Venus II  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: JVB
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Pattern Flying >> Venus II
Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   next >   >>  

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Venus II - 3/5/2006 1:12:27 PM   
ekir


 

Posts: 206
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: Howey-in-the-Hills, FL, USA
Status: offline 		I am looking for an ARF that I could do lower class pattern flying, plus a sport plane that will track well. I am looking to put something that would use something like an OS 120 4-stroke.

Do you think the Venus II will be a good choice? If not, any ideas will be appreciated

Thanks,

Ed
       Post #: 1

RE: Venus II - 3/5/2006 1:26:04 PM   
vbortone


 

Posts: 233
Joined: 4/6/2004
From: Olathe, KS, USA
Status: offline 		Check the last Model Aviation Magazine (March 2006). The article by Eric Henderson on page 97 could very useful for you. If you have more question Eric e-mail is listed in the article. I am sure he can give you more details and options.

Good luck,

Vicente Bortone

(in reply to ekir)
       Post #: 2

RE: Venus II - 3/5/2006 1:53:44 PM   
marmitas



Posts: 138
Joined: 4/4/2004
From: Webster, NY, USA
Status: offline 		I am in the process of building (assembling) a Venus II for the same purpose that you mention. So far these are my observations:


  • Excellent instructions.
  • All the parts are laser cut and the fit is perfect they did a great job gluing the joints.
  • Very neat covering all the edges sealed very well. They use standard MonoKote.
  • Unlike many ARFs this plane comes with high quality american hardware I did not have to replace anything.
  • All the control surfaces were pre-sloted so doing the hinges was very fast and accurate.

I'm taking photos as I go and may do a build thread.

(in reply to ekir)
       Post #: 3

RE: Venus II - 3/5/2006 3:07:06 PM   
CGRetired



Posts: 4168
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Galloway, NJ, USA
Status: online 		Our LHS just got one in last week. I put a down payment on it and will pick it up in the next couple of weeks. I had a Venus 40 and loved it. Unfortunately, however, I had an unexpected surface impact with it during take off.. was strange.. added throttle, rear wheel came off the ground, I added elevator but there was a pretty good crosswind. I over-reacted, went inverted, hit the ground pretty hard. Interestingly enough the wing was untouched but the fuse was broken up in just about every conceivable place.. split in half just aft of the engine.

I have an Excelleron 90 that I like a lot but have had some issues with the engine. I intend to use that engine on the Venus II because I can mount it upright rather than upside down, then put a Magnum 1.20 on the Excelleron.. maybe... not sure yet. I will have to see if the latest fix works on the enigne performance.

Anyway, my reason for choosing the Venus II is based on my experience with how the Venus 40 performed. 'Great Plane'.

DS

_____________________________

Skylark 70 - OS 75 AX; Venus II - OS 1.20 AX; Tiger 120 - OS 1.20 AX; Protege - OS .75 AX. Airtronics - Spektrum. AMA 705964. Semper Paratus!

(in reply to marmitas)
       Post #: 4

RE: Venus II - 3/5/2006 7:38:17 PM   
RobertC



Posts: 280
Joined: 3/6/2002
From: Redmond, WA, USA
Status: offline 		I also have a "soft spot" for the Venus (it was my very first ARF!) so I just had to pick-up it's bigger brother. For those of you interested, here are the weights of my kit:

Fuselage, Cowl, Canopy, and tail-feathers: 2lbs 3.6oz
Hardware (tank, engine-mount, spinner, pushrods, nuts and bolts, etc.): 12.2oz <note: all pieces still in plastic bags>
Wheel Pants: 2.3 oz <note: still in plastic bag>
Wing (both halves, including ailerons): 24.4oz

Total: ~5lbs

As noted above, all the "main" pieces (fuse, wing, tail) were taken out of the plastic bags; all hardware was still in the bags so-- even with the extra weight of glue-- it should still come out a few ounces less than this total.

I have a YS .91FZ that needs a home (and it is a real stump-puller!). Should be able to keep the RTF weight under 9lbs so it should do fine in this airframe.

(in reply to CGRetired)
       Post #: 5

RE: Venus II - 3/11/2006 3:05:31 AM   
LarryC


 

Posts: 405
Joined: 10/9/2002
From: Brookland, AR, USA
Status: offline 		I'm just getting started on my Venus 2.

I have the wing halves joined; nothing special to say there. I had to sand the joiner just a tad to get a good fit, but after that it went together straight. The ply section of the joiner isn't too thick, with most of the joiner made of balsa. I'll probably glass the center section just for good measure.

The fuse is just wide enough to make the engine mounting a little difficult. In order to use a stock muffler, you have to angle the engine so that it requires a large cutout in the side of the cowling. The engine mounts far enough forward that I think I will use a header and try to get the muffler mounted in the air outlet area in the sloped lower front of the fuselage. Has any one else come up with a better solution for this? I really don't want to have the engine hanging out the of the side of the cowling.

Unless I have a change of plan, I'll be using a YS-110 on a Hyde mount.

