What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-10 VS Velocity (flame suit on)

S

Sig600

Well Known Member
I realize asking this question here is probably like a fart in church, and probably will buy me a one way ticket south when I die....

Did any of you 10 builders look at anything else as a family hauler? Was comparing numbers last night out of boredom and curiosity if I were to ever build (or need) a family wagon. Ive always loved canard designs, and was browsing Velocitys website. Was afraid I may burst into flames. The two designs are very close performance wise and cost wise. Similar payloads, RV is bigger inside, Velocity is a little faster. Just curious. If you want to kill me, make it quick.
 
They are very cool planes, but just look at all the places you wouldn't be able to go. Unless you're just a city A to city B person. In that case maybe a "baby starship" is perfect.
 
I personally know of one individual who bought a very nice Velocity for family travel. Within a year, he started an RV-10. As soon as the -10 was completed, he sold the Velocity.
His wife rode in the velocity one time! She loves the -10.

When you talk about similar performance figures, you obviously aren't talking about runway compatibility or control responses.

I've flown several examples of each and they really don't compare.
 
Touche

L.Adamson said:
If I had to work with composites all the time..........I'd want to die anyway...

L.Adamson --- aluminum RV
Click to expand...

If I had to pound rivets all the time..... I'd want to die anyway.

To each his own. We're 95% finished on our Cozy Mk-IV, and composites or rivets, it is all what you get used to.

As a canard builder I'll be the first one to admit that takeoff and landing distance on the canards is significantly longer than most of the RVs. Cruise speed, on the other hand, usually goes to the canards, on a seat for seat, even horsepower comparison.
 
City to city only

I flew in both before I ended up with an RV7. If I could own two planes the second would have been the canard. The landing speed and improved runways needed would not fit with our fly/camp repeat dream :rolleyes:
If I was only going city to city and didn't mind fiberglass I would be on a different forum right now :D
 
We have a nice Velocity on our field.

Look at the stall speeds I think you will be surprised. I can fly my -10 a whole lot slower than the Velocity on final and touch down. To me that means survivability in the event of an off field landing. The -10 is much easier to fly also, Velocity,.... twitchy, no flaps, little rudder control.

Resale? NO comparison.

JMHO.
 
RV-10 won for me..

Sig,

I'm not afraid to admit that I too did some hard thinking about the Velocity before I pulle dthe trigger on the RV-10. I liked the look of the canards as well and of course I liked the speed and retractable gear of the Velocity XL. However, I live in Colorado and have seen Velocities land here at altititude. They use up a lot of runway and seem to look pitchy on takeoff and landing. Not a good thing when the prop is so close to the runway... I also didn't like the idea of working for years using some pretty harsh chemicals in my garage. Aluminum made sense for me. I believe the 10 met all of my overall mission goals as a 4-place cruiser much better than the Velocity. The last little kicker is the tremendous community support that Vans has, which is proven every day on this site and others.

Mike
 
I love the velocity, but I'm not sure I'd own one.
they're runway hogs at lower altitudes too, for obvious reasons (prop)
 
I owned a Velocity prior to the RV. The XL and RV10 are very similar in both cost and performance. 10 is somewhat better at low speeds and Velo at high speeds.
The bad rap (runway hog) for Velos stems mostly from SE models with fixed pitch props. For them, "runway hog" is an understatement. They are cruise optimized and have a thinner wing then the XL with much less HP. The specs say they are close on takeoff, climb and landing--not true. Most XL takeoffs will be less than 1000'. Fatter wing and CS prop help with the landings also-higher speeds needed since canard designs generally do not have flaps.
They will both carry a good load.
Don't get me wrong, I love my RV and would prefer a 10 over an XL BUT when you are at a fly in or airshow there is always a much larger crowd around the Velocity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6dUIYaxrio
 
I'll readily admit......

I think the Velocity is a beautiful airplane, but I would not enjoy flying it out of my 1500'Strip.

And after building a Dragonfly MKII, I learned that "compost" construction is not my bag.
 
I considered it and even tracked a velocity down to sit in. I hated it because it was cramped, the seats were at a level that didn't work for my legs, and there wasn't much space for baggage.

The -10 was a better design for a the family wagon and it also has a lower stall speed - which is nice for precious cargo.

