Bertorelli, et al, on the Vashon Ranger

[Garfly]

Here is an interesting extended interview with Ken Krueger about his part in the Ranger.

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Garfly

[facthunter]

IF  it's practical it's going to look like a lot of other practical planes It's easy to get in and out of even if upside down and dead easy to make into a Tail wheel or float plane. It has a sensible and vertical fin/rudder and gravity fuel feed. The only thing harder to do is fit retract wheels and ditch it in water.  You can taxi through a farm gate and put a wing down  as in a fair dinkum X-wind landing. There's no special  reason why it can't

 have a good L/D ratio. Nev.

[APenNameAndThatA]

The poor load would kill it for me personally. 

[rgmwa]

It wii be interesting to see if they end up offering a Rotax alternative as Ken Krueger suggested in the video. A 912iS would with reduced weight and better fuel efficiency could make a significant difference to payload and endurance. A 16 gal tank is not much for a plane that looks like it should be a pretty rugged back country tourer. Less of an issue if their main market is flight training.

[Zoso]

@Garfly - I was on the A330, a wonderful machine.

 

@rgmwa - The VR7 has 27 gal usable, so sufficient run time for the O-200. I do like the configuration and safety of the fuel system, with a small header tank and all the rest in wing cuffs (like a PA-28). The fuel tanks are easy to service/replace and removal provides expansive wing access. I would never say never, but I doubt the Rotax is in play right now, even with a recent and substantial price increase from Continental. 

 

The load issue is a regulatory limit that hopefully will be dealt with soon. My understanding is the airplane has been built for and tested to, more realistic weights.

[rgmwa]

My mistake. Twenty seven gals is a lot better and would give it good range. If they can increase MTOW then the plane is starting to look pretty good in terms of performance, although maybe not aesthetics. 

We’ll have to wait and see whether they get serious about Rotax. These engines are probably gaining more acceptance in the US through the LSA market with aircraft like the RV12 and Sling, but no doubt the traditional engines are still well ahead in market acceptance. Time will tell.

[Garfly]

 

Of course, when you're looking to buy a small aeroplane you bring your check-list of must-haves/mustn't-haves/nice-to-haves.

Ditto when you're looking to design one. 

A 'nice' feature on the VR7 for me - were I in the market - would be the Level button on the (integrated) auto-pilot.  While not unique to the type, it'd be handy in certain emergencies; PIC incapacitation, inadvertent VFR>>IMC etc.  It's like your last ditch get-out-of-jail card for lots of LOC situations. The 'smart' tech is said to be capable of getting the blue back on top efficiently and without breaking the airframe.  Needless to say, the brown has to be sufficiently far for this to take effect.

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Garfly

[pmccarthy]

22 minutes ago, Garfly said:

 

Of course, when you're looking to buy a small aeroplane you bring your check-list of must-haves/mustn't-haves/nice-to-haves.

Ditto when you're looking to design one. 

A 'nice' feature on the VR7 for me - were I in the market - would be the Level button on the (integrated) auto-pilot.  While not unique to the type, it'd be handy in certain emergencies; PIC incapacitation, inadvertent VFR>>IMC etc.  It's like your last ditch get-out-of-jail card for lots of LOC situations. The 'smart' tech is said to be capable of getting the blue back on top efficiently and without breaking the airframe.  Needless to say, the brown has to be sufficiently far for this to take effect.

 

There would be plenty of brown in my case.

[Garfly]

Even more so if you flew a MIG-15   ;- )

 

 

[onetrack]

I was watching the video of the story behind the Aeroflot 593 crash, where an A310 slammed into the ground after the Captain let his children play with the yoke, experimenting with giving them a "feel" for the aircraft.

 

After his son upset the aircrafts stability by pulling the yoke to the left and going into a steep bank - with none of the crew realising what was happening until it was too late - their frenzied efforts to regain control (against strong G-forces pinning them and stopping them from regaining their proper positions) were all for nought, as they couldn't grasp what was happening. Not a lot different to AF447, really.

 

But as the commentator outlined, if they hadn't overridden the automation with their incorrect control inputs, the aircrafts systems and autopilot would've made a satisfactory recovery on their own, anyway.

