Made it back with the new plane!

The Venture is nothing like that thankfully. It's praised as an excellent ifr platform with great stability.
 
Henning said:
Actually the Lancair probably handles better. Short couple tails have some nasty characteristics.
Click to expand...
Get back to us when you can compare horizontal tail volume of a small-tail Lancair to that of a Venture. I've seen no data that suggests the Venture is anywhere close to neutral stability in the flight envelope. The Lancair is quite the opposite.

Nauga,
Anti-eyeball engineer
 
Love those, curious how the narrow looking gear handles crosswinds?
 
Thanks, also, how is the insurance?
 
Every flight review out there praises the handling. The gear handles cross winds very well as it allows the plane to lean into the wind, you just have to remember to keep using the ailerons durning the landing rollout.
 
Great story!
Looks like a whole lot of fun.
 
Wanted to give an update on the Venture. It's been almost 5 months of feverish overhauling, rebuilding, modifying, cleaning, and touch up work but it finally moved out of the garage and into the hangar. Probably another month worth of assembly and adjusting before the first flight.

 
Beautiful plane. Looking forward to seeing how it turns out.
 
Great to hear about your progress!

If it was me, productivity would be abysmal. I'd be stepping back every few minutes to admire the plane, and get nothing done because of that. :)
 
Another update. Got the wings and ailerons on this weekend. Sounds great doesn't it? Unfortunately one had to come back off to fix a fuel leak. Parts ordered and will try again next weekend. Once the wings are done gotta Jack it up and start checking and adjusting the gear.

 
Grum.Man said:
Click to expand...

Sweet looking aeroplane!

...and I thought it was just the Aztec that had a lot of fasteners to remove the cowl :)

That's quite a pronounced cuff on that wing.
 
Nice looking airplane bud. Any chance of a few pics of the cockpit?
 
Pghsteel said:
Nice looking airplane bud. Any chance of a few pics of the cockpit?
Click to expand...

I don't have any good ones. This is the best I have. Most of the interior is out of it. Dated panel but well equipped and everything is in such good shape I see no reason to change it right now.

 
Interesting panel layout :)
 
Dang is that thing Japan registered? Everything on the wrong side. :eek:o_O:)
 
Grum.Man said:
Small plane with big engine means sitting on the right for better balance.
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't understand that?

Big engine 'P' factor will be about the yaw axis, so seemingly indifferent as to whether one is left or right of the longitudinal centerline. What am I not understanding here please? Less right rudder at TO power?
 
GRG55 said:
Sorry, don't understand that?

Big engine 'P' factor will be about the yaw axis, so seemingly indifferent as to whether one is left or right of the longitudinal centerline. What am I not understanding here please? Less right rudder at TO power?
Click to expand...

Torque is about the longitudinal axis, so extra weight on the right side (assuming conventional turning prop) will tend to balance it somewhat.
 
RotorDude said:
Torque is about the longitudinal axis, so extra weight on the right side (assuming conventional turning prop) will tend to balance it somewhat.
Click to expand...

Got it. Thanks!
 
GRG55 said:
Sorry, don't understand that?

Big engine 'P' factor will be about the yaw axis, so seemingly indifferent as to whether one is left or right of the longitudinal centerline. What am I not understanding here please? Less right rudder at TO power?
Click to expand...

I was waiting for that. In addition to what was mentioned above you have to know the design of the airplane. The nose gear is mounted to the engine. The engine is mounted to the airframe with rubber mounts. Due to the narrow gear any application of power really torques the airplane and drags the nose to the left. The original steering system was to utilize differential braking and there is almost 0 caster on the nose strut. Early models with left hand seating struggled to maneuver in just the right circumstances of power wind and ground slope.

This one has a modified steering system to help overcome that but it still tracks hard left while taxing with a right cross wind or when having to go up hill.
 
Grum.Man said:
I was waiting for that. In addition to what was mentioned above you have to know the design of the airplane. The nose gear is mounted to the engine. The engine is mounted to the airframe with rubber mounts. Due to the narrow gear any application of power really torques the airplane and drags the nose to the left. The original steering system was to utilize differential braking and there is almost 0 caster on the nose strut. Early models with left hand seating struggled to maneuver in just the right circumstances of power wind and ground slope.

This one has a modified steering system to help overcome that but it still tracks hard left while taxing with a right cross wind or when having to go up hill.
Click to expand...

Differential braking and almost zero caster on the nose gear sounds like an interesting combination, regardless of wind or power setting. I assume that was to keep the gear design simple while ensuring the nose gear was centred on retraction (something the GA Grumman's with their fixed gear, free-castoring nosewheels didn't have to deal with)?
 
Grum.Man said:
The nose gear is mounted to the engine. The engine is mounted to the airframe with rubber mounts. .
Click to expand...

Holy smokes! :eek: To the engine? :confused: Guess you hold that nose off after landing for quite awhile eh?
 
GRG55 said:
Differential braking and almost zero caster on the nose gear sounds like an interesting combination, regardless of wind or power setting. I assume that was to keep the gear design simple while ensuring the nose gear was centred on retraction (something the GA Grumman's with their fixed gear, free-castoring nosewheels didn't have to deal with)?
Click to expand...

Weight and simplicity. I think it worked fine on the prototype but as the planes got heavier it got worse. Another issue is limited room in the gear well. There is maybe 1/2" on either side of the nose fork.
 
Wow - fast little machine! What would be typical cruise speed and fuel burn on a 500 mile trip?
 
RudyP said:
Wow - fast little machine! What would be typical cruise speed and fuel burn on a 500 mile trip?
Click to expand...

Just kind of depends on your goal. I would say a high cruise would be 230 kts @ 13 gph. Economy cruise is 172 kts @ 7.6 gph or so.
 
Have u picked out a destination for your first flight? I mean after pattern work of course...
 
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top