Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Mustang II?
- Thread starter cobra
- Start date
- Status
I also had a friend trying to get me to build a Mustang II. After flying his for a while he said, "Now wouldn't rather have one of these?" He was disappointed when I said no. The Mustang II is a very nice airplane. It has a nice top speed and is aerobatic. But approach is flown at 90 mph. Not a good speed for my 1500' strip.
Mel...DAR
Mel...DAR
rvpilot
Well Known Member
Mustang??
I can't fiqure out why anyone would settle for less when they could have the best!!
You're gonna be building a long time, it would be a shame to be disappointed when you're done. Best do a LOT of homework before you start. Early on, I settled for a lesser project, never finished it, now about to first flight my second RV!
Good luck whichever way you go.
Barefoot Billy Waters
I can't fiqure out why anyone would settle for less when they could have the best!!
You're gonna be building a long time, it would be a shame to be disappointed when you're done. Best do a LOT of homework before you start. Early on, I settled for a lesser project, never finished it, now about to first flight my second RV!Good luck whichever way you go.
Barefoot Billy Waters
N916K
Well Known Member
I work down the road from the Mustang guys and went and had a visit last year. I was looking for a second project to start. The reason I was looking at the Mustang II as a second project was I would like to do more fabricating and design work on my own. I think with some work a Mustang II could be a real show winner, not that it isn't a nice plane in stock form. They just leave quite a few options up to the builder as how things get done. Personally I like the looks of the wing on the Mustang II much more than the RV's.
I've never flown a Mustang II but from what I understand it's a pretty hot plane on approach. Also the flap system is a bit different, it's more of a spoiler than a flap. It drops down under the fuselage with only a small part under the wing. The owner of the company was saying it's more to slow the plane down than generate a large amount of lift. The prototype had regular flaps though.
When it comes to the RV series, they are so complete there is no reason to change them much. That works both for and against the RV's. The consistancy of performance with the RV's is incredible, but to some people the consistancy of looks kind of takes away from them. When you look down the flight line it's like "Hey look there, it's a bunch of RV's. OK we've seen these before lets go somewhere else"
For a first time builder the RV is probably the way to go. You are pretty much gaurenteed to get a great flying plane when your done. Also be careful about comparing planes by there spec list, they may not be as similar as you think.
I've never flown a Mustang II but from what I understand it's a pretty hot plane on approach. Also the flap system is a bit different, it's more of a spoiler than a flap. It drops down under the fuselage with only a small part under the wing. The owner of the company was saying it's more to slow the plane down than generate a large amount of lift. The prototype had regular flaps though.
When it comes to the RV series, they are so complete there is no reason to change them much. That works both for and against the RV's. The consistancy of performance with the RV's is incredible, but to some people the consistancy of looks kind of takes away from them. When you look down the flight line it's like "Hey look there, it's a bunch of RV's. OK we've seen these before lets go somewhere else"
For a first time builder the RV is probably the way to go. You are pretty much gaurenteed to get a great flying plane when your done. Also be careful about comparing planes by there spec list, they may not be as similar as you think.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Wrong place to ask
You are not going to get a super "fair and balanced" opinion on a Van's Airforce, World Wide Wing.
1988 Van flew against a Mustang II in a dog fight as reported by EAA in Sport Aviation; Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6. The result was the RV-6 won because the RV could turn and climb further with out as much loss of airspeed. What does that mean. Well look at the leading edge of a Mustang. Regardless of the stall speed when it does stall it will do it spectacularly.
If you are serious go fly an RV than a Mustang II and let us all know. Part of the RV's charm is how it handles and the overall "total performance." When it comes to cost the differnce is going to be small, when a very complete RV kit goes for around 15K. Most of the cost is still going to be in engine, prop,avionics and other systems , which are common to both.
As far as top speed I don't know, but the Mustang claims cruise/top speeds 8-13mph faster and simular stall speed. This is claimed to be credited to the laminar flow wing. I can say laminar flow in most planes has never turned out to be what they promised. Sounds great in practice at the wind tunnel but is not what you get in the real world. With that said I did find in the 2003 Sun N Fun 100:
http://www.mustangaero.com/News & Events/2003sun100results.htm
Obviously Anders RV4 is modified as I am sure the Mutang II was.
George
You are not going to get a super "fair and balanced" opinion on a Van's Airforce, World Wide Wing.
1988 Van flew against a Mustang II in a dog fight as reported by EAA in Sport Aviation; Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6. The result was the RV-6 won because the RV could turn and climb further with out as much loss of airspeed. What does that mean. Well look at the leading edge of a Mustang. Regardless of the stall speed when it does stall it will do it spectacularly.
If you are serious go fly an RV than a Mustang II and let us all know. Part of the RV's charm is how it handles and the overall "total performance." When it comes to cost the differnce is going to be small, when a very complete RV kit goes for around 15K. Most of the cost is still going to be in engine, prop,avionics and other systems , which are common to both.
