Amen, brother. Even the Excelleron 90 is more of a 3D than pattern, however, it seems to be a hybrid, with the high fuselage, but it does have the 3D type rudder and elevators, oversized with the 'balance bars'. The Venus is straight rudder with a straight elevator, more patternish than 3D. That's one more reason I am getting one.

Don't get me wrong, I do love my Excelleron 90. It flys straight and does what I want it to, much better than I can make it do, that's for sure. It needs a couple of fixes, one thing is the left aileron is warped, or bowed. It sticks up over the smooth flow of the wing at the center point which causes some additional trim and does effect it when doing some maneuvers.

DS.

I picked up my Venus II last evening. Very nice!! Now, I have to do some planning on the build. It has provisions for both rear mounted servo's for the elevator and rudder but also has internally mounted tubes for standard type center fuselage (under the wing) servo mounting with a dual tube setup for the elevator.

I would assume that for 3D type flying, with a requirement on a more tail heavy configuration, the rear mounted servo's is the way to go, and for more pattern, the front mounted (center mounted.. under the wing) configuration is the way to go. Since I am not into 3D, I will go with the conventional center mounted servo's. I like the pull-pull setup on the Excelleron 90 but that does not seem to be an option with this one.. I guess I could convert it over, but that may be beyond my experience level so far. Any thoughts on that?

It also has provisions for mounting the engine in several positions, including upside down sideways, and angular. Is there a preference out there on this? I'm sure a lot of you pattern folks have probably used each of these mounting configurations in the past and have a preference as to what is better/more efficient, and so on.

There didn't seem to be any more real decisions on building, the rest is pretty much straight forward. Since I built the Excelleron 90, which was my first large sized plane, I learned a lot from it and expect that I will use that building experience on this one. But, there is always a 'better' way to do things and this is the best place to find that out.

So, on to the build, and please, give me some ideas and suggestions. Oh, I intend to run this plane with an OS 1.20 AX. I have one on my Excelleron 90 and love it. Which reminds me.. any suggestions on motor mounts for this engine/plane combination? I am using the standard flex mount that came with the Excelleron and it seems to work fine. Just wondering what you folks may have in mind for engine mounting.

DS.

I personally don't care for inverted engines. They can be more difficult to start as all of the oil pools on the plug. The plug is also more difficult to reach. The dual elevator pushrod system works well. I have seen it in many GP planes. I had a difficult time finding a mount that would fit a 1.20. I ended up using the large GP adjustable mount. It has been working well.

John VB

Had a gorgeous weekend here in the Seattle-area and I was able to get the maiden flight in on the Venus II! YS .91 was running a tad on the rich side (on PowerMaster 20/20 it was swinging an APC 15x8 at just around 9K with plenty of smoke at full-throttle). As stated previously, everything was assembled as the instructions recommend-- except for the tank which was mounted on the C.G. Dry weight is right around 8lbs. Other than forgetting to check the amount of control-throw against the manual (ailerons had a bit too much throw), the flights went beautiful!

"Smooth" is about the best word that I can use to describe how the plane flies. Point it in a direction and it just goes! Overall highlight was the knife-edge capability-- it's almost too easy! Yes, there is a little coupling (pulls toward the gear, like most planes) but I didn't even bother to mix it out. Low-speed flight has absolutely no surprises... I went dead-stick on a slow, low pass for the camera (I never did adjust the low-speed needle for the different prop that I am running now) and the plane just gently settled to the runway without a hint of tip-stalling. Rest of the flights were like guiding an arrow around the skies.

Here at sea-level the .91 is plenty of engine for the plane. Vertical was not unlimited, but I am sure that with a little tuning (and maybe some 30% nitro) that would easily change! Besides, I am not even running a 3D prop! I am sure that a YS 1.10 or O.S. 1.20 would pull this thing like a freight-train.

Do you have the servos in the fuse ( 2 ) or out back ( 3 ) ?

Ok. Ok. Now that you have settled down. And hopefully flown your planes. Can this thing get close to 3D?

No. Do not get up on the Pattern High Horse please. I fully respect the control and precision of pattern flyers. I also see some skill in some 3D performers. No. Not the stick bangers. But the performers who plan the moves ahead of time, just like pattern.

And ok. I am not looking for all the 3D moves (hovering, torque rolls etc.). But what about the inverted flat spins, knife edge loops, Snap rolls. Hey, sounds just like pattern stuff.

