Mustang II vs RV?
BchBumCal
Mustang II and the RV series of aircraft, thanks
byron...@xtalwind.net
Sport Aviation have articles written by a M II builder who challenged Van to
a dogfight and Van's response. The RV-6 flown by Van easily out performed
the M II.
The articles clearly demonstrated the design philosophy differences between
the two aircraft.
Also, CAFE has tested and reported on the RV-6. They provide accurate
performance data. They may have tested the M II also. It would be worth
checking. Again, check with the EAA library.
BJC
BchBumCal wrote in message <19991102223336...@ng-cq1.aol.com>...
Mahan
>If you are really serious, call the EAA library and ask which back issues
of
>Sport Aviation have articles written by a M II builder who challenged Van
to
>a dogfight and Van's response. The RV-6 flown by Van easily out performed
>the M II.
>
>The articles clearly demonstrated the design philosophy differences between
>the two aircraft.
>
>Also, CAFE has tested and reported on the RV-6. They provide accurate
>performance data. They may have tested the M II also. It would be worth
>checking. Again, check with the EAA library.
A CAFE report on the RV-6A appeared in the September 1993 issue of Sport
Aviation. A CAFE report on the Mustang II appeared in the July 1995 issue.
Fred in Florida
Defiant project
Mahan
in the January 1988 Sport Aviation.
Fred in Florida
Larry -xlax- Lovisone
Put Van in the Mustang II and he would have still won the fight...
byron...@xtalwind.net wrote:
> If you are really serious, call the EAA library and ask which back issues of
> Sport Aviation have articles written by a M II builder who challenged Van to
> a dogfight and Van's response. The RV-6 flown by Van easily out performed
> the M II.
>
> The articles clearly demonstrated the design philosophy differences between
> the two aircraft.
>
> Also, CAFE has tested and reported on the RV-6. They provide accurate
> performance data. They may have tested the M II also. It would be worth
> checking. Again, check with the EAA library.
>
Steve Litke
smaller and faster. But that comes at the expense of stall speed (safety)
and probably climb rate. Most pilots seem to prefer the RV.
Steve
Flight99
higher stall speed, Buy a Piper CUB! Learn to fly by the numbers and stalls
will not scare you....Also the CAFE foundation tested the MUSTANG II...I
will get back to you with the date....All in all both are great airplanes.
The kit built Mustangs are faster then the RV's. As for as stalls go, If you
fly the Mustang by the numbers (as you should with any aircraft) it is very
safe.
Steve Litke <steve...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7vpss9$co2$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
Burnham
I thought they were on the EAA site, but couldn't find them just now...
Anyone know where?
- Mark
Flight99 wrote in message ...
>Check out the July 95 Sport Aviation for the Mustang II CAFE
BOb U.
>>>>stall speed (safety)<<< STALL SPEED/SAFETY.....If you are afraid of a
>higher stall speed, Buy a Piper CUB! Learn to fly by the numbers and stalls
>will not scare you....Also the CAFE foundation tested the MUSTANG II...I
>will get back to you with the date....All in all both are great airplanes.
>The kit built Mustangs are faster then the RV's. As for as stalls go, If you
>fly the Mustang by the numbers (as you should with any aircraft) it is very
>safe.
>
>Steve Litke
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If your mission is to fly into very short unimproved fields....
The RV might get the nod.
Can't speak from personal experience.
Somebody here probably can.
BOb U.
highflyer
>
> >>>stall speed (safety)<<< STALL SPEED/SAFETY.....If you are afraid of a
> higher stall speed, Buy a Piper CUB! Learn to fly by the numbers and stalls
> will not scare you....Also the CAFE foundation tested the MUSTANG II...I
> will get back to you with the date....All in all both are great airplanes.
> The kit built Mustangs are faster then the RV's. As for as stalls go, If you
> fly the Mustang by the numbers (as you should with any aircraft) it is very
> safe.
>
I had a homebuilt once that had a top speed of 110, cruised at 100, and
stalled violently, with a snap roll to the right, at 98. While I COULD
fly it, and DID, it was not a whole lot of FUN to fly. Also, since the
energy you have to dissipate in an off field landing is a function of
the square of the stalling speed, you chances of injury with an engine
failure also increase exponentially with the stall speed.
