstrating that even on approach, if you get the power on, the plane will go up, even if you don't release back pressure (which, obviously, you should). Now, having said that, these planes don't have flaps, so the landing speeds are a bit faster and the approach angles are more shallow, and you fly them to the runway - you don't stall them onto the pavement. From that standpoint, I think you will want to build some hours in faster planes, and get some quality transition training to make sure your're ready to fly your new canard. Also, most experimental aircraft are more sensitive to W&B than, say, a Cessna. That's not really "dangerous" per se, at least to me, because you should do a W&B before any flight, and any plane improperly loaded is going to be a handful. Also, experimentals tend to respond to the controls more quickly, which is a good thing, but again you're going to want to make sure you're up to it. So, take away from it what you will, I think that's pretty balanced information. I think these planes are very safe, but I do plan to do a lot of transition work myself to make sure *I'm* safe before I fly her. I think you have to decide for yourself what you think you're ready to fly, but if you get a ride in one (maybe at Rough River?), I think it'll set your mind at ease. Brett

Actually, I was saying that "Cozy Girl" Randi (bottom middle, blue jacket and hat - http://www.cozygirrrl.com/) was famous, Ray nearly so, and myself (crouching dead center) as misc other. Brett

Strider, Drop me a private email and I'll get you in touch with Ray, he's my tech counselor, though I may need to help him set that up.... And as a seque, here's a picture of the members of Camp Cincy at OSH, including a Cozy Girl, Ray, and your's truly - the famous, the nearly famous, and the miscellaneous other. Brett

That's great - the assumptions you make, when I read that, I thought he'd lost a mag, as I was thinking, 'man it would suck to lose half of your cylinders!'.... Brett

Hey Carlos, are you coming to Oshkosh with Andy again this year? We'll be in the same place this year. Brett in Cincy

That is not correct, what he is referring to, I suspect, is that GU canard which has a tendency to lose lift in ran. The Roncz canard has been used to alleviate this tendency. I'm building a Velocity, not a Cozy, but I believe the Cozy plans now specify the Roncz canard shape (see http://canardzone.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-956.html or http://www.cozybuilders.org/newsletters/news_67.html) Here is a FAQ page that discusses this, but the primary point is that although some felt uncomfortable with the slight loss of lift, it was not "unstable" or unsafe, and I know of no accidents due to it. http://www.davemorris.com/dave/dfly-faq.html

There's a guy converting a Velocity XL to jet power, I've seen pictures but I can't seem to find the link right now, I'll have to check my archives when I get home. Brett

Yes, here are a couple of pictures, or you can check out my website (http://www.velocityxl.com/Fuselage.htm), but basically they hang down with a rudder attach cable, and the master cylinders behind. I've painted mine black and attached Sparco racing pedals to the factory system. As you can see in the attached photo, the dash-5 has a separate set of pedals for the brakes (above the rudder pedals, sort of like Cessna toe-brakes), and has master cylinders on both sides instead of just on the pilot's side. The dash 5 system is $1300 as a full blown system or $1000 for a Velocity upgrader, not sure what the base system is but should be considerably less (you'd think it'd be the $300 difference, but I'd ask them to be sure). Just call them up and ask for the parts department. http://www.velocityaircraft.com/Velocity%20Store/general_and_airframe_parts.html The first pic is the Dash 5 toe brake setup, the rest are from my standard setup. B

Just a programming note, that these are not the "Standard" Velocity rudder pedals, so if someone wants to oder, these are the 'XL-5' or "dash 5" toe brakes, the stock pedals are rudder for half-travel and then brake in one pedal.... B

This gentleman's son posted to the Velocity group that he believed the cause was VFR into IMC, and that this was something that his father regularly did. It seems fairly certain that disorientation and loss of control were the primary failure mode, and that if the structure failed, it was secondary and not unreasonable given the aircrafts speed and attitude.

Not to say that they aren't safe, because I'm building one, but there have been a couple of failures in flight. Velocity - http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040825X01289&key=1 This one didn't come down, but sounds like a very close call: VariEze - http://www.rutanaircraft.com/htmlpages/canard.html Brett