CGRetired,
thank you for your answer to my question. As it turns out I think its worth waiting for the Venus II to be available in Europe and I plan to power it with an OS 120 AX (and a Perry pump) although I have a YS110 which needs a home.
I am also waiting to see flying tests from the owners of Venus II.

Stavros

Hi. In my humble opinion, the OS 1.20 AX probably won't need a pump. I am using that engine in my Excelleron with the stock tank position and get plenty of fuel flow from muffler pressure.... that is unless you decide to put the tank back near the horizontal stab..ha.. just kidding. That engine does produce plenty of power. I am using a 15-10 APC prop and it climbs straight up without effort.

DS.

Interesting to hear that there is no need for the pump. I intend to put the tank on CG. How is the prop clearence on the Excelleron?
I think it has an aluminum landing gear. Is this correct ?

Which engine would be better on the Venus II for pattern work? The OS 120 AX 2 stroke or the OS 120 4-stroke. I am wanting to run stock muffler and have an engine that runs great and is simple to adjust. What characterists would each engine have?

Thanks,

Ed

I have the OS 1.20 AX on an Excelleron. The two big advantages of the 2 stroke 1.20 is power and vibration. There is more power and less vibration with the two stroke.

The two aircraft are similar in size and weight so performance on the Excelleron probably equals what you will find on the Venus II. Using the 15-10 prop, I get very good performance. As someone else said, now that I have more than 5 tanks of fuel (recommended by OS in the manual), I can lean it out a tad and go to a different, more radical prop and get even more.. if I wanted to. It is adequate for my needs with the current configuration. I think it's a great choice (OS 1.20 AX two stroke). And a tad less in the financial department. It starts cleanly and warms up very quickly, and has remained very consistent.

DS.

Hi Stavros.

I am running the OS 1.20 AX (as you know) and a 15-10 prop. It clears just fine. I have not yet whacked the prop on the ground, even during a tad rough landing [:@]. I have a 16-8 that I know fits and will be closer to the ground by a half inch, but still feel that there is plenty of clearance.

I did something that changed that ground clearance a bit, that was remove the original tail landing gear and put in a Sullivan gear. It raised the back up by about a quarter of an inch or so which, of course, lowered the nose a tad. But, again, no problems at all with ground clearance. By the way, I fly on grass and have no grass stains on the prop.

DS.

I have a Venus II on order at my LHS and have a question. I have an OS 120 FS I can put in it or I may order a Saito 125. My question is how are these planes balancing out ? The Saito 125 would save me about 8 ozs. over the OS but it wouldn't make any sense if I have to add weight up front. Can I make it balance with the Saito and the servos IN THE REAR ?

Thanks ....................

Just maidened my Venus 2....I love it! I have a super tiger.90 with a pitts muffler on it, spinning a 13x6 prop...I think its a great combination. Plenty of power! Slows down to a crawl on landings.....I mostly do sport flying, its a great sports plane...will do anything! very stable and has a great speed range. awesome plane in my opinion. A++++

Did you put your servos in the rear and how did it balance with the ST 90 ?

I too have one on order, actually lay away, at my LHS. After experiencing the power of the OS 1.20 AX engine on my Excelleron 90, I am planning on picking one more up for the Venus II. If the Super Tiger 90 performed so well for Foxtrot, I think the OS 1.20 will do just fine. As Don M requests, I am also interested in how it balanced.

I have another question, though, Foxtrot, how did you mount the engine? According to what I read, the engine can be mounted upright, sideways, or upside down. How did you mount yours?

DS.

Yep, no sense of me spending $350.00 for a "lighter" engine (Saito 125) if I have to add nose weight.

Yeah, Don, I keep saying this, but that OS 1.20 AX really runs sweet. I had an EVO 100 on that plane that really gave me a tough time so I bit the bullet and bought the OS. Good choice on my part. Same weight as the EVO even with that big muffler. One problem I ran into, though, perhaps my fault. The bolt that holds both halves of the muffler broke while I was in the air a couple weeks ago. I probably overtightened it when I rotated back half with the exhaust port. I notified OS the next morning and a week later I got a brand new muffler in the mail. A whole muffer, not just the part that was broken. Good service!
So, that's my reason for going with that engine on the Venus II.

