How Vashon Wants to Revolutionize Aviation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- Vashon Aircraft wants to revolutionize light aircraft manufacture with the Vashon Ranger, an all-metal light sport aircraft intended to be both a sort of RV for outback flying and a trainer. In this AVweb video, Paul Bertorelli dives deep into the Vashon story, including an indepth report on the factory.
Dude has such big science energy that I thought that polo was a lab coat at first. Goals.
I didn't realize that was just a polo until you mentioned it lol
Same
00:00 Start
00:05 *Vashon Ranger | LSA V2.0*
00:43 - John Torode | Vashon Founder
04:46 - Ken Krueger | Ranger Designer
08:07 - Scott Taylor | General Manager
10:49 *02 | Flying the Ranger*
10:57 - Walkthrough
12:36 - Flaps
13:09 - Stall
14:13 - Landing
14:59 *03 | Configuration*
14:59 - Panel
16:46 - Options
17:08 - Premium Vinyl Wrap
18:45 *04 | Training Program*
If you like, thumbs pls
There seem to be a lot of negative comments on this aircraft. I was of the same opinion initially but then I started to think, you get a cantilevered wing, fully certificated aircraft for 100 grand, give or take, and it's got a good sized cabin, with an auto pilot. That's not too damn bad! Would I buy one, not on your life. I'd spend that kind of money on an experimental and get a hell of lot more performance, but this is an LSA and should be appreciated for what it is. This guy has a good start. I think he needs to remove the LSA limit and put 150 hp in the nose and get that useful load up to where it's actually useful. As a training and rental aircraft... I think he did a pretty damn good job!
I agree its a great start. To go okay we can do this so we can probably do this. Looking forward to there next design.
Is there a reason why he should stay LSA? Is it certification costs? It seems like he is doing what most of the aviation industry needs to start doing: economical and volume.
It doesn't matter what you get for it, most people simply do not have 100k to spend on an LSA
@@ValentinoDagher If there's anything keeping planes uncertified, it's extortionate certification costs. Main reason why my dream plane the Gweduck is stuck as an experimental kit plane with like, one order under its belt, instead of the island air taxi grumman successor it deserves to be.
Meanwhile, Boeing gets to certify their own planes like that's not a conflict of interest until 737s start falling out the sky.
Selling this as "affordable" is a farce. $100,000 is not affordable by any definition of the word- as he said in the video, the only people who can afford that are old geezers. If you want to attract new blood to aviation, you have to get these aircraft costs down.
I sent in my deposit a few weeks ago. Delivery this December. Sadly, I’m selling my Cirrus SR22TN and my J-3 Cub as I close in on retirement. My mission. Aside from the Cub like flying I’ll do solo with my buddies in their planes, will also be weekend trips wound New England with my 120 pound wife and two 25 -35 pound dogs. Love the back seat area for them. Even with close to full fuel we will be under gross.
Yes, it’s not a speed demon load carrying fire breathing six passenger retractable with device boots. That’s not what I want anymore. This airplane will fit the bill perfectly for our mission and for my current flying needs. I’m really excited.
Martin Weiss A man who knows what he wants and can afford it! Happy trails to you!
Martin Weiss did you get the Vashon? I loved it at Oshkosh and the back area would be great for dogs or mtn bike. I’m interested in it and comparing to rotax powered aerotrek, but that’s fabric covered...
Also curious about what you ended up doing. I just want the partner and dogs to fit. Also are you local to the PNW? Asking for a friend.... ha. So many more questions than I could post here.
Very nice work Ken Kruger and team! Congratulations!
Impressive! Practical & reliable aircraft. Can't wait to see the floatplane option ..... and possibly pursue my own pilot's license.
Really like what Vashon has done here. Hoping to see an optional more powerful Jet-A Continental or Lycoming (traditional power-plant) in near future, something around 125-hp for the current 2-place and those that hold a PPL. A 4-place in the near future with Jet-A power-plant option would be great. Also, optional side-sticks or ram horn yokes, especially for the Flight School segment.
jet a is a need imo for smaller producers that are appealing to newer people that want to fly. especially as they become more environmentally friendly, being able to say your plane doesn't burn lead is a plus. and of course it burns less fuel
My new favorite channel!
