Made it back with the new plane!

Quite a few years ago a venture was built in the hanger next to mine. The design and quality of the components was very impressive. The owner over committed and had a business go south so he had to sell it very shortly after completion. Why I mention it, some potential buyers all flew it over a week and it became a bidding war to get it. Everyone couldn't stop talking about how well it handled. The buyer forgot to lower the gear a year later and damaged it. It changed hands and flew again after repairs. Wish I could remember the N number....
 
eman1200 said:
Have u picked out a destination for your first flight? I mean after pattern work of course...
Click to expand...

Not yet, I have 15 hours of dual required so that opens up a lot of destinations at 230 kts.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I wonder why it didn't catch on like the lanc/glasairs? On paper, the airplane looks very numbers competitive. I'm sure there's a catch somewhere.

It doesn't look all that terrible to sit in either; Lord knows the lancair 320/360s are a seating position cluster----- for more than an hour, they make a "wtf's the point of these seats if I'm sitting on the floor" mooney feel like a PA32. Figured that's part of the reason the RVs took off with the market, well that and they're metal (which I too favor).
Click to expand...

They were extremely difficult to build and were accident prone early on. Most people don't find them very attractive which doesn't help either. The final nail in the coffin was that they were selling the kits so cheap at the time the company just wasn't making money. In 1988 or so you could buy the kit with an engine and propeller for $65,000.00. Not a lot of dough even back then for an all metal kit with an IO-550 and constant speed propeller.
 
image.jpeg image.jpeg Always been a fan of the Questair design. I think marketing and diversity had something to do with their decline as well. They created a single design aimed at a select crowd and didn't market it as heavily as Lancair, Vans or Glasair back in the 80s. The big EAB manufacturers survived because they started small and built on it over the years with more options and models. The Questair was just a flat out two seat XC speed machine. Doesn't do bad at Reno either.
 
Last edited:
image.jpeg Another EAB that died too soon was the White Lightning. 220 KTAS on only 210 HP. Seats four as well...if you don't mind facing backwards.
 
Speaking of fast 2 seat kits, What's the fate of the furio?
 
Velocity173 said:
View attachment 44896 View attachment 44895 Always been a fan of the Questair design. I think marketing and diversity had something to do with their decline as well. They created a single design aimed at a select crowd and didn't market it as heavily as Lanacair, Vans or Glasair back in the 80s. The big EAB manufacturers survived because they started small and built on it over the years with more options and models. The Questair was just a flat out two seat XC speed machine. Doesn't do bad at Reno either.
Click to expand...

I agree 100 %. Most people that build the faster Lancair and Glasair models started on or in the lessor version. Both of those were much quicker to assemble due to construction type than the Questair was. Most people with the desire for speed and the money to support it don't want to spend years building.
 
As of May 21st The Venture has been deemed airworthy again. Took right at 6 months from the time I brought it home, not bad considering all the work I did but about 3 months longer than I predicted. All we are waiting on now is for the instructor, mine, and the weathers schedule to all get along and she will be air born again after 18 years.



 
Lookin good man! Good luck on the first flight.
 
Well crap, someone has to be a downer so I guess it is my turn.
First, it is flat out gorgeous. The kind of machine we all wanted at 15 if it was a motorcycle.

The bad news is that engine is your life.
These birds come down fast and hard when the fan quits. Yeah, the stall speed might be only a bit higher than some others, but what is the sink rate just before the stall? You might come over the numbers just above stall and still get your spine crushed by the vertical speed.
Have someone who is really, really good with engines and systems on high performance airplanes go over it with a microscope before it flies and repeat the whole nine yards after the first couple of hours.
The fact that it flew 68 hours, apparently without incident, is good news. And the fact that your dad has intimate knowledge of the bird is excellent. But the systems have set there quietly deteriorating for years. It won't be the big things that bite you, it will be the little insignificant item that just didn't occur to you or your dad. It is the flaking liner on a fuel hose. It is the rusty bearing on a magneto. It is the prop seal that has become brittle and blows the oil out all over the windshield when you are low and slow. And on. And on.
Yeah, I want to see the video of those first flights like everyone on here. Fly smart my friend.
 
Dr. O said:
Well crap, someone has to be a downer so I guess it is my turn.
First, it is flat out gorgeous. The kind of machine we all wanted at 15 if it was a motorcycle.

The bad news is that engine is your life.
These birds come down fast and hard when the fan quits. Yeah, the stall speed might be only a bit higher than some others, but what is the sink rate just before the stall? You might come over the numbers just above stall and still get your spine crushed by the vertical speed.
Have someone who is really, really good with engines and systems on high performance airplanes go over it with a microscope before it flies and repeat the whole nine yards after the first couple of hours.
The fact that it flew 68 hours, apparently without incident, is good news. And the fact that your dad has intimate knowledge of the bird is excellent. But the systems have set there quietly deteriorating for years. It won't be the big things that bite you, it will be the little insignificant item that just didn't occur to you or your dad. It is the flaking liner on a fuel hose. It is the rusty bearing on a magneto. It is the prop seal that has become brittle and blows the oil out all over the windshield when you are low and slow. And on. And on.
Yeah, I want to see the video of those first flights like everyone on here. Fly smart my friend.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate your words of caution I can assure you I have done as much as I felt necessary to mitigate the risk. All rubber components in the fuel system have been replaced, fuel pump has been overhauled, both tanks filled, filtered, then drained. Oil has been changed 3 times and oil screen has been clear every time. No I did not send the propeller out for overhaul as I feel like any defect will be non catastrophic if it happens. We bore scoped the engine and saw no signs of corrosion and all compressions were in the mid to low 70's. If the engine is bad it will likely show up in high oil consumption rather than catastrophic failure. If everything was new there is still a risk of failure with every flight, at some point you either have to accept the risk and be prepared or stop flying as a hobby.
 