As far as top speed I don't know, but the Mustang claims cruise/top speeds 8-13mph faster and simular stall speed. This is claimed to be credited to the laminar flow wing. I can say laminar flow in most planes has never turned out to be what they promised. Sounds great in practice at the wind tunnel but is not what you get in the real world. With that said I did find in the 2003 Sun N Fun 100:
http://www.mustangaero.com/News & Events/2003sun100results.htm
Obviously Anders RV4 is modified as I am sure the Mutang II was.
George
Last edited:
Mustang II or RV?
I looked into the Mustang II. It is a nice airplane, but more difficult to build. The wing needs to be as smooth as possible or cruise and stall speeds maybe be effected much more than an RV wing (or so I was told). IMHO, it's not the best choice for a first time builder. However, if you have some building experience it shouldn't be much of a problem.
I went for a ride in a Mustang II and found it a little too hot in the pattern for me. I have a fair amount of complex high-performance time, so I'm not a stranger to 80kts on final. However, I wanted something a little less demanding to fly. Oh yeah, and when it stalls, it stalls! If you get a ride, try a few stalls and see what happens. Then go get a ride in a RV. I think you will be sending your cash to Van. I certainlly did!
However, I still think it's a nice airplane for the pilot who is willing to compromise low speed handling for a little more speed. A stock Mustang II will definately out run a stock RV with the same engine/prop combo at altitude. The airplane I rode in cruised 238 on a 180/CS.
I looked into the Mustang II. It is a nice airplane, but more difficult to build. The wing needs to be as smooth as possible or cruise and stall speeds maybe be effected much more than an RV wing (or so I was told). IMHO, it's not the best choice for a first time builder. However, if you have some building experience it shouldn't be much of a problem.
I went for a ride in a Mustang II and found it a little too hot in the pattern for me. I have a fair amount of complex high-performance time, so I'm not a stranger to 80kts on final. However, I wanted something a little less demanding to fly. Oh yeah, and when it stalls, it stalls! If you get a ride, try a few stalls and see what happens. Then go get a ride in a RV. I think you will be sending your cash to Van. I certainlly did!
However, I still think it's a nice airplane for the pilot who is willing to compromise low speed handling for a little more speed. A stock Mustang II will definately out run a stock RV with the same engine/prop combo at altitude. The airplane I rode in cruised 238 on a 180/CS.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Look in Trade-A-Plane
I figure both planes will cost about the same to build (same engine, prop, instruments, etc.).
Now look in Trade-A-Plane and see what each sells for. RV's are the gold standard of home builts and the price in TAP shows that. It is one of the few home builts that sell for the same or more than the cost of construction.
Just another $.02 worth.
I figure both planes will cost about the same to build (same engine, prop, instruments, etc.).
Now look in Trade-A-Plane and see what each sells for. RV's are the gold standard of home builts and the price in TAP shows that. It is one of the few home builts that sell for the same or more than the cost of construction.
Just another $.02 worth.
robertahegy
Moderator/Tech Counselor
Another thing to consider is the matched hole technology. Does the Mustang II have it? It doesn't appear to. I would definetely want to fly one before deciding just to check out handling and comfort. I personally think the RV looks better, too.
JMHO
Roberta
JMHO
Roberta
In 1996 I was introduced to a guy a couple of blocks from my house (Leo Collins) that was working on a Mustang II in his garage. It was in the fuselage stage if I remember correctly. I was absolutely floored - you mean people actually BUILD airplanes in their garage?!?! I'd never even heard of a 'RV'.
Fast forward nine years and I now have 400 hours flying time on my RV-6 (slow build). Leo's Mustang II is still under construction...although I understand he's close (we both have a wife, two kids and 'real jobs'). He is a mechanical engineer and a great guy.
I know this is just one data point, but it says volumes IMHO for the 'completeness of kit' argument . An hour in the shop working on the RV is more productive, I could generalize, than an hour in the shop working on a Mustang II.
Just MHO,
Fast forward nine years and I now have 400 hours flying time on my RV-6 (slow build). Leo's Mustang II is still under construction...although I understand he's close (we both have a wife, two kids and 'real jobs'). He is a mechanical engineer and a great guy.
I know this is just one data point, but it says volumes IMHO for the 'completeness of kit' argument . An hour in the shop working on the RV is more productive, I could generalize, than an hour in the shop working on a Mustang II.
Just MHO,
RV vs. Mustang = RV for me
Before I reply, let me just say my tail kit is not yet in the mail. It's going to be ordered this week, so take this from a non-builder perspective.
I was looking real hard at the Mustang II as well, primarily for performance reasons. I decided to stick with an RV for a few reasons. First off, I think I have a much better chance at finishing an RV than a Mustang. The number of RV builders, newsgroups, web resources, etc. far outweighs the number of Mustang resources available, and if I get stuck on something I think I'd have a better chance of finding the workaround easier with an RV. Also, getting "parts and services" for the RV looks to be alot easier simply due to brand recognition. Everywhere I look it's RV this and RV that, whereas you don't see that with the Mustang as much. As an example, I plan on doing the Alexander Technical empennage program...I didn't see a Mustang II equivalent program anywhere.
Second, the Mustang II is a bit smaller in person than what it appears in pictures. I think the RV has a higher comfort level for me (6'1" 210Lbs) than what the Mustang had (I sat in both). WHen looking at the specs themselves, they aren't too different. But I really "felt" like there was a significant size difference between the 2 aircraft (probably due to the wing...the RV wing is pretty huge).
