Is right thrust built in with the Venus II? I see no mention of this in the manual. Thanks.

Yes, the right thrust is built in.
As for rates, I ended up using something less that the suggested low rates for most of my flying. I went with the suggested rates for first flights (never actually flew on the high rates) and adjusted to suit from there.

Maidened the new Venus II today. Or I should say a Master level pattern flier maidened it for me. It was really sweet, right out of the box. With low rates, it needed a slight amount of up elevator and right aileron, and could use a little more right thrust but otherwise flew beautifully! Had some vibration from something in the plane at a certain rpm so I'm going to go through it and check all the connections and mounts and make sure there isn't anything loose first. Then I plan to fly it myself for the first time tomorrow.

Went with a APC 15x8. Scott suggested I go with a 17x6 or 17x8 APC, which he's going to let me have one of tonight. Says it'll slow it down a little and provide more braking in down lines.

Congrats, it is one sweet flying plane. I have a YS 120 on the front of mine, and it's the visual definition of unlimited vertical. on rails, to boot!

I added right thrust to my Venuses, and to most of my glow planes. I later learned to use a throttle->rudder mix, which I find is more effective as the amount of 'right thrust' you need is proportional to speed, just as the mix is.

I still say that GP has lost there mind!

Great Planes still shows the Venus on their website. I think it is Tower that has lost their mind!!!

Well, I finally flew my new Venus II today! It's really a great airplane and I got many compliments at the field. I tried a few props and decided on a 17x6 APC. Seemed to slow it down noticeably vs the 15x8 I started with.

I hope Great Planes continues producing this plane, or something like it. It would be a shame if they really have stopped making it and don't replace it with something similar. I've sent my request in.

Congratulations, cappaj1. Your next asignment is to fly it til it's worn out. By then you'll be ready for something even better!

Thanks! That's just what I plan to do, at least while I can! I have at least the next three days of good weather before having to probably pack it up until next season:<

Three more flights today. The county park is still opening a normally 'closed field for the season' due to great weather. Tomorrow looks good as well.

Some of my observations.

I had to lean the low speed neede 1/8 of a turn so the engine would spool up quicker and hold idle more consistently.

Only using half throttle for most of my level flight. The 1.20AX seems suprisingly good on fuel, and I'm using Byron 10% nitro with synthetic oil.

The plane is suprisingly quiet for a 2 stroke. Got several comments including three 'noise committee members' that the plane was really quiet for a 2 stroke. I recommend using foam under the engine and against the firewall behind the mount along with an APC prop and the muffler diverter to help quiet the plane. Everyone I asked about the foam said it'd do nothing, but I feel it is helping considerably. It seems to work for me. Almost sounded like an electric up there - it was amazing! Of course throttle management and a well broken in engine seem to be helping as well.

I have one of those [link=http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXL379&P=ML]Hobbico muffler defletors[/link] on the outlet of the exhaust on the bottom of the plane, which also does an excellent job of keeping the bottom of the plane from getting excessively oily.

Even though I ironed out all of the wrinkles from the monokote, they're creeping back slowly after only a few days.

A 17x6 prop seems just right, for me anyway. Slows the plane down at half throttle. Not a lot of clearance though between the prop arc and ground though, maybe 1.5 inches or less. I painted the tips of the blades yellow as I want to make sure I don't get my hands anywhere near the blade after starting, since the grey APC is a little hard to see. I carry a APC 16x8 and APC 15x8 in the flight box as well.

I think I'm going to add a little throw to the ailerons on low rates so my rolls are a little faster. 1/2" seems a little light.

I carry a steel ruler to direct the wing bolts into their holes when mounting the wings. A little bit of a pain. I have pencil point wing bolts and a triangle block glued above and behind the holes to guide the bolts as well but they still need a little coaxing.

The stock gear seems to bend easily. I had one hard landing and that is what gives this impression, seemed fine on all my other landings.

The stock wheels seem a little small and stiff and I think I'll switch to slightly larger, rubber wheels, and maybe a larger tail wheel. The plane taxies very well with the stock tail wheel though and really doesn't need an upgrade but the stock one sees small and flimsy.