Disclaimer: I wanted a -7 but my wife would only let me build a plane with 4 seats because we had to "plan for kids". It's a good thing I listened. One is 18 months and another is on the way for a June arrival. I'm done here because I'm not building a bigger airplane!
 
Another consideration

I believe it was Kit Planes magazine that recently ran an article on the dangers of canards. As a safety feature, the canard is meant to stall before the main wing. At altitude this is a great feature however, in the landing flare a few feet above the ground a canard stall can cause the nose wheel to hit the ground first and this has been blamed for a number of canard landing accidents.
 
Av8torTom said:
I believe it was Kit Planes magazine that recently ran an article on the dangers of canards. As a safety feature, the canard is meant to stall before the main wing. At altitude this is a great feature however, in the landing flare a few feet above the ground a canard stall can cause the nose wheel to hit the ground first and this has been blamed for a number of canard landing accidents.
Click to expand...

Yeah see, blaming the design is unfair. Pilots that don't know their airplane. I'm used to things that land fast anyway.

Just all food for thought, wanted to get some opinions. It was all just late night web browsing and insomnia. Maybe someday it will be a legitimate concern. Ther other contender was the Sportsman 2+2.
 
Sig600 said:
Couldn't find a forum, unless that was your point! ;)
Click to expand...

lol. Nope, not my point at all. It was a serious curiosity.

Of course on an RV forum, we're all biased that way. I really was wondering what the Velocity folks had to say.

-Jim
 
I disagree

Sig600 said:
Yeah see, blaming the design is unfair...
Click to expand...

We pick airplanes to fit our missions. We factor many characteristics into that decision, speed, performance, payload, safety just to name a few. I believe that the canard design is inherently less safe than the more conventional designs and should be factored in when making your decision. Maybe when all of us make perfect landings all the time this won't be an issue... in 40 years of flying I have yet to meet that person.
 
I flew one.

Once! I was never more grateful to be back on the ground.
A friend of mine has a 300 horse retractable XL and we went up one day. Whew!! roll oscillations immediately after takeoff and a pile of runway used up. I showed him how to learn power settings for gear speed, downwind and so on.

Oh, it's fast alright but at my age Sig, forced landing speed is of a concern, not that it's inevitable but possible and at the speed that bugger lands at...it'd be rough to pull off successfully. I thought about going in to our 2600' grass strip at our EAA clubhouse....no way! With the -10, no more than 1500'.

Best,
 
I considered the Velocity, the Sportsman 2+2, and the -10 and the 10 won for me due to the community, completion rate, and the perception of metal work being more enjoyable than composite work.

The Velocity looks awesome so if it had better takeoff/landing performance it might have tipped the scale. I loved the "baby starship" comment. Never heard that before.
 
mission

I had a need for a bigger hauler and considered the RV10, Bear Hawk, & Murphy Moose. I have two home builts, a RV8 and a Super Cub.

Decided that building was going to take too long, I was 63 then. Two years ago I bought a Cessna 180J. It does the job and I did not have to wait 2 years to build. Wrote a ck and flew it home. Flown it 244 hours since then. It has been the best decision for me.
Your milege my vary.
 
SUV's of the air

Since Jay's already committed heresy I'll admit we have a Piper Saratoga for the Family-Vacation trips. We have 1/2 an RV-6 for the Mazda Miata trips.

I have a spreadsheet dedicated to justifying trading the Toga for an RV-10 and (assuming I buy one built) the pay off is so far out we can't make it work. I got an insurance quote from A...co for a hypothetical -10 and it was more than the Toga (assuming little time in type)! For a Velocity you might want to call the insurance company first to avoid a big surprise.

Our Toga is a hauler and has carried a kitchen sink, cooktop, and lots of big dogs. The annuals are what kills me. And I do as much work as I can on it.

Neil
Toga, RV-6(?2), Murphy Renegade(?4)
 
AllThumbs said:
Our Toga is a hauler and has carried a kitchen sink, cooktop, and lots of big dogs. The annuals are what kills me. And I do as much work as I can on it.
Click to expand...

there was a guy looking for partners on a turbo 'toga locally. What a great airplane but just can't stomach the 20GPH. Man it'll haul anything.
 
That's a toughie...IMHO...

I seriously looked at the Velo SE/FG for a long time. No trips to the Idaho back country (bummer) in the Velo.

Lot's more room in the Velo than the 9/7 especially for baggage etc. If the new request by the EAA/AOPA ever goes through the Velo SE would qualify (so would the 9/7) XL and 10 wouldn't.