If other things are the same or even similiar, I will go for the lower
stall speed EVERY time. Especially for pilots who don't have the
opportunity to fly as much as they would really like to do.
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Edward Zager
|> If you are really serious, call the EAA library and ask which back issues of
|> Sport Aviation have articles written by a M II builder who challenged Van to
|> a dogfight and Van's response. The RV-6 flown by Van easily out performed
|> the M II.
|>
"It isn't the crate, it's the man in it" - Manfred von Richtofen
Where I don't disagree with your conclusion, (RV vs MII) It has been
demonstrated many times that dogfighting proves nothing about the relative
merits of two aircraft.
Edward Zager Focke Wulf 149JZ
byron...@xtalwind.net
winning a dogfight does not provide sufficient information from which one
could reasonably draw conclusions about the airplanes involved.)
The discussions there are about more than dogfighting. Also, IIRC, the pilot
of the M II was a former military fighter pilot. The real story is about the
differences in design philosophies represented by the two airplanes, and the
resulting impact on performance and handling characteristics.
I didn't draw any conclusions about the relative merits of the airplanes.
Merit depends on the mission. The original post asked for information on the
"differences in flight characteristics," which the referenced articles and
the CAFE reports clearly provide.
BJC
Edward Zager wrote in message <7vsknl$a...@news.or.intel.com>...
Steve Litke
survivability is directly related to the energy of the airplane and is a
function of the speed SQUARED. Since you will be landing at about stall
speed, the lower the stall speed, the more survivable the landing.
The MM II has been around for a long time and has a pretty good record. It
is probably a hell of a lot safer than some of the other homebuilts, and it
does have some advantages over the RV (faster, foldable wings). But it also
has some disadvantages. Anyone that want to build one should know what he
or she is getting into.
Steve
Flight99 wrote in message ...
Steve Litke
Flight99 wrote in message ...
>>>>stall speed (safety)<<< STALL SPEED/SAFETY.....If you are afraid of a
>higher stall speed, Buy a Piper CUB! Learn to fly by the numbers and
stalls
>will not scare you....Also the CAFE foundation tested the MUSTANG II...I
>will get back to you with the date....All in all both are great airplanes.
>The kit built Mustangs are faster then the RV's. As for as stalls go, If
you
>fly the Mustang by the numbers (as you should with any aircraft) it is very
>safe.
It isn't a matter of being afraid of a high stall speed, but simple physics.
You obviously are not concerned with an off airport landing. When your one
and only engine quits, you will want to land as slow as possible.
The higher the stall speed - the higher the landing speed - and the lower
the survivability. Remember, the energy is a function of the speed SQUARED.
What difference does it make if CAFE tested the Mustang II? They test for
efficiency, not safety.
But remember, I never said the MM II is unsafe. It has had a pretty good
record for many, many years. And it is probably a hell of a lot safer than
many other homebuilts.
Steve
Steve Litke
You are obviously not concerned about off-airport landings. The
survivability is directly related to the energy of the airplane and is a
function of the speed SQUARED. Since you will be landing at about stall
speed, the lower the stall speed, the more survivable the landing.
The MM II has been around for a long time and has a pretty good record. It
is probably a hell of a lot safer than some of the other homebuilts, and it
does have some advantages over the RV (faster, foldable wings). But it also
has some disadvantages. Anyone that want to build one should know what he
or she is getting into.
Steve
Flight99 wrote in message ...
Steve Litke
Orval Fairbairn
bchb...@aol.com (BchBumCal) wrote:
> Could someone tell me the difference in flight charactoristics between a
> Mustang II and the RV series of aircraft, thanks
Which RV series? -3? -4? -6? -8?
The MM-II has side-by-side seating, so the only legitimate comparison is
with the RV-6. The RV-6 has a slower stall and is less prone to
manufacturing glitches than the MM-II. (I am building a MM-II) The RV-6
has a far better kit and building instructions thanthe MM-II. Parts are
much more finished and precisely-made.
The MM-II has a fairly sharp LE to the wing, which is prone to mismatch
during manufacturing. I had to reshape my ribs to match the plans profile
before I skinned them.
