AVweb Video on Vashon Ranger + Aviation Consumer Article

[FastEddieB]

Yes , Paul B. basically suggested that, since most LSA are already flying 100 lbs or so over gross , this most likely will be “the solution” for the issue of very low useful load on this new plane.

Interesting.

I really hope the bolded part is not the case.

if he did say that, I think it’s irresponsible.

As a single data point, mine’s not.

It’s not wise to pick and choose which operating limitations you think are worth adhering to.

[TimTaylor]

Yes , Paul B. basically suggested that, since most LSA are already flying 100 lbs or so over gross , this most likely will be “the solution” for the issue of very low useful load on this new plane.

Interesting.

I really hope the bolded part is not the case.

if he did say that, I think it’s irresponsible.

As a single data point, mine’s not.

It’s not wise to pick and choose which operating limitations you think are worth adhering to.

Eddie, I am in 100 percent agreement. If you're going to ignore the weight limits, you might as well ignore all the regulations and fly at night and IFR.

[Warmi]

Yes , Paul B. basically suggested that, since most LSA are already flying 100 lbs or so over gross , this most likely will be “the solution” for the issue of very low useful load on this new plane.

Interesting.

I really hope the bolded part is not the case.

if he did say that, I think it’s irresponsible.

As a single data point, mine’s not.

It’s not wise to pick and choose which operating limitations you think are worth adhering to.

Well listen for yourself.

It is no secret that I am new at this , having been only flying for a year and with only 100 hours to my name but ... this is not the first time I hear experienced pilots freely admitting that just about everyone is flying over gross - in fact I was told by a 20 k hours airline pilot , who at the time was acting in an official faa sponsored role, that flying over gross is not a problem as long as you know how it affects the handling of the plane and plan accordingly.
It seems that there are regulations and there are common practices and quite often these two are not necessarily in agreement.

[TimTaylor]

It seems that there are regulations and there are common practices and quite often these two are not necessarily in agreement.

I would be surprised if that's true. I hope it's a rare occurrence.

[drseti]

Just remember that the last commercial Concorde flight (the one out of Paris that went up in flames and spelled the end of the SST era) took off over-gross, and with an out-of-limits aft CG.

[FastEddieB]

It seems that there are regulations and there are common practices and quite often these two are not necessarily in agreement.

Or, it seems like there are regulations and there are relatively rare scofflaws that choose to disregard them.

One key to a long, safe, and violation-free flying career is to follow the rules. Most airline pilots have to, which is why their safety record is so exemplary.

Or don't. Thats why the FAA has an enforcement arm.

[Warmi]

It seems that there are regulations and there are common practices and quite often these two are not necessarily in agreement.

I would be surprised if that's true. I hope it's a rare occurrence.

I don’t know but it seems like it is not.
Obiously, I am not going to name names but starting with the very ferry pilot who brought my plane , another very experienced DPE and quite a few various other pilots ( after they got to know me ) , i keep hearing that , yeah , we shouldn’t be doing it but everyone is doing it anyway ...

It is not just that ... in just one year, I have seen people replace avionics on certified planes on their own ... do all sorts of maintenance that they are not certified to do ... and it is not that I was seeking out some kind of aviation underground ... just hanging out at my and other airports.

I am not really surprised all that much either ... if you end up creating a bottomless pit of costly regulations that are almost impossible to follow for anyone without a corporate budget - you frankly leave them no choice .. it is either that or stop flying.

[TimTaylor]

The SkyCatcher I fly holds 24 gallons or 144 pounds of fuel. When flying with my Mooney friend, we go with 3/4 tanks which puts us around 1310 gross. When flying alone, I go with full fuel. I would never fly with full fuel, my passenger, and 1346 gross. We usually fly an hour to lunch, replace the burned fuel, and fly an hour back home. I like to arrive back at the FBO with 1/2 tanks because that's where they keep it. I rarely fly with less than 1/2 fuel.

[drseti]

you frankly leave them no choice .. it is either that or stop flying.

Another choice is to simply follow the rules, and accept the resulting limitations. In the case of flying within gross weight limits, that might mean considering your plane essentially a one place aircraft. You may not like that, but it's the reality of the situation.

[TimTaylor]

I would rather quit flying than fly unsafely. Maybe that explains why we had a fatal accident near here Saturday. I hope not, but it was an engine failure and attempted emergency landing on a highway.

[Warmi]

And btw. ... to the best of my knowledge , I have never flown in my plane over gross and I don’t plan to.

With my minimal experience , I am quite happy following every rule there is to make this new hobby safe for my wife and myself ..and , frankly, from a purely practical point of view, I don’t really need to - with the current setup we can comfortably fly for 3 hours ... with 2 hours being my endurance limit anyway.

[TimTaylor]

And btw. ... to the best of my knowledge , I have never flown in my plane over gross and I don’t plan to.

With my minimal experience , I am quite happy following every rule there is to make this new hobby safe for my wife and myself ..and , frankly, from a purely practical point of view, I don’t really need to - with the current setup we can comfortably fly for 3 hours ... with 2 hours being my endurance limit anyway.

Hopefully, more experience will not make you more prone to violate any "rules." You have a license to follow the rules, not violate them. From a practical point of view, if you ever need to violate the rules, make a different plan.

[MrMorden]

Knowing as little as I do about aircraft in general, I thought the Skycatcher was a fine airplane with many solid attributes. The best LSA? Maybe not. If Cessna could have sold it under $100,000, I think it would have done well, possibly even outselling their venerable 172. Maybe that was the real problem. Who knows. Anyway, it's feasible that a smaller company that specializes in this type of proven design may do well with it.

I think that sub-$100k target is very hard to hit. When the Skycatcher was announced and they started taking orders, IIRC it was something like $114k. By the time deliveries started the price had gone up to $157k. If Cessna can't hit that price point (or even come close), it's going to be even harder for the smaller "mom & pop" airplane companies. Part of the problem is that most people don't want to buy a new airplane and "settle" for basics...they want autopilots, EFIS, fuel injected engines, and all the bells and whistles.

You might be able to build and sell a basic airplane with basic instrumentation for $80k. But not with all the above extra gear. Just a 912iS engine is almost $24k.

[Warmi]

But in this particular case .... they offer 2 Dynon HDX screens - a more basic model with something like a single D180 would knock off about 10K off of the base price ...

[MrMorden]

But in this particular case .... they offer 2 Dynon HDX screens - a more basic model with something like a single D180 would knock off about 10K off of the base price ...

The company is owned by Dynon, and HDX is their new baby...that ain't gonna happen!