Before you jump all over me, maybe try to find out what I am after. I am looking for a plane that will precision fly. Pattern. 3D moves. Not stick bang. I have other planes that will do that. How does the new Venus II stand up to this?

And please, only reply if you have your plane on the air and KNOW it will do these things.


"Fly hard, land soft."

RobertC,

It was beautiful in Seattle- heck, it's beautiful right now. I've got both a .91 and a 1.10 and a V-II on the way. Sounds like the 1.10 is the way to go? As an aside, found the V-II on the S&D section of Tower (damaged box only); including the $30 off Tower is offering, $208 and free shipping- sort of made the decision for me...

Don, servos are all mounted in the rear of the plane. It balanced just fine like this with no added weight (battery is sitting where the elevator/rudder servos would have mounted in the fuse).

Jack, I understand exactly what you are asking. This plane could absolutely be good for 3D. I may switch back to my wide-blade prop at some point and see just how good it is (but then again, it's only as good as the pilot, right? )

Sam, if you have the 1.10 then it is certainly the ticket! The power difference between the two engines (the .91 and the 1.10) is not huge, but more is always better right? In all honestly though, I don't think you would be disappointed with the .91 here at sea-level. By the way, I fly at Marymoor in Redmond. Bring yours out when you get it put together!

Hi! I'm beginning to build a VENUS II and will be putting in a SAITO 125. Maybe this is a dumb question, but did you have any problems installing the aileron horns? The kit comes with 1/2 inch screws but the width of the aileron at its leading edge is more than an inch and a half. Also do you recommend covering the middle section with fiberglass?

The aileron-horns DO NOT use the backplate that comes with them-- use wood screws to attach the horn to the aileron. I remember thinking the same thing when I built the plane so maybe the instructions are not clear.

As stated above, I built the plane as specified in the manual... that means no glassing the center section of the wing. I have to assume that the manufacturer knows better on this matter (and I trust Great Planes), plus it just adds weight. I didn't go crazy in the 3 or so flights I have had but I didn't notice any sign of the wing being weak.

RobertC, you've flown your so I will ask your opinion. I'm picking mine up at the LHS next week and I have an OS 120 ( non - pumped ) 4 - stroke to put in it and even a nice incowl elbow & flex pipe to shoot the muffler out the bottom with an inverted engine. But I have also been thinking about a YS 110 ( yes I can get one ). I know I'll save 5 - 6 ozs. but not sure about the extra power. The question is - in your opinion is it worth while spending the extra $$'s or will the 120 be enough. I get about 9200 on an APC 15 - 8.

Well Don, I am getting around 9K on an APC 15x8 with the .91 and it pulls the plane around just fine. Towering, but limited, vertical climbs (I wish I had tried some vertical snaps... next time I will!). During the few flights that I have had I never thought the plane was lacking for power. Note that I am at sea-level. I guess that it depends on your flying style and how much discretionary money you have! Seriously, your 1.20 will fly the plane just fine. Some guys here think that too much power is just enough.

Thanks Robert. I'm not sure if that was the answer I was looking for but it makes sense. Yes I can afford the YS but it seems crazy to spend it for nothing. If all else fails I'll yank my YS 140 out of my Typhoon and throw that in it. Now we're OVERPOWERED [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]

A couple of quick questions.

What are the maximum throws you can get, in degrees, for each flight surface?

The leading edges of the flight surfaces are double bevelled. Has anyone added triangle stock to the trailing edges? What size stock would be needed?

Has anyone brought the Aelerons in a bay or two?

Enlarged the Rudder or Elevator?

I think this thing could be a great cross over plane.

Why not the OMP Fusion X3D. It seems that would be a better dual purpose plane and the mods are already done. I'm considering that one myself after I get the Venus II in the air.

Don, if you want a good plane for your 1.40 consider the Goldberg Obsession (I love that name-- fits me perfectly! ) I know it's not a 2M plane "by the book," but at the price they are going for at Tower right now how can you refuse?!?!

Jack, the rudder and elevator are flat so the maximum throw would depend on how much of a hinge-gap you are willing to live with! The ailerons are not double-beveled but they are fairly large (and so is the rudder... the elevators are the only surface that *might* be too small for all-out-crazy-3D).

