Express Aircraft of Olympia WA quits

[dancingstar]

<x-posted to rah,rao,rap>

Here's a news scoop for you all...

Express Aircraft Company, formerly Wheeler Express, has gone out of
business. Apparently TCM (Teledyne Continental Motors) was unable to
honor shipment of their "Full Authority Digital Engine Control" (FADEC)
IOF-550 engines which Express had banked on, promised out, and designed
around, which left them in dire straits.

Too bad...I have watched this company for a long time and the aircraft
is a real sleek, roomy, clean-lined 4-place composite that handles
exceptionally well.

Must be a kharmic thingy because two CEO's of the company have died in
separate crashes on maiden flights while testing out new models.

You heard it first here!!


Antonio

[Jay Honeck]

> Here's a news scoop for you all...

Another one:

Amazingly, it's being reported that Commander Aircraft has found "new
investors" and is back up and running.

Ya just gotta wonder where these guys keep finding investors?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RobertR237]

>
>Here's a news scoop for you all...
>
>Express Aircraft Company, formerly Wheeler Express, has gone out of
>business. Apparently TCM (Teledyne Continental Motors) was unable to
>honor shipment of their "Full Authority Digital Engine Control" (FADEC)
>IOF-550 engines which Express had banked on, promised out, and designed
>around, which left them in dire straits.
>
>Too bad...I have watched this company for a long time and the aircraft
>is a real sleek, roomy, clean-lined 4-place composite that handles
>exceptionally well.
>
>Must be a kharmic thingy because two CEO's of the company have died in
>separate crashes on maiden flights while testing out new models.
>
>You heard it first here!!
>
>
>Antonio
>

No, didn't hear it first here but that is not important. The important thing
is that another very fine aircraft has been lost to our community. The Express
was an outstanding and beautiful aircraft that deserves to be continued. I
really hope that someone will step forward and continue the aircraft. Maybe
this is another one for Aircraft Spruce to pickup.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[john smith]

Wouldn't you love to listen to the spiel and hear the numbers they present?

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Another one
> Amazingly, it's being reported that Commander Aircraft has found "new
> investors" and is back up and running
> Ya just gotta wonder where these guys keep finding investors?

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > Here's a news scoop for you all...
>
> Another one:
>
> Amazingly, it's being reported that Commander Aircraft has found "new
> investors" and is back up and running.
>
> Ya just gotta wonder where these guys keep finding investors?

What's even more amazing to me is that they will find customers if they get
back into production. Would you buy a new Commander (or Mooney, for that
matter) knowing the shakey history of the company?
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Montblack]

("Antonio dancingstar" wrote)
> Here's a news scoop for you all...
>
> Express Aircraft Company, formerly Wheeler Express, has gone out of
> business. Apparently TCM (Teledyne Continental Motors) was unable to
> honor shipment of their "Full Authority Digital Engine Control" (FADEC)
> IOF-550 engines which Express had banked on, promised out, and designed
> around, which left them in dire straits.

(specs and price $150,000 OBO)
http://www.express-aircraft.com/Aircraft%20Specs.htm

N511EA was registered in 1999 and has 731 hours total time since new.

Engine/HP Continental IO-550-N (310hp)

Prop Hartzell 3-Blade Constant Speed

Landing Gear Fixed Tricycle

Cabin Width (Front/Rear) ...46"/44"

Payload (with/140 gallons of fuel) ...935 lbs.

Cruise @ 75% ....175 kts TAS

Stall Speed Vs1 ...55 kts
Stall Speed Vs0 ...53 kts

Range @ 75% Power ...1,800 nm
Rate of Climb (Gross) ...1,200 fpm

Maximum Service Ceiling ....20,000 ft.

$150,000 (OBO) ...offer $85K and see what happens <g>.


Montblack

[Dude]

Why would you be less inclined to buy a new one than an old one?

Seems like you are in the same boat.

Besides, Cessna pulled the plug on building piston planes even when they had
money, what's the difference?


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > > Here's a news scoop for you all...
> >
> > Another one:
> >
> > Amazingly, it's being reported that Commander Aircraft has found "new
> > investors" and is back up and running.
> >
> > Ya just gotta wonder where these guys keep finding investors?
>
> What's even more amazing to me is that they will find customers if they
get
> back into production. Would you buy a new Commander (or Mooney, for that
> matter) knowing the shakey history of the company?
> --
> Dan
> C-172RG at BFM
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Dude" wrote:

> Why would you be less inclined to buy a new one than an old one?

The warranty might not be honored if the mfr. goes TU. A lot of the value
of a new airplane is in the warranty. Suppose you bought a new Commander,
the co. went bankrupt and it was discovered there was a metallurgical flaw
in the main wing spars on new models? That's a not-too-far-fetched scenario
that would leave you with a $half-million, non-airworthy hangar queen and no
recourse.

> Seems like you are in the same boat.

Not really.

> Besides, Cessna pulled the plug on building piston planes even when they
had
> money, what's the difference?

Cessna was still a viable company; it did not cancel warranties on new
aircraft when it stopped production of piston a/c.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dude]

Dan,

I can see you point, but you are really stretching here IMO. First, Mooney
now has a quality level similar to that of Beech. Second, there are
financially sound manufacturers who have left buyers in similar situations
even without going TU.

So the plane needs a new spar, that does not make the plane worthless. I
suppose you are of the everything but Beech and Cessna is a cr*p sandwich
variety?

One day, barring a new design that is not forthcoming, those guys will pull
out of piston planes for good. If they don't manage to kill off our little
hobby (which they would do in a minute if they could sell more jets by doing
it), what do you plan to do?

Are you willing to buy a Cirrus, Diamond, or Lancair? People who keep up the
"nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude are just killing GA slowly. I see them
running all over the alphabet organizations, including AOPA. It's so
disappointing.


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" wrote:
>
> > Why would you be less inclined to buy a new one than an old one?
>
> The warranty might not be honored if the mfr. goes TU. A lot of the value
> of a new airplane is in the warranty. Suppose you bought a new Commander,
> the co. went bankrupt and it was discovered there was a metallurgical flaw
> in the main wing spars on new models? That's a not-too-far-fetched
scenario
> that would leave you with a $half-million, non-airworthy hangar queen and
no
> recourse.
>
> > Seems like you are in the same boat.
>
> Not really.
>
> > Besides, Cessna pulled the plug on building piston planes even when they
> had
> > money, what's the difference?
>
> Cessna was still a viable company; it did not cancel warranties on new
> aircraft when it stopped production of piston a/c.
> --
> Dan
> C-172RG at BFM
>
>

[C Kingsbury]

And at least with Mooney you know that management knows how to handle
bankruptcy. Heck, they've done it a dozen times.

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Dan,
>
> I can see you point, but you are really stretching here IMO. First,
Mooney
> now has a quality level similar to that of Beech. Second, there are
> financially sound manufacturers who have left buyers in similar situations
> even without going TU.

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>>>Here's a news scoop for you all...
>>
>>Another one:
>>
>>Amazingly, it's being reported that Commander Aircraft has found "new
>>investors" and is back up and running.
>>
>>Ya just gotta wonder where these guys keep finding investors?
>
>
> What's even more amazing to me is that they will find customers if they get
> back into production. Would you buy a new Commander (or Mooney, for that
> matter) knowing the shakey history of the company?