The MM-II wing looks better, but the RV-6 capopy and rear deck are better
than the MM-II. I intend to raise my rear deck and perhaps use the RV-6
canopy, for less drag and better headroom. The MM-II bubble has poor
headroom at the pilot and pax, but lots of it in the middle. The T-18
canopy has a high drag area aft in the normal MM-II, but this is reduced
by careful finesse.
Controls feel nice and light and well-balanced on both airplanes.
RV is easier and faster tobuild -- especially if you buy the "fast build" kit.
Lov2fli
>Mustang II and the RV series of aircraft, thanks
>
>
First let me point out that they are both excellent aircraft and have very
similar handling qualities. The RV has better short field capability, and
slightly lower stall speeds along with better low speed manuverability...it
feels "softer". The MII is slightly faster, has better high speed penetration,
feels more "stable" at high speeds, and feels "stiffer". Sorta like the
difference between two sports cars....best way I could "splain" it to ya...Gene
Charles K. Scott
highflyer <high...@alt.net> writes:
> I had a homebuilt once that had a top speed of 110, cruised at 100, and
> stalled violently, with a snap roll to the right, at 98.
What was this HF, you've mentioned it a number of times but I forget
what it was. Also, what is your take on the very narrow envelope of
flight?
Thanks, Corky Scott
Edward Zager
|> Have you read the articles? (By the way, we are in agreement that simply
|> winning a dogfight does not provide sufficient information from which one
|> could reasonably draw conclusions about the airplanes involved.)
|>
|> The discussions there are about more than dogfighting. Also, IIRC, the pilot
|> of the M II was a former military fighter pilot. The real story is about the
|> differences in design philosophies represented by the two airplanes, and the
|> resulting impact on performance and handling characteristics.
|>
|> I didn't draw any conclusions about the relative merits of the airplanes.
|> Merit depends on the mission. The original post asked for information on the
|> "differences in flight characteristics," which the referenced articles and
|> the CAFE reports clearly provide.
|>
If you will notice, I didn't quote or disagree with the section on the CAFE
reports, (hell, I even said that I didn't disagree with the conclusion!?)
I only commented on the dogfight statement. Since I know that Van doesn't
have any military PIC time, I would love to know more about the "former
military fighter pilot's" experience. Time in C5's doesn't count. I don't
question the military pilot part, just the fighter pilot part.
My experience is that a real fighter pilot will not have a bit of difficulty
waxing the ass of a untrained pilot in BFM/ACM even with a large dissimilarity
in the aircraft performances.(i.e. with a disadvantage) One of my instructors
is/was an F-16 IP. (looking at how the USAF treats F-16 IPs, it's not clear
that he can say "was" yet.)
highflyer
It was a grossly overweight Stitts Playmate. A small two place side by
each aerobatic machine. The narrow speed range was a result of marginal
power and excessive weight for the wing. The right snaproll resulted
from the use of a stinson pitot static probe coming out of the exact
leading edge of the wing nearly in front of the strut attachment point.
The struts attached on TOP of the wing like a Pawnee.
Between the pitot-static probe and the strut fittings, the airflow over
that extremely short wing had to be absolutely horrible. :-)
The sum was unbelieveably poor performance. Cute airplane though. It
looked rather like a puppy Pawnee. :-)
Jerry Springer
>
> In article <7vt8cn$2tbt$1...@opal.xtalwind.net>, <byron...@xtalwind.net> writes:
> |> Have you read the articles? (By the way, we are in agreement that simply
> |> winning a dogfight does not provide sufficient information from which one
> |> could reasonably draw conclusions about the airplanes involved.)
> |>
> |> The discussions there are about more than dogfighting. Also, IIRC, the pilot
> |> of the M II was a former military fighter pilot. The real story is about the
> |> differences in design philosophies represented by the two airplanes, and the
> |> resulting impact on performance and handling characteristics.
> |>
> |> I didn't draw any conclusions about the relative merits of the airplanes.
> |> Merit depends on the mission. The original post asked for information on the
> |> "differences in flight characteristics," which the referenced articles and
> |> the CAFE reports clearly provide.