If they make a taildragger version I'd seriously consider buying one. Increase of the useful load would be good too.
Great plane, great design.
This is my preferred new plane to fly. It has everything I need. I love the Ranger!!!
With a new Cessna 172 topping the price list at $465k, then that outrageous cost certainly opens the market for an affordable option. I certainly wish them the best.
Cool trainer! Very well done as always Paul!
Great interview as usual!!!!!!!!!
Very Impressive! Time-Proven AL construction and Continental engine. It seems very rugged and well built using advanced computerized manufacturing systems. It certainly got my attention. I've been pre-shopping the LSA market for some time now and this unique LS aircraft could well move up to the top of my wish-list!
The wrap looks fantastic, like it is a paint job.
Good for you. Previous LSA's have terribly missed the mark. Wishing you luck. My only comment would have been a 912 would have been a better choice.
Totally agree wish it had a rotax option
A pretty natty LSA, for sure. I like the Continental power plant, and the construction is quite interesting.
Nice to see some new Sport / Private Pilot Planes being designed and produced. The fleet of Civilian Aircraft is aging to the point it's starting to look like state of Cuban automobiles.
I wonder what the price of the Ranger would be as a Kit Plane?
Boy , I love the way you think!
Thanks, I enjoyed learning about this aircraft.
"Why so serious?" Aren't you having a good time?
Why so serious? A welcome relief from the types who seem to be wired on too much coffee.
“And where’s the aoa? Umm it’s on the pitot tube”. People are funny.
Nice video and nice plane. Looks easy to handle. I like Amy. Very smart, very cute.
Yes...but does Amy put out is the question...
I hope the model does well in flight schools looking for a modern trainer featuring a glass cockpit. I hope the price will soon fall to the $50-75k range in the coming years with volume... I feel this price range is where this aircraft belongs and what is needed in the marketplace! If an aircraft is the same price as a modern SUV than I see it selling in much higher quantities.
I love all these armchair designers and manufacturers bashing this plane. It's a pretty significant achievement to deliver a plane with these specs and state of the art avionics for 100k. Yes the payload is low but that is only because of the faa lsa weight limits. The plane was designed to fly at around 1460lbs gross. I confirmed this when I spoke to Vashon reps at SnF. If the Faa raises the LSA gross limits to this figure, the plane could legally carry about 400 lbs of useful load with full fuel. 100k is not a bad price when you consider that mid time 40 year old C152s are going for 40k. Put 4 or 5 people in a partnership and this purchase is quite doable. The owner of Dynon should be commended for investing his time and money on a very fine and well equipped lsa.
curious, with how cheap tablets are - can you run your glass panel using tablets? The markup for the 2nd glass panel is ridiculous when for a few hundred bucks I can use a tablet? Of course you'd have to make money on the software subscription in that case.
There doesn't seem to be much headroom, can you adjust seat height?
Nice plane. Btw that attitude indicator at 11:30 is showing about 25* nose down?
I personally like the design/asthetics of the Vashon a lot, looks rugged, yet sleek imho. I too understand their thinking behind wanting to use the very well known Continental power-plant, I personally do not care how dated the design of the power-plant is, if it is a proven/reliable design, but if it is not enough power and not EFI vs. a gravity fed carburetor, it is not comepetive and a deal breaker for many, like myself.
Bring the power up to par or better (true x-country capable), I would be all in, as would many others I believe. Maybe offer another, more powerful power-plant with EFI, would help.
Also, I may have missed it, but should offer with at least (3) steam gauges.
MOST IMPORTANTLY....GET THAT USEFUL LOAD UP!
Happy/Safe Flying!🇺🇸👍
Would be nice of commentors had to give their pilot rating (most don't have a pilots license no doubt) and what plane they OWN (few owners commenting or if they do own its a 40yo Cessna 172 with round gauges and 1500 hrs on their Continentals).
