# The Ranger, an easily built high wing LSA runabout

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### Jimstix

##### Well-Known Member
Having had some minor experience, it the testing of ACES II seats and Martin-Baker Mk 16 seats for the JSF, perhaps I can shed some light on the realities of ejection seats.

FYI, the ACES seat is in the A-10, F-15, F-16, F-117, and the B-1B. The MB seat is in the F-35, F-18, and nearly all European jets.

First, all ejection seats are heavy. For the ACES II, about 250 lbs. ready to rock and the M-B Mk.16, just a few pounds lighter. Both use spigot guns to get the seat moving up the rails, and a rocket motor to provide the remainder of the ride. Both have headbox mounted parachutes and automatic inertia-real tighteners. Both also have leg restraints, but with the ACES seats that is an option.

The standard maximum pilot weight for the ACES seat is 245 lbs for the pilot + his flight gear. The standard minimum weight for the ACES seat is 104 lbs + her flight gear. Yes, “her” because the only 104 lb USAF pilots I have ever met were female. The M-B Mk.16 has been qualified for the same pilot weight range.

The acceleration onset rate is different for the two seats with the ACES exhibiting a 250 g/sec jerk (Yep, the third derivative is called “jerk” in the US and jolt by the brits) The M-B Mk.16 seat exhibits about 300 g/sec on the catapult stroke. This is a significant difference and caused many testing iterations to prevent injury to the 104 lb pilot.

As some of you may be aware, female humans are different from male humans. In ejection seats this is a huge issue. Because female mass moment of inertias, sitting height CG, limb length, most significantly neck length are different than those of their male counterparts, the behavior of the seat on the rails and in flight may be acceptable to the male occupant, while injurious to the small females.

All of the ACES seat testing that I have witnessed did not “injure” the 104 lb test mannequins that were used. The recorded force and moment data were within acceptable ranges.

To qualify the M-B Mk.16 for the F-35 took extensive modification and retesting. The end result was that the 104 lb female forces and moments were brought within acceptable ranges.

Ejecting from any aircraft is exposing the human body to the kinds of forces that can kill the seat occupant unless everything goes right.

#### GeeZee

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Please take a look at post 916.

#### erkki67

##### Well-Known Member
I’d like to explore two power plants for the Ranger, one would be an electric engine, a pack from geiger engineering and the second a rebuilt Loncin or Gaokin V Engine.

For the later I have some more trust, as K. Armstrong has already some experience with the bigger brother of what I would need.

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
Start with finding out the L/D of a himax, then think really hard about more span... The ranger will be draggier.

Kevin Armstrong said that he was having a belt wear problem.

#### Winchester

##### Well-Known Member
Will the builder be required to buy Volksplane VP-1 plans from Evans Aircraft in order to build the Rangers' Rudder and Stabilator? Likewise - TEAM Mini-Max for the building of the (Heavily Modified) wings?

#### Winchester

##### Well-Known Member
Any chance of an answer? I have been gathering the posted CNC files in hopes to study the design and eventually build next year. Volksplane plans are $40-$70. The 1700 Hi-Max plans are \$100. Using others' IPs negates the Open Source claim for the Ranger, right?

#### FritzW

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
I'm guessing you don't know how to send a PM.

If you go through all 47 pages you'll see that it's not a VP rudder or a MiniMax wing and it doesn't use anyone's IP.

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
I believe it is safe to say that the only real-world IP involved here is from Fritz. Some of the components may be "inspired by" work done on another aircraft, but I don't think that any of that previous work is the essence of what makes this aircraft different.

#### FritzW

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
VB nailed it. The Ranger gets it's DNA from lots of good airplanes: VP's, the Beta Bird, the HiMax, Fishers, etc.

#### Winchester

##### Well-Known Member
FritzW,
Just slogged through the full thread. It looks like I missed nearly all of early April when the preliminary tail feather details where being posted. (are not finalized yet, which is something I wanted to know)

My post was addressed in public, to everyone that may be in-the-know. Which I believed to be more than half a dozen Ranger builders and tinkerers. I didn't assume you would answer me (Nobody answered my similar post #811) or that I should address you solely in a PM.

The wing selection apparently became public with post #692. Which is confusing because it appears to be a halted project, and builders appear to be utilizing ISON derived wings on their own. hence- should I just buy plans.

I cannot see if the Ranger uses VP tailfeathers because I am not intimately familiar with either yet. Because of the obvious similarities and lack of details- I asked if a builder needed to buy extra sets of plans to complete a Ranger, that's all. I am very satisfied with your response (and VB as well regarding my IP question)

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
If it keeps going like it has been going, there may not even be a set of "construction plans" to look at. The parts will fit together per a bunch of isometric drawings, like a piece of Ikea furniture. If you can cleco the pieces together while the glue sets, the location of the pre-cut holes in the parts would be all you need to build it correctly.

#### rivilee

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
So why are you considering an ejection seat? Wouldn't a parachute be adequate?
...oh wait. Never mind...

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
Uh Oh, Erkki's getting agitated about a few of these designs again...

"I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping (6 foot 7) giant and fill him with an inquisitive resolve"

#### FritzW

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
Builders Log: Stardate 73367.8

I'm up to my nalgas in everything but airplane building, and probably will be until after Christmas. Worse yet, this time of year all my disposable income (read plywood money) goes toward frozen turkeys and canned goods for a local organization (I can't mention which one because it lights VB's fuse )

#### Victor Bravo

##### Well-Known Member
Feeding the hungry is completely on the other side of the intellectual firewall... thanks for making that happen in your community. The Ranger is a really cool thing, but we can all have a little patience for something like this.

I may have mentioned this before, but perhaps the "open source" plans/files/instructions for the Ranger can be "almost open source" with a small donation to cover the cost of a turkey, or some canned food, or blankets.

#### FritzW

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
I just checked my emergency ply stash in the garage, I've probably got enough scrap to finish the Ranger. I think I'm just getting lazy because I'm building it at the airport instead of my garage.

Building is so much easier when your surrounded by your own tools. ...and only 50' from the refrigerator.

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
Fritz! There are BILLIONS of people in the world that haven't even seen an aeroplane up close, let alone have their own. Yet you have taken resources away from the Ranger to GIVE luxuries like food and bedding to the cold and hungry? There is a special hell for people like you.

#### FritzW

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
If the Pilgrims had just gone to the Waffle House instead of cooking turkeys we'd have a lot more free time this time of year.

#### poormansairforce

##### Well-Known Member
If the Pilgrims had just gone to the Waffle House instead of cooking turkeys we'd have a lot more free time this time of year.
My family opted out... we'll be doing ribs on a pellet smoker, easy peasy!