Which one's aren't shakey these days? The New Piper? Cessna who just
up and quit production a few years ago and likely will do so again in a
few more years? Cirrus? They seem to be on a roll, but who knows how
long that will last. I think buying any GA aircraft smaller than a
business jet is risky if you are worried about the maker going TU. The
good thing is that most discontinued airplanes seem to find someone to
keep them in the air.


Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> Wouldn't you love to listen to the spiel and hear the numbers they
present?

Commander (and Mooney) seem to have a rare talent for finding that most
unusual of all combinations in people: Stupidity and money.

My hat is off to them, and I wish them luck -- but they're going to lose
their shirts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Which one's aren't shakey these days? The New Piper?

Good point.

Piper's Vero Beach plant took several major hits from all the hurricanes.
Over on the Cherokee Pilots Association site, we're taking up a collection
for their displaced workers, who currently have no income and no idea when
they'll be able to return to work.

It's very sad -- but the CPA has raised almost $20K for them, just in little
donations from members, in just a few days.

I find that to be amazing. The CPA is really a great group of folks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Masino]

In rec.aviation.owning Jay Honeck > wrote:
> It's very sad -- but the CPA has raised almost $20K for them, just in little
> donations from members, in just a few days.
> I find that to be amazing. The CPA is really a great group of folks.


Not quite. We just broke $3000, not $20K.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Darrel Toepfer]

Jay Masino wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>It's very sad -- but the CPA has raised almost $20K for them, just in little
>>donations from members, in just a few days.
>>I find that to be amazing. The CPA is really a great group of folks.
>
> Not quite. We just broke $3000, not $20K.

Give it to them in pesos then. CPA's - a zero here or a zero there, its
still real money...

[Dan Luke]

"Dude" wrote:
> I can see you point, but you are really stretching here IMO. First,
Mooney
> now has a quality level similar to that of Beech.

Maybe so, but says who?

> Second, there are
> financially sound manufacturers who have left buyers in similar situations
> even without going TU.

Cite?

> So the plane needs a new spar, that does not make the plane worthless.

I didn't say it did. Airplanes get parked for a lot less than total loss.
What do you reckon replacing the main spar would cost? Even if the owner
bites the bullet and fixes the spar, he's still screwed for an awful lot of
money. Plus, his airplane now has a major repair in the logs, which will
affect its value.

> I suppose you are of the everything but Beech and Cessna is a cr*p
sandwich
> variety?

Why do you suppose that? You're setting some kind of record for putting
words in my mouth.

> One day, barring a new design that is not forthcoming, those guys will
pull
> out of piston planes for good.

Here, I agree with you.

> If they don't manage to kill off our little
> hobby (which they would do in a minute if they could sell more jets by
doing
> it),

It's no secret that B and C are dubious about the pi

> what do you plan to do?

> Are you willing to buy a Cirrus, Diamond, or Lancair?

I seriously doubt I'll *ever* buy a new airplane. If I were in the market,
I would consider the above. Under no circumstances would I consider an old
design from a company that had just emerged from bankruptcy.

> People who keep up the
> "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude are just killing GA slowly. I see them
> running all over the alphabet organizations, including AOPA. It's so
> disappointing.

Uh, Cirrus is selling 40 piston planes a month; that's more than Cessna. So
tell me again: how is the "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude killing GA?
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[NW_PILOT]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Pu56d.62167$wV.26227@attbi_s54...
> > Wouldn't you love to listen to the spiel and hear the numbers they
> present?
>
> Commander (and Mooney) seem to have a rare talent for finding that most
> unusual of all combinations in people: Stupidity and money.
>
> My hat is off to them, and I wish them luck -- but they're going to lose
> their shirts.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

They may lose their shirts and be gone tomorrow but it they produce anything
worth a hoot it will be around for the next 100 or so years for people to
talk about.

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>
> ...that most
> unusual of all combinations in people: Stupidity and money.

Hah! You obviously haven't spent much time around an upscale marina.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[NW_PILOT]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" wrote:
>
> > Why would you be less inclined to buy a new one than an old one?
>
> The warranty might not be honored if the mfr. goes TU. A lot of the value
> of a new airplane is in the warranty. Suppose you bought a new Commander,
> the co. went bankrupt and it was discovered there was a metallurgical flaw
> in the main wing spars on new models? That's a not-too-far-fetched
scenario
> that would leave you with a $half-million, non-airworthy hangar queen and
no
> recourse.

You could have it fixed! out of your own pocket surly if you could afford a
half-million dollar aircraft I am sure you could have it fixed if the mfg.
went out of business

>
> > Seems like you are in the same boat.
>
> Not really.
>
> > Besides, Cessna pulled the plug on building piston planes even when they
> had
> > money, what's the difference?
>
> Cessna was still a viable company; it did not cancel warranties on new
> aircraft when it stopped production of piston a/c.

Cessna did not go out of business they just stopped a product line big
difference.

> --
> Dan
> C-172RG at BFM
>
>

[Dan Luke]

It's no secret that B and C are dubious about the pi[ston airplane business.
That doesn't mean they'd void the warranties the minute they stopped
production.]

[NW_PILOT]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
> > "Jay Honeck" wrote:
> >
> >>>Here's a news scoop for you all...
> >>
> >>Another one:
> >>
> >>Amazingly, it's being reported that Commander Aircraft has found "new
> >>investors" and is back up and running.
> >>
> >>Ya just gotta wonder where these guys keep finding investors?
> >
> >
> > What's even more amazing to me is that they will find customers if they
get
> > back into production. Would you buy a new Commander (or Mooney, for
that
> > matter) knowing the shakey history of the company?
>
> Which one's aren't shakey these days? The New Piper? Cessna who just
> up and quit production a few years ago and likely will do so again in a
> few more years? Cirrus? They seem to be on a roll, but who knows how
> long that will last. I think buying any GA aircraft smaller than a
> business jet is risky if you are worried about the maker going TU. The
> good thing is that most discontinued airplanes seem to find someone to
> keep them in the air.
>
>
> Matt
>

Look at VANS aircraft kits, they are Simi local to me I went on a factory
tour and asked a question! Where is the place in the factory that puts the
quick build kits together? They responded they make the parts here send them
over seas to be put together and then they are shipped back here! Maybe
piper or Cessna may start doing this maybe they could save a bunch of money.

[Jay Honeck]

> > It's very sad -- but the CPA has raised almost $20K for them, just in
little
> > donations from members, in just a few days.
> > I find that to be amazing. The CPA is really a great group of folks.
>
>
> Not quite. We just broke $3000, not $20K.

Whoops. That was supposed to be "$2K" when I wrote it...

A zero here, a zero there -- pretty soon you're talking real money...