> |>
>
> If you will notice, I didn't quote or disagree with the section on the CAFE
> reports, (hell, I even said that I didn't disagree with the conclusion!?)
>
> I only commented on the dogfight statement. Since I know that Van doesn't
> have any military PIC time, I would love to know more about the "former
> military fighter pilot's" experience. Time in C5's doesn't count. I don't
> question the military pilot part, just the fighter pilot part.
>
Unfortunately the pilot of the M II died in that airplane doing aerobatics.
If I remember right his passengers seat belt broke or came unlatched and
he knocked the canopy loose and then it damaged the rudder.
For those who may not have not have read the story it happened this way.
The Mustang pilot challenged RV pilots to a fly off in a Sport Aviation article
he wrote. He said that because of the Mustang wing shape and airfoil he could
out maneuver and out fly RV's. Van accepted his challenge and in the end Van was
declared the victor they both then wrote a followup article for Sport Aviation.
They became friends after this little flying competition although it sadly was
for to short of a time.
--
Jerry Springer|RV-6 First Flight 7/14/89|Hillsboro,OR|jsf...@teleport.com
Ed Sullivan
>
>
>It was a grossly overweight Stitts Playmate. A small two place side by
>each aerobatic machine. The narrow speed range was a result of marginal
>power and excessive weight for the wing. The right snaproll resulted
>from the use of a stinson pitot static probe coming out of the exact
>leading edge of the wing nearly in front of the strut attachment point.
>The struts attached on TOP of the wing like a Pawnee.
>
>Between the pitot-static probe and the strut fittings, the airflow over
>that extremely short wing had to be absolutely horrible. :-)
>
>The sum was unbelieveably poor performance. Cute airplane though. It
>looked rather like a puppy Pawnee. :-)
>
>--
>HighFlyer
>Highflight Aviation Services
Damn, HF if you think anything designed by Ray Stitz could be characterized as "cute", I'll bet you must have the hots
for Miss Geeter.
Ed
Flight99
Steve Litke <steve...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7vtedl$1u04$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
Flight99
> during manufacturing. I had to reshape my ribs to match the plans profile
> before I skinned them.
Did you have this problem with the new hydra-formed ribs?
Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:orfairbairn-04...@1cust109.tnt3.daytona-beach.fl.da.uu.net..
.
Flight99
I flew both and chose the Mustang II. I operate off a 3100' grass strip near
Rhome Texas with summer heat 102+ and cold winters. The MII is well suited.
A RV6 operates off the same strip. Both aircraft perform well.
BchBumCal <bchb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991102223336...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
Orval Fairbairn
<f...@why.net> wrote:
No. My kit dates back to before 1980. The "preformed" stuff was pretty rough.
Also, the folding wing is not compatible with the wet wing, as the extra
weight of the fuel would overstress the heim joint used for the
folding/stowing setup.
BchBumCal
either aircraft but i realy like flying better then i do building so im looking
for a completed aircraft, the folding wing option on the mustang might be the
clincher, thats a great feature, i like the idea of being able to fold the
wings put in on a trailer and take it home to work on it
thor...@my-deja.com
fq1.aol.com>,
mayby you should consider a thorp T-18. It's
performance is comparable and less money. There
is a CAFE report on EAA members web site.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Anthony Faust
<7vt8cn$2tbt$1...@opal.xtalwind.net>...
>Have you read the articles? (By the way, we are in agreement that simply
>winning a dogfight does not provide sufficient information from which one
>could reasonably draw conclusions about the airplanes involved.)
I have read the "showdown" article and here's what information I learned.
The 100 rpm difference allowed the RV to produce @ 17hp more than the MII
The another strike against the MII was its 70 #heaver operating weight.
The MII did not have wheel brake, or landing gear leg fairings, wing root
fairings, tail wheel arm and tail wheel fairings, horz/vert stab root
fairings, and not nearly as well faired and low drag engine cooling inlets
as Van's under the spinner cooling inlet in the RV, the MII had the original
square jowled engine cowl, and the 8 inch extension to the vert stab and a
fairly rakish canopy.
All this adds up to a predictable out come in the "dog fight".
