Sport Pilot Talk

Just to add, the Vashon, with it's 28 gallons of usable fuel, is good for 4 hours plus reserves. That means, if I was going somewhere by myself, I could carry full fuel, 80 pounds of baggage, and fly for 4 hours. I'm going to need a "pee bottle." I would like to see the CG for that scenario. Might have to put some of the baggage in the passenger seat.

Or with 2 'average (slim) 180# pilot and passenger, you could load 10 gallons of fuel leaving a whopping 25# for misc. items.

I reckon the Vashon makes for a pretty sweet single passenger modern airplane.

Just depends on what you want and need. I want all metal, Continental engine, auto-pilot, minimal frills, ADS-B out. I can leave fuel behind for a burger run with flying buddy.

Also, the $99,500 price tag.

Last time I was 180 lbs was back when I was in college , early 90s .. been a while , now more like 210 and I bet that’s about what an average pilot weights these days

Excessive pilot weight can be easily solved. I lost 33 pounds in 60 days to fly SkyCatcher. I'm not saying or implying the Ranger is a perfect airplane for everyone.

TimTaylor wrote:Useful load of SkyCatcher is 490. Useful load of Ranger is 445. Those are allowable weights for pilot, passenger, usable fuel, and baggage. SkyCatcher carries 24 gallons. Ranger 28 gallons. Difference is 4 gallons or 24 pounds at 6 pounds per gallons. Difference in useful load is 45 pounds. So, if someone were to load only 24 gallons on the Ranger, the 45 pound difference for pilot, passenger, and baggage is only 21 pounds.

And if you want to be really precise, I think the usable fuel difference is only 3 gallons or 18 pounds. That means if you load both with 24 gallons, the difference in allowable weight for pilot, passenger, and baggage would be 27 pounds.

THE POINT IS, while the Vashon seems really weight challenged, it's not that much different than the SkyCatcher, which is only somewhat weight challenged.

https://vashonaircraft.com/ranger-r7-specs.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162_Skycatcher

Regardless, the Ranger works for me as does the SkyCatcher.

If you put equal amounts of fuel in each airplane the difference in what you can carry will still be 45 pounds. If you put full fuel in both, the difference in what you can carry goes up from 45 pounds to 69 pounds. this is based on the numbers you posted, I didn't check the links.

The SkyCatcher useful load is 490 pounds. If I put full fuel at 24 gallons (usable), that's 144 pounds of fuel. That means I can put 346 pounds of pilot, passenger, and baggage.

The Ranger useful load is 445 pounds. If I put full fuel at 27 gallons (usable), that's 162 pound of fuel. That means I can put 283 pounds of pilot, passenger, and baggage. That's 63 pounds less than SkyCatcher.

However, if I put 24 gallons in the Ranger, that's 144 pounds of fuel. That means I can put 301 pounds of pilot, passenger, and baggage. That's 45 pounds less than the SkyCatcher, which is the difference in empty weight, of course.

So, I guess I made a math error. To carry the same 346 pounds of pilot, passenger, and baggage as the SkyCatcher, I would put 16.5 gallons in the Ranger. That's 99 pounds of fuel.

I'm not sure why I get two different answers depending on how I calculate this. Somehow, I was counting the 3 gallons twice. There's an error somewhere in my earlier calculation, but the point remains the same. The Ranger is a very viable airplane for my missions.

Bottom line, the Ranger's empty weight is 45 pounds heavier than the SkyCatcher. So it can carry 45 pounds less pilot, passenger, fuel, and baggage. However, for single pilot operation, the Ranger's usable fuel in 3 more gallons for 1/2 hour more endurance (about 4.5 hours vs 4.0 hours).

As an aside, my plane only holds 17.8 gals usable.

It’s amazing what you can make work out and still stay legal if you have a mind to.

If I was designing an LSA, I would try to make the fuel tanks large enough that a single pilot, no passenger, no baggage, and full fuel weigh 1320 pounds. Keeping the CG within limits might be the biggest difficulty in design. You could put an auxiliary fuel tank under the passenger seat for use with no passenger on board.

FastEddieB wrote:Fuel weight is normally part of useful load, right?

Actually, useful load is defined as max gross minus empty weight. And useful load minus full fuel weight is called payload. That definition assumes that you don't get paid for hauling fuel (unless, of course, you're a tanker pilot).

TimTaylor wrote:If I was designing an LSA, I would try to make the fuel tanks large enough that a single pilot, no passenger, no baggage, and full fuel weigh 1320 pounds. Keeping the CG within limits might be the biggest difficulty in design. You could put an auxiliary fuel tank under the passenger seat for use with no passenger on board.

Or make the passenger seat hollow so it would actually be an auxiliary fuel tank. That wouldn't be dangerous at all.

I weigh 175 and if I take another 175 pound passenger with me I can fill up with 29 gallons into my 30 gallon useable fuel tank (two 15 gallons tanks) and be exactly at 1320 for take off in my SportCruiser.

The early SportCruisers were light, the new ones are a few pounds shy of max BEW for a LSA like the Ranger is. With heavy aircraft there's always a trade off, fuel in return for whatever else you want to bring. For training and short flights the Ranger might be a very good option.

It's also great for single person X-country flights of 4 hours. Also, won't melt in the sun if tied down outside. That is one of my requirements.

TimTaylor wrote:I just received another update email from Vashon. If I was ready to purchase another airplane, I would order the basic Ranger today for $99,500. It is the perfect airplane for me (all metal, Continental engine). The 445 pound useful load is 45 pounds less than a SkyCatcher but that includes 28 gallons of fuel vs 24 in the SkyCatcher. Leave out 4 gallons and the Ranger is only 20 pounds less useful load than the SkyCatcher. The basic version includes auto pilot and pilot side glass panel. That is all I want. I'll put my iPad on the right side.

I guess my original analysis was bogus and that's what Eddie was getting at. I should have simply said the Ranger weighs 45 pounds more and therefore has a useful load 45 pounds less than the SkyCatcher. That's equivalent to 7.5 gallons of fuel.

Another pretty obvious conclusion, since the Ranger weighs 45 pounds more than the SkyCatcher, Vashon should have gone with Rotax instead of Continental. Although it works for me, I question the market demand for an LSA with a 445 useful load.