vElocity flying experience
Sylvain Duford
>From: bhi...@ix.netcom.com (William Hixson)
>Subject: vElocity flying experience
>Date: 7 Oct 1994 15:05:36 GMT
>I would like to hear about flying experiences with the Velocity. over on the
>ultralight group
>someone mentioned a fatal crash of one of these planes.
I believe the crash you are referring to was caused by ATC error. It happened
at a major airport where ATC cleared a large jet to descend in front of the
Velocity on final approach. The Velocity went into an inverted deep stall and
could not recover.
The Velocity had some problems with AFT CG Deep Stall situations in the past,
but they modified the wing and took care of the problem. If you order the
velocity info pack they will include some magazine articles on the "Deep Stall
Riddle" and how they solved it.
P.S. I think the Velocity is the best value in four seat kitplanes.
William Hixson
this kit and I certaioly want to hear the good and bad. Canard planes
always are touted as safer. Are they really? Do pilots take too much
advantage of this "safety and get themselves in trouble?I know how this can be
I have owned Porches. They corner like they are on rails but one bit
past their limit and you are in deep doo doo. Most drivers in a car
that did not perform so well would back off when they began to feel
the car roll. Since the Porshe doesn't roll or lean before it breaks
loose they dont see the limit coming. I read the article in this
last KIT PLANE about the CG and deep stall test of the Cozy. So I can
live with watching out for that. they had to really abuse the CG to
get to stall. Did I read that right? Any body nervous about the
Velocity. Bill HIXSON
FAA Free Hoover NOW
>I would like to hear about flying experiences with the Velocity. over on the ultralight group
>someone mentioned a fatal crash of one of these planes. I am considering
>this kit and I certaioly want to hear the good and bad. Canard planes
>always are touted as safer. Are they really? Do pilots take too much
>advantage of this "safety and get themselves in trouble?I know how this can be
>i have owned Porches. They corner like they are on rails but one bit
^^^^^^^
Hmmmm... must have something to do with a mobile home?? :-) :-) :-)
I used to work for Velocity, so maybe I can shed some light on this. The
Velocity, like most other canards, doesn't really have a stall so much as
it just sort of mushes out and descends rapidly. And yes, you really do
have to work to get that... it's gentle enough, I believe, that you will
notice it before it happens.
Fatal crash: I think you may have heard about the crash of Neil Hunter in
Apopka, FL, in hte early part of 1993 (I think). What happened is this:
Neil owned Velocity number 1 or 2 (his was really one of the prototypes)
and when they did the research to fix the deep-stall problem, he apparently
decided that since the problem was difficult to get into in the first place
and it would have meant he had to build all new wings (which were supplied
free to all Velocity owners with the old wings), he thought it would be okay
to fly with the old ones. And it really was... almost. One day, Air Traffic
Control in Orlando told him in a positive control area to fly on a course
which put him something like one-eighth of a mile behind an airliner landing
at MCO. He flew into the wake turbulence, got inverted, and the aircraft
entered an INVERTED deep stall. He talked to the controllers all the way down,
specifically mentioning "turbulence" and "jetwash". Neil was killed in the
impact. The shit really hit the fan when it was learned that in the hours
after the accident, the FAA initiated a massive coverup of what happened,
even going so far as to harass Velocity and several pilots who heard the
radio exchange. (This was reported in US Aviator magazine sometime in the
first part of 1993 I believe.) Neil was very much admired and widely known in
Central Florida homebuilder's circles, and the incident led to much bad blood
between the FAA and the Experimental crowd. Anyway, in reference to your
question, I personally have NO qualms about Velocity, either from a
customer-service, performance, or quality standpoint. The problems with deep
stalling have LONG been solved, and while there are a lot of good designs out
there that are canards, I think the Velocity is a long way ahead of some. I am
trying not to sound biased, I haven't been associated with Velocity for over a
year and a half, and I'll be the first to admit that the EZ's, Cozy, and many
other aircraft are not inferior to the Velocity. It really comes down to
finding the plane that most closely matches your needs/wants/resources.
>That did not perform so well would back off when they began to feel
>the car roll. Since the Porshe doesn't roll or lean before it breaks
>loose they dont see the limit coming. I read the article in this
>last KIT PLANE about the CG and deep stall test of the Cozy. So I can
>live with watching out for that. they had to really abuse the CG to
>get to stall. Did I read that right? Any body nervous about the
>velocity.
