Furthermore, new singles that can be offered in that price range are LSAs with nowhere near the capability of those older planes.
How about compared to paying $24k for a plane with about 3500TT?
Why has Vashon sold so few Rangers, and will MOSAIC turn that around?
- Thread starter MountainDude
- Start date
Furthermore, new singles that can be offered in that price range are LSAs with nowhere near the capability of those older planes.
How about compared to paying $24k for a plane with about 3500TT?
Newer certified planes have life limits, e.g. I believe cirrus is 12k hours.
wanttaja
En-Route
Got curious about the typical lifetimes of GA aircraft. Took my 1998-2021 Cessna 172 accident database and determined the percentage of accidents for a given total time.
Same plot over a shorter total-time range:
There are about 2500 172 accidents that reported aircraft total time. Twelve of them exceeded 20,000 hours, about 300 exceeded 10,000 hours. Median was 4,758 hours, average was 5,674. The least was 15 hours.
Suspect a 12,000-hour life limit is not going to be much of an effect. 175 accidents over the ~23-year period, just 7% of the total.
As ever, this is dependent upon accurate reporting in the NTSB record. The highest total time recorded was 89,118 hours, over a lifetime of 33 years (model was 1977, accident was in 2010). That's about 2,700 hours a year; the plane would have had have averaged over seven hours a day. Interesting case ... ERA11LA071. Two others were listed as having about 50,000 hours.
Ron Wanttaja
Same plot over a shorter total-time range:
There are about 2500 172 accidents that reported aircraft total time. Twelve of them exceeded 20,000 hours, about 300 exceeded 10,000 hours. Median was 4,758 hours, average was 5,674. The least was 15 hours.
Suspect a 12,000-hour life limit is not going to be much of an effect. 175 accidents over the ~23-year period, just 7% of the total.
As ever, this is dependent upon accurate reporting in the NTSB record. The highest total time recorded was 89,118 hours, over a lifetime of 33 years (model was 1977, accident was in 2010). That's about 2,700 hours a year; the plane would have had have averaged over seven hours a day. Interesting case ... ERA11LA071. Two others were listed as having about 50,000 hours.
Ron Wanttaja
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 7,000
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
yabut that cuts both ways. They could also be reduced. It has happened in the past (ADs et al).
12k is fairly boilerplate part 23 number. As always, the market will self-limit, timed-out Cirri will have zero market value. No different than anything else really, metal or composite. Caveat emptor as always.
Aircraft certified under Part 23 were required to address structural fatigue limits by either a hard life-limit or in-depth repetitive inspections. It fell to the OEM which path to follow. For example, Cirrus went with a hard life-limit but Diamond went with a major structural inspection every X-number hours or X-calendar time. With the rewrite of Part 23 a few years ago, the specific regulation requiring the structural limitations was dropped and the requirement was added to one of the dozen ACs now used to certify aircraft under Part 23.
I was willing to settle for 740nm max range and 123kt max cruise. Not a 150; a Beech B23. Four seats, large luggage compartment, 60gal fuel capacity, slightly under 1000lb useful load. I think that’s a lotta bang for the buck.
But my real point was that a new plane with the same capabilities does not trade well against used options, at least in some cases. Show me something new that comes close for less than 10x the price.
10x might be a little high. 5x probably works though.
4-seat EAB? Yeah maybe. A Sling Tsi kit would come close. New certificated 4-seater for <$120k? Enlighten me.
Apparently I have no idea what you are saying. What’s 10x what? You’re not getting a used 4 seater for 12k.
No, I got a used 4-seater for $24k. I'm saying you can't touch that in a new plane for way more than 10x the price, more like 20x.
I was reading you backward. Agreed.
But, the Sling is pretty amazing at its price. Done as a quick-build it looks like a bargain. https://slingaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Sling-TSi-Brochure-2022-1.pdf Or the Sling 4, if you don't need quite as much speed. https://slingaircraft.nz/aircraft/sling-4/
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 6,531
- Display Name
Display name:
3G
I looked hard at the Sling 4vs RV-10 and eventually ruled it out. At the end of the day, it’s a 160-hp 2+2.
Todd82
Line Up and Wait
The Ranger with the Continental's weight and therefore LSA limited payload is basically just another Skycatcher, and at least the Skycatcher had the Cessna name behind it until they disavowed themselves of it. The Skycatcher never sold well, so it makes sense the Vashon does even worse.
I looked at them briefly, I could write a list of planes I'd buy over that for $160k, and unlike most of POA I'm not biased against LSA whatsoever. It's like they took the worst of a 150 and made it into a "new" plane.
I looked at them briefly, I could write a list of planes I'd buy over that for $160k, and unlike most of POA I'm not biased against LSA whatsoever. It's like they took the worst of a 150 and made it into a "new" plane.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 9,776
- Location
- Broken Arrow, OK
- Display Name
Display name:
SoonerAviator
Heck the GoGetAir 750 is the same thing (160HP 2+2) and sells new for $280K. Sling has to be competitive there.