Larry

(in reply to RobertC)
       Post #: 6

RE: Venus II - 3/11/2006 3:46:17 AM   
jetmech43


 

Posts: 592
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Bartlett, TN, USA
Status: offline 		hey Larry good to see you are doing a Venus, seems like a nice plane, I just got a deal on a Focus, that im trying to finish

_____________________________

smooth pass

(in reply to LarryC)
       Post #: 7

RE: Venus II - 3/11/2006 6:21:48 PM   
RobertC



Posts: 280
Joined: 3/6/2002
From: Redmond, WA, USA
Status: offline 		I haven't actually mounted my YS .91 yet (will do it today sometime) but it looked to me like you could mount the engine inverted at a *slight* angle (not enough that it protrudes from the side of the cowl at all) and have the muffler still pointing out the bottom of the plane. Granted, it is on one side of the bottom (not directly in the nice little tunnel that GP designed into this plane) but it should keep from needing to cut the cowling at all for either the cylinder or the muffler-- other than the usual opening on the bottom. I really want to keep the cowl attachment/removal from needing to remove the muffler every time!

I agree that the build so far has been pretty uneventful. I can say that I like the "pre-cut" CA hinges (as opposed to needing to cut them from a sheet myself... yeah, I know, I'm lazy! )

(in reply to LarryC)
       Post #: 8

RE: Venus II - 3/12/2006 6:27:10 PM   
palomar 81


 

Posts: 4
Joined: 9/3/2004
From: Oceanside, CA, USA
Status: offline 		I just measured the weight of all of the parts contained in the box :
All of the main parts including the fus.with the canopy, wing, and the tail feathers came to 61oz. The balance of parts including the control rods came to 34.6oz. This comes to a tidy 6lbs if you round off the 4oz.
I glassed the center section of the wing because I thought the center attachment block looked too light to suit my taste.
Be sure to releave the center of the two small bulkheads in the belly pan to clear the slight diheral in the bottom of the wing (and the added glass).
I had some small problems with the paper tubes in the belly pan but I am not complaining.
May the weeds in our garden turn out to be wild flowers.

(in reply to RobertC)
       Post #: 9

RE: Venus II - 3/12/2006 6:51:21 PM   
RobertC



Posts: 280
Joined: 3/6/2002
From: Redmond, WA, USA
Status: offline 		Not sure how yours ended-up almost one pound more than mine-- did you weigh everything while still in the plastic bags? I am pretty confident that I can keep mine under 8lbs (having weighed my engine and electronics).

I did get the YS mounted last night and, well, I was partially right. I can mount the engine so that the cylinder does not protrude from the side of the cowl and the muffler still exits on the bottom. However, because of the curved shape of the lower front of the cowl, the cylinder-head will hit this area (and require cutting). It shouldn't be too bad, and again my goal was just to make attachment/removal of the cowl painless-- not avoid cutting holes in it. Anyway, I'll post some pictures when I get the cowling trimmed correctly.

One other note for those currently assembling the plane... if you are mounting your servos in the rear take advantage of the fact that the servo-cutouts are close to the horizontal stab. You should be able to position the stab and then glue it via these cutouts (CA would be real easy, epoxy would require a bit more work). Makes installation very clean and you can avoid excess glue.

(in reply to palomar 81)
       Post #: 10

RE: Venus II - 3/19/2006 6:30:57 PM   
rcstavros



Posts: 68
Joined: 3/29/2003
From: Thessaloniki, GREECE
Status: online 		Hello everyone,
as I am trying to decide which plane will be best for my YS110 (F3A use) I have the dilemma between Venus II and Excelleron 90.
I know for sure that the Excelleron is a very capable F3A plane but the quality of the covering and hardware is not very good.
On the other hand the flying abilities of the Venus II are not known but I think that the quality of the kit is better.
As the two planes cost about the same here (and also the decoration is similar) and of the same size which one would you choose ?
Any thoughts on this CGRetired ?
TIA
Stavros Ioannidis

(in reply to RobertC)
       Post #: 11

RE: Venus II - 4/3/2006 1:40:26 PM   
flymeaway


 

Posts: 295
Joined: 4/20/2004
From: howell, MI, USA
Status: offline 		Anyone get a chance to fly this bird yet? I've put this on my list which is down to: Venus II, Excelleron 90, or Epsilon 60. I will be running a ST G90 for power. Any input on which plane would perform better with this engine would be appreciated. I've never flown pattern so ultimate performance isn't a key consideration for me at this point - just a decent true plane to learn sportsman on.

(in reply to rcstavros)
       Post #: 12

RE: Venus II - 4/3/2006 2:06:35 PM   
patternrules


 

Posts: 547
Joined: 7/28/2002
From: Nineveh, IN, USA
Status: offline 		I had the Epsilon (7 1/2 LB) with a OS 91 and it flew great, I did build the kit. Most ARF's are to heavy for any real performance with a 90, a friend had the Excelleron with a Thunder Tiger 120 and done fine but weight was more like 8 1/2 lb which is about right for most ARF's.
The Epsilon is a 60/90 don't really like this lable as all are 90 size, and most need a 120 to really fly them with good power, go by weight and size.
60 engine = 6 1/2 LB max
90 engine = 7 1/2 LB max
120 engine 9 1/2 LB max
Steve Maxwell

< Message edited by patternrules -- 4/3/2006 2:13:21 PM >

_____________________________

Steve Maxwell

(in reply to flymeaway)
       Post #: 13

RE: Venus II - 4/3/2006 2:12:37 PM   
flymeaway


 

Posts: 295
Joined: 4/20/2004
From: howell, MI, USA
Status: offline 		Steve - that's exactly why I'm worried about the ARFs (Venus/Excelleron) being too heavy for the G90. I don't have any problem with building, in fact I'd rather build. It's just that winter building season is almost over. I wouldn't think an 8.5# plane would perform all that well with a 90 2C without pipe.

(in reply to patternrules) <