Vashon Aircraft has introduced the Ranger R7.
Vashon Aircraft is the newest aircraft manufacturer in the aviation center of Seattle, Washington, where they design and build the US-made Ranger R7 aircraft.
According to company officials, the Ranger, designed by Pacific Northwest aeronautical engineer Ken Krueger, is a two-seat aircraft perfect for “$39 burgers” ($100 burgers are way too expensive), meeting up with other pilots at fly-ins, and Saturday morning breakfasts. Powered by the Continental O-200-D engine, the base model starts at $99,500.
“I started Dynon to bring affordable, advanced technology to the aviation community, yet there still remains a need to innovate beyond the panel to bring affordable flight to more people,” said John Torode, founder and CEO of Vashon Aircraft. “With Vashon Aircraft, I hope to empower the next generation of pilots with the tools they need to take to the skies.”
The base Ranger model — the Yellowstone — is priced at $99,500 and includes as standard features a complete Dynon SkyView equipped panel, including Autopilot, with features such as primary flight instruments, engine monitoring, 2020-compliant ADS-B Out, Mode S transponder, navigation and mapping, ADS-B traffic and weather, COM radio, two-place stereo intercom, angle of attack, Wi-Fi, and more.
The Ranger’s electrical system is managed by the Advanced Control Module, featuring EFIS-controlled electronic circuit breakers, from Dynon’s Advanced Flight Systems division.
Other standard equipment includes electric flaps and trim, full-size 600-6 tires, and LED position and taxi/landing lights.
The Ranger R7 is designed, engineered, tested, and manufactured at the Vashon Aircraft factory headquarters near Seattle, and is assembled at its Paine Field assembly and delivery center (just down the taxiway from the Boeing wide body plant.)
According to company officials, the Ranger R7 is one of the first examples of a small aircraft that utilizes pre-painted metal to save manufacturing cost, time, and weight. Utilizing this technique, Vashon eliminates the need to paint the aircraft after assembly, company officials note.
Vashon also manufactures the vast majority of its own parts, reducing its supply chain drastically, further reducing the cost of the airplane, as well as build time, officials add.
The Ranger R7 is already an approved S-LSA, and multiple conforming aircraft are already flying. The official launch and public unveiling will be at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2018.
This is exactly what GA needs. Basically, it is a 2018 Cessna 150 replacement with modern avionics, a further refined well proven engine, and thoroughly understood aluminum construction.
It isn’t going to be a cross country airplane, it isn’t going to be a back-woods camping airplane, it is a trainer and a light sport airplane. Like the 150, it isn’t very fast, it won’t carry a lot of cargo, and you are not going across the ocean in it – that isn’t what it was designed for. (You can’t buy a G-5 or a Helio-Courier for Cessna 150 money, darn it . . . )
It appears to be a FAR superior value than the ill-starred 162, which had two major strikes against it from the first day out – it was too expensive and it was made in China. Made in China isn’t necessarily bad, but many people don’t want Chinese products for emotional/political reasons, and they kept their checkbooks and wallets firmly closed. (Cessna is parting out their unsold inventory of 162s.)
The last 152s were $40K, so $99K doesn’t sound too bad adjusted for 30+ years of inflation and considering that this airplane has FAR superior avionics. Remember also that Cessna made a LOT of 150s and 152s, and had a chance to amortize the costs of tooling over many years – this is a brand new venture.
The biggest problem with the Rotax has nothing to do with the actual engine. It is the exchange rate. When the Rotax first came out, the Euro was at 80 cents and the engine was a bargain. The Euro moved around (significantly) and at one point about doubled, which meant the cost of a Rotax doubled, and you didn’t get one more horsepower or one more hour to TBO. Same engine, twice the price.
The 915 is just flat too expensive for what you get. $35K to get something like 140 hp is no bargain at all, and hollering about the turbocharger maintaining power at high altitude is nice, but then you need oxygen, and that costs even more. Turbocharged engines are significantly more complex, run hotter, and take more maintenance (pronounced “dollars”) than normally aspirated engines. They also tend to have shorter TBOs.
The Ranger will do the job it was designed to do, and at a rational price point. Want to go faster/higher/further/carry more stuff? Bring money . . . lots more money.
I think they’ve done a good job, I think they’re going to sell a LOT of them.
Best Regards,
Miami Mike
I agree with everything you said but would still like to see a 2.5 liter turbocharged engine that puts our 250 HP. And maybe even a liquid cooled one to solve the overheating issues. Heck, the P51 was liquid cooled and it worked pretty well I believe. With FADEC and computer controlled waste gates the boost can be limited to solve that issue too. The first ones might be too costly but down the road perhaps not.
Thanks for the useful load figure. It’s not enough to make it interesting for me. I can get a used Liberty-XL (certified) 2 place, Vanguard Edition with 595 lbs useful load, and a Continental IO-240F for about $75K. All XL’s are IFR equipped. I’ve flown one years ago, and I fit comfortably (6’3″, 220 lbs). They are also training and touring planes, but not neccessarily back country planes.
For those in the Pacific Northwest, EAA Chapter 84 will host a program by Vashon Aircraft and they will bring two of these to our meeting, March 13 at Harvey Field (S43) in Snohomish, WA (weather permitting). Viewing starts at 6 pm, meeting at 7 pm. Bring all your questions, and checkbook for a deposit ; – ). Not many STOL aircraft also push the cruise limit of Light Sport.
Great thinking on the pre-painted panels. That’s the sort of innovation that gets costs down.
But the airplane is heavy, with a useful load of 475 lb – even less than a C162, and 90 lb less than a C152.
With two 180-lb adult males aboard, it can carry 15.8 gallons of fuel and no bags – good for just under 2.5 hours of flying with VFR reserves, which is okay for local training, but no XC machine. Of course, the weight may indicate toughness, a good thing for training operations.
What about the camping application, though? With one 180-lb male, one 130-lb woman, and 75 lb of camping gear and equipment in back, you’re limited to 15 gallons of fuel. There won’t be fuel at your mountain hideaway, so – allowing for VFR reserves both directions – your destination needs to be less than 0.9 hours from home – about 100 miles. That’s going to limit your adventures. In fairness, not many LSA can carry 75 lb of camping gear in the first place. But most of the successful ones have significantly lower empty weights.
The engine choice may contribute to the weight issue – it’s the same engine Cessna chose. It hasn’t been a big success in this aircraft class (yet, at least).
+In the last few years we are seeing a real revolution in automotive power plants. Almost all car models are featuring 2.5 liter or 2.0 liter turbo charged engines with HP outputs of 170 to 260. Here we see a Continental O200 four banger that is virtually unchanged over the last 50 years and still puts out a measly 100 HP.
It occurs to me that they may be planning to start sales as SLSA, then certificate the same airplane Part 23 later, with a higher MTOW and useful load.
Then, Sport Pilot buyers could buy with the SLSA certificate, and flight schools and pilots with BasicMed and up could buy with Part 23.
Or you could just ignore the GW limitation which is an arbitrary number with no structural implications at all. Wink Wink
Sure…practice your “wink, wink” for your Ramp Check from the Friendly Aircraft Administration and see how far that gets you……
The Ranger is a winnner, no question. The Dynon founder is smart to connect his avionics offerings to the aircraft project. Other SLSA at this price point are few but there is one…the Aerotrek A220.
If it’s also light sport, they have a winner if
they can keep the price as advertised, unlike the defunct Cessna 162.
So it can be done!! A training aircraft for less than $200K, new.
Now, how soon can we get a 6 place, low wing, complex, hi-perf for less than $200K new? Look back at the Cherokee-6 circa 1966 and what it cost. Then look at the Lance and what it cost.
Why can’t the equivalent be produced with lower production costs than from the ’60s?
How soon will new engines be on the market to force Lyc and Conti to upgrade/update their engines so they don’t cost $100K?
Rotax is coming. Their new 915 is fuel injected, turbocharged, 135 hp to at least 15,000 ft, and 2,000 hr TBO.
But, price is still $35k.