One more note: to test the deep-stall stuff, Velocity hired a professional
test pilot (from NASA I believe) and removed the passenger seat in the
(formerly) orange factory aircraft. In its place, they placed a rail with a
large weight on it, running from where the passenger's feet would be to where
the rear-seat passenger's head would be. There was a mechanism so that in
flight, the weight could be cranked along the rail to alter the CG and go into
and out of a deep stall condition and gather data. In one test, the mechanism
broke while the plane was stalled, and the pilot could not get it to move...
so he opened up the door, took off his seat belt, stood on the dashboard, held
the windshield frame, and leaned forward as far as he could - outside of the
aircraft!!! There (supposedly, I haven't seen it) is a video taken of this
from the chase plane in which you can see his hair being blown straight up by
the wind (the plane descends at about 60mph, pretty much vertically) as he
tried to move the CG up!!!!!!!!! When it became apparent that it wasn't
working, he climbed back in and fastened himself in for impact in the
Atlantic ocean. Pilot wasn't hurt, and the only damage from the plane was from
the nose gear hitting a rock as it was towed up onto the beach. I also know a
part-owner of the company who dunked his into the Savannah River at night
after an oil hose let go... the crash was fine, but the current swept the
plane into a bridge which tore it all to hell. So it seems that as long as you
hit in the water, Velocities are plenty strong in those "non-routine"
landings. The original designer designed sailboats... hmmm... :-)
Hope this helps!!
-Mike
REPLY TO WHA...@CAMELIA.MIRC.GATECH.EDU please!!!
==============================================================================
He leaps over exothermic reactions in a single bound!!! He's more dizzy than a
speeding stir-bar!!! Is it a nerd? Is it a trainee? No, it's SOLVENT BOY!!!!!!
=============== There's too much blood in my caffeine system. ================
MIKE "GATOR" WHALEY KD4UGI H: (404) 881-9580 W: (404) 853-9902
wha...@camelia.mirc.gatech.edu 1027B Curran St. NW, Atlanta, GA 30318
==============================================================================
--
===========================================================================
MIKE "GATOR" WHALEY KD4UGI H: (404) 881-9580 W: (404) 853-9902
wha...@camelia.mirc.gatech.edu 1027B Curran St. NW, Atlanta, GA 30318
===========================================================================
G A Venkatesh
>bhi...@ix.netcom.com (William Hixson) writes:
>
>>I would like to hear about flying experiences with the Velocity. over on the ultralight group
>>someone mentioned a fatal crash of one of these planes. I am considering
>>this kit and I certaioly want to hear the good and bad. Canard planes
>>always are touted as safer. Are they really? Do pilots take too much
>>advantage of this "safety and get themselves in trouble?I know how this can be
>
>Apopka, FL, in hte early part of 1993 (I think). What happened is this:
>Neil owned Velocity number 1 or 2 (his was really one of the prototypes)
>and when they did the research to fix the deep-stall problem, he apparently
>decided that since the problem was difficult to get into in the first place
>and it would have meant he had to build all new wings (which were supplied
>free to all Velocity owners with the old wings), he thought it would be okay
>to fly with the old ones. And it really was... almost. One day, Air Traffic
>Control in Orlando told him in a positive control area to fly on a course
>which put him something like one-eighth of a mile behind an airliner landing
>at MCO. He flew into the wake turbulence, got inverted, and the aircraft
>entered an INVERTED deep stall. He talked to the controllers all the way down,
>specifically mentioning "turbulence" and "jetwash". Neil was killed in the
It is also important to note that in that particular accident it was a
combination of three things that TOGETHER made the crash fatal
1. Being flipped in the wake turbulence
2. Neil's own modifications to the strakes to increase the fuel capacity by
extending the fuel area further into the aft part of the strake.
3. Less than half load of fuel in the tank that made the remaining fuel
collect in the aft part of the extended fuel-area and dramatically change
the CG when flipped inverted.
I believe that the absence of ANY one of those factors may have prevented
the crash. Quite unfortunate.
venky
Richard Lanning
>
>>1. Being flipped in the wake turbulence
>>
>>2. Neil's own modifications to the strakes to increase the fuel capacity by
>> extending the fuel area further into the aft part of the strake.
>>
>>3. Less than half load of fuel in the tank that made the remaining fuel
>> collect in the aft part of the extended fuel-area and dramatically change
>> the CG when flipped inverted.
>>
>>I believe that the absence of ANY one of those factors may have prevented
>>the crash. Quite unfortunate.
>>
You bring to mind an interesting concern. Just how extensive is flight testing
of homebuilts by the designers? Take this case for example. Let us assume
that no modifications were made to the strake but conditions 1 and 3 still
occurred (though with the fuel now simply collecting in the aft portion of
the standard strake). Can we be assured that under these conditions the
aircraft would have been recoverable?
Essentially my concern is how much testing is done for unusual conditions
and aircraft attitudes? Certainly, the number of possibilities are limitless
but there should be a fair number of tests which can be conducted that would
give an owner a relatively high level of confidence in the ability of the
aircraft and pilot to recover from an unusual situation. Getting oneself
into an inverted situation is not all that far fetched. Certain homebuilts are
not built for aerobatics so does this mean they were never tested for recovery
from inverted flight? Does a homebuilder receive any documentation attesting
to the degree of testing that their particular aircraft design has received?
st...@gcomm.com
Does anyone know if the NTSB reports are available by anonymous FTP
somewhere? I'd sure like to read the NTSB report on the Velocity crash
near Orlando in early 1993.