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, rgmwa said:

My mistake. Twenty seven gals is a lot better and would give it good range. If they can increase MTOW then the plane is starting to look pretty good in terms of performance, although maybe not aesthetics. 

We’ll have to wait and see whether they get serious about Rotax. These engines are probably gaining more acceptance in the US through the LSA market with aircraft like the RV12 and Sling, but no doubt the traditional engines are still well ahead in market acceptance. Time will tell.

Me thinks that any aircraft produced after about 1980 should have all specifications (including fuel capacity) in metric - no wonder you got confused.

 

FYI  - the RV12 & Sling look great but do not deliver the suggested good performance that their appearance & marketing suggest.

 

In the LSA class of aircraft, the Yanks, will remain well behind the existing aircraft/engine developments, as long as they are so emotionally attached to obsolete engine technology and airframe construction.  

[Garfly]

 

According to the Ken Krueger interview (above) Vashon's Torode has his own new engine design in mind. 

So not a lot of emotional attachment to the tried and true there.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Garfly

[Thruster88]

49 minutes ago, Garfly said:

 

According to the Ken Krueger interview (above) Vashon's Torode has his own new engine design in mind. 

So not a lot of emotional attachment to the tried and true there.

Mr Torode should watch this video a few times. While he may not have any emotional attachment, his customers may not want to be test pilots. For me flying is about minimizing risk and having fun.

 

 

[rgmwa]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

FYI  - the RV12 & Sling look great but do not deliver the suggested good performance that their appearance & marketing suggest.

Can't vouch for the Sling from personal experience, but it was designed to the EASA VLA  standard with an MTOW of 700kg, so when it's sold as a 600 kg LSA, something has to give. However, I have an RV-12 and it does everything that Vans say it will do. My only complaint is that the standard 20 US gal /75 litre tank with a 912ULS is marginal for Australian distances on long trips. I've increased mine to 25 gal which works well, but the trade-off is that I can carry less weight in the baggage compartment with full fuel. A couple of other RV-12's over here have been modified in the same way. However, the 912iS is now the standard RV12 engine. It's significantly more fuel efficient than the ULS according to Vans own testing, so their 20 gal tank even goes a bit further than my 25 gal tank according to the POH.

 

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

 

 

Thruster - The message I heard from this excellent video is:

 

Buyers of aircraft (pilots) tend toward the tried and true (conservative)

The largest market for aircraft is in the USA - ergo conservative and I suggest nationalistic in their purchasing trends.

Most of the aircraft engine innovation is cumming from outside the USA - read the last point.

If you cant sell in the USA your engine/aircraft will struggle to be viable

 

My interest is  LSA class  aircraft - in this area the USA would seem to be far behind the Europeans (with just a few exceptions )in both engine & airframe innovation' -  the initial topic of this conversation being a good example of dinosaur reinvention.

[Garfly]

 

Let's face it, all ICEs and all aeroplanes - and all pilots - are already on the brink of extinction.

It's now mostly about finding the most comfy deck-chair on the Zeppelin.

 

[Garfly]

As we know, the thrust of US innovation is straight up:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/12/technology/flying-cars.html?searchResultPosition=1

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cscotthendry]

On 29/06/2021 at 5:56 PM, Garfly said:

Here is an interesting extended interview with Ken Krueger about his part in the Ranger.

 

 

 

I spent quite a lot of time with Ken and his wife Susan at Oshkosh in 2017 just before the plane was released. He was at the show to promote it. They camped behind us so we talked about the Ranger and Ken's role in it a fair bit. He's a very knowledgeable, but completely humble guy.

[onetrack]

I think Skippy has a good point. The U.S. is struggling with innovation as regards new designs, and European design is winning out.

And a lot of American technological failures are because the companies are short-term monetary-greed-focused, with a failure to have long-term vision as how their short-term greed impacts on their clients firstly, then themselves, secondly.

 

Nothing could offer up a better example of that, than the Boeing-Airbus comparison. Boeings greed and short-term "fast buck" outlook, coupled with a failure to consider the overall impact of their faulty decision-making, shows corporate America has poor training for CEO's and senior managers, and a general lack of ethics and morals, and management that is substandard across a wide range of industries. Airbus has been the winner in this race for product superiority and customer confidence.

