Sport Pilot Talk

Just saw that Dynon's founder is now moving into production of his own Light Sport aircraft. The Vashon Ranger 7 seems pretty nicely equipped and at $99,500 starting, I think that's going to get a lot of attention.

Usual disclaimers: I am not affiliated with the company in any way. Just glad to see nicely equipped LSA at a good price.

https://youtu.be/574BD7naaeU

There’s an existing thread on this, albeit strangely named, “Skycatcher par deux”.

http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5000

Article on the AOPA website:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ady-ranger

Lots of cargo space, but useful load is only 445lbs ( https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/V ... 377-1.html ), so I suppose you can carry lots of inflated balloons and cotton candy. As a backcountry craft, though, two people won't be able to carry much gear.

Looks like a nice plane. I sure wish we could get a weight increase for LSAs. If this thing were good for another 100lbs it would become very appealing, especially at that price point.

That empty weight seems like poor/lazy design.

My Sky Arrow weighs in around 860 empty, but one excuse is that it was based on a “certified” design with a higher max gross. The logic is that it’s harder to “strip down” an existing airframe than it is to begin with a clean sheet.

It’s a shame that even with a clean sheet, they couldn’t seem to lighten up the design.

If this was intended primarily for training then I guess low empty weight is not that much of a handicap but ultimately, they really don't have much choice here...
Assuming that going with Continental engines was non-negotiable (their primary targets being training markets vs individual owners ) then you either have to go certified ( bye bye 99 K base price range ) or stay LSA and suffer the 1320 limit.

Warmi wrote: ...or stay LSA and suffer the 1320 limit.

Yes, but many LSAs have 100lbs more useful load than this plane. The Ranger just isn't a very useful aircraft if you actually want to go somewhere.

Half Fast wrote:

Warmi wrote: ...or stay LSA and suffer the 1320 limit.

Yes, but many LSAs have 100lbs more useful load than this plane. The Ranger just isn't a very useful aircraft if you actually want to go somewhere.

Indeed but all these LSAs are utilizing Rotax engines but If you go with Continental engines ( for whatever , legit or not, reason) then there is no choice.

Warmi wrote: Indeed but all these LSAs are utilizing Rotax engines but If you go with Continental engines ( for whatever , legit or not, reason) then there is no choice.

I think Vashon wanted to use all American made parts in the aircraft, hence the Continental O200. pounds to the Rotax’s 140 pounds, so 60 pounds more useful load could have been gained.

I do like the fold down seats and ability to lay down in the baggage area to the front seats. That may make Oshkosh airplane camping a little easier.

FastEddieB wrote:There’s an existing thread on this, albeit strangely named, “Skycatcher par deux”.

http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5000

Oops...completely missed that thread. Sorry. any way to merge the threads?

A couple of things jumped out at me from the AOPA article:

Full back stick results in mild buffeting and a mushy nose bob at 45 knots, then the airplane settles into a gently porpoising descent at about 50 KIAS.

How does this pass ASTM stall speed requirements? That's KIAS, and the requirement is for under 45 KCAS.

Steep turns at 60 degrees of bank are a playful matter of putting the Skyview HDX velocity vector on the horizon and pulling hard enough to keep it there.

Who the hell teaches or advocates steep turns while looking at the panel?

RTK wrote: I think Vashon wanted to use all American made parts in the aircraft, hence the Continental O200.

That's pronounced "Continental? Oh, two hundred pounds".

Slap a Rotax 915 in that puppy and they'd have a winner.

drseti wrote:A couple of things jumped out at me from the AOPA article:

Full back stick results in mild buffeting and a mushy nose bob at 45 knots, then the airplane settles into a gently porpoising descent at about 50 KIAS.

How does this pass ASTM stall speed requirements? That's KIAS, and the requirement is for under 45 KCAS.

[

Don't know the answer, but two possibilities come to mind:

1) Is "mild buffeting and a mushy nose bob" a stall? If that doesn't meet the legal definition of stall, then stall speed requirements might be satisfied. Sounds like there isn't a true stall break. (What's the "stall speed" for an Ercoupe?)

2) What does the calibration curve look like? Could it be that KIAS > KCAS at 45 knots?

Wm.Ince wrote:Slap a Rotax 915 in that puppy and they'd have a winner.

Hmmmm...... I wonder what they'd sell it for sans engine. Call it a kit, install your own engine.

With the current engine and panel setup, IMHO, it is definitely targeted for the training market. It may fulfill that mission very well.
Head to head though, for versatility, I would prefer my little CTSW above the Ranger. My 912 ULS runs like a top . . . carbs and all.
I like keeping things simple. Looks to me like the Ranger does that too.