Glad to hear we've broken $3K!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[NW_PILOT]

They are selling their molds also.
http://www.express-aircraft.com/fiberglass_molds.htm


"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Antonio dancingstar" wrote)
> > Here's a news scoop for you all...
> >
> > Express Aircraft Company, formerly Wheeler Express, has gone out of
> > business. Apparently TCM (Teledyne Continental Motors) was unable to
> > honor shipment of their "Full Authority Digital Engine Control" (FADEC)
> > IOF-550 engines which Express had banked on, promised out, and designed
> > around, which left them in dire straits.
>
> (specs and price $150,000 OBO)
> http://www.express-aircraft.com/Aircraft%20Specs.htm
>
> N511EA was registered in 1999 and has 731 hours total time since new.
>
> Engine/HP Continental IO-550-N (310hp)
>
> Prop Hartzell 3-Blade Constant Speed
>
> Landing Gear Fixed Tricycle
>
> Cabin Width (Front/Rear) ...46"/44"
>
> Payload (with/140 gallons of fuel) ...935 lbs.
>
> Cruise @ 75% ....175 kts TAS
>
> Stall Speed Vs1 ...55 kts
> Stall Speed Vs0 ...53 kts
>
> Range @ 75% Power ...1,800 nm
> Rate of Climb (Gross) ...1,200 fpm
>
> Maximum Service Ceiling ....20,000 ft.
>
> $150,000 (OBO) ...offer $85K and see what happens <g>.
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> > ...that most
> > unusual of all combinations in people: Stupidity and money.
>
> Hah! You obviously haven't spent much time around an upscale marina.

Actually, I have -- I grew up on the shores of Lake Michigan.

Huge money, huge boats, huge parties -- and certainly a bunch of stupid
actions. I've seen guys so drunk that they simply fell off the back of
their 48-foot yachts, and had to be fished out with a pole.

However, although those people act like fools on the weekends, in my
experience they rarely act that way when it comes to investing their money.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave S]

I think he was referring to Boats in the sense of them being an
alternative "Money Pit". The joke is down here in Houston (with the
largest recreational boat fleet in the US on Clear Lake) that you can
save lots of time by just going out to the peir and dumping your money
in the water by the bucket.. instead of actually spending it on your
boat.... Kinda like airplanes... now that your think of it.

Dave

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>...that most
>>>unusual of all combinations in people: Stupidity and money.
>>
>>Hah! You obviously haven't spent much time around an upscale marina.
>
>
> Actually, I have -- I grew up on the shores of Lake Michigan.
>
> Huge money, huge boats, huge parties -- and certainly a bunch of stupid
> actions. I've seen guys so drunk that they simply fell off the back of
> their 48-foot yachts, and had to be fished out with a pole.
>
> However, although those people act like fools on the weekends, in my
> experience they rarely act that way when it comes to investing their money.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Dave S wrote:

>>> Hah! You obviously haven't spent much time around an upscale marina.

> I think he was referring to Boats in the sense of them being an
> alternative "Money Pit". The joke is down here in Houston (with the
> largest recreational boat fleet in the US on Clear Lake) that you can
> save lots of time by just going out to the peir and dumping your money
> in the water by the bucket.. instead of actually spending it on your
> boat.... Kinda like airplanes... now that your think of it.

Actually I think he meant that there are lots of old boats still in use,
built by companies no longer in business. Lack of factory support hasn't
sunk them...

[Dave S]

The unions would NEVER let that happen at Cessna and Piper with regards
to "outsourcing". Vans wasn't taking jobs from Americans who were
already working for them when they made the outsourcing decision, or if
they did, it wasn't nearly on the scale of what Cessna, Piper or Beech
would have to undertake.

And how many of us would be willing or able to shell out for a
quickbuild that was preassembled at the rate of $20-30 and hour?

Dave

NW_PILOT wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Here's a news scoop for you all...
>>>>
>>>>Another one:
>>>>
>>>>Amazingly, it's being reported that Commander Aircraft has found "new
>>>>investors" and is back up and running.
>>>>
>>>>Ya just gotta wonder where these guys keep finding investors?
>>>
>>>
>>>What's even more amazing to me is that they will find customers if they
>
> get
>
>>>back into production. Would you buy a new Commander (or Mooney, for
>
> that
>
>>>matter) knowing the shakey history of the company?
>>
>>Which one's aren't shakey these days? The New Piper? Cessna who just
>>up and quit production a few years ago and likely will do so again in a
>>few more years? Cirrus? They seem to be on a roll, but who knows how
>>long that will last. I think buying any GA aircraft smaller than a
>>business jet is risky if you are worried about the maker going TU. The
>>good thing is that most discontinued airplanes seem to find someone to
>>keep them in the air.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> Look at VANS aircraft kits, they are Simi local to me I went on a factory
> tour and asked a question! Where is the place in the factory that puts the
> quick build kits together? They responded they make the parts here send them
> over seas to be put together and then they are shipped back here! Maybe
> piper or Cessna may start doing this maybe they could save a bunch of money.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave S wrote:
>
> And how many of us would be willing or able to shell out for a
> quickbuild that was preassembled at the rate of $20-30 and hour?

Well, the Bearhawk people down in Mexico have delivered at least 37 in a little over
two years.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Dave S]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Dave S wrote:
>
>>And how many of us would be willing or able to shell out for a
>>quickbuild that was preassembled at the rate of $20-30 and hour?
>
>
> Well, the Bearhawk people down in Mexico have delivered at least 37 in a little over
> two years.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

I think Mexico counts as outsourced labor and I doubt they are paying
that kind of rate down there.

Dave

[Barnyard BOb -]

>The unions would NEVER let that happen at Cessna and Piper with regards
>to "outsourcing". Vans wasn't taking jobs from Americans who were
>already working for them when they made the outsourcing decision, or if
>they did, it wasn't nearly on the scale of what Cessna, Piper or Beech
>would have to undertake.
>
>And how many of us would be willing or able to shell out for a
>quickbuild that was preassembled at the rate of $20-30 and hour?
>
>Dave
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Outside the realm of unions --

When dinosaurs were young....
and I was making $3 an hour, my employer was
charging customers $12 for my time and expertise.

On this basis, figure $80-120 an hour.

Is this unrealistic?
I think not, when Nike sells footwear for
hundreds of dollars a pair when the cost
of its foreign labor is under two dollars a pop.

Unions or not, USA blue collar workers are doomed.

Beg, borrow or steal a Yale and Harvard education.
Run for public office and become a multi-millionaire....
or marry one. <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Dude]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" wrote:
> > I can see you point, but you are really stretching here IMO. First,
> Mooney
> > now has a quality level similar to that of Beech.
>
> Maybe so, but says who?
>

Me, I compared. Also a recent mag article agreed.

> > Second, there are
> > financially sound manufacturers who have left buyers in similar
situations
> > even without going TU.
>
> Cite?
>

The only specific I can name by buyer is Art P who got a Cirrus lemon beyond
compare. However, we have all heard stories about C, P, and B leaving a
customer in a lurch. Here's an idea, call Cessna and ask a question about
recommendations on how to fix your plane. See if you like their "service".
I recently saw a new 182 with bad paint that the guy had to fight for 6
months to get fixed. Have you ever talked to people in the next hangar?


> > So the plane needs a new spar, that does not make the plane worthless.
>
> I didn't say it did. Airplanes get parked for a lot less than total
loss.
> What do you reckon replacing the main spar would cost? Even if the owner
> bites the bullet and fixes the spar, he's still screwed for an awful lot
of
> money. Plus, his airplane now has a major repair in the logs, which will
> affect its value.
>

There are lots of bad things that can screw you out of lots of money that
are more likely to happen. Sit and worry if you will. BTW, did any Mooney
owners ever get burned on their warranties? I remember they were worried,
but do not recall if the new company cleared it up each time.


> > I suppose you are of the everything but Beech and Cessna is a cr*p
> sandwich
> > variety?
>
> Why do you suppose that? You're setting some kind of record for putting
> words in my mouth.
>

Note the question mark. I didn't put words in anyones mouth. I have had it
up to hear with these attitudes, and they mostly end up being about the
same. Sorry if you don't quite fit the mold.



