> >Hi Paul I'm using this slow
> correspondence time to ask your opinion.
> >
> >I'm deciding which plane and
> engine to pick. So I could start
> building
> >from plan. (less
> expensive). Well now I know for sure a want a
> rotary
> >engine (which one? like 13turbo
> w/o the turbo so I could have ram air
> >induction, renesis on a
> Mustang II? will it fit?). From the start,
> >my mine was made up for a
> rotary. Don t ask me why but rotary
> just make
> >so much sense. Rotary
> engine goes in an airplane like daddy goes with
> >mummy :)))
> >
> >Now where I'm hesitating is the
> Mustang II. A fellow at work is
> >building one from plans
> (great). Where I'm concerned is that it seems
> >so much popular with the
> RV. Also there is so much been made for them
> >and so little for the Mustang
> II why not the Mustang? I don't
> want to
> >find my self lost in the garage
> walking around in circle cursing at me
> >regretting making the wrong
> choice. Because everything has
> already been
> >created for the plane (RV) but I
> have to re-invent the wheel for the
> >mustang. I'm limited in
> human resources I'm a train conductor not an
> >engineer. The Mustang has
> so much (for me) room for improvement
> reducing
> >drag and all that jazz it seem
> the sky is the limit in improving
> it (Am
> >I wrong or the RV would be just
> as fun to build from plans possible?).
> >I just had to get it of my chest.
> >
> >Just about everywhere I look
> they talk about a RV 4, 6, etc
> etc... not
> >much help from RWS Tracy he is a
> RV guy. At RWS they have only one
> >customer with email address
> doing Mustang II and rotary. Did not find
> >much much more than this one guy.
> >
> >Where is the beef???
> >
> >Marc Montreal Canada
> >
> >I'll let people answer that have
> built both.
> >
> >Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
>
>
> Hi Marc - I've flown quite a bit in a
> buddies Mustang II with a modified
> O-320. Probably
> about 175 - 180 hp. There are
> some photos of it on the SDSEFI.com
> website.
> Cruises 175 mph
> on about 7.5 gph. WOT about 210.
> Very nice handling. The problem
> with the
> Mustang is landing speed.
> Approach speed on final is 100 mph,
> touchdown in a wheeler type landing
> about 80.
> His is a taildragger and on a 4700 ft
> runway tries to touch the mains as
> soon as possible
> and then keeps the tail up clear to
> midfield before the tail touches
> then
> usually rolls out
> the rest of the runway so as not to use
> the brakes too much. He can
> get off
> about
> 3000 ft if he really gets on the
> brakes. Also, the tail is really
> wiggly on
> the runway and
> takes a lot of work and attention to
> keep straight. I think the
> tail moment
> is a bit too short
> and could use a larger rudder.
> RV's have much nicer ground handling
> and
> land far slower.
> The Mustang is just a much older
> design. Its a real runway hog. Other
> than that its a great design.
>
> Glenn
>
>
> This performance for the Mustang II is not at all typical.
> Sounds like
> he has not formed the leading edges of his wings properly & thus
> has an
> unusually high stall speed. MAero now sells pre-formed
> leading edges
> (which can be retrofitted to flying Mustangs) to address those
> builderswho can't get the laminar flow wing built properly.
>
> Here's a link to a builder demonstrating a proper Mustang II --
> takeoffand landing in under 1000 feet.
>
http://www.experimentalairplane.com/
> At the end of the day you must decide between a fundamental
> tradeoff --
> do you want a fast airplane (M2's typcially cruise around 210-
> 215 vs the
> RVs which max out around 185) or do you want a fast build (No
> one can
> beat Van's tinker-toy approach; their predrill kits are simply
> outstanding vs a Mustang which is still in many ways a plans-built
> experience). Mustang's are about 1/2 the cost for the
> airframe vs.a RV,
> but you 'pay' for it in longer build time since you actually
> have to
> build a Mustang vs simply assembling it as in a RV.
>
> As I toil away on my Mustang II, I do confess to RV envy when I watch
> those guys get their kits & immediately start clecoing everything
> together. I look forward to the days of having to throttle
> back to 50%
> so they can keep up.
>
> Mark
>
>
> With a p-port that is going to be a lot of them :)
> --
> Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Yes Paul a P-Port that is going to be a lot lot of them Yes Sir!!!
And reducing air drag as well
Marc Montreal Canada
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.