Criticize:

At 75K and 240kts, nothing to criticize there. Not happy about the damage history but oh well.
 
That's been long gone. Guy in VA has it now. Ive heard it was rough around the edges but he got a nice deal on it.
 
It looks extremely fast and efficient, which likely means it's also extremely unforgiving, similar to the Lancair IV.

Provided that those are acceptable to you and the plane meets your mission, I see no reason not to buy a plane like that.
 
Are mains really close together, or is that just the angle of the photo, maybe a squirrel on the ground? (hence, runway departure)
240kts - dang!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It looks extremely fast and efficient, which likely means it's also extremely unforgiving, similar to the Lancair IV.

Provided that those are acceptable to you and the plane meets your mission, I see no reason not to buy a plane like that.
Click to expand...


I wonder how it would handle ice.
 
Grum.Man said:
That's been long gone. Guy in VA has it now. Ive heard it was rough around the edges but he got a nice deal on it.
Click to expand...

Any problems in getting parts for yours? Seems like the landing gear in particular would be maintenance intensive.
 
TylerFlyers said:
Are mains really close together, or is that just the angle of the photo, maybe a squirrel on the ground? (hence, runway departure)
240kts - dang!
Click to expand...

Noticed that too. Must be squirrly to land, especially in a crosswind.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
That does not look like a good airplane for stall training or recreational spins.

The guy in picture three looks desperate.
Click to expand...
Stalls are a non event. Leading edge cuffs and stall strips make it very forgiving. It will drop the nose but you maintain full control with the full span flaperons. To my knowledge nobody has spun the Venture and I am not going to volunteer. Power on stalls are all but impossible. Any manifold pressure reading at all will cause it to just mush and nothing more.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It looks extremely fast and efficient, which likely means it's also extremely unforgiving, similar to the Lancair IV.

Provided that those are acceptable to you and the plane meets your mission, I see no reason not to buy a plane like that.
Click to expand...
Way more forgiving than a Lancair IV. Flies just like a more responsive Malibu which was the design goal since it was designed by ex piper engineers. I transitioned from a Grumman AA1 to my Venture with only 180 hours tt.
 
Velocity173 said:
Any problems in getting parts for yours? Seems like the landing gear in particular would be maintenance intensive.
Click to expand...
Yes and no... Being an early experimental almost everything was fabricated so that's what you do if you need a part. The only exception are the cast landing gear parts. My main trunion had a crack, I had to reverse engineer it and cnc machine a new one out of solid billet aluminum instead of the original casting. There are two guys who own the company rights now and have been collecting parts to support the fleet. They have a spare of almost everything but it's not cheap. My front axle was galled from a poorly aligned bearing. I bought an axle shaft off aircraft spruce, cut it to length and welded a nut on one end. That's the beauty of experimental aviation.

Edit: Majority of the components are either used from other experimental or certified airplanes or are modified pieces you can purchase through aircraft spruce. If you don't have fabrication skills and/or access to a machine shop it would be difficult to maintain over the life of the airplane.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
Noticed that too. Must be squirrly to land, especially in a crosswind.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The gear has 8" of travel in the oleos so it absorbs a less than perfect touchdown well. The narrow gear allows it to lean into a crosswind that would cause most other airplanes to want to skid and fishtail. You fly the airplane on the ground just like you do in the air. Even at a fast taxi I can bank the airplane a little into a cross wind.
 
They look especially odd from the rear three quarter perspective.

Not my cup o' tea aesthetically, but vive la difference!
 
@Grum.Man what is the LX model, the M20 and Q20?, the 200, model 21? (ref FAA database)
2 people, can it handle 100lbs of bags?
Do you guys have an online club?
Know of any in west Tx or NM?
where are they more likely to be found, for sale?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
@Grum.Man what is the LX model, the M20 and Q20?, the 200, model 21? (ref FAA database)
2 people, can it handle 100lbs of bags?
Do you guys have an online club?
Know of any in west Tx or NM?
where are they more likely to be found, for sale?
Click to expand...

To be honest I am not 100% sure what each of those represent. Being experimental people have made different iterations as well as NuVenture that owned the rights for a while.
Here are the iterations I know of:

NuVenture had the Questair retract, and the Spirit which was a 2+1 fixed gear with a 200 hp 4 cylinder engine which I think is the 200 model.

Owner modified examples are: Fixed gear Questair (io-550), Retractable nose wheel only Questair, and I think there was a main gear retract only.

There is a yahoo group called Ventureaircraft

I do not know for sure but I bet there is one within a short distance. Join the Yahoo group and ask.

8 times out of 10 they trade hands around the small group of Venture owners without ever being advertised. Most people will call a few of the most active people in Questairs and offer it to them, if they pass it will usually be posted on the forum. If still no takers it will end up on Barnstormers or Ebay.

Our annual flyin will be in Louisville KY this year in October, think it's the first weekend. The "company" is now based in Mississippi.

http://www.questairventure.com/home-1.html
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
@Grum.Man what is the LX model, the M20 and Q20?, the 200, model 21? (ref FAA database)
2 people, can it handle 100lbs of bags?
Do you guys have an online club?
Know of any in west Tx or NM?
where are they more likely to be found, for sale?
Click to expand...
Forgot to answer your question on the capacity. While most ventures could carry the weight, only a few could handle the CG with 100 lbs of baggage. Ones with glass panels, fixed gears, or 3 blade propellers may be able to. Believe it or not, mine is tail heavy and just heavy in general compared to others. Mine is around 1450 lbs empty and my gross weight is set at 2200. Most come in around 1300 lbs.
 
I see only 8 accidents in the FAA database; only one fatal. A few are gear related.
 