> > One day, barring a new design that is not forthcoming, those guys will
> pull
> > out of piston planes for good.
>
> Here, I agree with you.
>
> > If they don't manage to kill off our little
> > hobby (which they would do in a minute if they could sell more jets by
> doing
> > it),
>
> It's no secret that B and C are dubious about the pi
>

No, but you are worried about losing lots of money. Tried selling an orphan
lately? Furthermore, I believe they will do whatever they think costs least
in the long run. One day, some accountant in either company says they
should stop making parts, they will do it. CORRECT OR NOT!


> > what do you plan to do?
>
> > Are you willing to buy a Cirrus, Diamond, or Lancair?
>
> I seriously doubt I'll *ever* buy a new airplane. If I were in the
market,
> I would consider the above. Under no circumstances would I consider an
old
> design from a company that had just emerged from bankruptcy.
>

Its nice to know there is hope for you. I can understand not buying new,
and I can understand being wary of a recent bankruptcy. What I don't
understand is your motivation to comment at all. Serious, if you are not
ever going to buy new, then where do you get off telling people that buy a
new Mooney they are stupid. What do you know about it all?

> > People who keep up the
> > "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude are just killing GA slowly. I see them
> > running all over the alphabet organizations, including AOPA. It's so
> > disappointing.
>
> Uh, Cirrus is selling 40 piston planes a month; that's more than Cessna.
So
> tell me again: how is the "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude killing GA?
> --

40 is not enough to get the level of investment we need for real innovation.
Please compare to the hundreds a month levels of production from the days of
yore. New investors are looking at Cirrus, and have to be thinking that
they are nuts to risk so much money. Only aviation enthusiasts are going to
play, which may be a positive, but we really need to attract more pilots and
more money. Companies like Cessna exist in many fields, and they keep
investment down due to their sheer market presence. The difference between
Cessna and Microsoft is that MS has done something new in the last 10 or 20
years for its customers.

[Aaron Coolidge]

: There are lots of bad things that can screw you out of lots of money that
: are more likely to happen. Sit and worry if you will. BTW, did any Mooney
: owners ever get burned on their warranties? I remember they were worried,
: but do not recall if the new company cleared it up each time.

I'm almost afraid to join this discussion. A fiend of mine bought a 2002 or
2003 model Mooney Ovation2 from a private seller, with 125 hours TT.
This was one of last aircraft made in the previous Mooney incarnation.
He bought just after the newest Mooney restarted production and was giving
fire sale prices on new M20R airplanes.

He got the thing for 1/2 the original price, with the caveat that there
was absolutely no warranty whatsoever. The seller took a hit of something
like $150K.

He has made a couple of minor repairs of the type that would be covered by
a warranty if one were to exist, but these have cost him much less than the
$150K "discount" he got.

Now the paint is now flaking off each and every flush rivet on both
wings. This would likely be covered by a warranty if there was one, but as
there's no warranty he's going to ignore it for a while.

So, the incoming administration at Mooney had no difficulties tearing up
the warranties on all of the airplanes that had been produced before they
took over. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that it happened.

--
Aaron Coolidge

[Dan Luke]

"Dude" wrote:
> > > I can see you point, but you are really stretching here IMO. First,
> > Mooney
> > > now has a quality level similar to that of Beech.
> >
> > Maybe so, but says who?
> >
>
> Me, I compared. Also a recent mag article agreed.

Well, *that* certainly settles it.

> > > Second, there are
> > > financially sound manufacturers who have left buyers in similar
> situations
> > > even without going TU.
> >
> > Cite?
> >
>
> The only specific I can name by buyer is Art P who got a Cirrus lemon
beyond
> compare. However, we have all heard stories about C, P, and B leaving a
> customer in a lurch.

Once again, solid data!

> Here's an idea, call Cessna and ask a question about
> recommendations on how to fix your plane. See if you like their
"service".
> I recently saw a new 182 with bad paint that the guy had to fight for 6
> months to get fixed. Have you ever talked to people in the next hangar?

As a matter of fact, I know a flight school owner with 2 new Cessnas. He's
had no problems getting warranty service - not that any of this is to the
point.

> > > So the plane needs a new spar, that does not make the plane worthless.
> >
> > I didn't say it did. Airplanes get parked for a lot less than total
> loss.
> > What do you reckon replacing the main spar would cost? Even if the
owner
> > bites the bullet and fixes the spar, he's still screwed for an awful lot
> of
> > money. Plus, his airplane now has a major repair in the logs, which
will
> > affect its value.
> >
>
> There are lots of bad things that can screw you out of lots of money that
> are more likely to happen. Sit and worry if you will. BTW, did any Mooney
> owners ever get burned on their warranties? I remember they were worried,
> but do not recall if the new company cleared it up each time.

I thought you knew all about this. As a matter of fact, new owners *were*
screwed; see Aaron Coolidge's post for an example.

> > > I suppose you are of the everything but Beech and Cessna is a cr*p
> > sandwich
> > > variety?
> >
> > Why do you suppose that? You're setting some kind of record for putting
> > words in my mouth.
> >
>
> Note the question mark. I didn't put words in anyones mouth. I have had
it
> up to hear with these attitudes, and they mostly end up being about the
> same. Sorry if you don't quite fit the mold.

Put a cool cloth on your head and lie down a while, you'll feel better.

> > > One day, barring a new design that is not forthcoming, those guys will
> > pull
> > > out of piston planes for good.
> >
> > Here, I agree with you.
> >
> > > If they don't manage to kill off our little
> > > hobby (which they would do in a minute if they could sell more jets by
> > doing
> > > it),
> >
> > It's no secret that B and C are dubious about the pi
> >
>
> No, but you are worried about losing lots of money. Tried selling an
orphan
> lately? Furthermore, I believe they will do whatever they think costs
least
> in the long run. One day, some accountant in either company says they
> should stop making parts, they will do it. CORRECT OR NOT!
>
>
> > > what do you plan to do?
> >
> > > Are you willing to buy a Cirrus, Diamond, or Lancair?
> >
> > I seriously doubt I'll *ever* buy a new airplane. If I were in the
> market,
> > I would consider the above. Under no circumstances would I consider an
> old
> > design from a company that had just emerged from bankruptcy.
> >
>
> Its nice to know there is hope for you. I can understand not buying new,
> and I can understand being wary of a recent bankruptcy. What I don't
> understand is your motivation to comment at all. Serious, if you are not
> ever going to buy new, then where do you get off telling people that buy a
> new Mooney they are stupid. What do you know about it all?

You have now officially broken the single-thread record for putting words in
my mouth. Congratulations, I guess.

> > > People who keep up the
> > > "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude are just killing GA slowly. I see them
> > > running all over the alphabet organizations, including AOPA. It's so
> > > disappointing.
> >
> > Uh, Cirrus is selling 40 piston planes a month; that's more than Cessna.
> So
> > tell me again: how is the "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude killing GA?
> > --
>
> 40 is not enough to get the level of investment we need for real
innovation.
> Please compare to the hundreds a month levels of production from the days
of
> yore.

So you think those days would come back if Cessna folded its piston
business? What DO you think would bring those numbers back? What exactly
are you proposing?

> New investors are looking at Cirrus, and have to be thinking that
> they are nuts to risk so much money.