-- Bob Stein
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| . The Galacticomm Demo System - 305.583.7808 - Home of The Major BBS . |
| . Telnet/FTP: gcomm.com (199.227.15.16) - WWW: http://www.gcomm.com/ . |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Freshour
>
>In article <1994Oct14....@knight.vf.ge.com>
>lan...@xvnews.unconfigured.domain (Richard Lanning) writes:
>
>> You bring to mind an interesting concern. Just how extensive is flight testing
>> of homebuilts by the designers? Take this case for example. Let us assume
>> that no modifications were made to the strake but conditions 1 and 3 still
>> occurred (though with the fuel now simply collecting in the aft portion of
>> the standard strake). Can we be assured that under these conditions the
>> aircraft would have been recoverable?
>>
>> Essentially my concern is how much testing is done for unusual conditions
>> and aircraft attitudes? Certainly, the number of possibilities are limitless
>> but there should be a fair number of tests which can be conducted that would
>> give an owner a relatively high level of confidence in the ability of the
>> aircraft and pilot to recover from an unusual situation. Getting oneself
>> into an inverted situation is not all that far fetched. Certain homebuilts are
>> not built for aerobatics so does this mean they were never tested for recovery
>> from inverted flight? Does a homebuilder receive any documentation attesting
>> to the degree of testing that their particular aircraft design has received?
>
>This is a good question but in the case of this Velocity, I'm not sure
>enough emphasis was given to the extent of the modifications that went
>into this ill fated airplane. I remember reading in this group that
>the Velocity designer was addamently apposed to what the builder was
>doing saying that it would adversely affect the center of gravity. The
>builder went ahead anyway.
>
>The inverted question is pretty interesting and worth some band space I
>feel. I doubt that the Velocity was tested in that fashion and I'd be
>surprised to hear that other designers or manufacturers do either.
>Would you intentionally invert your personal homebuilt and kick it into
>a spin? Mine won't be capable of inverted flight, or at least not at
>negative G's. So I'm not sure it's a relevant mode to test for. Are
>airliners tested in inverted flight? Business jets? Any standard
>category airplane? I don't know but I am curious.
>
>Corky Scott
>
No, airliners and bizjets are NOT required to fly inverted for FAA certification!!
--Ralph Freshour
Charles K. Scott
lan...@xvnews.unconfigured.domain (Richard Lanning) writes:
> You bring to mind an interesting concern. Just how extensive is flight testing
> of homebuilts by the designers? Take this case for example. Let us assume
> that no modifications were made to the strake but conditions 1 and 3 still
> occurred (though with the fuel now simply collecting in the aft portion of
> the standard strake). Can we be assured that under these conditions the
> aircraft would have been recoverable?
>
> Essentially my concern is how much testing is done for unusual conditions
> and aircraft attitudes? Certainly, the number of possibilities are limitless
> but there should be a fair number of tests which can be conducted that would
> give an owner a relatively high level of confidence in the ability of the
> aircraft and pilot to recover from an unusual situation. Getting oneself
> into an inverted situation is not all that far fetched. Certain homebuilts are
> not built for aerobatics so does this mean they were never tested for recovery
> from inverted flight? Does a homebuilder receive any documentation attesting
> to the degree of testing that their particular aircraft design has received?
This is a good question but in the case of this Velocity, I'm not sure
SidLloyd
lan...@xvnews.unconfigured.domain (Richard Lanning) writes:
<stuff deleted>
>Essentially my concern is how much testing is done for unusual conditions
>and aircraft attitudes? Certainly, the number of possibilities are
limitless
>but there should be a fair number of tests which can be conducted that
would
>give an owner a relatively high level of confidence in the ability of the
>aircraft and pilot to recover from an unusual situation. Getting oneself
>into an inverted situation is not all that far fetched. Certain
homebuilts are
>not built for aerobatics so does this mean they were never tested for
recovery
>from inverted flight? Does a homebuilder receive any documentation
attesting
>to the degree of testing that their particular aircraft design has
received?
From what I've seen (qualifier- I've only been in the homebuilt segment
for 3 years) not a lot of testing is done. Velocity did some deep stall
testing but I don't think it covered unusual attitudes (well I guess the
deep stall WAS unusual...) or aggravated stalls.
Nat Puffer just did a test series on the Cozy but it also did not include
unusual attitudes or agravated stalls.
Maybe that's one of the reasons certificated airplanes cost so much. They
are required to do extensive testing.
Sid Lloyd
Cozy IV under construction
Jeffry Stetson
says:
True. Schweizer Aircraft, in certificating the 1-35, was forced to pay
an environmental sound engineering firm 25000 circa 1975 dollars to
verify that their *glider* met the Part 23 *noise* requirements. Now
*that's* extensive testing. :-( Feel safer?
BTW, the 1-35 was the last glider built & certificated in the United
States ...
Jeffry Stetson