For those who are licensed, experienced and OWN an aircraft and know the trade-offs and price-points, this plane is fantastic. It's priced $50k or more below like offerings from all the other makers. And it's built robust and with novel features unlike the other SLSA makers (especially the maingear and the adjustable rudder pedals). Then add the all glass "touch" panels, the ADS-B in/out, the 2-axis Autopilot with blue level button, the fold down seats and you have the best SLSA made pound for pound for the money. Btw. The Continental engine has a LOT more places where it can be worked on than a Rotax engine.
The bottom line? Unless you own and fly a lot and especially if you have don't have experience with SLSA you will not understand what this plane is all about.
A step in the right direction (towards reducing the “general” cost), no doubt. But I can’t help and wonder how much land perfoance has been compromised by designing the airplane also as a float option. Be that as it may, I sure would be happy to rent this from a flight school than a beat up C172 at $130/hr.
ev3rlastingfaith,
You'd better not be taking a lesson, because the usefull load on this a/c is just sadly insufficient and if you're wanting a second person with you'll figure that out quickly or have almost no fuel/flight time. And at $100,000.00 what would you think is a fair hourly rate? Keep in mind the cost of a 172 is grossly less, and at $130/hr is actually pretty reasonable. I'd bet any true business mind won't pay the $100,000.00 and rent it that cheaply.
At over 100 grand, this thing 'aint 'gunna rent for less than 100 bucks an hour
This is a badass plane! Great video!
Any thoughts about the exterior 'vinyl wrap'? Interesting idea, looks good from 'here'. Sounds like there is some experience with it in the automotive arena. However, when she said to remove it you just heat with a blow dryer my first thought was what happens if this sits out on the ramp in the Texas (insert your favorite hot sunny state here) sun on a 100 deg day? Is this going to start bubbling off the skin? Has anyone has experience with this wrap on the automotive side relative to the longevity?
@@goclick It's an interesting concept. I wonder how much the vinyl costs over the life of the aircraft and what it weighs.
As an aside, the darker, and less reflective an aircraft is the more easily it can be spotted (in the air!).
I'm not writing about aircraft being seen from above.
I know this is 5y old video, but it is very important and new to me. It has so nmuch important details about the airplane and the factory that if decisive to who is on the Market da a LSA. I want you to see a Video Like this on the areaprackt A 32 from Haven bound aviation in Ohio, one day. thanks
This does show the limitations of the current environment for light aircraft production. The standard production price for a two seat trainer is 1.7x the cost of a mid-sized sedan. You can get a sedan for $30,000 which would put a certified trainer at $51,000.
Someone is probably going to object and say that this price is unrealistic. However, back in 1938, you could buy a Ford Tudor sedan for $667 and a Piper Cub for $1,000 making the ratio 1.5x. This dropped to about 1.4x by the end of WWII because they built so many liaison aircraft. The 1.7x ratio is what it was in the 1970s. With a price tag of $100,000 you have a very undesirable ratio of 3.3x. This could be fixed (there are many solutions) but there just doesn't seem to be any will to do it for light aircraft.
Could the same production methods be applied to the now out of production GA8, or did Gipps Aero fill the available market during their production run?
I like what I see there Paul. I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to take a flight in it. Maybe my club will buy to go along with all our Hershey bar pipers. I wonder what the hourly cost might be on this one.
What about the fuel tanks. Do they come with explosion proofing fillers?
The AOA display was on the left side of the screen.
"I think it has" is not what a confident marketing director should be saying. This aircraft is cool, and will do well. Heck, I may be able to afford one someday.
Those 2 struts in the windscreen would be a dealbreaker, they look to be blocking vision from both seats? Am I missing something, it seems like a huge flaw?
The alternative is a monocoque fuselage, and those start at about 200k dollars for that class of aircraft. All tubular constructed bodies need those downtubes.
A. There is no such thing as a monocoque fuselage.
B. What do you mean by tubular construction? A flying toilet-roll tube?
C. A 'downtube' - where does that description come from?
@@HerbertTowers D. Mike not too smart.
I have my PPL but struggling to fly a lot to stay current because of the costs.. It sucks, I want to fly all the time.