J.D. GUINN
Jan,2000, a MII, with a Vortec V-6. I am a glass idiot, and don't have
the patience for it, plus frankly it scares the hell out of me to think
that My plastic airplane was built by me. I can do sheet metal. Not
that I don't think that Van has a fine machine, I am just partial to the
MII. I don't think that Chris Tieman is real happy about the
conversions of MII s to V-6 power, but at least he is tolerating it.
Best Regards,
J.D. Guinn
J.D. GUINN
if the room was dark and I had been drinking too much Jack Daniels Ol'
no. 7, and I did not have to see her at all in the light
Best Regards,
J.D. Guinn
Chris Tieman
http://www.mustangaero.com/Mustang%20II/performance%20tests.html
The Mustang II stalled 4.8 mph faster than the RV-6 with the same minimal
buffet.
The Mustang II was 11.0 mph faster than the RV-6 with 20 less horsepower.
Keep in mind that the Mustang stalls slower than a Cherokee, a Mooney, a
Bonanza, a Cessna 182, etc.
Do you consider these airplanes a risk to fly because of their higher stall
speeds?
The Mustang's are excellent short field airplanes. Bob Bushby flew the
prototype Mustang II off his 1800ft grass strip for 25 years.
The Mustang II with 1 person and 1/2 fuel will get off the ground in under
400ft and land in less than 600ft.
See the video on our website
http://www.mustangaero.com/Mustang%20II/video.html
Chris Tieman
Mustang Aeronautics
http://www.MustangAero.com
highflyer <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:3821B186...@alt.net...
> Flight99 wrote:
> >
> > >>>stall speed (safety)<<< STALL SPEED/SAFETY.....If you are afraid of a
> > higher stall speed, Buy a Piper CUB! Learn to fly by the numbers and
stalls
> > will not scare you....Also the CAFE foundation tested the MUSTANG II...I
> > will get back to you with the date....All in all both are great
airplanes.
> > The kit built Mustangs are faster then the RV's. As for as stalls go, If
you
> > fly the Mustang by the numbers (as you should with any aircraft) it is
very
> > safe.
> >
>
> I had a homebuilt once that had a top speed of 110, cruised at 100, and
> stalled violently, with a snap roll to the right, at 98. While I COULD
> fly it, and DID, it was not a whole lot of FUN to fly. Also, since the
> energy you have to dissipate in an off field landing is a function of
> the square of the stalling speed, you chances of injury with an engine
> failure also increase exponentially with the stall speed.
>
> If other things are the same or even similiar, I will go for the lower
> stall speed EVERY time. Especially for pilots who don't have the
> opportunity to fly as much as they would really like to do.
>
Chris Tieman
ago, to the kits we are putting out now.
The older Mustang Kits were not as good as the RV kits but that is not true
any more. We have even heard from RV builders looking over our parts at
different shows that we are doing more in the Mustang kits, especially on
fittings, stringers, doublers and the like, than was done in their RV kits.
There is not near the amount of jigging required to build a Mustang as there
is to build an RV.
The Mustang construction drawings are excellent and compare very well to any
other kit on the market.
Almost all of our builders are getting the T-18 style canopy from us now.
The drag difference between it and the Mustang style canopy is actually
quite small. If the tailcone is raised to reduce the angle on the back side
of the canopy in either version the airplane will be about 10mph faster.
The higher tailcone, however, will sacrifice visibility and cross wind
capability. I had about 250 hours in a Cherokee before I started flying the
Mustang II and have found it to be a great flying airplane, even in stiff
crosswinds. I would land our taildragger M-II in higher crosswinds than my
father's Cherokee 235.
Chris Tieman
Mustang Aeronautics
http://www.MustangAero.com
Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:orfairbairn-04...@1cust109.tnt3.daytona-beach.fl.da.uu.net..
.
> In article <19991102223336...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
> bchb...@aol.com (BchBumCal) wrote:
>
> > Could someone tell me the difference in flight charactoristics between a
> > Mustang II and the RV series of aircraft, thanks
>
> Which RV series? -3? -4? -6? -8?
>
> The MM-II has side-by-side seating, so the only legitimate comparison is
> with the RV-6. The RV-6 has a slower stall and is less prone to
> manufacturing glitches than the MM-II. (I am building a MM-II) The RV-6
> has a far better kit and building instructions thanthe MM-II. Parts are
> much more finished and precisely-made.