Seems to be turning out ok for them now.

> Only aviation enthusiasts are going to
> play, which may be a positive, but we really need to attract more pilots
and
> more money. Companies like Cessna exist in many fields, and they keep
> investment down due to their sheer market presence. The difference
between
> Cessna and Microsoft is that MS has done something new in the last 10 or
20
> years for its customers.

What about your beloved Mooney? When's the last time they had anything
really new? How are they different in this respect from C and B?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Express Builder]

The Express assets will be picked up by someone sooner or later. This
kit will never go away. It has always been popular and can be
successful if the group that takes it over sticks to the basics.
History shows the company comes apart when they try to compete with
Lancair or whoever. The Express is a solid design as is. Let's hope
it falls into the right hands.

[Express Builder]

The Express assets will be picked up by someone sooner or later. This
kit will never go away. It has always been popular and can be
successful if the group that takes it over sticks to the basics.
History shows the company comes apart when they try to compete with
Lancair or whoever. The Express is a solid design as is. Let's hope
it falls into the right hands.

[Dude]

The only reply your letter deserves is for me to note that I am no longer
interested in your opinion. Furthermore, I am sad for your mother, and the
rest of your family.


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" wrote:
> > > > I can see you point, but you are really stretching here IMO. First,
> > > Mooney
> > > > now has a quality level similar to that of Beech.
> > >
> > > Maybe so, but says who?
> > >
> >
> > Me, I compared. Also a recent mag article agreed.
>
> Well, *that* certainly settles it.
>
> > > > Second, there are
> > > > financially sound manufacturers who have left buyers in similar
> > situations
> > > > even without going TU.
> > >
> > > Cite?
> > >
> >
> > The only specific I can name by buyer is Art P who got a Cirrus lemon
> beyond
> > compare. However, we have all heard stories about C, P, and B leaving a
> > customer in a lurch.
>
> Once again, solid data!
>
> > Here's an idea, call Cessna and ask a question about
> > recommendations on how to fix your plane. See if you like their
> "service".
> > I recently saw a new 182 with bad paint that the guy had to fight for 6
> > months to get fixed. Have you ever talked to people in the next hangar?
>
> As a matter of fact, I know a flight school owner with 2 new Cessnas.
He's
> had no problems getting warranty service - not that any of this is to the
> point.
>
> > > > So the plane needs a new spar, that does not make the plane
worthless.
> > >
> > > I didn't say it did. Airplanes get parked for a lot less than total
> > loss.
> > > What do you reckon replacing the main spar would cost? Even if the
> owner
> > > bites the bullet and fixes the spar, he's still screwed for an awful
lot
> > of
> > > money. Plus, his airplane now has a major repair in the logs, which
> will
> > > affect its value.
> > >
> >
> > There are lots of bad things that can screw you out of lots of money
that
> > are more likely to happen. Sit and worry if you will. BTW, did any
Mooney
> > owners ever get burned on their warranties? I remember they were
worried,
> > but do not recall if the new company cleared it up each time.
>
> I thought you knew all about this. As a matter of fact, new owners *were*
> screwed; see Aaron Coolidge's post for an example.
>
> > > > I suppose you are of the everything but Beech and Cessna is a cr*p
> > > sandwich
> > > > variety?
> > >
> > > Why do you suppose that? You're setting some kind of record for
putting
> > > words in my mouth.
> > >
> >
> > Note the question mark. I didn't put words in anyones mouth. I have
had
> it
> > up to hear with these attitudes, and they mostly end up being about the
> > same. Sorry if you don't quite fit the mold.
>
> Put a cool cloth on your head and lie down a while, you'll feel better.
>
> > > > One day, barring a new design that is not forthcoming, those guys
will
> > > pull
> > > > out of piston planes for good.
> > >
> > > Here, I agree with you.
> > >
> > > > If they don't manage to kill off our little
> > > > hobby (which they would do in a minute if they could sell more jets
by
> > > doing
> > > > it),
> > >
> > > It's no secret that B and C are dubious about the pi
> > >
> >
> > No, but you are worried about losing lots of money. Tried selling an
> orphan
> > lately? Furthermore, I believe they will do whatever they think costs
> least
> > in the long run. One day, some accountant in either company says they
> > should stop making parts, they will do it. CORRECT OR NOT!
> >
> >
> > > > what do you plan to do?
> > >
> > > > Are you willing to buy a Cirrus, Diamond, or Lancair?
> > >
> > > I seriously doubt I'll *ever* buy a new airplane. If I were in the
> > market,
> > > I would consider the above. Under no circumstances would I consider
an
> > old
> > > design from a company that had just emerged from bankruptcy.
> > >
> >
> > Its nice to know there is hope for you. I can understand not buying
new,
> > and I can understand being wary of a recent bankruptcy. What I don't
> > understand is your motivation to comment at all. Serious, if you are
not
> > ever going to buy new, then where do you get off telling people that buy
a
> > new Mooney they are stupid. What do you know about it all?
>
> You have now officially broken the single-thread record for putting words
in
> my mouth. Congratulations, I guess.
>
> > > > People who keep up the
> > > > "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude are just killing GA slowly. I see
them
> > > > running all over the alphabet organizations, including AOPA. It's so
> > > > disappointing.
> > >
> > > Uh, Cirrus is selling 40 piston planes a month; that's more than
Cessna.
> > So
> > > tell me again: how is the "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude killing GA?
> > > --
> >
> > 40 is not enough to get the level of investment we need for real
> innovation.
> > Please compare to the hundreds a month levels of production from the
days
> of
> > yore.
>
> So you think those days would come back if Cessna folded its piston
> business? What DO you think would bring those numbers back? What exactly
> are you proposing?
>
> > New investors are looking at Cirrus, and have to be thinking that
> > they are nuts to risk so much money.
>
> Seems to be turning out ok for them now.
>
> > Only aviation enthusiasts are going to
> > play, which may be a positive, but we really need to attract more pilots
> and
> > more money. Companies like Cessna exist in many fields, and they keep
> > investment down due to their sheer market presence. The difference
> between
> > Cessna and Microsoft is that MS has done something new in the last 10 or
> 20
> > years for its customers.
>
> What about your beloved Mooney? When's the last time they had anything
> really new? How are they different in this respect from C and B?
>
> --
> Dan
> C-172RG at BFM
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> The only reply your letter deserves is for me to note that I am no
> longer
> interested in your opinion. Furthermore, I am sad for your mother,
> and the
> rest of your family.

Haw-haw! Brilliant.

'Bye.
--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?" - Jiminy Glick

[Blueskies]

"Dave S" > wrote in message nk.net...
>I think he was referring to Boats in the sense of them being an alternative "Money Pit". The joke is down here in
>Houston (with the largest recreational boat fleet in the US on Clear Lake) that you can save lots of time by just going
>out to the peir and dumping your money in the water by the bucket.. instead of actually spending it on your boat....
>Kinda like airplanes... now that your think of it.
>
> Dave
>

More registered 'watercraft' in Michigan than any other state...

and yes, they are money pits too....

[dancingstar]

Express Builder wrote:
> The Express assets will be picked up by someone sooner or later. This
> kit will never go away. It has always been popular and can be
> successful if the group that takes it over sticks to the basics.
> History shows the company comes apart when they try to compete with
> Lancair or whoever. The Express is a solid design as is. Let's hope
> it falls into the right hands.