I rode/flew a friends first generation Velo SE and really liked the way it handeled - especially in rough Texas summer air. Of course I hadn't been in an RV at that point.

If I was looking at the XL vs the 10 I'd lean toward the 10. I'd think the 10 would definitly win the the build times race especially quick-build vs quick-build. After starting the Cozy MK IV I think we like the alum construction (Van's kits - tab a into slot b) better than composite plans built. The epoxy we used went to Haz-Mat status (probably for a reason) :eek:

I know I keep hearing from the alum folks how the slower speed of the RV is more survivable but I've seen people walk away from crashed canards that probably wouldn't in their alum cousins in the same situation. The composite structure is stronger. The alum structure lighter. Each has their pluses depending on the situation. Just something to think about.

The control feel in a canard is more sensitive (according to friends that have flown both). The canard varients are really finger sensitive with a much shorter throw than a stick (even a Van's RV). So I can see where it would take longer to get used to smooth flying in a canard than possibly an RV (just a guess).

My dream was always a quasi 4 passenger (2 plus lot's of baggage/golf clubs, etc). I was one of the many that begged Van's for a 4 passenger and then life changed enough that I just couldn't afford it. Now I'm begging for the Van's equivilant of the Velo SE (2+ & baggage based upon using a 360 up front).

Support, resale and did I mention support all go to the RV's. Others have support including factory but it's hard to match the factory AND this forum with anything else!

Bob
 
I didn't think about insurance... and a production plane is out of the question (unless I start making a LOT more money). Resale of the -10 vs the Velo is also a fantastic point.

Lot of good discussion points on here. Obviously a lot of bias towards the RV-10. SURPRISE! What I would be curious of, is a cost and time analysis between the 2 over a given trip. Say two adults, two kids, 100#'s of bags, 1000nm trip.

Av8Tom, I bet Burt Rutan would argue (as would I) about the inherent safety of the design. How many stall/spin accidents have canards been in, and how many inflight break ups have there been (look at the G loading of the Velocity)? Conversely how is a landing accident due to poor airspeed management in a canard design any different than a traditional airplane? If you stall on final or in the flare, you come down either way. Same with the Lancair 320/360. It lands fast due to design and smaller horiz stab, get slow and suffer the consequences, it's not the planes fault if you don't color inside the lines.
 
I had planned on my own little spaceship

Until the -10 was unveiled.(I still favor the velocity or any canard for looks)

I started our -10sb 12/1/2009. I am hopping on a jet to Fl in 3 hrs for transition training with David Maib, first flight very shortly after Thanksgiving. We did everything but cloth seat covers...all in 2000 hrs and less than 2 yrs.

I bet I would not even be on the panel yet if I had chosen the spaceship. Oh and insurance for a 140 pilot, don't even want to think about it.
 
bags

Don't think you could really get 100-lbs of bags into the Velocity volume wise. It's pretty tight back there, not to mention the awkward loading- no baggage door! Much more space in the -10 for bags and easy to load. Agree with Phil- not comfortable for me (I'm tall) in the Velo, and strange seating position for me.

Dwight
 
Sig600 said:
I didn't think about insurance... and a production plane is out of the question (unless I start making a LOT more money). Resale of the -10 vs the Velo is also a fantastic point.
Click to expand...

I have been watching the velo prices for awhile, compared to the 10 geeze, it seems you can get a basic velocity for not much more than the kit price. Maybe a little exaggeration there but you get my point.
 
Just some FYIs from a former Velo owner due to some of the comments.

* roomy, not cramped and quite comfy
* back seat has much more legroom than a 10 and is wider in most XL versions
* not that difficult a plane to land but is different
* VERY strong structure, something like 12gs
* doesn't stall, just sinks, you'd have to be about 20 knots below normal approach speeds at a high power setting for canard to drop out
 
philip_g said:
I have been watching the velo prices for awhile, compared to the 10 geeze, it seems you can get a basic velocity for not much more than the kit price. Maybe a little exaggeration there but you get my point.
Click to expand...

Yeah there is one that's been on the market for over a year, I've watched the price come down almost $60K... the asking price is way WAY below what the builder had to have put in it.
 
