Ian: Great interview. A fascinating perspective of the tradeoffs from the designer's perspective. I would like to see Ken talk about how this design helped (improved) the flight characteristics .... such as landings (especially crosswind), tracking, stalls, etc. There are a few high-wing LSA aircraft with notorious 'twitchy' landing characteristics. Perhaps a follow-up interview could address these aspects, as well as customer feedback after a couple of years of production. Very nice aircraft. Good job Ian!
I must say I love most of the concept. What I think really speaks for it, and is not addressed in the interview, that it is a rugged well sized new interpretation of the C15. And yes, a bunch of us would love to camp in the plane, getting some freedom in touring without extra effort. I really like most of the design compromises for the US market. I hope they sell 50 - 200 units per year over time, the price appears reasonable for what they were aiming for.
Unfortunately a small Diesel is not certified on the market, with a high TBR/ TBO; to make this a global rugged standard trainer. Mogas, sure, great, and yes, I know Diesels are heavier. But not to go with a BRS seems to be missing the sale delta between C350/ 400 and SR20/22.
@@AClark-gs5gl Still TBR, not TBO. Huuuge difference if you fly a lot, like flight schools do. Plus what's the cost of the TBR? (love Diesels, but that's gigantic disadvantages to an O200 with mogas)
@@2Phast4Rocketan RV10 can be built under 175K if you don’t go crazy and stick to a budget. While not terribly cheaper an RV14 can still be built for 120K
Hi Ken, Long time since West Sale Inaugural and you're probably away ahead of me on this, but have you considered a ULS as an engine option? I would call the Ranger's looks, a Ranger Bird Dog and please give us a glare-shield to finish off the panel. Just askin'... oh and BTW sounds like there might be a Ranger Grin out there too!
Hey Ken, the cash transfer for labour may be $0 but it certainly is not free. There is something called opportunity cost. So if you are spending time building your home built what are you NOT doing? And what is that worth? Unless your answer is "nothing" then the lost opportunities are the labour cost for building your homebuilt. Just saying 😊
@@FLYERTV Well those are definitely not free. Like any educational endeavour there is the cost of admission -- you first have to buy the damn thing before you get the pleasure of building it 😊 Plus your labour (whatever that is worth, but definitely not nothing for most people). However, I am not arguing there is no upside or benefit. Obviously if you carry through you get all of the education, plus the enjoyment plus a finished aircraft. I am just arguing that you have made a significant investment to achieve that, both in real £'s or $'s, as well as non-fiscal investments. As you might be able to tell, I am also a little envious of those who have made the journey (and my reader goes, "Ah ha" I thought I noted a tone of envy in there 😊
@@marksmith2738 I'm just not sure that monetary measures work well when it comes to building an aircraft. Sure, you can spend huge amounts on kits, engines, workshops and avionics, but you can also buy yourself plans for next to nothing. For many, the journey really is the reward when it comes to aircraft home building.
Well the best and most enganged homebuilders I know personally would have never used that part of the building process to work in another paid function, thus in a purely economical analysis, the costs of opportunity are still zero. (probably not true for every builder, indeed, but then, we all only have one life. And many of us are glad when their breadwinning portion of the day is over).
Lots of nice concepts, but it is a shame about the many poor decisions like not using a Rotax, not designing out the front V-brace, and designing the utilitarian interior that is missing zero-cost creature comforts. For example center console could easily have been made with recesses to hold pens, should have LEMO jacks for bose powered headsets, missing map pockets, should have high-current USB charger ports on center console, map box on panel. Missing gas cylinders to prevent wind from catching doors, non adjustable seats, inconvenient rudder pedal adjustment. Inconsistent controls- carb heat is pull hot, cabin heat is push hot and same knob for both? “Pull” rather than rotate for fuel cut-off is a poor choice, no fuel return, poor climb rate,
The 0-200 is a proven engine with far more fleet time than Rotax. Innovation is fine, but reliability and maintenance support in out of the way places make the Continental an inarguably good choice. The V-brace is vital structure and disappears from view with any time in the airplane. Pen holders..really? It does come with neat cupholders, so there's that. LEMO jacks are available for a small cost (I ordered them for my Ranger). Power Delivery/USB is also an option. Map pockets/box? This has Dynon screens, no paper maps needed. The doors open 180 degrees & gas support struts would be problematic & impractical. There is a lock that holds them open on the ground. The carb heat and cabin heat are both "pull" for on. There's no fuel return because this is a carburetor engine, not fuel injection. With a fat wing, the climb rate is excellent given the power to weight. I do agree that the pedal adjust could be improved for inflight use, but that is a minor quibble.