Man! That thing looks fast just sitting there! Beautiful and a great history as well. Enjoy!
 
Very cool! Hope to hear some results soon.
 
mkosmo said:
Oh man, that's pretty. I want a ride!
Click to expand...
Me too!!!

On second thought maybe that wouldn't be such a good thing. I'm afraid I would want one after that.

Congrats on getting your plane back in flying condition. She looks so nice!
 
I'm curious how much it cost for that restoration. I love to read these threads and dream about the day I have unlimited amounts of cash to restore a plane like this back to working condition heh..

Glad it worked out for you.
 
They overall aircraft has gorgeous lines, even if the nose and vertical stabilizer seem to go on forever. The main gear placement being so far forward looks goofy as hell, but then it's folded up no one's the wiser. Definitely a cool project you've salvaged and I bet it'll be a hoot to fly.
 
Thats awesome!
Something similar happened with my dad but he and a friend purchased an airplane together for $3000 each ($6000 in total), fixed it up and my dad moved away overseas and left it to his friend. Unfortunately, his friend passed away but he came back 20+ years later and it was given back to him.
He sold it before I was born (for a lot more than he purchased it he told me) so I never got to see or ride in it.
 
Velocity173 said:
View attachment 44896 View attachment 44895 Always been a fan of the Questair design. I think marketing and diversity had something to do with their decline as well. They created a single design aimed at a select crowd and didn't market it as heavily as Lancair, Vans or Glasair back in the 80s. The big EAB manufacturers survived because they started small and built on it over the years with more options and models. The Questair was just a flat out two seat XC speed machine. Doesn't do bad at Reno either.
Click to expand...


ironic, since tommy rose died in N360 at reno when the tail suffered structural failure. however, i do know it was do to assembly errors, and operation at or above design limits.

very nice looking airplane you have, they are great airplanes, but as a high performance aircraft they must be flown properly or they will bite.
bob
 
unsafervguy said:
ironic, since tommy rose died in N360 at reno when the tail suffered structural failure. however, i do know it was do to assembly errors, and operation at or above design limits.

very nice looking airplane you have, they are great airplanes, but as a high performance aircraft they must be flown properly or they will bite.
bob
Click to expand...

Many aircraft have come apart at Reno. They're being pushed to the limit. Nothing wrong with the design of the Venture.
 
Velocity173 said:
Many aircraft have come apart at Reno. They're being pushed to the limit. Nothing wrong with the design of the Venture.
Click to expand...

as i stated, it was due to improper assembly and operating at or above design limit. I never said there was a design problem. a major cause was installation of the the wrong spring in the feel spring in the elevator circuit. I found the statement and photo ironic because the photo was of an aircraft the was involved in a fatal crash at reno, and most of the ventures that have raced at reno have suffered damage do to accidents there. there were three damaged in one year. one pilot has had two wrecks at reno in one. the venture is a great aircraft, but it really has not done well at reno.
 
Well the year I was there, they finished 2-4 out of 8 aircraft.
 
What's best glide speed and glide ratio on these things?
 
yes that was 1999 the best showing ever for the aircraft. in 2002 two of those were involved in wrecks in the same race, and a third a couple of days before. again, nothing wrong in the design of the aircraft, but i believe only 4, maybe 5 different airframes have run at reno and three of them have been wrecked. not my idea of doing well. as I have said, good airplane, not a good racer.

bob
 
unsafervguy said:
yes that was 1999 the best showing ever for the aircraft. in 2002 two of those were involved in wrecks in the same race, and a third a couple of days before. again, nothing wrong in the design of the aircraft, but i believe only 4, maybe 5 different airframes have run at reno and three of them have been wrecked. not my idea of doing well. as I have said, good airplane, not a good racer.

bob
Click to expand...

To my knowledge only one Questair crashed at Reno and was the only one that was due to structural failure. Others were landing incidents or pilot error. It is no worse than Legacy's or Glasair III's. The Venture held several records for a very long time. If the airframe was given time to mature and develop I would bet it would still be top of its class.
 
Yes, it was the only one that suffered structural failure and the others were engine or landing problems. My point was that over all it has not done well at Reno. The aircraft has never won a gold, it's a great aircraft for what it was designed for, get from a to b very fast. But it was never designed as a racer and to race at the top of the class it has to be pushed well above its limits. the ntsb report on tommy's accident looked at the vne speeds and design limits. I think this is an area that needs to be looked at, and I believe it is being looked at seriously by the class, as there have been two overload failures and one flutter incident in the sport class. I have always liked the airplane but I would not race one.

Bob
 
Quick update, flew the Questair today. Everything went well with only a few squaks. The HSI is acting up and the tach is a little erratic. Going to keep doing the training flights this week. Will post pics and videos later. What a great flying airplane. Super smooth and really a breeze to handle.
 
Well day 2 went great. Logged 5.5 hours doing lots of air work and cross country work. Seems to true out at 234 knots on a little less than 13 gph. Did some formation flying with a T-34. It is a sweet handling bird and more docile than you would expect. Stalls are a non event with lots of buffet. Anything more than 12 inches of manifold pressure though and it will just keep climbing. Cruise climb at 160 kts at 1,500 fpm.



 
Grum.Man said:
They were extremely difficult to build and were accident prone early on. Most people don't find them very attractive which doesn't help either. The final nail in the coffin was that they were selling the kits so cheap at the time the company just wasn't making money. In 1988 or so you could buy the kit with an engine and propeller for $65,000.00. Not a lot of dough even back then for an all metal kit with an IO-550 and constant speed propeller.
Click to expand...

At 230 knots/13 gph, I wouldn't care if it looked like a giant testicle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top