Sig600 said:
Yeah there is one that's been on the market for over a year, I've watched the price come down almost $60K... the asking price is way WAY below what the builder had to have put in it.
Click to expand...

to be fair there are some rv7's on the market I probably couldn't duplicate for the cost either, some of is just the market right now I'm sure.
 
A few reasons I'm going to go with a 10 over a velo:

-Pusher vs Tractor. I want to use grass strips, and don't want to kick stuff into the prop with the wheels.

-Composite vs Aluminum. I'm just personally more comfortable working with metal than fiberglass.

-Short field performance. The strip near my house that I want to be at some day is 2000'. And grass (see point 1).

-Window size. I fly with passengers that are slightly claustrophobic. Putting them in a 4 person plane is already tough. I want as much window area as I can get.

-THE COMMUNITY! You can't beat the support of THOUSANDS of builders in a forum like this!
 
if I found a killer deal on a velocity I really do think I'd pounce. they sure look nice, and would complete my mission just fine

re: the window size, haven't sat in one but the view looks pretty unobstructed in the velocity.
 
Last edited:
Bob Kuykendall said:
Just curious, are there pictures of a static load test somewhere that validate that figure?
Click to expand...

Velocity aircraft website lists the Velocity SE as having a "design" load of +12 and -7. From my understanding they were only tested to plus 6.
Having owned one I was VERY confident in the aircraft structure. There have been some accidents where folks have walked away that wouldn't have occurred in normal aircraft. I would also guess that Team Rocket felt comfortable enough with structural integrity to slap a rocket engine on otherwise stock airframes.
 
Here are the competion speeds of both

I took the excel file available for download at www.sportairrace.org for every race speed since the start of the league in 2007 deleted everything but velocities and RV-10 and sorted the remainder by speed. The results are listed below.

Bob Axsom

Race Record (RR)# Race Date Class Aircraft Type Pilot Speed Kts Speed MPH
46 AirVenture Cup 2007 7/23/2007 Sport Velocity XL-RG Shea, Patrick 207.81 239.14
783 Rocket 100, 2010 11/20/2010 RV Gold RV-10 Nafsinger, Nick 191.47 220.34
224 AirVenture Cup 2008 7/27/2008 Sport Velocity XL-RG Guerra, Rich 186.16 214.23
257 Grace Flight 2008 10/5/2008 Sport Velocity XL-RG Guerra, Rich 184.99 212.88
61 AirVenture Cup 2007 7/23/2007 Sport Velocity XL-RG Guerra, Rich 184.82 212.69
7 Taylor 100 2007 5/20/2007 Sport Velocity Dugas, Rene' 184.42 212.23
969 Big Sky Air Race 7/9/2011 RV Gold RV-10 Schmidt, Scott 184.14 211.91
137 Texoma 100, 2008 4/20/2008 Sport Velocity XL-RG Guerra, Rich 184.05 211.84
971 Big Sky Air Race 7/9/2011 RV Gold RV-10 Strasburg, Sean 183.43 211.08
756 Tennessee Valley Air Race 2010 10/30/2010 RV Gold RV-10 Arter, Warren 182.18 209.69
69 AirVenture Cup 2007 7/23/2007 Sprint Velocity 173RG Jones, Scott 178.24 205.12
451 Grace Flight 2009 10/4/2009 Sport Velocity XL-RG Guerra, Rich 175.77 202.27
408 AirVenture Cup 2009 7/27/2009 Sport Velocity XL-RG Sheehan, Jack & Shahld 173.14 199.25
73 AirVenture Cup 2007 7/23/2007 FX Blue Velocity SUV-FG Misier, Kenneth 172.47 198.48
1011 AirVenture Cup (TH) 2011 7/25/2011 RV Gold RV-10 Dawson-Townsend, Tim 159.89 184.00
22 Taylor 100 2007 5/20/2007 FX Blue Velocity Deeter, Mike 153.39 176.52
672 Great Canadian Air Rally 2010 8/22/2010 Sport RV-10 Kristensen, Ivan 150.09 172.72
 
This has turned into a really informative thread. Maybe we should get DR to start an RV vs. XXXX section?
 
Bob Axsom said:
I took the excel file available for download at www.sportairrace.org for every race speed since the start of the league in 2007 deleted everything but velocities and RV-10 and sorted the remainder by speed. The results are listed below.

Bob Axsom

Race Record (RR)# Race Date Class Aircraft Type Pilot Speed Kts Speed MPH
46 AirVenture Cup 2007 7/23/2007 Sport Velocity XL-RG Shea, Patrick 207.81 239.14
...
Click to expand...