There were a lot of early accidents related to the factory steering system. It was wonky to say the least and most have been changed by now. The original Venture had the brake and steering hydraulics linked together. You either used the brakes or used the steering. If you tried to use both you got neither. Some people just let the nose gear free caster, some have electric hydraulic steering, while mine has a manual hydraulic steering.

Another issue early on was an improper air oil ratio in the oleo causing the gear to be too springy causing ocilations. There is a simple mod out that corrects that and pretty much all ventures have that.

Fuel system issues were the next most common. There is a header tank that both wing tanks feed into. If not built properly the engine could be starved of fuel during high power operations. In most cases if a venture is still flying, it was built properly and will be fine. If not there is a modification to fix it. The factory fuel lines are marginal in diameter too. Most new builds step up to larger fuel lines.

There was a structural failure at Reno one year that most feel was due to build quality than design. The Venture that won in the 2010 (I think) gold race crashed a few years ago but the pilot survived. He left his water injection system on by accident on takeoff and choked the engine.
 
I found an unfinished fixed gear project. Can they easily be converted to RG?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I found an unfinished fixed gear project. Can they easily be converted to RG?
Click to expand...
A fixed gear that is well faired isn't much slower than a retract. They are a little less attractive In my opinion but that is only once the gear is sucked up. Tony Crawford races his fixed gear in cross country races and usually sees 220knts so only about 20kts slower than the retract. The problem with the fixed gear is you need speed brakes. About the slowest a retract will fly is 140kts and that just about sets off my idle gear warning alarm. Once the gear is out I have to add a lot of power to maintain 120 kts as it has a ton of drag. The fixed gear doesn't have a draggy gear to slow you down. Point it down hill for an approach and the speed is impossible to keep down with out speed brakes.
 
How do you search flightaware for a Questair Venture? I want to see some real world GS's and such - thanks.
 
The airplane identifier is VTUR. Not many of them fly on a regular basis. N26SK makes pretty regular trips between Lousiville KY and FL. Just about everyone with a retract sees between 230-240kts true airspeed between 9-17k feet. Coming back from St. Louis about a month ago I was seeing 273 kt ground speed thanks to a tail wind..
 
Looks like a heck of a plane, odd to see a 550 that doesn't hold 300hp, the avionics, well I'd probably be tearing all that heavy crap out and putting a sky view in, interior and paint is of questionable taste, and the canopy is WAAAY too dark, plus if I read that correct it's a Canadian reg plane, so there's a little pain the the butt factor.

That said, that is one heck of a airplane and for sure something way better than a mooney or Bo for a fun XC machine!
 
James331 said:
Looks like a heck of a plane, odd to see a 550 that doesn't hold 300hp, the avionics, well I'd probably be tearing all that heavy crap out and putting a sky view in, interior and paint is of questionable taste, and the canopy is WAAAY too dark, plus if I read that correct it's a Canadian reg plane, so there's a little pain the the butt factor.

That said, that is one heck of a airplane and for sure something way better than a mooney or Bo for a fun XC machine!
Click to expand...
The engine can hold it just fine. The governor is tuned for 2500 rpm max where as an N model 550 is 2700. The kit designer requested this change to increase the durability of the engine and to reduce fuel burn. A lot of venture owners have turned the prop back up to 2700 though it's not really needed. The difference between the IO-550G and 550N was only the governor setting.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I hope it's not for a mechanical reliability reason.
I read there are about 70 completed?
Click to expand...
There may have been 70 completed but there certainly aren't that many left. Last estimate was about 25 airworthy Ventures and an unkown amount of under construction ones. Of the 25 there are about 10-15 that get flown on a regular basis. The kit is extremely difficult and time consuming to build. Took 10 years and over 3,000 hours to build mine.
 
Grum.Man said:
The engine can hold it just fine. The governor is tuned for 2500 rpm max where as an N model 550 is 2700. The kit designer requested this change to increase the durability of the engine and to reduce fuel burn. A lot of venture owners have turned the prop back up to 2700 though it's not really needed. The difference between the IO-550G and 550N was only the governor setting.
Click to expand...


Seems silly, I mean if you want to roll with 280hp I'd rather select it and still have the full 300hp if it's even needed, especially if you have a last minute go around for a deer or something, or ice, seems like you'd want full command of every pony that engine has to give.

Heck on my 185 I often take off with about a finger width of prop pulled out, ofcourse if the situation warrants it I got 300hp at my disposal.
 
James331 said:
Seems silly, I mean if you want to roll with 280hp I'd rather select it and still have the full 300hp if it's even needed, especially if you have a last minute go around for a deer or something, or ice, seems like you'd want full command of every pony that engine has to give.

Heck on my 185 I often take off with about a finger width of prop pulled out, ofcourse if the situation warrants it I got 300hp at my disposal.
Click to expand...
Trust me, you don't need it lol. If you are in a situation with a Venture where another 20 hp saves your beacon you should be re-evaluating your flying ability. A go around in a Venture is already violent enough. You transition from a 2k ft/min decent to a 4k ft/min climb in seconds.
 
Grum.Man said:
Trust me, you don't need it lol. If you are in a situation with a Venture where another 20 hp saves your beacon you should be re-evaluating your flying ability. A go around in a Venture is already violent enough. You transition from a 2k ft/min decent to a 4k ft/min climb in seconds.
Click to expand...

Works till it doesn't
That's why they call them close calls ;)

I'd rather the peanut gallery talk crap about my piloting skills as I'm putting my plane back into its hangar, than talking crap about me as I'm being loaded into a medevac and a front loader is pushing my what's left of my plane into the hangar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top