DS.

I'm just sending off my last 2 - stroke ( OS 1.60 ) to it's new owner today. I have tried and tried to get comfortable with 2 - stroke engines ( cost, simplicity, etc. ) but I keep coming back to 4 - strokes ( I have 10 ). Engines are the most satisfiying part of the hobby for me and if an engines doesn't have a zillion parts flying around inside and have that putta putta sound I'm just not happy.

But I'm sure the 120 AX is a very fine engine, just not my cup of tea.

I had to add 2 oz of weight in the tail with the super tiger .90, I mounted the servos internally up front though...I dont like exterior mounted servos, I think it spoils the looks of a plane. The plane is awesome...you wont regret it!

i'm just the opposite I don't give a darn what it looks like it's all about "how it flies". From what you said I believe I'll stick with the heavier engine ( OS 120 ) because by the look of things if i stick 2 or 3 servos way back in the tail it ain't going to balance out with a 25 oz. ( including muffler ) engine.

thanks ...............

You know the more I look at this thing the more I believe it would benefit from the lighter engine and putting the servos up front. it will lighten the wing loading quite a bit. I'll have to see if someone does put the servos in the rear and how it turns out.

I thought this was going to be simply. [X(]

LMK if there is any knife edge coupling. I did the review on the original [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/magazine/article_display.cfm?article_id=107]smaller venus[/link] here on rcu magazine and one thing that amazed me was that there was close to zero coupling in knife edge. I could fly that plane around the field in knife edge almost the entire flight. I might also have to pick up one of these planes. I have a couple engines that would find a nice home in it.

Marc: I really loved my Venus 40. I was having some rear-wheel problems and just wanted to fly that day, so I ignored it. Well, the wind picked up a bit and on take off, and after flying it most of the day, it veered to the right toward another pilot on the line. I sort of panic'ed because I tried to rudder it over but the wind was still a bit snappy. I pushed the aileron while not thinking of it. The plane veered away from the other pilot but went inverted about three feet off the ground and that was that.

Interestingly enough, though, the wing was not even marked. The fuselage about disintegrated upon impact, the wing bolts (nylon) sheared off, the wing went one way, the fuselage went straight in and crumbled. A shame.

I was going to buy a replacement Venus 40 but heard that they came out with the Venus II so I waited. Glad I did. I put one on lay-away a few weeks ago and will pick it up by the end of the month.. put that OS 1.20 AX on board.. ought to fly pretty good.

DS.

What would you use? Sullivans? Pull-Pull? Curious. Gonna build up my tasks for when I finally pick up my Venus II.

DS.

I haven't seen the actual plane yet but I've studied the manual and at first I wanted to put everything in the rear but after looking at it I don't like the staggered elev. servos. I've had that and it's hard to get them moving in uinison, plus it's alot of junk back there. I don't mind putting the single elev. up front but a push, pull rudder from that distance concerns me ( maybe needlessly ) so I would really like a pull pull rudder if there is room. I'll have to wait until I actually see the plane, maybe about 2 weeks. I figure if I go with the Saito ( over the OS ) and 2 upfront servos I will save at least 10 ozs. and that's got to be all good.

With the OS120AX the balance came out just right. I have started with the battery up against f2 like the instruction manual shows. It a tad nose heavy in my humble opinion. So I will rotate the velco to have the battery ad the back of the provided battery tray. This should move the battery back toward the CG about 2.5 inches. I have the 9202 servos inside the fuse. I like an almost netrual CG with very little push needed for uinverted flight.

And with the 120AX it weighs ?

Maybe a silly question, but here goes.

Can this thing 3D?

Why would you want to do 3d with a pattern plane even if it could ? There are so many planes made for that purpose why bother. At least leave a few planes that us "old farts" can call our own.

Does anyone know where can I find the Venus II kit in Europe ?
TIA
Stavros