The 2 kits are priced almost identical, but I think the RV is a better value. The kit itself looks to be more complete, and the matched hole construction seems to make life easier (from what I have read). I tried my hardest to buy that Mustang, but in the end I am going with an RV.
Before I reply, let me just say my tail kit is not yet in the mail. It's going to be ordered this week, so take this from a non-builder perspective.
I was looking real hard at the Mustang II as well, primarily for performance reasons. I decided to stick with an RV for a few reasons. First off, I think I have a much better chance at finishing an RV than a Mustang. The number of RV builders, newsgroups, web resources, etc. far outweighs the number of Mustang resources available, and if I get stuck on something I think I'd have a better chance of finding the workaround easier with an RV. Also, getting "parts and services" for the RV looks to be alot easier simply due to brand recognition. Everywhere I look it's RV this and RV that, whereas you don't see that with the Mustang as much. As an example, I plan on doing the Alexander Technical empennage program...I didn't see a Mustang II equivalent program anywhere.
Second, the Mustang II is a bit smaller in person than what it appears in pictures. I think the RV has a higher comfort level for me (6'1" 210Lbs) than what the Mustang had (I sat in both). WHen looking at the specs themselves, they aren't too different. But I really "felt" like there was a significant size difference between the 2 aircraft (probably due to the wing...the RV wing is pretty huge).
The 2 kits are priced almost identical, but I think the RV is a better value. The kit itself looks to be more complete, and the matched hole construction seems to make life easier (from what I have read). I tried my hardest to buy that Mustang, but in the end I am going with an RV.
I too am weighing the Mustang II against an RV.
The main argument for an M2 is the folding wings, or at least removable. I've yet to finish the research, but if hangar space is practically unavailable (I live in Norway) then it will be very hard to manage an RV. The folding wings aren't without compromise of course, but storage (both daily and seasonal) may turn out to be a real show stopper. I'll endure the more complicated building, although finished wings might be nice.
Another important thing is which frame will best carry a diesel powered engine which I'm considering a must for now (I'm still years away from first purchase).
Some extra speed is nice and I probably won't be doing much short field operation but if storage turns out to be practical I don't have much reason not to go with an RV. How the wing looks and how many else are flying a particular type are not important arguments for me.
The main argument for an M2 is the folding wings, or at least removable. I've yet to finish the research, but if hangar space is practically unavailable (I live in Norway) then it will be very hard to manage an RV. The folding wings aren't without compromise of course, but storage (both daily and seasonal) may turn out to be a real show stopper. I'll endure the more complicated building, although finished wings might be nice.
Another important thing is which frame will best carry a diesel powered engine which I'm considering a must for now (I'm still years away from first purchase).
Some extra speed is nice and I probably won't be doing much short field operation but if storage turns out to be practical I don't have much reason not to go with an RV. How the wing looks and how many else are flying a particular type are not important arguments for me.
Several things need to be considered when dealing with folding or removable wings. Every time you fold/remove wings you are adding wear to critical attach points (especially when you are dealing with a cantalever wing). Every time you fly is a test flight. There's always a chance that a pin or bolt didn't go in just right. Then there is the time factor. How many times will you not fly because it's just not worth it for a short flight? I try to discourage people from using folding/removlable wings. How many airplanes do you see at fly-ins that have folding/removable wings.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but how practicle is it?
Mel...DAR
I'm not saying it can't be done, but how practicle is it?
Mel...DAR
rvpilot
Well Known Member
Stiil considering the Mustang?
Cobra-
I think everyone has hit on the advantages of the RV over the Mustang II. Better, more complete, and easier to build kit for the first time builder. Hence, more likely to finish. The RV's perform per the advertised specs (look close at the Mustang in this regard). Better value and more marketable once finished. While I haven't flown the Mustang, I can't imagine it handling anything like the RV.
In the end, it's a personnel decision. But I'd bear in mind that Van's has been around now for close to 30 years. I doubt they would have made it this long if they didn't have something really special to offer. (Big RV Grin!)
Good luck with your decision!
Barefoot Billy Waters
Cobra-
I think everyone has hit on the advantages of the RV over the Mustang II. Better, more complete, and easier to build kit for the first time builder. Hence, more likely to finish. The RV's perform per the advertised specs (look close at the Mustang in this regard). Better value and more marketable once finished. While I haven't flown the Mustang, I can't imagine it handling anything like the RV.
In the end, it's a personnel decision. But I'd bear in mind that Van's has been around now for close to 30 years. I doubt they would have made it this long if they didn't have something really special to offer.
(Big RV Grin!)Good luck with your decision!
Barefoot Billy Waters
Mel said:
This is very true. Mustang Aero recommends against aerobatics with the folding wings, not because they aren't strong enough but because of the possibility of a faulty connection. That being said, from I've read on the mustang list it seems to be a configuration that doesn't wear itself out with normal use. But it's still a point of failure which could definately ruin your day, not much chance of a BRS system if you also want to carry a clean pair of underwear and a toothbrush XC.