Not really a fair comparison. One of the Velocities I flew had a 310+ HP Conti out back and one had a 200 HP IO-360 Lyc.
 
OK

N941WR said:
Not really a fair comparison. One of the Velocities I flew had a 310+ HP Conti out back and one had a 200 HP IO-360 Lyc.
Click to expand...

And yet these are real numbers from the genaric designs flown in competition with the sole intention of obtaining maximum speed.

Bob Axsom
 
Local Recon Intel

Was heading back home from work and stopped by a small airport. Poked my head into a hanger to chat with some guys.

They are building a Velocity with 2 160hp IO-320s! Both pushers and mounted 1/4 of the wing from the fuse.

Looked awesome. Performance will be about the same, but great for flying to the islands.

I'd say... 10 out of 10 on the Looks Cool factor.
 
From a aerodynamics point of view

A couple of points from Chapter 4 of "Aircraft Design: A conceptual Approach" 4th edition, Raymer, Daniel P
> The canard design has higher drag than a similarly sized conventional configuration
> Inability to add flaps for high lift situations like landing causes the wing size to be increased or landing and takeoff speeds increased
> The aft wing flies in the downwash of the canard causing the aft wing to be presented at a higher aoa to achieve the same lift. This tilts the lift vector aft creating a new drag component.
> For the canard to be stable, the CG must be moved forward, causing the canard to have a higher wing loading than the main wing. the smaller canard is less efficient at producing lift than the main wing. The main wing works less and has to increase in size as a result.
> The smaller frontal area and smoother composite construction is how the canard counteracts the other drag effects

Related to pushers:
> Cooling drag is higher in a pusher
> The prop has to operate in the wake of the fuselage, reducing efficiency.
 
BJohnson said:
A couple of points from Chapter 4 of "Aircraft Design: A conceptual Approach" 4th edition, Raymer, Daniel P
> The canard design has higher drag than a similarly sized conventional configuration
> Inability to add flaps for high lift situations like landing causes the wing size to be increased or landing and takeoff speeds increased
> The aft wing flies in the downwash of the canard causing the aft wing to be presented at a higher aoa to achieve the same lift. This tilts the lift vector aft creating a new drag component.
> For the canard to be stable, the CG must be moved forward, causing the canard to have a higher wing loading than the main wing. the smaller canard is less efficient at producing lift than the main wing. The main wing works less and has to increase in size as a result.
> The smaller frontal area and smoother composite construction is how the canard counteracts the other drag effects

Related to pushers:
> Cooling drag is higher in a pusher
> The prop has to operate in the wake of the fuselage, reducing efficiency.
Click to expand...

@ notes to Daniel's theories:
1. If they are draggier why can they be so much more efficient? Never hear of 50 mpg in other common designs. How many O-235 planes have flown from Phoenix to a couple hundred miles further than Oshkosh, then back to Osh on one tank of 50 gallons? A Varieze does it every year.
2. If the main wings must be so huge, why does a Varieze have such tiny wings?
3. With all that 'drag' inherant in the design how can just a smaller nose counteract it all?
4. Cooling drag can be equal given the amount of effort put into the design. They also have had good luck with plenums, downdraft, etc. When the main inlet is a NACA and the flow through the cowls is measured, as many have, the drag is as good or better than 'most' traditional designs, which of course, can also be improved.
Just sayin'......
 
philip_g said:
Not gonna lie. I kinda want a velocity now. Wonder how they do outside in the weather without a hangar.
Click to expand...

A Long EZ has been sitting outside at Schaumberg, IL for over 20 years and is just now about ready for a repaint. Has been covered in the snow but still hangin' in there!
 
Not for grass

I taxied behind one as I arrive at this year's Pecan Plantation fly-in. I won't make that mistake again. We used the grass for the taxiway. Pilot was using high power settings but moving extremely slowly. I figured he/she was fearful about the nose gear digging in or perhaps the airplane was oscillating too much if it moved faster. Whatever the story, it was the lengthiest taxi time I've had since leaving Oshkosh on a Friday morning. And all the dirt and grass that blew into my plane didn't help my attitude. Velocity looks to be definitely a hard surface kind of airplane. (Hope the pilot never goes to Oshkosh where grass taxiing is the norm.)

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top