Why an Airline Pilot Flies Vashon Ranger R7 (Owners Perspective Ep. 1) 

Did you book one?

I agree!

I have flown this one with Kurt on the demo fly, defiantly will order one after finish my ppl.

Hey Hans. Thanks for stopping by the booth at Sun N Fun. Really glad to hear you liked our airplane! Thanks for watching as well!

Hi Jim, glad to give my thoughts on your question. The Ranger is a VFR airplane and I wouldn't recommend changing it over to the Experimental category. I'm not even certain it could be done since Vashon doesn't make a kit built version. If it could be done, changing it to the Experimental category would be a one way trip. From what I understand, once changed it can't be changed back which would affect the resale value. I'd be happy to do another video with more in depth discussion of the Dynon displays if they ask. In many ways, they are superior to the displays I have on my airliner and give me all the information I need for a safe enjoyable flight! I've enjoyed the Dynon equipment a lot and will stick with them for any future planes, although I'm keeping my Ranger!

Hi Joe! I gave a ride to someone about your height and he had the same worry. He fit fine and has one on order. Theres also the idea of replacing the cushions, which are thick and comfortable, with something like an Oregon Aero or similar compact foam seat. That would give another inch or so of clearance I would think.

Yes, the O-200 can be susceptible to carb icing. I've had 3 O-200s in my life and its not much fun when you have a sudden rough running engine, even if its just a second or too while the engine digests a small buildup of carb ice. Thats another reason I was drawn to the Ranger. The carb temperature is continuously monitored and displayed on the Skyview screen. The temperature display even turns yellow when it gets close to temperatures that could cause carb ice. I can then pull on a little carb heat and watch the temperature rise! Love it! -Tom Walsh

Because it's slow.

@@JM-nt5fm Light sport is supposed to be slow.

No, there are no plans for a taildragger version that I'm aware of. This is a common question and I feel I can weigh in on this as to the reasons why from a pretty good amount of experience. I have many happy hours in tailwheel aircraft and can understand the appeal of backcountry flying. However, the extreme backcountry flying that requires a "tailwheel Cub type airframe with Tundra tires" is pretty specialized. I'm a pretty high time pilot with lots of tailwheel time and I wouldn't dream of doing the hard corps stuff without more training. The guys who do it know exactly what I'm saying. I could certainly do that with a back country airplane, and the proper training, but in reality, how often am I likely to do that? And at what risk? And at what cost for insurance? I'm happy enough to be able to do the light backcountry stuff with no problem with the Ranger. And for the other 95% of my usage, it's perfect. Regarding the insurance, the fact is, tailwheel aircraft are a greater risk than nose wheel aircraft and aging pilots are finding that insurance rates are quickly becoming ridiculous. Even younger pilots will face that problem. Make no mistake, a Super Cub type airplane on tundra tires makes me want one too, but unless that's your entire world, a capable nose wheel aircraft can be a better choice for a lot of reasons. Vashon recognizes this. I can still go to backcountry strips, I just have to limit myself to the ones that won't pose really high risks.

To be fair, because he does a lot of cross-country flying, he wanted something that any mechanic could work on if needed.

Well that’s an odd question .. the plane only comes with Dynon avionics and you pay what the factory asks for the plane .. what do you mean discount .. You get what you order with the plane .. It’s like gm cars with a delco stereo .. since GM owns Delco do you get a discount lol … see how weird that question is

What makes you think "Dynon makes this airframe"? As they do not.

@@AClark-gs5gl Uhmm ya they do ... same owner .. unless you want to get in to details of separate corporate entities when there are no partners or shareholders

Actually 134k for the dual screen right now, but still a big jump in 1 year.

Yep, that is not the time Right Now to spend that amount of cash anyway

A chute is no panacea or substitute for another airplane with better structural integrity. I've enjoyed 51 years flying many light aircraft, all of them sans chute and I can still type here. A sophisticated plastic design also doesn't ensure economy, usability, maintainability, nor parts availability years down the road from some out of business domestic distributer tied to a remote E. European company.

​@@zosoachilles The modern aircraft is light years over the antiques that you "survived" flying in...and MANY have died in them (maybe not you, but the crash reports are filled with death in a Beech, Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Boeing and other makers of metal/rivets/round gauges and no chute) aircraft. The state of the art is now composite aircraft), glass panels, and safety features like autoland and the chute. The chute in a Cirrus has saved nearly 200 lives so far. European GA makers all include a chute in all their designs...including the light jets (and Cirrus has too, in their SF50). Tell me again who is out of business? Start with this list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_aircraft_manufacturers_of_the_United_States None of them were composite aircraft makers. Piper is owned by Brunei, and Textron owns both Cessna and Beech. Other dead GA companies you may know? Champion, Mooney, and Bellanca, and Taylorcraft. Oh and btw, the LEADING makers are all composite, Cirrus, TBM, Pilatus, HondaJet, Citations, Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, Learjet, and Gulfstream.

@@gbigsangle3044 Bellanca used the original composite, sitka spruce, & I sold them new and owned them. "Oh and btw" your link to defunct aircraft manufacturers includes many WORLDWIDE producers of aircraft who also no longer exist. The US has the greater preponderance because we are a large aerospace related country. I flew Airbus aircraft for 22 years and value composites and technology. My point is that aluminum is a proven material that still has a place (just like in the Learjet's I also flew and you infer as composite). Whole airframe parachutes are fine, but they do not contribute AT ALL to the inherent structural integrity of any airplane.

@@zosoachilles The link is current. The Bellanca The fuselage is constructed from tubular steel overlaid with fabric while the wings are fashioned from spruce with a plywood skin. No composites. The Vashon has a chute option, btw. And yes. its metal, but its a joke. It is slow (slower than what SLSA allows, up to 120kts) and uses a single engine choice, the Continental O-200-D which is also an antique design. Most modern designs are using the Rotax engines. The future is composites, electric power, and AI piloting....not metal planes with the kind of panel you were used to... Oh, and Pipers M500/M600 are also composite aircraft.

@@gbigsangle3044 I was in the factory in the late 70's, so well aware of what makes up a Bellanca. If you Google, "is wood a composite?", you will find, "Wood is a composite - it is made from long cellulose fibers (a polymer) held together by a much weaker substance called lignin. The two weak substances - lignin and cellulose - together form a much stronger one." Add in resorcinol glue and a Viking is absolutely composite. "btw", the Ranger does NOT have a chute option. Is it slow? By some measures, but since I'm retired, slow is fine and the view is fine as well.

Different plane, different mission.

I'm sorry I missed replying to this question. I've comfortably flown all day in the Ranger with multiple fuel stops and didn't have any discomfort problems. The autopilot certainly helps of course and I carry a small lumbar support cushion which I occasionally use just to change up the position. I recently delivered a Ranger from CT to TN for a friend. I left about 10AM one morning, stopped in Louisville for the night and was in Memphis by mid-afternoon the next day. Very enjoyable trip!

@@tomwalsh5798 cool!! nice plane!

(Sticky key ???????????????????) Given the arbitrary LSA limit, the current legal useful load is 445 lbs, not 367.

Not so. We are thrifty, price sensitive, cost conscious or value oriented...but never "cheap". ;-)

I don't work for the company at all. These were my honest thoughts.