>
> The MM-II has a fairly sharp LE to the wing, which is prone to mismatch
> during manufacturing. I had to reshape my ribs to match the plans profile
> before I skinned them.
>
Flight99
Anthony Faust <anthon...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:801m51$amo$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
BchBumCal
Jerry Springer
>
> You can not compare a Mustang kit from almost 20 years ago, or even 2 years
> ago, to the kits we are putting out now.
>
> The older Mustang Kits were not as good as the RV kits but that is not true
> any more. We have even heard from RV builders looking over our parts at
> different shows that we are doing more in the Mustang kits, especially on
> fittings, stringers, doublers and the like, than was done in their RV kits.
>
> There is not near the amount of jigging required to build a Mustang as there
> is to build an RV.
>
tells me that you are not at all familiar with how RV's are constructed. There is
one very simple H shaped jig to built all the tail and wing parts, and a very simple
jig to build the fuselage on. YOU HAVE to be joking about doing more in the Mustang kits
than the RV kits right?
I had decided to stay out of this RV vs MII debated but cannot when misinformation
is presented. I have friends that owned them and after
riding in and flying in a RV-6 could not get rid of the Mustang fast enough.
Don't care what the Cafe results are a RV will stall 8 to 10 MPH slower than
a MII. If you would like to get real world results come fly side by side with me
and we will slow fly and see who stalls at what speed. Also the creature comfort
is much greater in a RV-6 with much more shoulder and leg room.
After all this I think the Mustang is a great airplane but hate to see information
that is not true being presented.
Fastplanes
>YOU HAVE to be joking about doing more in the Mustang kits
> than the RV kits right?<
Have you seen the new Mustang kits? I guess NOT
Jerry Springer <jsf...@teleport.com> wrote
>. I have friends that owned them and after
riding in and flying in a RV-6 could not get rid of the Mustang fast
enough.<
Oh please. Surely your not exaggerating!
Jerry Springer <jsf...@teleport.com> wrote
>Don't care what the Cafe results are a RV will stall 8 to 10 MPH slower
than
a MII. <
You think the CAFE foundation reports are bogas? Your really a hot bed of
knowledge....
Calm down man. If you have not built both aircraft, or at least seen both
aircraft being built,
YOU can't be sure which is the best. I think your post is proof of that.
None of the pro Mustang post have
slammed the RV's like the pro RV post have slammed the Mustang's. Yes, the
Mustang will have a little higher stall speed ths the RV. But who is kidding
who. Approx 10 mph (max) differance in stall speeds. Get real. Top speed?
They are real close. The clean built Mustangs are a little faster tha the
RV. Kent Paser's MII
gets 230 mph plus, on 160 hp. What engine do you have in you RV? Have you
ever seen 230 and NOT be in a dive? True he has all the speed mods. Do you
have yours? Let's get real. Both are fine aircraft with their own
differences. Let me see.....You challenged Chris Tieman to slow fly with
your aircraft, But you did challenge him to a cross country race! Dont be
bitter!!!!!!!
Jerry Springer <jsf...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3824C203...@teleport.com...
Jerry Springer
>
>Let's get real. Both are fine aircraft with their own
> differences. Let me see.....You challenged Chris Tieman to slow fly with
> your aircraft, But you did challenge him to a cross country race! Dont be
> bitter!!!!!!!
>
I know it is faster but I still stand by my statement of come fly
along side and we will see at what speed they stall at. Per your statement
above I did not "challenge him to a crosscountry race!"
I certainly am not bitter LOL.
You are right I have not seen a kit in the last two years maybe you
just take them out of the box and throw them together, that is what
we tell the guys building RV's now as they are much more complete
than when I built mine almost eleven years ago.
Check this page out for the specs on a RV-6 from Van's web page.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/sections/air-rv6.htm
Then compare with the spec from the Mustang web page.
http://www.MustangAero.com/Mustang%20II/Mustang%20II%20Specifications.html
BTW how many Mustang IIs are flying now?