Sub 70 UK category. The PeaBeee the future of sport aviation. 10 US dollars/hour
Even the guy who designed it said that the O-200 "might have been a mistake"!
0-200 has proven to be the right way to go, thank goodness!👍🇺🇲
Oh! Pretty sure he was referencing his "old geezer" comment being a mistake...
O200 is a economical and reliable engine but it is heavier and a little less powerful than the rotax
@@stephanfiebich1561 a smart bit of business would have been to offer both engines let the consumer make the choice plus i think the continental would cost more than the rotax so if they trying to make a cheap aircraft then that would have been a good option a rotax 912 or 914 turbo is a good power plant i've seen it used in trent palmers kitfox.
The FAA, AOPA, Aircraft Spruce’s “Sport Pilot Encyclopedia”, manufacturers, and responsible CFIs ALL agree: taxiing should be at a “ brisk walk” regardless of the distances [ tell that to SWA !]. Airports generally specify a maximum speed of 20 mph for ground vehicles which have the tremendous stopping advantage over aircraft of brakes on the front axle. Yet from 18:44 to 18:52 and even worse from 19:06 to 19:18 this pair seems to hit >35knots. Someone familiar with the airport could calculate but prima facie reckless on a congested airport with wet asphalt.
What's the price difference between a Continental O-200 and a Lycoming IO-233? I guess the Lycoming costs a bit more, but may be cheaper to overhaul because the TBO is slightly (about 10-20%) longer and the overhaul cost is similar.
It'd be interesting to see what the insurance impact of a UL350iS is, and then the TCO; and maybe the UL260iS. Purchase price is about twice as much as a Continental, and a bit less than that for the Lycoming.
The 90hp 4cyl D-Motor would be a great engine for this. To add about 100lbs back to the useful load
how is the skin thickness compared to a cessna or piper? all the lsa's I have looked at personally have very thin skins are hanger rash nightmares in my opinion.
The taildragger version will sell like crazy. I suspect they know that...
Not at $100,000 plus it wont. Too many Kitfoxes out there that are less than 1/3 the price and have better performance
No backup HSI?
I really hope this model does well. It's nice to see somebody as innovative as this inventor put out a good flight training aircraft. I think some people continue to not understand the gravity of the situation coming up in aviation. Lack of qualified pilots.
Nice, twist on the traditional, evolution rather than revolution, but thoughtful and made using modern methods of production.
Heavy an tough vs light and flimsy ? Looks well made.
I like the doors, cabin size and seating/camping options, thoughtful. The glass cockpit is a love/hate thing. Looks good apart from any reflections.
Not sure about rearwards and above viability, not a lot of perspex or glass present.
I've often pondered light weight vinyl wraps for LSAs, in theory they should protect the paint - but be careful who applies it!
Downside for Europe (if they're ever sold there)? The engine, Rotax have their faults but are becoming the norm for LSA and Microlights in 'Europe'. Having said that, it's heavier than most Rotax equipped aircraft?
Bravo.thenks
It it rated standard or utility?
What is interesting about this AC is that the design objective was to use economy of manufacture. As the primary focus of the engineering as it meshes with the most advanced tooling that this small manufacturer can afford. The Cessna 162 Skycatcher retailed for a 50% higher price(2013) using the same engine, with a similar panel and had a 40 lb better useful load. Before it was killed off in 2013. Factoring inflation the C-162 would sell for $162,000 today.
2:25, I notice all the cables both wire and electrical seem to pass through unprotected holes in the metal plates! Surely a potential chafing issue over the longer term.
why are you assuming that the final build doesn't include grommets?
@@ABC-rh7zc I've encountered American build quality before. I never presume anything is built correctly anymore.
KEN KRUEGER my god just absolutely BRUTALLY honest hahah love it. "fatter" hahahah
What is revolutionary about using and aluminium riveted plane with an engine designed 70 years ago?
Amen! For a "tech" guy, the use of an 80 year-old engine is mystifying. Why not at IO-200? There are any number of new, state-of-art engines, these days, with fuel-injection and computerized engine-management systems. Manual mixture-control, really?
Didint you hear the part about semi-conductors. Revolutionary!