Wow! Wood screws? I will have to think about that one for a while. I would hate losing $2000.00 worth of equipment due to a horn being yanked out in mid flight. I even bought the steel horns with the idea that the steel would produce less friction than the nylon ones. (Not that the nylon ones are bad or anything), but Ill think it over. On another note, I have read several posts where the Saito 125 is being compared to the OS 120 but the posts refer to the fact that the lighter Saito would be of no gain since the lighter front end of the plane would require added weight, therefore eliminating any benefit from a lighter engine. What about the batteries? Can’t those be placed more to the front? Could they be placed on the firewall if necessary? And what about the difference in BHP between the Saito 125 vs. OS 120?

Wow! Wood screws? I will have to think about that one for a while. I would hate losing $2000.00 worth of equipment due to a horn being yanked out in mid flight. I even bought the steel horns with the idea that the steel would produce less friction than the nylon ones. (Not that the nylon ones are bad or anything), but Ill think it over. On another note, I have read several posts where the Saito 125 is being compared to the OS 120 but the posts refer to the fact that the lighter Saito would be of no gain since the lighter front end of the plane would require added weight, therefore eliminating any benefit from a lighter engine. What about the batteries? Can’t those be placed more to the front? Could they be placed on the firewall if necessary? And what about the difference in BHP between the Saito 125 vs. OS 120?

Actually I am not looking to replace the Typhoon. It is the smoothest flying, best behaved plane I have flown to date. I was just kidding about the YS 140. My idea in having the Venus II is I just want something smaller for those days that I don't feel like dragging the Typhoon around.

I don't really fly pattern as such but I do enjoy a plane that follows each and every movement of the stick. The Typhoon does that in spades and I hope that ( maybe to a lesser degree ) so will the Venus II. There is nothing I enjoy more then pulling up elev. on the Typhoon and watch it go rolling STRAIGHT up until it's just a speck. Makes my spine tingle

I know what you mean Don. I love 3D planes, but there is something so graceful about a pattern plane. Especially with a 4-stroke on a tuned-pipe! They seem to fly somehow "more true" than other planes. Good luck with both your Venus and Typhoon!

Azpiroz, not sure what the problem is with wood screws... just make sure that you drill a (smaller) hole first and put in a few drops of CA. Plenty of strength. As for the Saito 125, I don't have any experience with the engine but you could always put your servos "up front" in the Venus and avoid any weight problems. It would probably be a great engine for the plane!

I don't know, I guess I can visualize the force the aileron is receiving when doing a snap roll, and see those screws together with the horn, being ripped out in mid flight. I'll try to find longer bolt through screws and if I cant find them I'll do it with the wood screws. Another question: When aligning the horizontal stab for gluing, the instructions state to stand 3 metes away from the plane with the wing bolted on to see if there is a horizontal mis alignment with the wing, if any sand the slots in the fuse to get the right alignment. This is only a visual way to check it but do you know of a way to align it without relying on my eyesight. What if I'm wrong? What if I have worked on the computer all day and my eyes are tired. I don't want to rely on my eyesight or my judgment for a plane that is designed to do PRECISION aerobatics. Any suggestions?

My last post was to be a reply to Don M

Place plane with wings attached on your building surface (the flatter and straighter, the better). Level wings side to side. I would also level front to back, but its not as critical. Then measure from each stab tip down to your building surface. You should be able to get within 1/64" or at least 1/32" and that will be close enough.


Mark

In reply to setting up the stab. After measuring from wing tip to stab tip on both sides and getting that straight, block your wing on each tip on a table / floor until it is dead level and then adjust your stab until it is also equal distance on each tip in relation to whatever the plane is sitting on. I do do this on rare occasions but usually just eyeball it, but I eyeball from further back than 3 feet, maybe 10.

I built a Goldberg Ultimate one time that ended up with a twist in the right bottom wing panel. Try as I may I could not get that twist out. I was going to build a new wing panel but thought I would try it anyway. I flew that plane for 1100 flights that way and even won several IMAC contest over the years.

Bottom lines, do the best you can but don't get your "knickers in a knot"

So Don asked (via PM) about engine-mounting and I since I think there are several others that would also be interested I will post my method here.

Basically, I tried to be too clever! If you go back to one of my first posts about this plane, I said something about wanting to mount the engine so that: (a) the cylinder didn't protrude "too much" from the cowl, (b) the muffler didn't hang out the side, and, related to this, (c) I could remove the cowl without taking the muffler off the engine. So I mounted the engine "tilted" with the idea that the cylinder would not stick-out the side of the cowling and the muffler would exit the bottom (although not exactly in the center). It looks something like this: