Pretty cheap at $99k brand new
Light Sport
Continental O-200-D powered
Catto prop
Fit and finish is amazing
Flush pop rivets are slick
Doors swing 180 degrees
Sticks! No yokes
Seats fold flat
Looks like it performs great observing it from the ground

A friend bought one and has about 20 hours on it. Really neat bird.

Too bad it's a nose dragger. I'm still interested in a flight to see what it's like.

https://vashonaircraft.com/ranger.php

you will like the right seat better than the left if you have lots of tandem time. Like a Luscombe, stick in left hand is awkward.

I'm ambidextrous with a yoke, but a stick in my left hand is weird!

Local guy bought one of those not to long ago.. has flown in to my strip a couple times.. interesting little ship... the strut less wings is a plus, interesting wing tips also.. there are holes purposely built into the leading edge of the tip for pressure air.. something to do about tip vortices.. not sure how it’s supposed to work but interesting non the less..

Brian


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With the yoke, holding hand horizontal rather than vertical makes it the same either side.

contactflying wrote:With the yoke, holding hand horizontal rather than vertical makes it the same either side.

I hold the vertical on the yoke, but the learned muscle memory is from flying my 170B from both seats over the past 26 years.

Every aircraft with a stick I've ever flown has it in my right hand. I've tried it and can do it with the left, but it feels funny.

I taught Ag in Cubs, Citabra, Champ 7 AC, Taylorcraft DC-65, and Luscombe 8A. No problem instructing from right seat, but left seat was awkward. I frictioned the throttle and used my right hand on the stick.

O-200 oh dear

Really needed a Rotax 912. The fuel injected version would of been nice.

Looks like a neat airplane. It needs inertial reels for the shoulder harness though, pretty easy fix. I like the big doors and cabin. Looks like a great value, I wonder how it fly’s.

Kurt

I flew helicopters for 1600 hours (right hand on "stick"), then flew a series of yoke-equipped airplanes for almost 400 hours. Most of my recent time was in a Citabria ('65 7ECA). Then I purchased the current plane, a RANS S-6 with a stick, and the throttle in the middle of the panel. Flying from the left seat means you have the stick in the left hand. For about 1 hour, it felt a bit awkward, but the ergonomics are actually quite good in this plane. The throttle is at just the right height/distance so you can keep your hand on it without any strain, and the flap lever is right where your hand drops when you take it off the throttle. The cockpit is nice and wide (quite comfortable for even a big guy like me) so the left arm isn't "pinned" against the door – it's pretty comfortable. I found that after that first flight, I stopped even thinking about which hand was on the stick / throttle. It just works.

By the way, I had the same "concerns" about the heel brakes on the Citabria ('65 7ECA). It took maybe 2 hours on that before I stopped even thinking about the brakes. Now, if I had a choice (for a taildragger) I'd probably install heel brakes. For the nose-dragger S-6, however, the toe brakes are pretty nice.

As for the "Rotax" comment, I definitely agree. I am constantly amazed at how smooth the 912ULS is, and how simple it is to manage (altitude-compensating carb means no manual mixture control required). And it's just so dang light weight! My issue with the Vashon Ranger is the lack of useful load. Using a Rotax would give back a bunch of UL. There's a reason Rotax is the "standard" for LSA.

For me, the Continental in there is a plus. The Rotax annoys me in the Aircam I fly and maintain for a friend. Can't stand the sound they make and don't enjoy working on them especially with water cooling.

This is a nice looking and well thought out little airplane. And, compared to every other new airplane currently available, the price is pretty decent.

The down side is useful load. Frankly, the LSA rule needs to be re-written to increase the maximum legal gross weight of LS aircraft. Good grief, Icon went to the FAA and whined that they needed an increased gross weight to accommodate an all airplane parachute...... Which didn't help their accident rate at all, of course.

If they'll do this for one manufacturer, they should do it across the board.

MTV

Agreed. The rules are very strange.

mtv wrote:This is a nice looking and well thought out little airplane. And, compared to every other new airplane currently available, the price is pretty decent.

The down side is useful load. Frankly, the LSA rule needs to be re-written to increase the maximum legal gross weight of LS aircraft. Good grief, Icon went to the FAA and whined that they needed an increased gross weight to accommodate an all airplane parachute...... Which didn't help their accident rate at all, of course.

If they'll do this for one manufacturer, they should do it across the board.

MTV

Pre-Corona and Pre-Boeing-787 issues, a rule change was under discussion, with hopes it would be announced at EAA Airventure. Obviously, that did not happen, with all the FAA's attention being focused on the Boeing crisis... Maybe next year...

Is it just a conspiracy theory or did LSA gross weight limitation intentionally exclude the Cessna 150, which would have been a great benefit to poor pilots who wanted a nosegear? Ercoupe, the only old trike to qualify, was a hard sell.

contactflying wrote:Is it just a conspiracy theory or did LSA gross weight limitation intentionally exclude the Cessna 150, which would have been a great benefit to poor pilots who wanted a nosegear? Ercoupe, the only old trike to qualify, was a hard sell.

Jim, that always baffled me from the beginning of the LSA thing too.

140's, 150's...those are definitely light sport.

I believe the weight limit for "Light Sport Aircraft" was set to match one of the main European light-plane standards, with the thinking that new US-built and "certified" S-LSA could also be sold in Europe.

The rationale behind setting the same max GW rules for "Sport Pilot" is another whole discussion... It could easily have been bumped upward to include C-150 and other similar types. THAT's where I think the "conspiracy" part resides...

Aryana wrote:For me, the Continental in there is a plus. The Rotax annoys me in the Aircam I fly and maintain for a friend. Can't stand the sound they make and don't enjoy working on them especially with water cooling.

Half the fuel burn rate approximately, very nearly no oil usage or leaks, and 30- 50 pounds lighter. The sound issue is subjective, I'd have to say "what sound", what with my Lightspeed headset and Sat radio. But I get it, they are a lot different then what you probably used to. AND, I have to admit, after my 120 hours or so of A-65 time and my 45 hours behind a 0-320 some years back, the legacy engines DO sound cooler.

So does a Harley, but my last road bike was a Goldwing.

You can hear the twin Rotax's loud and clear in the Aircam even with a Bose A20 headset.

Ha! I have zero aural experience with a twin Rotax plane, maybe it's some kind of resonance thing, I'm out! The most annoying plane noise I've ever heard was the Metroliner commuter aircraft I rode in a few times, I couldn't believe it was supposed to sound like that.

How would the Air Cam fly with dual 0-200's one has to wonder?

That plane looks like a great deal, I hope they don't go broke selling them so "cheap."