 

The fact that GM went from the world's largest, most profitable corporation, and a highly respected manufacturer in 1955, to bankruptcy in 2009, shows the paucity of American corporate management.

American corporate management has avoided innovation and technological improvement, because they're more focused on who they can shaft in a corporate raid, than they are on making money from inventing and manufacturing improved products.

[Garfly]

Wow! How did we get from the pure passion project of Ken Krueger and John Torode to the greed and other sins of General Motors and Boeing?

By way of the concept: 'USA'? 

 

So what do we think about BlackFly, then?   Too conservative?  Or, worse, too progressive?

 

 

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/12/technology/flying-cars.html?searchResultPosition=1

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Garfly

[onetrack]

Garfly, it was simply a comparison. We need more Kruegers and Torodes. BlackFly has yet to reach commercial success, but they certainly have a large emphasis on innovation.

[Zoso]

I thought I had stumbled upon a joyous & enlightened group of border free aviators....I was mistaken. Instead, this is the stuff I have to slog through;

 

-The U.S. is struggling with innovation

-America has poor training for CEO's

-general lack of ethics and morals

-management that is substandard across a wide range of industries

-they're more focused on who they can shaft

-I suggest nationalistic in their purchasing trends

-aircraft engine innovation is cumming (sp?) from outside the USA

-the USA would seem to be far behind the Europeans (with just a few exceptions )in both engine & airframe innovation' -  the initial topic of this conversation being a good example of dinosaur reinvention.

 

I could continue, but I've read enough of this horse shit. I flew multiple versions of Fokker/Douglas/Boeing/Airbus & I much prefer any Airbus. That said, Boeing may be struggling, but that doesn't mean the people are deficient in morals. In the 70's, I sold new Bellanca Vikings that sported the original composite (wood). You can trust a tree and I'm a huge fan of Giuseppe's wood wing, but dissing an all metal airplane for it's material is dumb. Lastly, I can't think of a better way to lose a fortune than to try to develop a new aircraft engine. It is clearly HARD and the Rotax is no miracle motor.

 

I was looking forward to sharing some detail on this design from my perspective, but just forget it. I don't need the nation bashing as that gets us nowhere. It's been bad enough the previous 4 years with a particular buffoon at the mic, but whose government is ideal? We do an occasional cool thing (Space-X, Mars helicopter..etc). I would always highlight the best of what is Australia and NZ, instead you guys highlight what you think is the worst of us.

 

So long, I'm out of here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Zoso - 

 

I apologise if you have been offended, however you do need to have a robust presence on this Forum - I for one, am somewhat opinionated (as are many of my compatriots) and revel in the opportunity, the Forum provides, to express that opinion - none of us intend to offend.

 

I think it would be true to say we, at the LSA end of aviation, promote our particular aviation positions with considerable vigour.

 

I hope you will reconsider your decision to depart

 

 

[onetrack]

Ooohh, such sensitivity. I wasn't "bashing" America as a nation, I was pointing out their track record over the last few decades is not as good as it could've been.

 

And Boeing management was deficient in morals and ethics and plenty of American journalists have stated exactly that. And they paid out US$2.5B to ensure there was no criminal investigation into the behaviour of their corporate leaders.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/doj-fines-boeing-over-2point5-billion-charges-it-with-fraud-conspiracy-over-737-max-crashes.html

 

Meanwhile, back in Australia, if just one of my employees gets killed on the job, due to my negligence and desire for fast profits, and lack of serious attention to safety, I can go to jail for a very long time.

[kasper]

Zoso,

 

Sorry you're offended by internet forum robust and drifting threads using broad brush comments.

 

But here is a summary view you may not like - the Vashon as an LSA is not at all attractive to the majority of potential LSA purchasers outside the USA for a variety of reasons. 

