> 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.


Hello Mark

What is your opinion on a quickbuilt MII and quickbuilt Van8 for exemple

Marc Montréal Canada


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