I am nowhere near ready to even attempt the sportsman's sequence, although very easy for most of you I'm sure, with any real accuracy. But I plan on working on one or two maneuvers at a time.

Fully enclosed set-ups, whether 2 stroke or 4 stroke, will practically always be quieter than open, or partially coweled. Add a dead medium like foam to the mix and you will get even more quiet. If and when you go to a piped set-up, you will find a big difference between a pipe that is burried completely inside a belly pan and one that is only partially burried or not burried at all. Add a thin layer of foam to the belly pan and get even more quiet.

Man am I surprised! I am setting up my Venus II and was taken aback by how small the throws are for the elevator (9/16" hi rate, 3/8" low). Haven't done the ailerons yet, but they look small also. The Venus is my first pattern plane, and I guess I am used to sport planes like the Modeltech Magic, and my old Edge 540 which have pretty large throws. The Venus elevator throw looks like a trainer in comparison. I guess that I have a steep learning curve to climb. Can't wait to fly the V2!

Regards,
Jerry

I was at the local hobby shop over the weekend and they had a new one in the box if any one can't find one shoot me a pm and I will give you their contact info.

At Mark Twain?
Chris...

Yes and they also just got in one of the Phoenix 7 kits by Hanger 9.

Jim,

Converted the ldg gear to Focus Sport; a bit more stout and more clearance. If you have issues as most with the gear this might be a good way to go.

Regards,

Mike P. EAM, Florida

Awesome. One of the best stocked hobby shops in the country. You can usually walk out with enough stuff to build a whole model. I wish there was one as good in SoCal, though Smith Bros. is close to it.
Chris...

Wow, thanks for the input. I just got the last one from Mark Twain Hobbies. This replaces a Venus 2 that I crashed........... Question. I had an os 91 FX on it and so am used to the performance. I called Great Planes, complaines about not making the V2 anymore and asked about the OS 120 AX. Quote. " That hardly gives you more power than the 91 you have sir. Why would you do that? Any suggestions from that comment?

Help

Steve

Put them in identical set-ups side by side and you will see a huge difference. The 1.20 has plenty of oomph for any vertical maneuver; the .91 might make it if you carry momentum into the maneuver.

These are 2 very different engines.

Agree with Dick, the OS 120 AX is a much better choice. Had one on a Venus II and the performance in vertical was on par with most E setups.

Mike P. EAM Florida

Oops, meant Bob's post/reply.

Mike P.

I'm only an engineer so pardon my math, but isn't 1.20ci roughly 32% more displacement than a .91???

I wonder who you talked to at Great Planes.

Based on the 1.5k posts in this thread I don't understand why you wouldn't use a 1.20AX - tons of satisfied owners.

Totally understand, that is part of my confusion. He said that the 91 had 2.8 HP and the 120 had 3.1 HP so hardly any significant difference. He then went on to say that the four stroke was indeed a different animal. Would provide more power for verticle and slower top end speed. He ended by saying that the penalty in weight and $100 more cost would no way make up for the marginal performance increase............sorry, just repeating what the OS expert at GPtold me. I believe you people however, the knowlege level on these boards never ceases to amaze me.,
Steve

Definitely no need for apologies! I have learned a ton from these forums, too - amazing resource.

I think the issue is with people on their end looking at purely specs. They talked about the power rating, which is a spec they get with a certain prop at a certain rpm, and is practically meaningless when comparing engines.

I did a statistical analysis of OS (2 and 4 stroke) and YS engines in school a year or two ago. The most useful thing that came from this was the fact that with the regular air breathing engines (non-supercharged, non-YS), an increase in bore directly translates to more torque and larger prop swinging capabilities, an increase in stroke gave higher power ratings at RPM (this was the opposite for YS engines, which showed torque related more closely to stroke).

Anyway, what this means and what the GP tech failed to see, is that the 120 will give you an increase in power all throughout the power band/throttle range, and definitely give you better throttle response at lower throttle settings [which is what we LOVE in pattern flying].

For example (numbers from my Sebart Wind), I will take a 18x12 at 6500rpm over a 16x10 at 9000rpm any day since we're never really running at max RPM for any lenght of time, and the 18x12 will give more 'pull', cruising speed at lower throttle, and better throttle response.