I wholeheartedly agree. One of the problems with the last incarnation of
this company was the different directions that were pursuing--inverted
V-8 version, retractable version, turbocharged version, T-tail, etc.
The new owners should stick to the basics and concentrate on customer
support rather than R&D.

I have flown these many times and they are a wonderful aircraft.

Antonio

[Kyle Boatright]

"dancingstar" > wrote in
message ...
> Express Builder wrote:
>> The Express assets will be picked up by someone sooner or later. This
>> kit will never go away. It has always been popular and can be
>> successful if the group that takes it over sticks to the basics.
>> History shows the company comes apart when they try to compete with
>> Lancair or whoever. The Express is a solid design as is. Let's hope
>> it falls into the right hands.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree. One of the problems with the last incarnation of
> this company was the different directions that were pursuing--inverted V-8
> version, retractable version, turbocharged version, T-tail, etc.
> The new owners should stick to the basics and concentrate on customer
> support rather than R&D.
>
> I have flown these many times and they are a wonderful aircraft.
>
> Antonio

The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to capture
the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better company
reputation. Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
when RV-10 was announced. I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling
the bite too.

KB

[RobertR237]

>
>I think he was referring to Boats in the sense of them being an
>alternative "Money Pit". The joke is down here in Houston (with the
>largest recreational boat fleet in the US on Clear Lake) that you can
>save lots of time by just going out to the peir and dumping your money
>in the water by the bucket.. instead of actually spending it on your
>boat.... Kinda like airplanes... now that your think of it.
>
>Dave
>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>...that most
>>>>unusual of all combinations in people: Stupidity and money.
>>>
>>>Hah! You obviously haven't spent much time around an upscale marina.
>>
>>
>> Actually, I have -- I grew up on the shores of Lake Michigan.
>>
>> Huge money, huge boats, huge parties -- and certainly a bunch of stupid
>> actions. I've seen guys so drunk that they simply fell off the back of
>> their 48-foot yachts, and had to be fished out with a pole.
>>
>> However, although those people act like fools on the weekends, in my
>> experience they rarely act that way when it comes to investing their money.
>

I have often heard that the two greatest days in the life of any boat owner are
the day the get their new boat and the day they get rid of their boat.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

>>
>> I wholeheartedly agree. One of the problems with the last incarnation of
>> this company was the different directions that were pursuing--inverted V-8
>> version, retractable version, turbocharged version, T-tail, etc.
>> The new owners should stick to the basics and concentrate on customer
>> support rather than R&D.
>>
>> I have flown these many times and they are a wonderful aircraft.
>>
>> Antonio
>
>The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to capture
>the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better company
>reputation. Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
>when RV-10 was announced. I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling
>the bite too.
>
>KB
>

You hit it right with that comment. The RV-10 destroyed the market for the
majority of 4-place cruisers the day it was announced (maybe even before).
After it appeared at Oshkosh last year, I knew the death sentence has been set
for many popular 4-place kits. The Express, the KIS (Pulsar) Cruiser (my kit)
and many others have seen sales reduced. The RV-10 is a great airplane and if
I were in the position to make my choice today, it would most likely be the
RV-10.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to
capture
> the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better
company
> reputation.

Yes - that market, the RV-10 will own, for those folks that don't mind
burning 13 gal/hr. to get it.

> ......Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
> when RV-10 was announced.

I'm not sure about that - the Express is a lot faster, IIRC - I'm not
sure they're the same market.

> .....I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling the bite too.

I don't know about the Velocity, but COZY plans are still selling at the
same rate that they were prior to the RV-10's announcement. Those two
planes are really NOT the same market, due to speed, fuel consumption,
and load capacity. So far, the RV-10 and COZY are orthogonal, not
competing.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[Jerry Springer]

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>
>>The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to
>
> capture
>
>>the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better
>
> company
>
>>reputation.
>
>
> Yes - that market, the RV-10 will own, for those folks that don't mind
> burning 13 gal/hr. to get it.
>
>
>>......Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
>>when RV-10 was announced.
>
>
> I'm not sure about that - the Express is a lot faster, IIRC - I'm not
> sure they're the same market.
>

How do you figure it is a lot faster? I don't know anything about an Express
other than what their web site says and it says 175kts cruise. Vans says the
RV-10 cruises at 200-201 that seems to be about the same cruise speed.


Jerry


>>.....I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling the bite too.
>
>
> I don't know about the Velocity, but COZY plans are still selling at the
> same rate that they were prior to the RV-10's announcement. Those two
> planes are really NOT the same market, due to speed, fuel consumption,
> and load capacity. So far, the RV-10 and COZY are orthogonal, not
> competing.
>

[Kyle Boatright]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
news:5Zo6d.278681$Fg5.151748@attbi_s53...
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to
> capture
>> the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better
> company
>> reputation.
>
> Yes - that market, the RV-10 will own, for those folks that don't mind
> burning 13 gal/hr. to get it.
>
>> ......Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
>> when RV-10 was announced.
>
> I'm not sure about that - the Express is a lot faster, IIRC - I'm not
> sure they're the same market.

According the CAFE report, the fastest observed speed was 195 mph at 11 gph.
Maybe the RV will burn a little more gas, but you can buy a lot of avgas for
the difference in the kit cost.

http://www.cafefoundation.org/aprs/Wheeler%20Express%20APR.pdf


>
>> .....I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling the bite too.
>
> I don't know about the Velocity, but COZY plans are still selling at the
> same rate that they were prior to the RV-10's announcement. Those two
> planes are really NOT the same market, due to speed, fuel consumption,
> and load capacity. So far, the RV-10 and COZY are orthogonal, not
> competing.
>
> --
> Marc J. Zeitlin
> http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
> http://www.cozybuilders.org/
> Copyright (c) 2004
>
>

[Tim B]

What avionics?
"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Antonio dancingstar" wrote)
>> Here's a news scoop for you all...
>>
>> Express Aircraft Company, formerly Wheeler Express, has gone out of
>> business. Apparently TCM (Teledyne Continental Motors) was unable to
>> honor shipment of their "Full Authority Digital Engine Control" (FADEC)
>> IOF-550 engines which Express had banked on, promised out, and designed
>> around, which left them in dire straits.
>
> (specs and price $150,000 OBO)
> http://www.express-aircraft.com/Aircraft%20Specs.htm
>
> N511EA was registered in 1999 and has 731 hours total time since new.
>
> Engine/HP Continental IO-550-N (310hp)
>
> Prop Hartzell 3-Blade Constant Speed
>
> Landing Gear Fixed Tricycle
>
> Cabin Width (Front/Rear) ...46"/44"
>
> Payload (with/140 gallons of fuel) ...935 lbs.
>
> Cruise @ 75% ....175 kts TAS
>
> Stall Speed Vs1 ...55 kts
> Stall Speed Vs0 ...53 kts
>
> Range @ 75% Power ...1,800 nm
> Rate of Climb (Gross) ...1,200 fpm
>
> Maximum Service Ceiling ....20,000 ft.
>
> $150,000 (OBO) ...offer $85K and see what happens <g>.
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

[Tim B]

Vans is 200 smph. Express had 310 HP TSIO RG versions that would rival the
Lancair 400 at FL 180
"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
>> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to
>>
>> capture
>>
>>>the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better
>>
>> company
>>
>>>reputation.
>>
>>
>> Yes - that market, the RV-10 will own, for those folks that don't mind
>> burning 13 gal/hr. to get it.
>>
>>
>>>......Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
>>>when RV-10 was announced.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure about that - the Express is a lot faster, IIRC - I'm not
>> sure they're the same market.
>>
>
> How do you figure it is a lot faster? I don't know anything about an
> Express
> other than what their web site says and it says 175kts cruise. Vans says
> the RV-10 cruises at 200-201 that seems to be about the same cruise speed.
>
>
> Jerry
>
>
>>>.....I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling the bite too.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about the Velocity, but COZY plans are still selling at the
>> same rate that they were prior to the RV-10's announcement. Those two
>> planes are really NOT the same market, due to speed, fuel consumption,
>> and load capacity. So far, the RV-10 and COZY are orthogonal, not
>> competing.
>>
>

[dancingstar]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "dancingstar" > wrote in
> message ...
>
>>Express Builder wrote:
>>
>>>The Express assets will be picked up by someone sooner or later. This
>>>kit will never go away. It has always been popular and can be
>>>successful if the group that takes it over sticks to the basics.
>>>History shows the company comes apart when they try to compete with
>>>Lancair or whoever. The Express is a solid design as is. Let's hope
>>>it falls into the right hands.
>>
>>I wholeheartedly agree. One of the problems with the last incarnation of
>>this company was the different directions that were pursuing--inverted V-8
>>version, retractable version, turbocharged version, T-tail, etc.
>>The new owners should stick to the basics and concentrate on customer
>>support rather than R&D.
>>
>>I have flown these many times and they are a wonderful aircraft.
>>
>>Antonio
>
>
> The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to capture
> the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better company
> reputation. Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
> when RV-10 was announced. I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling
> the bite too.
>
> KB
>
>

Are you kidding me? Take a picture of the RV-10 and place it next to the
Express. Which one is gonna get you the girls?

Seriously, the two aircraft are in totally different markets. The RV's
are certainly nice machines--I've help build an RV-4, and a 6A -- but
IMO they are more utilitarian and functional than a sleek composite. The
cockpits are not any where near as comfy and they are in the aerobatic
category.

The RV's are designed to appeal to the sporty individual while the
Express would appeal more to the cross country traveler/businessman who
had exceptional taste. ;-)

Antonio

Antonio

[Jerry Springer]

I find it hard to believe that a RG version would make that much difference.

Here is a link to their web site that has their demonstrator for sale with a
310hp engine.

http://www.express-aircraft.com/


Jerry (I could be wrong) Springer

Tim B wrote:

> Vans is 200 smph. Express had 310 HP TSIO RG versions that would rival the
> Lancair 400 at FL 180
> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
>>
>>>Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to
>>>
>>>capture
>>>
>>>
>>>>the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better
>>>
>>>company
>>>
>>>
>>>>reputation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes - that market, the RV-10 will own, for those folks that don't mind
>>>burning 13 gal/hr. to get it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>......Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
>>>>when RV-10 was announced.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure about that - the Express is a lot faster, IIRC - I'm not
>>>sure they're the same market.
>>>
>>
>>How do you figure it is a lot faster? I don't know anything about an
>>Express
>>other than what their web site says and it says 175kts cruise. Vans says
>>the RV-10 cruises at 200-201 that seems to be about the same cruise speed.
>>
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>>>>.....I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling the bite too.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know about the Velocity, but COZY plans are still selling at the
>>>same rate that they were prior to the RV-10's announcement. Those two
>>>planes are really NOT the same market, due to speed, fuel consumption,
>>>and load capacity. So far, the RV-10 and COZY are orthogonal, not
>>>competing.
>>>
>>
>
>

[Jerry Springer]

dancingstar wrote:

> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> "dancingstar" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>
>>> Express Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Express assets will be picked up by someone sooner or later. This
>>>> kit will never go away. It has always been popular and can be
>>>> successful if the group that takes it over sticks to the basics.
>>>> History shows the company comes apart when they try to compete with
>>>> Lancair or whoever. The Express is a solid design as is. Let's hope
>>>> it falls into the right hands.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wholeheartedly agree. One of the problems with the last incarnation
>>> of this company was the different directions that were
>>> pursuing--inverted V-8 version, retractable version, turbocharged
>>> version, T-tail, etc.
>>> The new owners should stick to the basics and concentrate on customer
>>> support rather than R&D.
>>>
>>> I have flown these many times and they are a wonderful aircraft.
>>>
>>> Antonio
>>
>>
>>
>> The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to
>> capture the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a
>> better company reputation. Whatever market there was for the Express
>> shrunk considerably when RV-10 was announced. I'm sure the Velocity
>> and Cozy guys are feeling the bite too.
>>
>> KB
>>
>
> Are you kidding me? Take a picture of the RV-10 and place it next to the
> Express. Which one is gonna get you the girls?
>
> Seriously, the two aircraft are in totally different markets. The RV's
> are certainly nice machines--I've help build an RV-4, and a 6A -- but
> IMO they are more utilitarian and functional than a sleek composite. The
> cockpits are not any where near as comfy and they are in the aerobatic
> category.
>
> The RV's are designed to appeal to the sporty individual while the
> Express would appeal more to the cross country traveler/businessman who
> had exceptional taste. ;-)
>
> Antonio
>
> Antonio
>
I can tell you have never seen the inside of a RV-10 have you? Have you seen one
in person?

http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/Rv10/220RV/13_lg.jpg


Jerry

[Montblack]

("Tim B" wrote)
> What avionics?
> > (specs and price $150,000 OBO)
> > http://www.express-aircraft.com/Aircraft%20Specs.htm


(From the above Express Aircraft Company link)
......CLICK FOR AVIONICS LIST!! <g>

http://www.express-aircraft.com/511_avionics.htm

N511EA Avionics and Indicators

Sandel SN3308 HSI

Eventide Argus 7000/CE Color Moving Map Display

Bendix King KLN 89B TSO GPS

Bendix King KX 155 TSO NAV / COM Radio

Bendix King KY197A TSO COM Radio

Bendix King KT 76C TSO Digital Transponder

PS Engineering PMA7000MS Stereo Audio Panel with Intelivox and Glide Slope

STEC Model 30 Auto Pilot

JPI EDM-700 Engine Monitor

Angle of Attack Indicator with Voice Prompt

JPI Slimline Fuel Pressure Gage

Annunciator Panel

Daytron M800 Chronometer

Oil Temperature Gage

Oil Pressure Gage

Voltage Meter

Duel Fuel Gage

Amp Gage

Manifold Pressure Gage

Tachometer

Compass with Hour Meter

Electric Elevator Trim with Indicator

Kenwood KDC-7011 Stereo with Motorized Face


Montblack

[Darrel Toepfer]

Jerry Springer wrote:

> I can tell you have never seen the inside of a RV-10 have you? Have you
> seen one in person?
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/Rv10/220RV/13_lg.jpg

Just an observation, but that looks like the outside to me. Could be my
internet connection playing tricks on me though... ;-D

[Jerry Springer]

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>> I can tell you have never seen the inside of a RV-10 have you? Have
>> you seen one in person?
>>
>> http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/Rv10/220RV/13_lg.jpg
>
>
> Just an observation, but that looks like the outside to me. Could be my
> internet connection playing tricks on me though... ;-D

Must be your mind playing tricks on you. :-)

The picture was just thrown in for the fun of it. :-)

Jerry

[dancingstar]

> I can tell you have never seen the inside of a RV-10 have you? Have you
> seen one in person?
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/images/Rv10/220RV/13_lg.jpg
>
>
> Jerry
>

no. ( He said very quietly in an almost indecipherable voice...)