Mel said:
For me I'm afraid, that argument may turn out to be invalid. The other option might be storing the plane 2-3 hours drive away or permanently outdoors in an area subjected to winds and salty air from the sea. Winter storage would be 4-5 hours (or more) away and would likely keep me grounded on those crisp, clear and quiet February afternoons. I may consider relocating myself though.
jonbakerok
Well Known Member
Check out the W&B
I REALLY wanted to build a Mustang II. I just think they're prettier, with the wide-stance main gear and the tapered wing. They also have a real adjustable seat and folding wings. And they don't look like 4000 other homebuilts.
The stall characteristics of that tapered, laminar flow wing really bothered me. But my main problem with it was cross-country performance. When I did a sample weight and balance, I discovered that it has a very narrow balance range. I couldn't load my wife, full fuel, and weekend luggage and stay inside the envelope. What's the point of a fast plane if you can't load it to go someplace?
But if the Mustang guys ever come out with a non-laminar, hershey bar wing and matched-hole parts, I might consider building one.
I REALLY wanted to build a Mustang II. I just think they're prettier, with the wide-stance main gear and the tapered wing. They also have a real adjustable seat and folding wings. And they don't look like 4000 other homebuilts.
The stall characteristics of that tapered, laminar flow wing really bothered me. But my main problem with it was cross-country performance. When I did a sample weight and balance, I discovered that it has a very narrow balance range. I couldn't load my wife, full fuel, and weekend luggage and stay inside the envelope. What's the point of a fast plane if you can't load it to go someplace?
But if the Mustang guys ever come out with a non-laminar, hershey bar wing and matched-hole parts, I might consider building one.
This discussion has been helpful- thanks to all for the input. Can someone explain the differences between a laminar and non-laminar flow wing for me?
The real allure for the Mustang II to me is the external resemblence to the P-51, my all time favorite plane; the removable wings have some utility for winter storage and trailering. I think I prefer the more predictable flight characteristics of Vans designs though- and Vans kits are a big plus too.
The real allure for the Mustang II to me is the external resemblence to the P-51, my all time favorite plane; the removable wings have some utility for winter storage and trailering. I think I prefer the more predictable flight characteristics of Vans designs though- and Vans kits are a big plus too.
rv8bldr
Well Known Member
If you like the look of the P-51, build an -8. Have a look at Danny King's gorgeous Beautiful Doll. Although you kinda have to squint and unfocus your eyes a little bit to make it look EXACTLY like a P-51, it is pretty close. And you can pack a pile of stuff into it for xcountry.
Cheers
Cheers
cobra said:
I can't, but I think this website can.
http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/lam-flow.htm
I assume it's the laminar flow wing and not so much the external appearance that was the reason for naming the prototype "midget mustang".
rv7boy
Forum Peruser
Mustang II vs. RV
Here's my Mustang II vs. RV story. It actually happened to me. Let me begin with a disclaimer that what follows does not reflect on the people who sell the Mustang II design, just a small group of their customers. I wish I could know that those 4 or 5 individuals would read this.
I drove apx. 700 miles to Lakeland, FL in 1993 to attend the annual Sun'n Fun Fly In. I had done some research in various magazines and thought I wanted to build a Mustang II. When I arrived at the airport and with all the excitement of a 6 year old at Christmas, I went straight to the homebuillt parking area. I soon found 4 or 5 Mustang II airplanes with their owners standing around talking among themselves. I politely waited for an opportune time and started asking a few questions about their airplanes. Very soon they let me know these weren't kit built planes, where all you do is assemble parts. They told me these were scratch-built planes and I would have to know how to read drawings (I'm an engineer, so that didn't seem to be an obstacle to me.). Then they said I'd have to weld. ( I don't know how, but I've been around a few welders and I think with proper instruction, I could learn how if they could.) I would also have to have access to a machine shop to fabricate some of the parts. All in all, these 4 or 5 guys just basically told me that not just anyone could build a Mustang II...you had to be a craftsman!!!
At that point, I felt more than a little disappointment. As I turned to walk away, I noticed a few rows over several (maybe 40?) airplanes that looked like Mustang II's but they were a little different. That's how I was introduced to RV's. The RV pilots that I met were all very courteous and soon I was told that Van (whoever that was) had a display tent that I should go visit. When I found it, I saw a video running continuously showing how to rivet. I also met someone (maybe Bill Benedict?) who was very courteous and positive.
So I came home from Sun'n Fun all pumped up about RV's. At the airport, I found an EAA Chapter and joined... and soon learned that two RV-6A's were already under construction near my local airport.
I'm sure this is a remote incident and I have met some Mustang II pilots since then who are very courteous. I also am of the opinion that the Mustang II "kits" have a few more parts prefabricated now, some 12 years later. This just shows that any of us, no matter what type of plane we are flying, should be courteous to the onlooker. For all you know, he/she may be an astronaut or the next Mike Melville.
Anyway, that's what happened to me.
I think the Mustang II is a great airplane...but I'm glad I'm building an RV-7. You know, I really should thank those guys...the Mustang II really isn't for me.