Where have you seen a bias against LSA on this site? Your post is about the most negative one I’ve seen.
Todd82
Line Up and Wait
There are plenty of anti-Rotax snobs on here. Hell, there are snobs on here anti-anything that isn't a Bonanza*
If I was in the 2 place market I'd happily buy a factory built RV12 or some of the Evektor models for example so I'm definitely not negative about LSA. Alot of LSA's beat the pants off a 60 year old C150.
*And everyone knows a Mooney beats a Bonanza
idahoflier
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,731
- Display Name
Display name:
idahoflier
For me, and as others have mentioned, the O-200 burning 100LL resulting in a lower useful load and higher operational costs led me to another aircraft. While I have never flown one, I like the Ranger and seriously considered it. MOSAIC will probably fix the useful load issue but then you're still stuck with an engine that is 2x the cost of a Rotax 912 burning 100LL which will someday be unobtainable.
There is definitely some bias, but it's mostly from a few select people whose opinion about anything else I don't value, either.
Ed Haywood
En-Route
There is some bias against the LSA rules. Some, including me, feel the FAA was too risk averse and wound up hamstringing the LSA market. Hence numerous threads hoping MOSAIC will relax the rules a bit and allow more room for commercially viable new aircraft to emerge.
I owned and flew a 1972 Cessna 150 for 30 years with a rebuilt O-200 by Mattituck Aviation. I sold the plane in April and have been flying rentals ever since while looking at what to buy next. I’ve flown Piper Cherokees, Cessna 152’s and Bristell’s. The Piper and Cessna have Lycoming and Continental engines and the Bristell has a Rotax 912S. Here is my $.02. The Bristell is a Mazda Miata with wings. I enjoy the center stick, auto pilot, touch screen Garmin PFD and MFD. Didn’t use the auto pilot but what’s not to like? I also like the amazing fuel efficiency even though we only used Avgas. What I don’t like is “burping” it to get oil onto the dipstick and a geared engine. I’m told to keep the coolant temperature at or below 190 degrees F OR ELSE! Also, it’s fragile. I don’t know if that’s the case with all Light Sport but the Bristell needs to be babied in landing. It’s definitely NOT a primary trainer.
I like the Cherokee quite a bit having started my training in them a long time ago. What I don’t like is having one door to exit in case of an emergency.
That leaves the Cessnas. After flying the 150 for so many years I was curious about the 152’s additional horsepower. It’s barely noticeable. Also, the 150 has 40 degrees of flips while the 152 maxes out at 30 degrees. I’ve honestly never used 40 degrees other than during my BFR.
My co-owner was an A&P with the airlines but was also into GA “Bigly”. He owned an airplane since 1958 and every one was a Cessna. He owned at least one of all the single engine models. His favorite was his first, a 1958 C182. With that said his favorite engine was the Continental O-200. Easy to work on. Simple design and bulletproof.
So, for my money I am a big fan of the Vashon Ranger. I am taking my time looking for an orphan. While there haven’t been too many sold I can’t wait to get my hands on one for a test flight. Flying a new-ish plane with glass cockpit, autopilot and an O-200 is my dream in older age. I hope it doesn’t disappoint.
That’s my $.02 and I’m glad I found this forum. Looking forward to reading what y’all have to share.
I like the Cherokee quite a bit having started my training in them a long time ago. What I don’t like is having one door to exit in case of an emergency.
That leaves the Cessnas. After flying the 150 for so many years I was curious about the 152’s additional horsepower. It’s barely noticeable. Also, the 150 has 40 degrees of flips while the 152 maxes out at 30 degrees. I’ve honestly never used 40 degrees other than during my BFR.
My co-owner was an A&P with the airlines but was also into GA “Bigly”. He owned an airplane since 1958 and every one was a Cessna. He owned at least one of all the single engine models. His favorite was his first, a 1958 C182. With that said his favorite engine was the Continental O-200. Easy to work on. Simple design and bulletproof.
So, for my money I am a big fan of the Vashon Ranger. I am taking my time looking for an orphan. While there haven’t been too many sold I can’t wait to get my hands on one for a test flight. Flying a new-ish plane with glass cockpit, autopilot and an O-200 is my dream in older age. I hope it doesn’t disappoint.
That’s my $.02 and I’m glad I found this forum. Looking forward to reading what y’all have to share.
Tools
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,969
- Display Name
Display name:
Tools
Prolly a wrap….
Anyhoo… as a keep some time on a friends… I LOVE IT. Absolutely love it. Poo pooed it from the moment my bud said he was gonna get it… but then I flew it. Then I instructed in it. It’s amazing.
As a flight school manager I liked it, and got one. I found it lacked performance at high hot airports… meh. Low PUBLISHED gross weights kept my compulsive time builder instructors out of it… well. As a business guy, the TWO YEAR wait* quashed getting a fleet of them. I eventually learned that I question their durability in a hard core flight school environment.