Dearest Hello World, Thank goodness you weren't a part of the Design Team, and if you we're you would have been fired immediately ! 'many poor decisions' ??? All of your (suggestions) are exactly what the Designers of the Vashon, "Ranger" didn't want !
Dearest Hello World, Thank goodness you weren't a part of the Design Team, and if you we're you would have been fired, immediately ! 'many poor decisions' ??? All of your (suggestions) are exactly what the Designers of the Vashon, "Ranger" didn't want !
can't land in a hurricane, not pressurized, no in-flight refueling capability, no AC, doesn't fly inverted, not bulletproof GOSH what were these idiots thinking?!?!
The vashon is ok for the price, but not ready to compete with aircraft with more useful load and rotax engine. Maybe when the FAA changes the rules for light sport, then the plane will make sense.
@@nameberry220 Inertia doesn't know what load and fuel are, and that was the basis for the weight limit, arbitrary though it may be. If I were a Ranger owner, based on my layperson's perspective, I'd hope that the new regulation will add 200 to 400 pounds of max gross retroactively. I sat in this plane at AirVenture, and I love it. Can't wait to own one.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
Great interview, thanks. Please include the production numbers the next time.
Ian: Great interview. A fascinating perspective of the tradeoffs from the designer's perspective. I would like to see Ken talk about how this design helped (improved) the flight characteristics .... such as landings (especially crosswind), tracking, stalls, etc. There are a few high-wing LSA aircraft with notorious 'twitchy' landing characteristics. Perhaps a follow-up interview could address these aspects, as well as customer feedback after a couple of years of production. Very nice aircraft. Good job Ian!
I must say I love most of the concept. What I think really speaks for it, and is not addressed in the interview, that it is a rugged well sized new interpretation of the C15. And yes, a bunch of us would love to camp in the plane, getting some freedom in touring without extra effort. I really like most of the design compromises for the US market. I hope they sell 50 - 200 units per year over time, the price appears reasonable for what they were aiming for.
Unfortunately a small Diesel is not certified on the market, with a high TBR/ TBO; to make this a global rugged standard trainer. Mogas, sure, great, and yes, I know Diesels are heavier. But not to go with a BRS seems to be missing the sale delta between C350/ 400 and SR20/22.
@@Walterwaltraud have you been to Continental website lately? Pretty decent TBO...
@@AClark-gs5gl Still TBR, not TBO. Huuuge difference if you fly a lot, like flight schools do. Plus what's the cost of the TBR? (love Diesels, but that's gigantic disadvantages to an O200 with mogas)
Would love a flight demo in Florida.
I hope Ken can design a highwing 4 seat airplane that flies as fast a RV10
Vashon has raised the price of the Ranger, base model is now just shy of 120k
I know for 120K it’s hard to not just build a RV14 and get all the performance with a similar level of comfort.
@@brent1041 i highly doubt if you can build an RV14 for less than 175k
@@2Phast4Rocketan RV10 can be built under 175K if you don’t go crazy and stick to a budget. While not terribly cheaper an RV14 can still be built for 120K
Hi Ken, Long time since West Sale Inaugural and you're probably away ahead of me on this, but have you considered a ULS as an engine option? I would call the Ranger's looks, a Ranger Bird Dog and please give us a glare-shield to finish off the panel. Just askin'... oh and BTW sounds like there might be a Ranger Grin out there too!
Hey Ken, the cash transfer for labour may be $0 but it certainly is not free. There is something called opportunity cost. So if you are spending time building your home built what are you NOT doing? And what is that worth? Unless your answer is "nothing" then the lost opportunities are the labour cost for building your homebuilt. Just saying 😊
Maybe it's better than free? The enjoyment, education and satisfaction are worth more to may than $
@@FLYERTV Well those are definitely not free. Like any educational endeavour there is the cost of admission -- you first have to buy the damn thing before you get the pleasure of building it 😊 Plus your labour (whatever that is worth, but definitely not nothing for most people). However, I am not arguing there is no upside or benefit. Obviously if you carry through you get all of the education, plus the enjoyment plus a finished aircraft. I am just arguing that you have made a significant investment to achieve that, both in real £'s or $'s, as well as non-fiscal investments. As you might be able to tell, I am also a little envious of those who have made the journey (and my reader goes, "Ah ha" I thought I noted a tone of envy in there 😊
@@marksmith2738 I'm just not sure that monetary measures work well when it comes to building an aircraft. Sure, you can spend huge amounts on kits, engines, workshops and avionics, but you can also buy yourself plans for next to nothing. For many, the journey really is the reward when it comes to aircraft home building.
Well the best and most enganged homebuilders I know personally would have never used that part of the building process to work in another paid function, thus in a purely economical analysis, the costs of opportunity are still zero. (probably not true for every builder, indeed, but then, we all only have one life. And many of us are glad when their breadwinning portion of the day is over).
Ken, could you give us a tail dragger and a modern non-geared engine, please?
Lots of nice concepts, but it is a shame about the many poor decisions like not using a Rotax, not designing out the front V-brace, and designing the utilitarian interior that is missing zero-cost creature comforts. For example center console could easily have been made with recesses to hold pens, should have LEMO jacks for bose powered headsets, missing map pockets, should have high-current USB charger ports on center console, map box on panel. Missing gas cylinders to prevent wind from catching doors, non adjustable seats, inconvenient rudder pedal adjustment. Inconsistent controls- carb heat is pull hot, cabin heat is push hot and same knob for both? “Pull” rather than rotate for fuel cut-off is a poor choice, no fuel return, poor climb rate,
The 0-200 is a proven engine with far more fleet time than Rotax. Innovation is fine, but reliability and maintenance support in out of the way places make the Continental an inarguably good choice. The V-brace is vital structure and disappears from view with any time in the airplane. Pen holders..really? It does come with neat cupholders, so there's that. LEMO jacks are available for a small cost (I ordered them for my Ranger). Power Delivery/USB is also an option. Map pockets/box? This has Dynon screens, no paper maps needed. The doors open 180 degrees & gas support struts would be problematic & impractical. There is a lock that holds them open on the ground. The carb heat and cabin heat are both "pull" for on. There's no fuel return because this is a carburetor engine, not fuel injection. With a fat wing, the climb rate is excellent given the power to weight. I do agree that the pedal adjust could be improved for inflight use, but that is a minor quibble.
This is aircraft is probably not for you.
Dearest Hello World, Thank goodness you weren't a part of the Design Team, and if you we're you would have been fired immediately ! 'many poor decisions' ??? All of your (suggestions) are exactly what the Designers of the Vashon, "Ranger" didn't want !
Dearest Hello World, Thank goodness you weren't a part of the Design Team, and if you we're you would have been fired, immediately ! 'many poor decisions' ??? All of your (suggestions) are exactly what the Designers of the Vashon, "Ranger" didn't want !
can't land in a hurricane, not pressurized, no in-flight refueling capability, no AC, doesn't fly inverted, not bulletproof GOSH what were these idiots thinking?!?!
The vashon is ok for the price, but not ready to compete with aircraft with more useful load and rotax engine. Maybe when the FAA changes the rules for light sport, then the plane will make sense.
Light sport should be a weight limit for the aircraft minus load and fuel.
@@nameberry220 Inertia doesn't know what load and fuel are, and that was the basis for the weight limit, arbitrary though it may be. If I were a Ranger owner, based on my layperson's perspective, I'd hope that the new regulation will add 200 to 400 pounds of max gross retroactively. I sat in this plane at AirVenture, and I love it. Can't wait to own one.
Throw in a ULpower engine with 130 hp and we have a deal.
Useful Load with full fuel (28.1 gals=177 lbs) for people and baggage : 268 pounds vashonaircraft.com/ranger-r7-specs.php