Don
P.S. That's also how I first met Mel Asberry...he was one of the RV pilots who was very courteous and supportive.
Here's my Mustang II vs. RV story. It actually happened to me. Let me begin with a disclaimer that what follows does not reflect on the people who sell the Mustang II design, just a small group of their customers. I wish I could know that those 4 or 5 individuals would read this.
I drove apx. 700 miles to Lakeland, FL in 1993 to attend the annual Sun'n Fun Fly In. I had done some research in various magazines and thought I wanted to build a Mustang II. When I arrived at the airport and with all the excitement of a 6 year old at Christmas, I went straight to the homebuillt parking area. I soon found 4 or 5 Mustang II airplanes with their owners standing around talking among themselves. I politely waited for an opportune time and started asking a few questions about their airplanes. Very soon they let me know these weren't kit built planes, where all you do is assemble parts. They told me these were scratch-built planes and I would have to know how to read drawings (I'm an engineer, so that didn't seem to be an obstacle to me.). Then they said I'd have to weld. ( I don't know how, but I've been around a few welders and I think with proper instruction, I could learn how if they could.) I would also have to have access to a machine shop to fabricate some of the parts. All in all, these 4 or 5 guys just basically told me that not just anyone could build a Mustang II...you had to be a craftsman!!!
At that point, I felt more than a little disappointment. As I turned to walk away, I noticed a few rows over several (maybe 40?) airplanes that looked like Mustang II's but they were a little different. That's how I was introduced to RV's. The RV pilots that I met were all very courteous and soon I was told that Van (whoever that was) had a display tent that I should go visit. When I found it, I saw a video running continuously showing how to rivet. I also met someone (maybe Bill Benedict?) who was very courteous and positive.
So I came home from Sun'n Fun all pumped up about RV's. At the airport, I found an EAA Chapter and joined... and soon learned that two RV-6A's were already under construction near my local airport.
I'm sure this is a remote incident and I have met some Mustang II pilots since then who are very courteous. I also am of the opinion that the Mustang II "kits" have a few more parts prefabricated now, some 12 years later. This just shows that any of us, no matter what type of plane we are flying, should be courteous to the onlooker. For all you know, he/she may be an astronaut or the next Mike Melville.
Anyway, that's what happened to me.
I think the Mustang II is a great airplane...but I'm glad I'm building an RV-7. You know, I really should thank those guys...the Mustang II really isn't for me.
Don
P.S. That's also how I first met Mel Asberry...he was one of the RV pilots who was very courteous and supportive.
Last edited:
Don,
I know exactly what you mean. However, these type of people exist amoung RV ranks as well. I once met 2 guys with completed RV's that refused to give me the time of day because I was just a builder. Apparently, I wasn't worthy of their time unless I had a completed airplane. I also met another guy who thought he was better than I because he built his kit from a non-prepunched kit. I respect the amount of time effort he had to put in to build his airplane, but I will not be any less proud of my airplane just because it was alot less work to build.
I think these people are in the minority. Most builders or pilots of completed airplanes I have met were very nice and most were more than willing to talk me about their airplane.
I know exactly what you mean. However, these type of people exist amoung RV ranks as well. I once met 2 guys with completed RV's that refused to give me the time of day because I was just a builder. Apparently, I wasn't worthy of their time unless I had a completed airplane. I also met another guy who thought he was better than I because he built his kit from a non-prepunched kit. I respect the amount of time effort he had to put in to build his airplane, but I will not be any less proud of my airplane just because it was alot less work to build.
I think these people are in the minority. Most builders or pilots of completed airplanes I have met were very nice and most were more than willing to talk me about their airplane.
N941WR
Legacy Member
I have met Les Burril and looked over his Mustang II. I know his brother Ben very well and it was Ben who gave me my RV checkout in his RV-6.
Ben had kept me up to date on the rebuild of Les's plane and had this to say about it.
Ben said the planes had the same engine but the story mentions a 160 hp IO-30 for the Mustang while Ben's RV-6 has an O-360. Both planes are equipped with constant speed props. As expected the RV-6 both out climbed and out ran the Mustang II, even though the gear retracts on the Mustang.
The other comment Ben made regarding the two planes was that the Mustang II has a much smaller cockpit than his RV-6 and that after a 20 minute ride he was ready to land. The reason it works for Les is that his wife is very petit.
If you are serious about building a Mustang, look close. There is a reason there are so many RV's flying.
Ben had kept me up to date on the rebuild of Les's plane and had this to say about it.
Ben said the planes had the same engine but the story mentions a 160 hp IO-30 for the Mustang while Ben's RV-6 has an O-360. Both planes are equipped with constant speed props. As expected the RV-6 both out climbed and out ran the Mustang II, even though the gear retracts on the Mustang.
The other comment Ben made regarding the two planes was that the Mustang II has a much smaller cockpit than his RV-6 and that after a 20 minute ride he was ready to land. The reason it works for Les is that his wife is very petit.
If you are serious about building a Mustang, look close. There is a reason there are so many RV's flying.