The lithium in the 787 batteries is billions of years old. It's not what you use as raw materials its how you use the raw material, in this case the advances are in designing for easy, fast, consistent-quality, assembly.
Because no one does it anymore for a reasonable price. The only people who do are cessna and their 162 failed due to costing more than the ranger while having fewer capabilities stock.
@@tracyholmes9193 Maybe the 80 yr. old engine is one of the reasons the aircraft is certified and not experimental.
"Turrent punch" ... priceless.
Best review of this plane yet. Wish the 80hp rotax was an option to lower the price, weight, and fuel bill even more.
O-200 is way cheaper for OEMs. This is why Zenith S-LSA CH-750 was made with them. The 80hp 912 is cheaper than the 100hp, but not that much cheaper.
Neat plane. Thank you for the video.
I agree with the comments below. A Rotax 912 would be better in this application than a Continental 0200.
Unless the Light Sport weight limit gets increased from the current 1,320# limit, the plane needs to weigh less to be a trainer. Two 190# guys is 380 from 1,320= 940. Twenty gallons at 6 Lbs/gal means 3-1/2 hours at 5gph and 1/2 hr reserve.The plane needs to weigh 820 empty, give or take the weight of headsets, IPads and the occasional "heavy purse".
Competitive advantage for a 120 pound flight instructor.
I don't think O-200 is the whole reason why this airplane is so stupidly heavy. The cantilever wing is part too. I'm sure there's more.
will take 4 guys to attach it too the airframe
The beefed up landing gear has got to have added a few extra pounds...
It isn't that the plane is so heavy, it's that the LSA standard is soooo low. From the specs, this thing could fly at1,600 lbs. gross with no issues.
Kenny Phillips It very well could, but the problem is there’s no telling of when that regulation might change. It puts the flight school and their CFI’s at risk of always being overweight in a training environment and doesn’t look good when students know better too.
It's amazing to me how a lot of people just can't see past price to see value. I think the Ranger has definite possibilities, and it seems well-thought out, if the manufacturer doesn't get too excited about what flight schools say they're going to do, but rather just sticks to expansion based on actual sales. As for useful load, we Americans should get real with ourselves and report to our local gym...otherwise it'll take an A380 to haul or fat carcasses around in the future...maybe we need some Basic Training DI with a hat to yell at us and make us do pushups until HE gets tired...the Ranger will do great on floats and shows promise as a Light Sport Bush-plane as well if offered with conventional gear.
I emailed Vashon 3 times with a few questions. Never did get a reply. Funny way to sell an aircraft??
Today, most companies I encounter appear to have adopted the motto: "We don't want your stinkin' money!"
:(
Imagine if you owned one and were trying to get help. Last thing you want.
did you pick up the phone?
@@P51 this is 2020, he probably didn't hook up the team to his carriage and ride over either. If a company can't respond to email, they don't have good customer service
@John Doe So do telegraphs, megaphones and fax machines. A lot of people (customers) prefer to communicate by email where they have time to gather their thoughts and can communicate at a convenient point of their day. If a supposed cutting edge aircraft company insists on not utilizing modern technology in their office, I would wonder what other modern technologies are they going to resist taking advantage of.
Another 100,000+ "Affordable" airplane. That means 100/Hr rental rates and very few that can afford to buy them
@Victor Y. I am not comparing this to 3 million dollar aircraft..(??) Compared to a used 152 or 172 this offers nothing in the way of improved capability, affordability or innovation. This is why LSA never took off. It is just as expensive as regular general aviation. As I said, this airplane will still have rental rates north of 100-120 bucks an hour. Nothing to see here
@@jjthomas2297 Pretty much exactly, I can a N3 Pup, with full upgrades for afraction. wll have AP? probably not, will it be 100 grand? no.
Ayup. I won't be surprised if general aviation in the US goes the way of the dodo within 50 years with the way the market is going.
@@jjthomas2297 Why would you compare it to used? Just how long is the used aircraft fleet supposed to last, indefinitely? It is reasonably priced for a new airplane, LSA or not, as compared to anything else new.
