REFLECTOR: Take Off Performance

[rodney brim]

Tom, 
No one is talking about it, but moving the person in the co-pilot seat to the back seat on take-off, definitely shortens the take-off.  The canard rotates quicker and the main wing starts flying a little quicker.  I've done some informal testing with a 230lb person in the co-pilot seat, but don't have any exact numbers, but using the runway markers looked like we reduce take-off role more than 200 feet with just two people in the Velocity.

Rodney Brim


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Tom Martino" <tmartino at troubleshooter.com>
Reply-To: Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list <reflector at tvbf.org>
Date:  Sun, 9 Apr 2006 10:23:54 -0600

>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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>