JulietGolf
Member
I don't have a lot to add other than I just went through this. The sense I was getting from a lot of research was that the Mustang wouldn't be a good first project for a novice like myself. The MII people I spoke with were nice but I did notice a bit of snootiness about how you have to "build" an MII and "assemble" an RV. In the end I couldn't overlook the amount of support locally and online building a Vans aircraft. I haven't regretted it one bit.
The support for the RV's is one factor, there are a bunch locally but I don't know any of them.
Looking at the cabin, it's tough to tell how much difference there really is because the measurements are different, but it seems that they're awfully close, about 20" for the mustang and 20 at the shoulders and 21-1/2 at the head.
I would have thought some of that would have gone away with the quickbuild kit, it looks pretty complete.
Plus I like the wet wing, and 180-190kts cruise.
I had pretty much decided on an rv7 until that article but a little more speed wouldn't hurt
JulietGolf
Member
I would have thought some of that would have gone away with the quickbuild kit, it looks pretty complete.
Plus I like the wet wing, and 180-190kts cruise.
I had pretty much decided on an rv7 until that article but a little more speed wouldn't hurt
I'm not sure about the quick build but it was my understanding a lot of the slow build still isn't pre-punched though they are slowly catching up with that.
What I did like about the MII was the folding wing option and yeah a little more speed is always nice.
N941WR
Legacy Member
There is a guy in our chapter building a folding wing MII and one thing you need to know, it is not an acro bird with this option. I also think this reduces the size of the fuel tank(s).
I have always liked the Mustang II over any RV, just based on looks. That hershey bar wing, while an *excellent* performer, just looks wrong to me. But like the nosewheel vs. tailwheel debate, you quickly forget which you have once you're up flying and enjoying yourself.
I've only been in one Mustang II, but it flew and felt just like the RV-6's that i've been in. Same cruise, on slightly less power even. I didn't notice a difference in cabin space, but i'm a hair under 6' tall and only 190lbs fully loaded so I fit comfortably either way.
I do remember thinking that the wing on the MII looked scary small when you look out on it in flight. More so than on an RV. But the tapered shape? Heaven.
I still think someone could make money selling a tapered wing kit for the RV's.
I've only been in one Mustang II, but it flew and felt just like the RV-6's that i've been in. Same cruise, on slightly less power even. I didn't notice a difference in cabin space, but i'm a hair under 6' tall and only 190lbs fully loaded so I fit comfortably either way.
I do remember thinking that the wing on the MII looked scary small when you look out on it in flight. More so than on an RV. But the tapered shape? Heaven.
I still think someone could make money selling a tapered wing kit for the RV's.
I think the tanks have to be nearly empty to fold it also, kind of a hassle in my opinion.
Course the wet wing option would be out.
I have zero desire in the folding wings personally.
N941WR
Legacy Member
I believe the folding wing versions have the tank in the center section. Under your butt maybe?
Dunno, the kitplanes article mentioned something about it I think but I left the mag at work. i'll check it again monday
sportpilot
Well Known Member
mustang
A friend is selling his mustang II and I showed the plane to another friend who was interested in it, he weighs in about 240 and when he sat in the plane his butt cheeks over lapped the center console nearly haf a butt. its a narrow plane and needs a bench seat instead of buckets. Another professional pilot friend who has thousands of hours in cessna 180 has flown this same plane and he says stalls come quick with no warning and a fast pitch down. It appears to be a good solid plane with clean lines, but I like the RV 6 and 7 better and they are faster. jmo
A friend is selling his mustang II and I showed the plane to another friend who was interested in it, he weighs in about 240 and when he sat in the plane his butt cheeks over lapped the center console nearly haf a butt. its a narrow plane and needs a bench seat instead of buckets. Another professional pilot friend who has thousands of hours in cessna 180 has flown this same plane and he says stalls come quick with no warning and a fast pitch down. It appears to be a good solid plane with clean lines, but I like the RV 6 and 7 better and they are faster. jmo
Not necessarily... The one I rode in had separate seats. The pilot and I (both about 190 lb) had space between our hips, but I don't remember how much.
You're technically correct, but when you're only talking about 1-2mph differences, it hardly matters. Compare stock numbers for a 160HP MII to the Vans published performance for a 160HP 6 or 7, they're almost identical. Kent apparently increased his top speed 64mph and cruise 60mph over the stock numbers, by judiciously applying performance mods. I doubt you could get that much of an improvement from an RV, it's already pretty optimized.
Kent's site: http://www.speedwitheconomy.com
MII Specifications: http://experimentalairplane.com/faqs.html
[edit... my mistake... these aren't Kent's specs, but the specs for Kent's webmaster's MII]
Last edited:
David-aviator
Well Known Member
A friend has a Mustang II, we have flown to and from OSH in a 2 ship formation.
His airplane is fast but it does not come close to an RV for short field performance. Also, he has folded a main gear twice during landing. The gear system does not seem as robust as the RV.
I flew with this guy when I had a Cozy MKIV eight years ago and had a hard time keeping up with him when he let it rip. That was with a Chevy V6 Vortec engine and ground adjustable Warp Drive prop on the Mustang.
Depends on your mission. If all out speed is it - go for it. But for my money the RV and its total performance design wins hands down.