Antonio

[RobertR237]

>>
>>>Express Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Express assets will be picked up by someone sooner or later. This
>>>>kit will never go away. It has always been popular and can be
>>>>successful if the group that takes it over sticks to the basics.
>>>>History shows the company comes apart when they try to compete with
>>>>Lancair or whoever. The Express is a solid design as is. Let's hope
>>>>it falls into the right hands.
>>>
>>>I wholeheartedly agree. One of the problems with the last incarnation of
>>>this company was the different directions that were pursuing--inverted V-8
>>>version, retractable version, turbocharged version, T-tail, etc.
>>>The new owners should stick to the basics and concentrate on customer
>>>support rather than R&D.
>>>
>>>I have flown these many times and they are a wonderful aircraft.
>>>
>>>Antonio
>>
>>
>> The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to capture
>
>> the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better company
>> reputation. Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
>> when RV-10 was announced. I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling
>> the bite too.
>>
>> KB
>>
>>
>
>Are you kidding me? Take a picture of the RV-10 and place it next to the
>Express. Which one is gonna get you the girls?
>

BOTH! Absolutely BOTH!

>Seriously, the two aircraft are in totally different markets. The RV's
>are certainly nice machines--I've help build an RV-4, and a 6A -- but
>IMO they are more utilitarian and functional than a sleek composite. The
>cockpits are not any where near as comfy and they are in the aerobatic
>category.
>

Whoa there pardner, we were not comparing the Express to the RV-4 or RV-6 but
comparing to the RV-10, the new 4-place from Vans. There is a very big
difference that if you haven't seen the RV-10 yet, you would not even begin to
understand. The RV-10 is NOT in the aerobatic category and the cockpit is
everybit as nice as the Express but may be a bit smaller but not by much.

>The RV's are designed to appeal to the sporty individual while the
>Express would appeal more to the cross country traveler/businessman who
>had exceptional taste. ;-)
>
>Antonio

The RV-10 was not designed for the sporty individual, it is very much a cross
country traveler for either the businessman or the family traveler with
exceptional taste. You really need to look before you leap on this subject,
obviously you haven't seen an RV-10 up close or you would not have made the
above statements.



Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[dancingstar]

RobertR237 wrote:

>
> Whoa there pardner, we were not comparing the Express to the RV-4 or RV-6 but
> comparing to the RV-10, the new 4-place from Vans. There is a very big
> difference that if you haven't seen the RV-10 yet, you would not even begin to
> understand. The RV-10 is NOT in the aerobatic category and the cockpit is
> everybit as nice as the Express but may be a bit smaller but not by much.
> >

You are absolutely right. I jumped to the conclusion without even
looking that the RV-10 was the same old stuff as the previous models.
I stand corrected.

Antonio

[Jerry Springer]

RobertR237 wrote:

>
>
>>The RV's are designed to appeal to the sporty individual while the
>>Express would appeal more to the cross country traveler/businessman who
>>had exceptional taste. ;-)
>>
>>Antonio
>
>
> The RV-10 was not designed for the sporty individual, it is very much a cross
> country traveler for either the businessman or the family traveler with
> exceptional taste. You really need to look before you leap on this subject,
> obviously you haven't seen an RV-10 up close or you would not have made the
> above statements.
>

Comparing notes from Express web page and from Van's web page the RV-10 is 2"
wider both front and back seat. Head room may be a little bit shorter in the
RV-10 but at 6'3" there is still room to spare for me in the back seat. I could
not believe how much room there is in that airplane.

Jerry


>
> Bob Reed
> www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
> KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
> "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
> pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
> (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
>

[RobertR237]

>
>>
>>
>>>The RV's are designed to appeal to the sporty individual while the
>>>Express would appeal more to the cross country traveler/businessman who
>>>had exceptional taste. ;-)
>>>
>>>Antonio
>>
>>
>> The RV-10 was not designed for the sporty individual, it is very much a
>cross
>> country traveler for either the businessman or the family traveler with
>> exceptional taste. You really need to look before you leap on this
>subject,
>> obviously you haven't seen an RV-10 up close or you would not have made the
>> above statements.
>>
>
>Comparing notes from Express web page and from Van's web page the RV-10 is 2"
>wider both front and back seat. Head room may be a little bit shorter in the
>RV-10 but at 6'3" there is still room to spare for me in the back seat. I
>could
>not believe how much room there is in that airplane.
>
>Jerry
>

Jerry,

I won't argue your numbers but wasn't comparing the numbers as much as the
experience of setting in the fron and back seats of both aircraft. They are
both roughly equal in pilot and copilot comfort unless you count the seats that
they put in the RV-10 which are exceptional. The back seat in the Express is
another story though. In some versions of the Express, they were setup as six
passenger aircraft with an added storage pod under the fuselage. The interior
room of the Express is very deep and the rear seat is much further back from
the front seat. The RV-10 rear seat is better than most 4-place GA aircraft
but not near the Express.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Tim B]

I was seriously considering the Express at one point. The cruise at 16,000
ft with RG and Turbo was about 230 knots (265 mph IIRC). RG probably
bought about 5-6 kts. RG not really worth it if you ask me. I think
cranking the cruise up and paying the extra wear plus gas is cheaper than
the additional insurance and gear maintenance. I suspect I would be eating
those words on an engine out trying to stretch the glide of the fixed gear.

The big thing for me is Turbo to get into the lower FL and crank the speed
up. It's what makes the Columbia 400 so attractive. I would love to see
the RV 10 get the 310 HP TSIO 540 engine in their airplane.


"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
k.net...
>I find it hard to believe that a RG version would make that much
>difference.
>
> Here is a link to their web site that has their demonstrator for sale with
> a
> 310hp engine.
>
> http://www.express-aircraft.com/
>
>
> Jerry (I could be wrong) Springer
>
> Tim B wrote:
>
>> Vans is 200 smph. Express had 310 HP TSIO RG versions that would rival
>> the Lancair 400 at FL 180
>> "Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>>
>>>Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
>>>
>>>>Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to
>>>>
>>>>capture
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better
>>>>
>>>>company
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>reputation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes - that market, the RV-10 will own, for those folks that don't mind
>>>>burning 13 gal/hr. to get it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>......Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
>>>>>when RV-10 was announced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure about that - the Express is a lot faster, IIRC - I'm not
>>>>sure they're the same market.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How do you figure it is a lot faster? I don't know anything about an
>>>Express
>>>other than what their web site says and it says 175kts cruise. Vans says
>>>the RV-10 cruises at 200-201 that seems to be about the same cruise
>>>speed.
>>>
>>>
>>>Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>.....I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling the bite too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't know about the Velocity, but COZY plans are still selling at the
>>>>same rate that they were prior to the RV-10's announcement. Those two
>>>>planes are really NOT the same market, due to speed, fuel consumption,
>>>>and load capacity. So far, the RV-10 and COZY are orthogonal, not
>>>>competing.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Steelgtr62]

" You want to build, get a set of plans to something _you_ can build. You want
to fly, buy a new Maule. You want to fly faster, buy an L-39."

I forgot who wrote that but it's true, isn't it?