RV-7 versus Mustang II
I have confirmed both the RV pilot (Dave Hirschman) and the RV owner (Bill Cloughley, who is wearing a VAF hat in the AOPA video) are members of these forums, so maybe one of them will comment on this thread.
After reading the article, I note the following summary written by Dave Hirschman:
"Top speed is the simplest and most talked-about measure of aircraft performance—and the least important.
Who among us flies at full throttle, with the prop at max rpm, the mixture full rich, at low altitude, except during takeoff and initial climb? Unless you’re racing at Reno, your typical flight profile probably involves a climb, a reduction in prop/engine rpm, and leaning the mixture. When you do those things, the Mustang II’s speed advantage over the RV–7 becomes a rounding error.
Far more meaningful are the criteria that comprise what Vans Aircraft Founder Dick VanGrunsven calls “total performance.” Those considerations include short-field performance, aerobatic capability, ground handling, control harmony, comfort, visibility, and fuel efficiency. Some of these qualities are hard to quantify, but they add up to versatility, and that’s where the RV series shines. No other general aviation aircraft—Experimental or FAA-certified—can match RVs across the full performance spectrum.
And while we’re talking about intangibles, here’s the biggest: The RV community of builders and pilots is an actual community. Nearly 8,000 RVs have been built and flown around the world, and the people who own, build, and fly them are among the most knowledgeable, skillful, friendly, cooperative, and active people in aviation. They happily share information and provide mutual support. They also do more actual flying (as opposed to hangar flying, coffee drinking, or doughnut eating) than any other aviation group I know.
For all these reasons, the RV–7 is the superior airplane in this contest."
Secondly, while Ian Twombley makes a point about the price of the Mustang II being about half that of the RV-7 on the used market (
I haven't confirmed that), looking at it from the seller's viewpoint, isn't that a good reason to be proud of building something that returns a lot of value for the time, money and effort put into it? Also, Mr. Twombley incorrectly writes that the Mustang II is available from a kit, after the video shows his interview with the M-II builder discussing the higher cost of
scratch building the M-II.
My personal story is one of 3 or 4 Mustang II builders at Sun'n Fun twenty years ago telling me that I had to be able to weld and read drawings to build a Mustang II. "This ain't no kit. This is a plane built from engineering drawings!" I didn't tell them about my two mechanical engineering degrees, as I walked away from their two Mustang II's toward about 30 RV's that were parked a few yards away.
As for the speed discrepancy, Van has a reputation for being honest to a fault as to performance figures of his designs.
I do like the fact that the AOPA video ends with some degree of civility with compliments being swapped between the two sides.
I thought it was a nice piece of aviation journalism and an example of future articles with the ten-minute video linked at the end of the article.
P.S. For Dave...Here's a suggestion for a future article. Take Ian Twombley to a typical workshop of an RV builder and then take him to a workshop for a typical scratch builder. It was obvious in the video that he has no interest in building an airplane. This is a little surprising to me as I am aware of his family's rich heritage in aviation. Take him at different stages of construction and let him see the difference between a kit built airplane and a scratch built one. The kit built airplane doesn't even have to be an RV. I think it would be an interesting and educational exercise. I noted that the Mustang II builder "hemmed and hawed" when asked about how much it cost him to build his M-II. At least he was honest when he said he was sure the total cost was more than the total cost of the RV, and that was after Ian compared the two "kit" prices, saying the M-II was $2000 cheaper ($18K vs. $20K).