@@BStrambo I agree (tho 100,000 is a lot of money) - all new frame, wiring, glass panel, engine, corrosion proofed, very fully optioned/equiped - few or no expenses for years! A LOT of plane for the buck - made in the USA!?! I say, congratulations to them! The useful weight needs another 100 lbs, however...
I didn't realize James Cromwell made airplanes. lol jk, so what's the status of Vashon these days? The idea of a LSA you can camp in is very appealing. Esp if it comes in a float version you can island hop with.
Excellent interior design.
Any standby instruments?
Looks like the initial military model of the Cessna scout plane
Revolutionize aviation? A boring boxy aluminum and rivets airplane with a carbureted engine that burns 100LL and was first run in 1947...(as a point of reference the last vehicle sold in the United States with a carburetor was a 1994 Isuzu pickup). What exactly has been revolutionized? The only thing missing from this picture is Rosie the Riveter. This is just a $100k+ C152.
captaincoconutts ROBINSON HELICOPTER: Aluminium, ugly ......cheap revolutnized aviation. SPACEX: Everybody said aluminium rocket, Lox and kero using combuster cycle (old technology) ......cheap....revolutionized space launch. 😁😁😁😁😁
naughtyUphillboy when this revolutionizes aviation I'll buy you a spell checker.
captaincoconutts Hahaha! ^
But yes, they *want* to revolutionize aviation. It's a pretty strong term.
captaincoco: Every aviation wanabe wants a composite sleek bullet but for this size of airplane and the limited performance envelope, aluminum construction is still the most labor efficient method around. This airplane will never fly past 200mph, never pull 6Gs. so adding more technology does not add value other than make it much more expensive to buy.
If you want to change the backward evolution of general aviation, lobby to reduce the onerous FAA regulation. The one reason airplane engines still have carburators or the archaic fuel injection is the FAA regulation makes it so much more expensive to certify anything. A simple EFIS in the experimental world cost 2-3 times in the certify world. The FAA regulation rules were setup to keep the early aviation technology in the mid 20 from killing people because they did not have all the scientific knowledge.
I believe the O-200 D is certified for mo gas. Could be wrong but I think that is the case.
I agree with the comments about cost $100K isn't affordable and maybe airplanes can't be affordable. But looking at that nose wheel, I don't think it would stand up to a single hard landing so that idea of it being an SUV or training plane is laughable. I suspect that one hard landing that that front gear would be bent.
A Ranger demo flight will cost you $200/30 minutes...YIKES!
I thought this was supposed to be an affordable entry into the LSA market??
Very cool.👏👏👏👏👏
So his brilliant idea is an aluminum plane with a cantilevered wing and a Continental?
Astonishing!
Well, that and that it is fully built with glass and autopilot... but yeah. The equivalent Cessna Skycrasher was how much?
With it being predrilled and all it would be a exclent kit plane
i havnt heard a mention of the used market yet. if i could pick one of these up in five years with some hours left for 40 to 50 grand, that would be something id look forward too. i could finally own a modern airplane.
Very nice. They should scale up the size a little and throw in an IO 320 or IO 360. Would make for an awesome plane and then they won’t be limited by LSA weight restriction to make a float or amphibian version. With their in house design and automation machinery they could probably design a beautiful set of amphibian floats to make this a real winner. I would buy a GA version in a heart beat.
I like the Ranger, I wonder where the price will be on one ten years old. That marketing director is cute and I need some lessons!
I like the plane but I think the payload is limited at 445 lbs or 277 useful load. A ROTAX 912 would increase that by about 30 lbs. Rotax engines burn auto fuel including ethanol (I asked the Rotax rep at a recent KOSH trip). From the video you can tell it's really roomy. You weren't even rubbing shoulders. My only other complaint is that the third wheel is on the wrong end but what do you expect from a former Kitfox owner :)
Burning automotive fuels would have been a bigger draw for me.
O-200 can burn auto fuel.
The certification is for 100LL according to TContinental's *O-200-D* own data sheet, as well as Vashon's. No mention of a supplemental certification for alternatives.
