Here are my 10cents...

The Mustang II is a lot more complicated build than the RV's. I have had
RV-4 plans for years, and now have a Mustang II project cause the price was
right. You are looking at about double the number of parts in the Mustang.

I am guessing that there is a much greater variation in empty weights
amongst mustangs, with fuel tank options between a single 25gal header tank
to header + wet wings + center section tanks. The Airfoil section choosen
for the MII would appear to punish excess weight. This likely leads to the
wildly different landing performance numbers you hear for the MII. The Fat
Hershey bar wing of the RV is a more forgiving design at slow speed.

If you look back on your flying, most people will have a soft spot for a
couple of planes. In most cases the planes which really stand out are not
the ones that impress so much in the glossy catalog, but the ones with the
best control balance and feel. For me the standouts are the the T-6 harvard,
RV-4, the Jodel D-11,  and the C-182 (in that order). I have flown the
Cirrus SR20 a few times and although it is a good cross country machine, the
control feel (or lack of it due to the springs) frankly scares me.

I think the control feel of the RV's is a larger part of Vans success. Given
that there are now over 5000 finished ones, it shouldn't be too hard to get
a flight in one to see if you like it.

If building is for you is more a step towards flying rather than a
pleasurable 10 years in the garage, then you should be tending more towards
a Vans quickbuild than a MII.

The resale value of a well built RV is in a different league to all other
homebuilts.

Mark W.



The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.