A few of those reasons are:

 

1. the engine is heavy, inefficient and hideously expensive.  In the USA that may be OK because you have AVGAS everywhere but not ULP, you may have mechanics everywhere who will work on the engine but not the alternate (rotax??) and you MAY operate outside the 600kg LSA limits because you know its strong enough and nobody in the USA from the FAA are going to ramp check you and throw a shed load of $$ in hassle at you for breach  ...NONE of those apply in Australia or Europe so people in those markets see a dinosaur engine that is expensive to buy, expensive to maintain and expensive to run

 

2. LSA MTOW limits are lower in other countries than the USA - Australian LSA operating on RAAus registrations are limited to 600kg ... the VASHON is basically a single seater with full fuel or two seater with fuel sufficient to be used in the circuit for training and VERY limited local flights.   Hate to burst the bubble but the majority of LSA sales in OZ and Europe are not to training schools - they are to private owners.  The Vashon without sufficient legs in terms of fuel is never going to be attractive to many private owners ... and the double whammy is that the schools in OZ run on a thin margin and an expensive plane to buy and operate is not going to be popular with the schools PLUS in training schools in OZ you will be hard pressed to find ANY  airframe not flying a rotax 912.  Sorry buit the rest of the world has moved on from the engine the Vashon uses.

 

3. Putting aside the low MTOW and fuel capacity of the Vashon in operations outside the USA the killer is that the overall performance is nothing new.  It lifts two people for about the same number of hours and moves them at about the same speed as the Cessnas and Pipers from 20 years ago.  And while yes the US$ price tag at around US$120k might look good to you that airframe landed and registered in Australia is going to be AU$190-200k ... and that price on an LSA with the operating limits the Vashon has is never going to grab a private buyers attention - its too expensive for the performance it delivers.

 

4. Europe and Australia and South Africa have for the most part stretched the LSA envelope:

 a. They are building VERY STOL capable LSAs without top speed but have the endurance through fuel capacity and lower burn that appeal to a STOL buying market

 b. They are building VERY low drag LSA with top speed and fuel capacity that gives them much greater range and endurance than the Vashon could ever achieve

 c. The very low drag LSA with great top speed have low stall speed because their wings are very well designed - not saying Vashon wing is not well designed its just it has a stall/cruise/max speeds that are nothing compared to other LSAs available.

 

5. A practical outside US killer is the engine ... people in Australia learn on Rotax 912 airframes and they BUY rotax 912 powered airframes ... the vast majority of pilots in OZ that have trained as RAAus pilots fly behind the same engine they learned on.  The number who regularly fly an LSA with a different engine is minimal.

 

In summary the Vashon will appeal to a tiny fraction of potential private LSA buyers outside the USA for one or more of the reasons above.  And those reasons cannot be undone because they are at the core of the design of the aircraft.

 

Nothing above says the Vashon is a bad plane or does not have nice features ... but they are valid reasons people, many people, look at it and do not give it a second glance.

 

Now if the Vashon was NOT an LSA and it was sold on the features it does have it would be a vastly different assessment and you would not be talking to the majority of the members of this forum.

If it was MTOW of 750-800kg AND had a float options AND you sold big time the ease of access and fold flat camping ability you would attract interest ... but it is an LSA and against other LSAs its not even interesting.

 

If I was looking to buy an LSA with performance near the Vashon I would be looking at the Brumby Evolution 610:

- same LSA design envelope

- within a foot the same in any dimension (except wing area where it uses less to deliver the same as the Vashon)

- same construction material of metal - but has a welded steel cage) 

- same high wing location - but has struts so is a lighter airframe for same strength

- has same or better power in the 912 options

- has 9 USG more fuel capacity than the Vashon

- has electronic instruments as standard

- can have options to bring it up to exactly the same as the Vashon

- can be kit built if you want to do that - Vashon can't

- can be tailwheel to take advantage of off field capability and bragging rights - Vashon can't

 

Pretty similar airframes and performance  ... but more than 25% less cost to buy than a Vashon, has the engine LSA buyers outside the USA want and for Australian its a local manufacturer so easier support.

So Australian LSA buyers looking for performance akin to the Vashon have a MUCH cheaper local option.

And even at that the airframe is not selling great numbers compared to other LSAs in Australia because in honesty the LSA buying market is skewed to the higher performance LSAs at similar cost or LSAs that work in the corners of the design envelope eg STOL.

 

The Vashon works for you and your posts made clear a couple of the design points that make it work for you - no struts, low level easy access. 

However, the honest view from outside USA and in particular from Australia where this forum is based is that it is just another rather ho hum average performance aircraft that is actually very expensive for what you get.