Please take a look at this link and read what Bruce Thorpe has to say. Then let me know if you think the improvements outway the extra $50 in cost between the two kits. I'm leaning towards the Venture after looking at the pics & reading Bruce's schpeel on it. Thanks.


Mark


http://www.btemodels.com/vt_vs_fs.html

I'm a real fan of Sig kits-their quality is quite good. But the BTE Venture kit is the best kit I've seen. IMHO it's worth the extra $. And It's a better looking plane to boot!

That was kind of my thoughts too vel914, while I haven't seen one of their kits yet, I do thing it's a little better looking airplane, and in someone elses build thread of the Venture they too commented on the excellent quality of the kit. thanks for your opinion. I appreciate it.


Mark

Hey Mark, I would go with the Venture 60. When we have fly-ins at our field there's a whole bunch of 4*60's there but I've only ever seen one Venture fly there. Very unique and beautiful plane....[8D]

Hi Rob, I think you're right, I wouldn't have even learned about the Venture if it weren't for this site. I was pretty well sold in here as the 4*60 being the unanimous choice for a #2 plane. Then I noticed a thread about the Venture and decided to see what it was only to find out that it's pretty much a better version of the 4* kitted by the original designer of the 4*, and if I can manage the $$$ for the 4*, I can manage another $50 as well. Since I'm a rookie builder again, I haven't done a real build since I was a kid doing some C/L. Just some ARFs this year. The Venture also sounds like a much easier build for a rookie too. And you know how it is when your a kid, I had no patience for the build process, I'd just slap em together as quick as I could so I could try to fly it the same day. Usually re-kitting them before the glue had a chance to dry![X(] Since they weren't much more than a wing with an elevator hanging off the back of it to begin with I don't count that for much in the way of building experience on my part. The fact that they have done alot of the sanding & sorting of parts for me is a big plus, & I like the pre-bevelled edges too. I think I have myself pretty well talked into the Venture as soon as I can swing it. Thanks alot for your input.


Mark

Unfortunately it looks like the Venture's out of stock at the moment. I'm seriously considering doing one of these this winter for my second plane, but I don't plan on starting for a couple months, so I'm hoping he'll have them ready again by then.

It is truely worth the extra money!

Mark,

I bought both kits and have just started on the 4*... The Sig kit is great, but the Venture is a second generation 4*, where Bruce, the original 4*40 designer, took what he learned and applied it to the Venture 60 - sort of a 'Son of 4* on steroids" As such, he was able to improve on the original 4* design and make a better "second generation" airplane...

IMO, the quality of the BT kit is better, since it's a smaller production and Bruce's name is on it... As good as Sig kits are (and I think they ARE good!), with his name on a limited production kit, Bruce goes the extra mile or ten to make it GOOOOD.... My $.02

Cheers!

Jim

Sounds like we're all on the same page here.

Mark

Mark, Have fun with your build. They are a great plane and it will truely stand out at the field. [8D]

Well Mark,

This may not make your decision any easier but here are a couple pics of my BTE Venture 60. It is a very smooth flying plane. One thing I really like about it is it has very little rudder coupling which makes it very easy to hold a bunch of rudder during landings and use the ailerons to side-slip and quickly bleed off altitude without gaining a lot of speed. This looks really cool!

It's best maneuver is probably the outside snap while in a high-speed upline. Doing this will send it into a weightless tumble that is loads of fun. The wood in the kit is simply perfect and the way the parts are manufacturered is actually superior to lazer cutting. Not a single burnt edge to sand. Sig kits are very nice but Bruce's quality is even better!

I did do a few mods on mine which include clipping the wing one bay (I wouldn't want my wing any longer after flying it for a few months.) You'll also notice from the pictures I made a custom fiberglass cowl for the nose since this was the one area where I wasn't crazy about the looks.

If you will be flying off of grass, definitely move your main gear a bit forward from the stock location. Mine is very light in the tail while taxiing. It is easily managed by holding up elevator but it is a little too light in the tail for my tastes. I will probably move the gear a bit forward when I find the time. I think Bruce now even recommends this on his web site.

Good luck!

FlyerBry

FlyerBry, Very nice!! I too don't care for the open engine look, your cowl cleans it right up. Nicely done, I was hoping to be able to get some kind of cowl to fit as well, unfortunately I don't know how to work with fiberglass, but I'll get someone to make one for me. By the way, I have allready decided on the Venture, even if it means waiting till X-mas to get it. Sounds like you're having a blast with yours. I'm glad it turned out so nice for ya


Mark

Hey Flyerbry, nice looking bird! What engine are you using for the Venture?

Thanks for the nice compliments guys... My Venture is powered by a Saito .82. I kicked around the idea of putting a Saito 100 in it but I was afraid the weight difference would be too much. Keep in mind this thing builds about a pound lighter than the 4 * 60 so an .82 should be equivalent to a .91 or 100 on a 4 * 60. Also the fact that the .82 is as light as the Saito .72 keeps the plane a bit lighter.

I decided not to use the stock pushrods and put the elevator servo in the tail with the rudder on a pull-pull setup with the servo located under the canopy. For the ailerons I put separate servos in the wings instead of a single centrally located servo. I don't see how using the stock setup with all the servos up in the fuse between the wing saddle would cause any problems - I just set mine up using my preferred setup. It works well and I am very happy with it.