*I believe the “low number sold” really is mostly a perception. 84 percent capacity really does say a lot, VERY good point.
The motor isn’t an issue. It’s just fine for the plane. I have ZERO qualms with a Rotax. Probably should be a choice. The Lycoming name probably gives it an edge.
@Lucav8ir, based on your post, I believe you won’t be disappointed. Get in touch with me if you have any questions.
Anyhoo… as a keep some time on a friends… I LOVE IT. Absolutely love it. Poo pooed it from the moment my bud said he was gonna get it… but then I flew it. Then I instructed in it. It’s amazing.
As a flight school manager I liked it, and got one. I found it lacked performance at high hot airports… meh. Low PUBLISHED gross weights kept my compulsive time builder instructors out of it… well. As a business guy, the TWO YEAR wait* quashed getting a fleet of them. I eventually learned that I question their durability in a hard core flight school environment.
*I believe the “low number sold” really is mostly a perception. 84 percent capacity really does say a lot, VERY good point.
The motor isn’t an issue. It’s just fine for the plane. I have ZERO qualms with a Rotax. Probably should be a choice. The Lycoming name probably gives it an edge.
@Lucav8ir, based on your post, I believe you won’t be disappointed. Get in touch with me if you have any questions.
idahoflier
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,731
- Display Name
Display name:
idahoflier
Definitely worth a demo flight at KAWO to be sure. Or maybe @Tools can hook you up? Regarding the Rotax burping - yeah, it's annoying, but it's not a big deal using the proper technique. The procedure in the POH's I have seen involved windmilling the prop until you hear the gurgle which is a bit of work. But if you just turn the prop to the next compression stroke and leave it there until the pressure bleeds around the rings and into the crankcase, then repeat, you can accomplish the same thing with minimal effort.
I'll put in a plug for an RV-12. It's a great little aircraft for boring holes in the sky! Take one for a test flight.
Tools
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,969
- Display Name
Display name:
Tools
Yep. Can hook about anyone up if we can get in Chatt area at same time.
Plus one for RV-12. The burping thing cracks me right up…. I’m pulling it through like a radial thinking I’m getting the new guy gag. uh, when ima gonna know?
BUUUUURRRRRRPPPPP
Never mind….
Plus one for RV-12. The burping thing cracks me right up…. I’m pulling it through like a radial thinking I’m getting the new guy gag. uh, when ima gonna know?
BUUUUURRRRRRPPPPP
Never mind….
Crashnburn
Pattern Altitude
Crashnburn
Pattern Altitude
The way I heard it was if you want to fly an LSA, you need a miniature wife who packs light.I suspect one of the reasons the LSA flopped is because the average weight of the population has made those aircraft unsuitable for carrying two modern adults, fuel, and a woman's purse.
NordicDave
En-Route
There’s a Vashon Ranger on our field, and like skyking said it won’t win any ramp appeal awards.
DaleB
Final Approach
Depends, I guess. My LSA can carry 450# with full fuel. Baggage is the only problem, the baggage area is only big enough for a couple of carry-on size bags and is limited to 50#.
Regarding the Rotax burp... it's really no more of a PITA than any other airplane's preflight, really.
Warmi
Line Up and Wait
Yes, it is like taking your cruiser motorcycle for trip around US…. yes, it will be a lot of fun but you have to pack lightly and it is not a particularly practical way of getting somewhere on any kind of schedule - in fact, the process of getting there is the fun part.
ateamer
Pattern Altitude
Burping the oil adds maybe 20 seconds and is nearly effortless. A small price to pay for cheaper gas, not burning oil, 100 hour oil changes, and a much lighter engine.
kgruber
Final Approach
It doesn't sell well because it is ugly.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2019
- Messages
- 1,270
- Display Name
Display name:
Initial Fix
I parked next to one the other day. It was the first time I’ve seen one in person. Looks like a great plane
Yep, but they’re marketing the Vashon as though it were a true bush plane. A bush plane needs to be able to haul camping gear, guns, fishing tackle, ammo, plus food for a week, then on the return trip add a dead moose plus 50lbs of salmon.
This thing won’t do that. Their advertising is out of step with reality.
Tools
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,969
- Display Name
Display name:
Tools
Awww, c’mon. Let’s say you’re hunting rodents. Smaller guns, less ammo, they’re more plentiful so ya don’t need to bring food. Can haul LOTS of dead ones of those. Everything falls into line.
Course ya probably don’t need to fly into the bush to hunt rodents.
And ramp fees in NYC are prolly bad…
Course ya probably don’t need to fly into the bush to hunt rodents.
And ramp fees in NYC are prolly bad…
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2023
- Messages
- 349
- Location
- Houston & SE Wisconsin
- Display Name
Display name:
StraightnLevel
Yeah, but you have to deal with that DC area SFRA...