Yes it can burn auto fuel: ONLY if it doesn't have ethanol in it. The Rotax, even though I hate it, CAN burn ethanol based fuels and is better suited to this task, like it or not.
Taildragger's are the best, but for many among us their too difficult to stay current in unless you fly often. Just saying................
So, is the "revolutionary" stuff in part 2 or something?
"We wanted to help encourage young people to get into aviation, so we found a 'Geezer' and built our plane to his specifications"
I love the dry sarcasm in the comment section.
:D
Those Geezers know more and are more into safety before appearances than the juvenile jerks you like so much, dummy. Now you can go back to listen to rap music with the Pretentious Punks you like.
@@KutWrite you don't seem to understand sarcasm.
@@feetgoaroundfullflapsC you having a panic attack there boomer?
@@borismarkov1141 I dont get panic attacks, I give panic attacks. Same as headaches..
Looks like it doesn't have parachute? Mandatory in Europe for LSA and probably boosting price and weight. Live the roomy cockpit.
I really like the premise of an aggressively cost optimized plane because aviation is indeed much too expensive and a tech guy is a great basis for rethinking an industry but then you arrive at 100k for a WWII Cessna with an ipad and 15 grand more if you want the second ipad. That's a disconnect to me. A new Nissan Versa sedan with fancy paint and computers start at 12 grand total.
If engine and avionics guys don't get the volume concept, teach them. And the construction seems rather manufacture intensive to me. Complicated and delicate. I'm thinking tandem reclined seating for a sleeker lighter simpler plane. And if you can't move your body enough to get in a plane, are you lucid enough to fly. If you want others than geezers to fly, why make it handicap accessible. Getting into 100k is far more uncomfortable than stretching muscles into a 30k$ plane. Or 15.
If you design a sleek light plane for higher speed, you can do with a smaller wing, correct? meaning cheaper. So that's a win on multiple fronts, speed, cost, efficiency. It doesn't take much higher speed for a smaller wing to give the same lift. Even if that means a bit higher requirements for runway, isn't that worth a 75% reduction in price? and 50% increased cruise speed. Low wing can simplify the structure and allow short landing gear on the wing. I would cover them for aerodynamics and make them smaller.
I think LSA is market focused rather than production focused so believe the company will be hard pushed to get the price point they want from volumes. Light sports has become a luxury goods, easy to fly space and not an easy to buy belts and braces utility one especially a utility one that has a minimal payload offering regardless of having a "real" aerospace engine for the money.
hello , price
Steam gauges are better for trainers and beginners. Have glass as an option. Rotax or UL engine option. Put on VGs for safety and performance.
We tried this aircraft in our flying club however it failed miserably. It’s simply not built well enough for the type of use an aircraft gets in the club/training environment. Also, it’s extremely short coupled and is way too pitch sensitive with power off. We tried and really wanted this aircraft to be the answer however, we can’t find a replacement that comes close to our C172’s with updated avionics.
Very Nice makes me want to learn to fly
Paul: a VERY nicely done review. And the added clout of a past VANS designer is impressive. Way to go! But, Paul, where's the right shoulder harness in the late part of the video?
Wants to build a cheap aircraft to get pilots into the air - puts in a continental... right-o...
Keep in mind TCO: if you put in any other engine, what would be the impact on the cost of insurance and service? Depending on where you look, TBO is about 20% longer for the Lycoming IO-233, and the overhaul cost is similar, but the purchase price is also about $2000 more; you can recuperate the cost difference after 4800 hours of flight. The Lycoming is slightly more powerful and slightly heavier.
Get it ceramic coated on top of the wrap... If it works so well for cars, it seems that'd be worth a try to have it professionally done and get the lifetime warranty
weight. This aircraft is already problematic with useful load.
It was semi interesting... until they mentioned the price which is in no way revolutionary. Not to mention the idiotic engine choice, and bizarre float requirement. Make a FADEC aircraft with lower fuel burn, 1/2 the price, and better performance and then you’ll be “revolutionising” the industry. This is just more of the same crap hitting the market every year. Nothing special about it at all.
I sadly concur. I wish these folks well but a carb/mixture/multi-control engine? Come on man..............