This is a great second or third plane and even would make an excellent choice as a first kit. I have a 4 * 40 kit still in the box that I bought to take pylon racing and after looking over the instruction manual I'd say the Venture is a little easier to build of the two.

FlyerBry, Actually this is gonna be a first kit for me really, because the last thing I built from sticks was a Combat Wombat over 30 yrs. ago, so I'm doing a little Guillows free-flight model of the Hellcat right now as practice for me, & a plane for my nephew. Ease of build, & the fact that they have allready done some of little tediuos things for you are a few of the reasons I chose the Venture, that and of course the man that designed them both telling me basically that this one is shall we say the 4* Deluxe, didn't hurt either. This whole thing started because I have a perfectly good OS 60 engine from my Dad's flying days that I thought needed an airplane to sit in. So the building a pound lighter than the 4* was another plus for me. It's only gonna have the .60 in it, but it is a strong running engine. If & when I get to the point in flying skills that I outgrow the power of the .60 in it. I'll try to go with a new 4-stroke too. They sound great, & I love the way they look with the little pushrods on the outside, they remind me of a miniature Harley engine. Have fun.


Mark

FlyerBry,

I see that you installed your engine inverted. It looks great that way. I am currently building a Venture 60 and am now trying to decide how I want my engine installed and creation of a cowl. I was originally going to mount it sideways, but really like the look of the inverted engine.

I have the same engine as you but am concerned about the inverted position relative to the tank position. I have read in numerous locations that the centerline of the tank should be at the centerline of the carb. It doesn't appear that I can position the tank low enough in the fuselage to accomplish this.

What did you do, and do you have any problems starting the engine or having it run lean/rich when flying inverted?

-Dave

Dave,

The tank position is actually very easy. I mounted my tank in the bottom of the fuse. Insead of installing the horizontal tank support piece in the stock location I installed it in the top of the fuse above the tank. It only took some minor trimming of the tank support piece to fit in the top instead of the stock, bottom location. I suppose the support piece could be left out entirely but I felt it may add some structural stiffness to the nose so that's why I chose the alternate location.

The Saito runs great inverted. The only drawback to it that I see is getting the glow plug hooked up on the flight line is a bit of a chore but I think the looks are worth it. I considered mounting sideways as well but with the fiberglass cowl you have to do the least amount of cutting of the cowl to get a good fit if you mount it inverted. I wasted more time deciding on how to mount the engine than anything else on my Venture. Now that it is done I'm happy with the results.

FlyerBry

Venture all the way....the kit quality alone is worth the extra $$$

Oh, and as far as them being out of stock...blame me...i got the last one of his most recent set...

plus bruce is hella nice...i could tell i caught him in the middle of something when i called...but he still took the time to write down all my information and take care of me... A+++ service there....

rjm, any idea when he's gonna do another run of kits?


Mark

Nah, didnt talk to him too long, he just mentioned that i got the last one, like i said, sounded like he was in a hurry

Ok thanks, I 'll try to shoot him an E-mail.

Mark

I had a venture, clipped, with a Tower .75 in it and it was one sweet flying machine. I can't wait to get another one. My receiver shorted in flight on a downwind aproach and it just followed a nice decent to oblivian. The receiver manufacture replaced the receiver but that didn't help the plane. I can not think of a better kit to buy and build.

Thanks for the info FlyerBry!

You've convinced me. I'm 99% sure I'll also mount my engine inverted. Although I won't be making a fiberglass cowl. I am figuring on using balsa to "fill in" the upper and lower part, while leaving the stock cheeks in place.

-Dave

Happy to help. I considered the balsa cowl route myself. If you do some searches on the Venture I recall there being some posts where others have posted pictures of doing a cowl in balsa. I probably would have done it this way myself if I left the engine upright. I couldn't make up my mind which way I wanted to mount the engine (sideways or inverted) so the fiberglass cowl gave me more flexability to change my mind up to the very end. Either way will look much better than stock.

It sure would be nice if Bruce would get one of the fiberglass companies to build cowls for him that he could sell with the plane as an option. I would have had my Venture in the air much sooner if the option were available.

FlyerBry

ryanpilot, I'm sorry to hear about the radio mishap on your Venture.[] I hope ya get another one soon.

flyerbry, I'm starting to get get confused about my engine now. This whole thing started from wanting to do something with an OS .60 my Dad gave me. When I look at your cowl, it looks so sleek & clean & nice, I think I want to do it that way. Then I look at the Saito Black Knight I think they call them? The black engine with the pretty gold valve covers, & think it would be a shame to cover that dude up, it would look great sitting up-right in that open engine compartment, & I could just build a big ol' air-boat for that OS .60 to drag around the lake.

The worst part is thru the wonders of home equity & creative financing we might be a little on the fat side here in just a couple more weeks, & I can get really stupid with a pocket full of $$$s[X(] I'm thinking a new plane might require a new engine, a shiny new black & gold engine! I assume from your previous post that the .82 is more than plenty? If Momma let's me get away with, I just may have to order a 4-stroke to go with it. Hhhmm, can't fly a pretty bird like that with a 6DA, Santa, ya better put me down for one of those computer radios too![sm=drowning.gif][sm=lol.gif]


Mark