His airplane is fast but it does not come close to an RV for short field performance. Also, he has folded a main gear twice during landing. The gear system does not seem as robust as the RV.
I flew with this guy when I had a Cozy MKIV eight years ago and had a hard time keeping up with him when he let it rip. That was with a Chevy V6 Vortec engine and ground adjustable Warp Drive prop on the Mustang.
Depends on your mission. If all out speed is it - go for it. But for my money the RV and its total performance design wins hands down.
Last edited:
I'd love to have a velocity or cozy but I don't think fiberglass work is for me.
I think for a first build a vans quickbuild is the way to go for me. I'm a big dude, about 6'3 and 260, the extra room will be needed. Guess the real problem is I want a bonanza on a C150 budget.
Time to get the finances right and order a 7a I guess. Don't know how you guys do it.
N941WR
Legacy Member
We just do it. Who needs to buy new clothes or drive a fancy car for four years? Oh, and you thought building was expensive, wait until you start burning 100LL!
One thing I don't know if anyone has mentioned is that the Mustang II can be built from plans. In fact, I am willing to bet that well over 90% were scratch built as opposed to kit built.
I will certainly take longer, but there is a much smaller initial outlay of cash. get some blueprints, some tools, and a few sheets of aluminum and you will be busy for months. You can keep doing that for a while (especially if you do your own welding). My rough estimate is that the end result would be about $10-12K less than a slow build RV-7 kit.
IMHO, this is also part of the reason why Mustang IIs, and especially Thorp T-18s, sell for so little compared to RVs. Builders are selling them for what they have in them, which is significantly less for a scratch builder using a used engine. Thus, a guy with a kit built mustang II has little chance of recouping his investment in the aircraft when it is time to sell.
I will certainly take longer, but there is a much smaller initial outlay of cash. get some blueprints, some tools, and a few sheets of aluminum and you will be busy for months. You can keep doing that for a while (especially if you do your own welding). My rough estimate is that the end result would be about $10-12K less than a slow build RV-7 kit.
IMHO, this is also part of the reason why Mustang IIs, and especially Thorp T-18s, sell for so little compared to RVs. Builders are selling them for what they have in them, which is significantly less for a scratch builder using a used engine. Thus, a guy with a kit built mustang II has little chance of recouping his investment in the aircraft when it is time to sell.
MedFlightDoc
Active Member
Is there any conventional wisdom about the Thorp 18 compared to the RV's?
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Welcome Ryan...
...They're fast little airplanes that can really be bought pretty cheap. That said, a friend of mine had one and said that he usually has to have a six-pack of beer before he tries to land that squirelly little booger...and he's a multi-thousand hour ag pilot.
I looked at one for sale for $18,000!! a year ago, way below parts cost but still not an RV. It really is hard to find a better all around airplane than any RV, IMO.
The best,
...They're fast little airplanes that can really be bought pretty cheap. That said, a friend of mine had one and said that he usually has to have a six-pack of beer before he tries to land that squirelly little booger
...and he's a multi-thousand hour ag pilot.I looked at one for sale for $18,000!! a year ago, way below parts cost but still not an RV. It really is hard to find a better all around airplane than any RV, IMO.
The best,
There's one at our local airport. It's fast, but not as fast as an RV. Controls are a little heavier, but not so much that you'd notice.
The T-18 has a full-flying tail, no idea what the flutter characteristics are like on that. Also, the stock configuration puts the pitot tube at the top of the vertical stabilizer... Odd place, but I suppose it works well enough.
The T-18 engine mount/landing gear configuration is very similar to the -4 or -6. I thought the T-18's mount and gearlegs looked beefier, but with 1000's of RV's out there I think they've shown that even if it is less beefy it's entirely adequate.
The stock T-18 configuration has a single gas tank in the fuse, ahead of the instrument panel. As a result, radios are usually mounted at the bottom of the panel with their faces tilted up towards the pilot. There's no room behind the panel for anything really deep. Later models had wing tanks fitted but usually retained a header in the fuse. The local one has a baggage-compartment tank along with the forward fuse tank. The owner says that with two average guys in it and mostly full tanks, that you're pretty much at the aft CG limit, so you may be baggage-limited unless you find (or build) one with the wing tank option.
No idea what kind of aerobatic limitations they have. There was a folding wing option like on the MII.
flyeyes
Well Known Member
IIRC there was a CAFE report on both the Mustang II and a T-18, might be worth googling.
Try here and here
doubt you'll get better info than that short of flying one yourself
FWIW I've had friends with midget mustangs and Mustang IIs who really liked them. I've never been around a Thorp much, but people seem to like them.
Try here and here
doubt you'll get better info than that short of flying one yourself
FWIW I've had friends with midget mustangs and Mustang IIs who really liked them. I've never been around a Thorp much, but people seem to like them.
Last edited:
We just do it. Who needs to buy new clothes or drive a fancy car for four years? Oh, and you thought building was expensive, wait until you start burning 100LL!
I can never get the outlay together to order the kit. Then I changed careers and took something like a 60% pay chop, as soon as it's back I probably still won't get the cashola together
Something always comes up.. I'll start on the tail this spring anyway.