--
Jerry Springer|RV-6 First Flight 7/14/89|Hillsboro,OR|jsf...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~jsflyrv/
fastp...@my-deja.com
In article <38225C22...@teleport.com>,
Jerry Springer <jsf...@teleport.com> wrote:> Bill Berle wrote:> >
> > "Charles K. Scott" wrote:> >
> > > ... unless you're Dick Van Grunsvan, then you can
> > > design an airplane that has a high speed cruise and lands at
around 45
> > > mph. And he does it with a hershey bar wing.> >
> > I had my first ride in an RV-6 the other day. It was even the (ugh)
> > nosegear version. I was impressed by the 150kt + cruise speed with
160
> > horsepower and a fixed prop. However, I asked the guy how fast the
stall
> > speed was and he said about 60-63, which seemed high for an RV to
me. I
> > expected him to say "over the fence at 62, land at 50, and absolute
minimum
> > stall at 50". My rV-3 tended to land fast only because the airplane
> > preferred to wheel land. But I did do a few full stall, tail first
landings
> > down around the 50-55 mph range. Is the RV-6 supposed to stall
faster than
> > the smaller RV-3's and RV-4's? I thought I remember Van's
advertising said
> > 50 for just about all the RV's, and he is not known for BS
advertising.> >
> > Bill Berle> > now an RV-6 wannabee> > Bill
> My RV-6 with two people aboard and full of fuel stalls around the 52
to 54 mph area.
> My airplane is on the heavy side with two coms, gyros and auto
pilot.>
> I don't know why his would stall so fast, this is not the norm with
any RV series.
> With a FP prop I cruise 2500rpm at 180mph TAS. I do have a Lycom O-
360 180hp.
> RV-6s are fun economical airplanes I have been flying mine for over
ten years and still> get a RV grin.> > Jerry> --
> Jerry Springer|RV-6 First Flight
7/14/89|Hillsboro,OR|jsf...@teleport.com>
In article <3824C203...@teleport.com>,
> Jerry Springer|RV-6 First Flight
7/14/89|Hillsboro,OR|jsf...@teleport.com
>
Chris Tieman
The RV-6 at 1600 lbs stalls at 55mph (with/without flaps?)
The Mustang II at 1600 lbs stalls at 62mph without flap and 57mph with flap.
For those that are interested there is a video clip of the prototype Mustang
II (without the heavier rolled leading edge skins) doing a full stall
without flaps on our website. The photo plane (a Cherokee) had a hard time
flying slow enough to take the pictures.
Yes the new Mustang stalls 4-6mph faster than the RV-6. The Mustang also
cruises faster and has a higher top speed. The tapered wing makes even a
bigger difference at altitudes above 8,000 feet.
I would argue that there are more important factors to safety than a 5mph
stall speed difference. Mainly knowing the performance of your airplane.
The Mustang has not had a high stall/spin rate and the RV's slower stall
speed has not made it immune from these kinds of accidents. Pilot training
and technique is more important (ie: don't stall/spin it in which happens
all too often in a power failure).
When it comes down to it which airplane is better in a particular
circumstance depends on what you need it to do. It is also a personal
preference and as such there will always be disagreements.
The Mustang is intended to be a fast, economical cross country airplane. It
is IFR capable, and has certainly proven itself over the years. Every year
at Oshkosh there are more Mustang II's in the 1000+ hour homebuilt row than
any other design.
It is also capable of operating off of grass strips less than 2000ft long.
My personal minimum is 1600ft with a clear approach. I may only use half of
it but I feel much better with the safety margins.
If you want to operate out of strips shorter than 1600ft, then the Mustang
is not the right airplane for the job.
I am not knocking any designs or kit manufacturers. I am responding to the
outdated misinformation about the Mustangs being spread by people who do not
know what they are talking about.
I invite you to come to our plant and I will show you the kits we are
making. I will take you for a ride in our 33 year old Mustang II and I
would love to go for a ride in your RV-6. If you would like to do some
formation flying, I am always looking for the chance to fly with
homebuilders. What I like about this business so much is the quality of
people involved in it. Their passions can sometimes get carried away but I
have yet to meet a better group of people.
