Question for all you plane buff's.

[Dave]

Had a guy killed here in MI. a few days ago. Flying a 'singel engine 1989 Bushby Mustang'. Is this some sort of kit, P-51 type plane? Or is the name just a coincidence? Thanks,

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Dale in Louisiana]

The Bushby Mustang is a small experimental single seat monoplane. Neat little thing, but nowhere near a P-51, maybe 150-180 horsepower, tops.

Dale

[reddog1955]

yes a kit plane

[Dave]

We had another guy here that was killed several years ago. He was in his 7/8 or 3/4 size home built plane that was a copy of a P-51, in looks only, I imagine. Just wondering if it may have been the same type plane?

[dryheat]

experimental airplane> hope it works....aw crap,now I'm going to die.

[Dave]

no link there, if it was supposed to be.

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

Altitude is your friend.

[MarkB]

I happen to building a Bushby Mustang II, the same model of aircraft as the one that crashed. It is a moderately popular two-place homebuilt, and was one of the first all-metal homebuilts when it came out in 1966. The Mustang II is known for its speed; even 40 years after it's introduction, there are few airplanes in its class that are faster.

The name "Mustang II" originates with the P-51 Mustang in a roundabout way. The M-II was derived from the earlier single place "Midget Mustang", which was a racer designed by Piper engineer David Long right after the war. People started to refer to his plane as a "Midget Mustang" and the name stuck. Long was killed as the result of an on-board fire in his midget and the plans eventually ended up in the hands of Bob Bushby who desinged the M-II. I believe at one point North American Aviation threatened to sue Bushby over his use of the name Mustang.

Plans, kits, and more information on the Mustang II can be found at http://mustangaero.com

I don't know any particulars of this recent crash, but the plane has a good overall safety record.

[Dale in Louisiana]

I've been involved in experimental aviation since I was a kid. I owned a Baby Lakes biplane. It would do plus or minus more G's than I wanted to experience, fully aerobatic. (I wasn't). The guy who built mine did a great job, better than any factory would have done.

"Experimental" or "homebuilt" aircraft are like handloaded ammo: you can make stuff you can't buy. The trouble is that SOME of the aircraft are not what relatively inexperienced pilots are ready for (he said, sitting in a cloud of dust) and are hotter and more sensitive to control. This can lead to problems.

Unlike handloads, homebuilt aircraft ARE subject to sign-off by the FAA.

[Dave]

At the Kalamazoo Air Museum they have a couple home builts, one is a "midget" Coursar FU-4 (or F4U?). All the engines are missing, removed by the builder, because of liability issues. Sign says builders are responsible, no matter who is flying it and even after it is sold or given away.