The price is revolutionary in that it's $25,000-$50,000 less expensive than most other LSAs. Even bigger price difference when you factor in all that is included in the base price that is optional on most other LSAs.
@@jcz232321 It would likely cost millions, at the least, to certify a true FADEC.
Compared to boats and yachts ( which are also too much), aircraft are overpriced. Volume makes little difference, $100k will buy a lot of boat and their production volumes are not that high. Hell you can buy a house for that in quite a few places.
What engine in your opinion would be better? I'm not involved in LSA so have no clue of better engine than what they chose.
You know, the Corvette uses transverse fiberglass leaf springs as well...
Looks like a perfect trainer, however I dont like the crossbars at the windshield, its like 1950 again..
There's an interesting dilemma here. Should a training aircraft be so docile?
IMHO, it would be fine for inexperienced pilot to have fun flying but not one to learn to fly even similarly boring spam cans nevermind anything with any real performance or manoeuvrability. Jolly underpowered too.
You could look at it that way certainly. When I watched this video, I got the impression that this company, while trying to cut costs everywhere, made an effort to strengthen up the frame to a very secure degree. If that's true, I'd look at the crossbars with admiration and appreciation :), but that's me.
ADS-B for 2020 requirements?
My LSA has not stall warning ...
This guy introduces himself as a "value engineer," a specialty that is [typically] more favorably viewed by MBAs than engineering peers. His goals are interesting.
Looks like a great aircraft. But come on, a "real airplane engine" ? The rotax is more than proven, and set aside the gearbox, which works fine, it looks all the same as "traditional" engines. I understand the motivation behind the use of an engine people are more familiar with, but people need to change their minds or we will keep complaining that our engines date back from 1950.
SuperYellowsubmarin Seriously! That comment aggravated me. I fly behind a Rotax 912 ULS many hours a day and let me tell you it’s a wonderful aircraft engine. I’d take one over an O-200D any day!
The 915 iS FADEC fuel injection, turbo 141 HP engine is just a work of art and as modern as you can get. That bare engine still weighs 14 lbs less than the lightened O-200D.
Andrew Morris I'm confused. That was the meaning of my comment. Like 90% of French ultralights, I fly a 912 as well and appreciate it. I think that engine choice is a big mistake.
SuperYellowsubmarin Yes, I agree with you 100%. Sorry for the confusion. I think the O-200D is a big mistake as well.
@@andrewmorris3479: I thought you were clear.
@@SuperYellowsubmarin how difficult/expensive is it to offer the rotax engine option? I don't think they've sold that many - cash strapped I'm sure.
Interesting the Vashon Sales Rep. does not know the specifics of the craft- especially instrumentation.
Funny - wasn't sure here - took a minute. Love the A/c, love the ctl wing, performance, O-200 is great (proper engine), float-inspired is awesome. Big cabin, folding seats (genius) - all GREAT. Things that I am not sure about are useful load (floated that'll be interesting too), too much tech (for an LSA), and price (it's not cheap and won't attract the "younger crowd" with its pricing). So my thinking is to have a starter (perhaps upgradable) option for (say) $85K with much less tech making it more of an LSA. I feel this is a great aircraft but, apart from the economies of scale/manufacturing tech (which is interesting and great to see in aviation), I am not seeing it "revolutionize" anything - but will be glad to be proven wrong.
I think this comment nails my feeling. Now (Nov 2021) the base model lists at $127,500. I'm not sure what they were optimizing for here. If it's price, they missed. So then what? I love their attitude but it feels like this plane was made for an audience of one - and he owns the company.
I want this aircraft!!!
Engine choice undoubtedly was because of cost, Rotax 100 hp engine = $22,000, vs. Continental 100 hp engine = $11,000
Tell me where you can buy a continental 100 for 11k.
@Nobby Barnes certified aircraft engines are very expensive, because of legal requirements that the manufacturer needs to meet. You can buy rotax engines that are not certified for non-experimental aircraft use, and they are much less expensive.
LSA is where the market is and should go. Even for long range flights that some less elite populace would be using such for.