I saw this on the AOPA Live weekly video as well as the magazine. Very interesting but as usual with new aircraft few specific details. Here are my questions:

1) Flaps. Are they Fowler type similar to a C150 or standard?
2) Flap actuation: Manual or electric?
3) I see the recommended fuel is 100LL, I thought Rotax was big into mogas and discouraged 100LL.
4) I would like to see a flying comparison to the C150 (which I am familiar with). May be coming soon to a magazine near us.

I'm surprised it is priced as it is (IIRC $140k or so). It looks very labor intensive to build to me. Also - Texas Aircraft get a clue - there is no such thing as "aviation- grade aluminum". There is just aluminum in various alloys, tempers and hardnesses.

Comments?

Dan

I’ll help with some links with more info. Base price $167,000
.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/jGuXgpcl6no[/youtube]
[youtube]https://youtu.be/EeehUZVCn90[/youtube]

Looks like the Tecnam, but without a stick. That ruins it for me. Who wants a yoke in a light sport?

Saw both of these, no specific details. Pilots want to know what they might be interested in. I have seen way too many fluff advertisements with glossy photos and "siss-boom-bah" hype but no info.

If I'm going to reach for my wallet, I want to know exactly what to expect. Otherwise, it is just vapor-ware to me.

Dan

I do believe it has solid rivets and no pop rivets like most of the other light sports. This is a big plus.

This hardly looks like vaporware. The Texas Aircraft website lists specs, and it doesn't look like they're trying to hold anything back.

They are marketing it, with some initial successes, to the training market currently flying worn-out C-150/152 aircraft. I sat in it and would take it over a 150/152 any day. Appeared to be of rugged build. Utilitarian interior meant to stand up to abuse. Yokes make it unattractive to me, but what do I know?

I hope they do well, though I'm not sure the financial model works to replace the worn out 152s and 172s in the training fleet with an aircraft that costs $157,000. How many airplanes have we seen thrown at that segment of the market in the last 15 years?

I think the plane looks great (though those leather yoke wraps make it look like they're covering up old Cessna yokes). There's a bit around 2:55 in the first video linked above where you can see the flaps coming down, and it looks like they're simple hinged flaps.

I prefer solid rivets but I understand that good Avex or Cherry rivets are equally up to the task. The drag is minimal, especially in a light sport.

This does not have the hype of the Vashon. They'll stick around making 2-3 per year until the incentive money run out. This is what happened to another transplanted designer and design, WAC with Spirit. I thought Spirit was very nice, but it didn't bring anything to market that other LSAs did not. At least Vashon promises a future cost reduction.

P.S. Another incentive-powered LSA company with U.S. base is Apollo. Also makes 2 to 5 airplanes per year.

I wonder why they chose the Rotax 912ULS vs the newer fuel injected version 912is

Cost is one driver. Technical complexity is the other. The ULS is a better-known, well-proven engine while the iS is the new kid on the block.

BTW has anybody looked at the useful load of the Vashon Ranger? Is it just me or does it seem to have no useful load at all if you put anything like a real human in each of the seats?

We’re in the process of finishing 2 RV-12is airplanes with the injected version of the Rotex powerplant. The fuel pump/filter set up is horribly complex and maintenance intensive. Every 100 hours the filters have to be changed. The location will be difficult to access on the 12 to say the least.

doh. the 912iS sounds so much better on paper; didn't realize it's a headache. But is that due to the RV-12is install, or would other kits have this issue too? Is the filter location a lot more accessible in the original RV-12?

Very true about the acquisition cost. This compared to the Aviat Reimagined 152 at about $130,000.

One large element is useful load with full fuel. The Colt has a full fuel useful load of about 295 lbs. As a trainer, only people less than 150 lbs need apply (and leave the flight case + toothbrushes in your car). I don't understand why they would even consider this a two place aircraft unless you are just going to do pattern work with a half tank.

Going from memory here but the C150 I took my check ride in had a full fuel useful load of about 435 lbs. Very practical.

Dan