(there is a map on how to find us on our website)
Chris Tieman
Mustang Aeronautics
1470 Temple City Dr
Troy, MI 48084
(248) 649-6818
http://www.MustangAero.com
Jerry Springer <jsf...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:<382518CD...@teleport.com>...
>
>
> Check this page out for the specs on a RV-6 from Van's web page.
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/sections/air-rv6.htm
>
> Then compare with the spec from the Mustang web page.
> http://www.MustangAero.com/Mustang%20II/Mustang%20II%20Specifications.html
> BTW how many Mustang IIs are flying now?
> --
> Jerry Springer|RV-6 First Flight 7/14/89|Hillsboro,OR|jsf...@teleport.com
flight99
Chris Tieman <mus...@wwnet.com> wrote in message
news:94197989...@axilla.wwnet.net...
Charles K. Scott
MPD...@webtv.net (J.D. GUINN) writes:
If no one else will pick up on this, I sure will. J.D., can you give
us more information about this conversion? How far along are you?
What kind of PSRU? What's the configuration of the cooling system
like? How big is your radiator?
Thanks, Corky Scott
highflyer
>
>
> Unfortunately the pilot of the M II died in that airplane doing aerobatics.
> If I remember right his passengers seat belt broke or came unlatched and
> he knocked the canopy loose and then it damaged the rudder.
>
Which REALLY brings home the point, that in any airplane where you
stretch
the limits of the envelope, there is no such thing as an "unimportant"
part.
Any part of that airplane can become "critical" if it fails at the wrong
time.
highflyer
> Damn, HF if you think anything designed by Ray Stitz could be characterized as "cute", I'll bet you must have the hots
> for Miss Geeter.
> Ed
Well, you do have a point there, Ed. Ray's designs have never won any
beauty contests! :-) Of course, you have to realize that "cute" is
rarely
a compliment on beauty anyway! The Playmate was cute sort of like a
VW Beetle Convertible is "cute." It "transcends" ugly! :-)
highflyer
>
> When you get serious, Both Van (RV) and Tieman (Mustang) offer demo flights.
> I flew both and chose the Mustang II. I operate off a 3100' grass strip near
> Rhome Texas with summer heat 102+ and cold winters. The MII is well suited.
> A RV6 operates off the same strip. Both aircraft perform well.
>
Now we are getting down to the nitty gritty. Both airplanes perform
well.
Both are fine airplanes. The actual differences between them are
actually
quite unimportant. The main difference is a slight variation in the end
compromise, resulting from a slightly different approach to a similiar
mission statement.
For what it is worth, the Mustang II have been around much longer. I
can
remember when Kent Paser was meticulously building his Mustang II and
bringing beautiful parts to the Chapter meeting for "show and tell."
That
was back around 1967 or so. Van didn't come out with the RV series
until
long after that.
However, the RV's do seem to be much more popular and there are many
more
RV's out in the fleet than there are Mustang II's. Personally, I like
both airplanes, and wouldn't mind owning either one. Both are fine
airplanes.
For many years the Mustang II was only available as a plans built
airplane.
Kits have made various airplanes much more popular and much more likely
to
be finished. That has worked against the Mustang II, which has only
become
available as a "kit" relatively recently in a long and illustrious
career.
Jim Vandervort
JimV.
highflyer <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:38270D15...@alt.net...
Ed Sullivan
>Ed Sullivan wrote:
>> Damn, HF if you think anything designed by Ray Stitz could be characterized as "cute", I'll bet you must have the hots
>> for Miss Geeter.
>> Ed
>
>Well, you do have a point there, Ed. Ray's designs have never won any
>beauty contests! :-) Of course, you have to realize that "cute" is
>rarely
>a compliment on beauty anyway! The Playmate was cute sort of like a
>VW Beetle Convertible is "cute." It "transcends" ugly! :-)
>
>--
>HighFlyer
>Highflight Aviation Services
Point taken, but I rest my case.
Ed
ric
for the MII and I am looking forward to cutting some tin. The construction
manual that comes with the plans is tremendous, it actually tells you the
sequence for the construction, which is great for the first time builder.
(heaps of photos too) If you read this Chris......thanks for the T-shirt, a
nice touch.
Ricnews:3827110A...@alt.net...