REFLECTOR: Take Off Performance

Tom Martino tmartino at troubleshooter.com
Sun Apr 9 13:16:34 CDT 2006


Cirrus is generic and pretty ... Velocity is like a stripper!
 
-----Original Message-----
From: reflector-bounces at tvbf.org [mailto:reflector-bounces at tvbf.org] On
Behalf Of Ron Brown
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 12:07 PM
To: Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list
Subject: Re: REFLECTOR: Take Off Performance
 
I would suggest that the pusher is the problem.  With the Cirrus, you
have prop blast washing over the wings and tail, improving low speed
lift.  
 
Our Velocities are depending purely on aircraft speed for lifting air.  
 
Although the SR22 is a sexy plane, the Velocity draws the bigger crowds
with the most questions.
 
But, I love them both!!!
 
 
 
 
	----- Original Message ----- 
	From: Tom Martino <mailto:tmartino at troubleshooter.com>  
	To: Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list
<mailto:reflector at tvbf.org>  
	Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 12:23 PM
	Subject: RE: REFLECTOR: Take Off Performance
	 
	When I first looked into Velocities, I realized that a 200
Horsepower Velocity is a two-place plane at best.  That is why I went
with a IO-540 (generating 310 hsp) on a 173RG Elite.  If the truth be
told ... I still don't think it is an adequate 4 place.
	 
	When I compare the canard to my other plane - A SR22 Cirrus
(also 310 horsepower) - you soon realize that the Velocity is a
ground-lover.
	 
	My field is at 5500 ft and I have a four-blade MT prop.
	 
	The Cirrus is much heavier ... but jumps off the ground compared
to the Velocity.
	 
	Once flying ... the performance is about equal.
	 
	Is it the canard that makes it sluggish on take-off?  That's the
only tin I can surmise.
	 
	-----Original Message-----
	From: reflector-bounces at tvbf.org
[mailto:reflector-bounces at tvbf.org] On Behalf Of NMFlyer1 at aol.com
	Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 9:11 AM
	To: reflector at tvbf.org
	Subject: Re: REFLECTOR: Take Off Performance
	 
	When I went to the last Texas Velocity event in TKI, I was
amazed at how much runway Velocities took to get off the ground. It
wasn't very hot that weekend, and the field elevation was much lower
than here in New Mexico.  That weekend was an eye opener for me, and
caused me to go with my current engine choice (340 HP 4.3L, Aluminum V-6
Chevy). 
	 
	Since my field elevation is 4800 MSL, density altitude (DA) is
always a concern. On a summer day out here, about 25% of your horsepower
is gone, just to DA, and that doesn't include the effects on prop and
wings. If had put a 200 HP IO-360 in my 173, I would be trying to take
off from a 4300' runway, in a canard, with 150HP (on a good day) high
and hot,... NOT a good idea... just ask Scott... he's been in here a
couple times. Notice he is changing engines in his V also. 
	 
	So my plan for high DA takeoffs here has many parts: 
	 
	    More Horsepower!!! That should get me to takeoff speed much
faster.
	 
	    Lots of torque, and a huge 76" 3-blade constant speed prop.
	    
	    The 173 Wing, for slower T/O & Landing speeds, and better
high altitude performance.
	 
	    I left the Elevator cuffs off. Am putting the VG's on. 
	 
	    I reworked the rudders. I have about 2.5" deflection before
the brakes touch.. and over         5.5" total rudder travel. That
should help on takeoff and reduce brake use on takeoff &
crosswinds. 
	 
	    
	Wish me luck. I pick up my ceramic coated exhaust tomorrow and
finish up the engine monitor wiring this week. Pretty close to engine
start... finally. 
	 
	Kurt 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	
________________________________

	_______________________________________________
	To change your email address, visit
http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
	
	Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
	user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
	Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
	Check old archives:
http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/private/reflector/attachments/20060409/d8768cfe/attachment-0001.htm


More information about the Reflector mailing list