Andy Duff
Active Member
The Next Mustang
I have been toying with the idea of a Mustang as well. Of course, this is an RV forum, so let me just say right up front, I love my RV-4 and think it has struck just about the right compromise on a lot of areas. Having said that, now that I have been flying it for a few years, I am looking for another challenge. It's tough to improve on the -4 from a handling qualities point of view, but I could stand to have a bit more cockpit room. Since I prefer tandem seating, I would like something more like the -8 in that department. My mission tends to be more of the cross country with gentleman's aerobatics rather than a lot of short field strips (although Idaho was great this summer) so I might be willing to trade some slow speed performance to gain a few knots at the top end. As RVers know, there are many positive features to a Hershey bar wing with a big fat t/c, but rather than getting into a big discussion on the relative merits of one wing vs. another, I will just say I like the looks of the tapered wing better.
Anyway, having said all that, there is a guy who has designed an airplane based largely on the Mustang that addresses many of my desires. He calls it a Nexus Mustang. It has very roomy cockpits (30" wide front and back) and a baggage compartment up front to supplement the one in back (like the RV-8) to help with CG control. There is no kit for the Nexus, so the airport ramp won't exactly be full of them, but it might be fun to try a scratch built (as long as I get to keep flying my RV-4 in the meantime) There is a fair amount of welding required and I had little experience with that, so I bought a TIG welder earlier this summer to see if that was an attainable skill. I just finished building the engine mount, and it turns out that welding is really kind of fun.....so one more worry eliminated...
Anyway, here are a few pictures of the second prototype for your amusement. Like I said, it's a heck of a lot of work to build, so I have not really decided to do it yet, but it would take very little to push me over the edge.
I have been toying with the idea of a Mustang as well. Of course, this is an RV forum, so let me just say right up front, I love my RV-4 and think it has struck just about the right compromise on a lot of areas. Having said that, now that I have been flying it for a few years, I am looking for another challenge. It's tough to improve on the -4 from a handling qualities point of view, but I could stand to have a bit more cockpit room. Since I prefer tandem seating, I would like something more like the -8 in that department. My mission tends to be more of the cross country with gentleman's aerobatics rather than a lot of short field strips (although Idaho was great this summer) so I might be willing to trade some slow speed performance to gain a few knots at the top end. As RVers know, there are many positive features to a Hershey bar wing with a big fat t/c, but rather than getting into a big discussion on the relative merits of one wing vs. another, I will just say I like the looks of the tapered wing better.
Anyway, having said all that, there is a guy who has designed an airplane based largely on the Mustang that addresses many of my desires. He calls it a Nexus Mustang. It has very roomy cockpits (30" wide front and back) and a baggage compartment up front to supplement the one in back (like the RV-8) to help with CG control. There is no kit for the Nexus, so the airport ramp won't exactly be full of them, but it might be fun to try a scratch built (as long as I get to keep flying my RV-4 in the meantime) There is a fair amount of welding required and I had little experience with that, so I bought a TIG welder earlier this summer to see if that was an attainable skill. I just finished building the engine mount, and it turns out that welding is really kind of fun.....so one more worry eliminated...
Anyway, here are a few pictures of the second prototype for your amusement. Like I said, it's a heck of a lot of work to build, so I have not really decided to do it yet, but it would take very little to push me over the edge.
bet that didn't stick around long, what a deal.
Since you asked. Let me start with, there is almost no difference between the Thorp and the MMII. The biggest difference is the Thorp has Hershy Bar wings and the MMII has tapered. John Thorp talked about this in an article in SA in the 60's. If a plane is not flying over 210 MPH it makes no difference. The taper is just harder to build, but looks great. The folding wing is actually stronger rated for a higher gross, 1600 lbs vs 1500 for the standard. In the article by Lu Sunderland in SA the folding wing was folded in 2 minutes by one person. The Thorp has a 29 gallon header tank and most of the wet wings are in the inner wing for an additional 10+ gallons. Since there is a 7 degree dihedral the outer wings empty first if they are wetted. The 37" width of the T18 fuse is more aerodynamic (airfoil shaped) for the length. The S18 is 2" wider, but 5" longer for this reason. A light built Thorp with a O290 weighs 850 lbs. One was built that weighed 701. Most are like the RV, big motors and .032 skins, 1000+lb gross.
I think the biggest problem with the Thorp is that they are plans built. There was a lot of varience in the wing profile early on that caused very different stall characteristics. The S18 is sold as a kit with preformed ribs and prepunched/marked skins. Some T18's have the S18/Lu Sunderland wing.
So, I think a well built Thorp or a MMII will fly and land as good as an RV. Just not as consistently.
Bob
This just came up a few days ago on Barnstormers... It looks to be an average T18, with Sunderland wing and low-time O-360, for $38K. No way you could buy an RV-6 with the same engine at that price, but you could certainly keep up with one in the air.
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_387782_thorp+t18.html
The photos in the ad show the typical tilt of the lower edge of the panel, if you haven't seen it.
http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_387782_thorp+t18.html
The photos in the ad show the typical tilt of the lower edge of the panel, if you haven't seen it.
- Status
