| Author | Message | ||
     Ben Baltrusaitis New member Username: Freepistol Post Number: 3 Registered: 09-2005 |
I only discovered the Express about 5 months ago. I've been reading everything I could find, but I am getting confused (very easy if you know me). I've been considering buying a project as a good start since the company is not in existence currently to supply new stuff, plus it will save me some dough. I did get to see the Express site before it went down. I like the useful load of the 2000FT. I searched this site and can't find a history of the development. If it is here, I apologize and hope you will direct me to it. I have found these kits for sale: Series 90, EDI, Auriga, Wheeler Express, Express CT, and 2000 FT. I also found reference to "2000 tail conversion" and "cruciform tail". I did look at Phil & Margie Hodge's Express CT listed on here and then sold on eBay. http://www.joistdesign.com/express/ The tail of that plane seemed really low to me compared to the stance in other builders' pictures. Please educate me on the history of the Express and I would greatly appreciate advice on what to buy or avoid. Thanks for all your help! Ben | ||
| Lou Addessi (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
I suggest you contact Bill Copeland that writes a newsletter for the express that covers a lot of good information on the express. | ||
| Chris M (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
Hi Ben, I'll try to give you the Readers Digest condensed version to help you out here. The Wheeler Express and Express CT are basically the same vehicle on the outside. Any differences are mostly internal, and the separate names reflect the different periods of corporate ownership. The design includes a large, single cabin door and a cruciform tail configuration (where the horizontal stabilizer is mounted 1/2 to 2/3 up the vertical stabilizer, hence a 'cross' or cruciform shape). The Auriga, Series 90 and Series 2000 (or 2000FT) is another version of the Express. Differences between these are mostly internal, with the names again reflecting the different periods of corporate ownership (except for the Auriga name, which was a builder group that started the whole change). This version boasts a 2-door upper fuselage and a larger, conventional tail arrangement (the horizontal stab is mounted at the bottom of the vertical stab). The later Series 2000/2000FT also came with a left side cargo door in the aft cabin area, a modification many earlier Express builders of both versions adopted after the fact. Over the last few years, some of the earlier Wheeler Express/Express CT builders have opted to convert their airplane to the Series 2000 configuration - the 2-door upper fuselage and/or the larger conventional tail. This is where you will see the '2000 tail conversion' being referenced. The corporate ownership saga in this story is another book in itself. In a nutshell, the Express started life as the Wheeler Express in the mid 1980's. After Wheeler bent bankrupt, the company was purchased, moved to southern Oregon and renamed Express Design, Inc (or EDI). During EDI's period, a builder group wanted some changes to increase the utility of the design, so the Auriga Group was formed. This group developed the 2-door upper fuselage and conventional tail modification that you see today. EDI ultimately acquired the Auriga modifications and renamed this version the Series 90 (along with renaming the original version the Express CT). After EDI succomed to their own list of business and financial challenges, the assets were purchased in the mid 90's by Larry Olson and Paul Fagerstrom, moved to Olympia (WA) and started business as Express Aircraft Company (or EAC). Interest in new CT kits were minimal, so EAC focused on the Series 90 version, later renaming it the Series 2000FT to reflect a long list of improvements made in the kit. That is the latest version you see today. A side note: Before adopting the Series 2000FT name, a few EAC kits were first sold/certificated under the Express Millennium name. Unfortunately a threatened lawsuit from Superior Air Parts over the use of the 'Millennium' name quickly changed that. As you can imagine, there are an endless number of details, stories, rumors, etc (ie. the juicy details) that fill in the gaps of this story, but those are best left for another time and place. As for the things to look for or avoid, I'll defer to the builder family to offer their opinons. Hope this clears up some of the mystery for you. - Chris | ||
| Charles King New member Username: Chazking Post Number: 5 Registered: 01-2005 |
Have there been any single door (right side) to a dual door conversions? Any history? | ||
| Bob (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
Chris M left out the two most recent chapters in the story. The first being the death of Larry Olsen and subsequent purchase of EAC by Roy and Nancy, and their almost comical mishandling of the operation, the second being the alleged purchase of the company by Exosphere. Neither story is particulary pleasant for any of us to rehash, so I won't. Nor should they have any influence on Ben's decision to purchase an Express kit. Ben, my advice is to go into the Express with your eyes wide open. Assume that you are, for the most part, completely on your own to scrounge for parts, and there never will be any such thing as factory support. If that situation should change in the future then great, but assume the worst case scenario. In other words, if you're a kit assembler buy an RV, if you're a real homebuilder then the Express is the bargain of the century at the moment. Bob | ||
| Chris M (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
Yep, Bob's correct. In my attempts to be short winded, I inadvertendly left out the two most recent transactions involving the Express (the sale to Roy & Nancy, and the recent acquisition by Exosphere). However, due to the relative recency of both these events, I figured they were already well documented by the various postings on this board. Nevertheless, I should have included them to give the full story. My bad... The death of Larry Olson enroute to Oshkosh was both tragic and unfortunate. It's eerie to consider the similarities and outcomes between that event and the Oshkosh-bound demonstrator crash Wheeler Aircraft suffered in the late 80's. They say history has a way of repeating itself, and unfortunately it did here. Truly sad. Charles: I can't say for sure, but I don't recall any builder that made the upper fuselage conversion after their single door upper was already attached. If there is, hopefully someome here will correct me. Anyway, there you have (as Paul Harvey would say) "the rest of the story" G'day... - Chris | ||
| Chris M (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
Ben - I'll renig on my original deferral and contribute a couple thoughts on the topic of what to look for or avoid in a kit. The Express' landing gear has been one of those items that has seen its share of trial and error over the years. As such, there have been various fiberglass, steel and aluminum gear legs produced and sold with the kits. The fiberglass legs were always a tricky endeavor, and have probably been the most inconsistent as the curing process was critical to insuring a good finished leg. Wheeler's first few sets were rumored to be decent, but later sets proved to fail rather easily. You probably won't find them with many kits at this point. The steel gear later adopted were more rugged, but quite heavy (great boat anchors) and had a tendency to splay outward as weight was applied - hence the low tail stance you saw on the Hodge's Express. EAC produced a series of fiberglass legs before switching to aluminum. These legs were lightweight and fairly rugged at first, however they do have their idiosyncrocies as well. The final switch to aluminum gear seemed to address many of the shortcomings of the prior systems. Another critical element to look for is the gear bracket system. EDI manufactured a very inferior and insufficient main bracket for their kits, which ultimately experienced an alarming failure rate. Most of the 'active' older kits out there have probably already switched to EAC's version, but it is something to keep in mind nonetheless, especially if the wings are already closed out. On the topic of EDI, beware of their flap actuation motor. While intended to be compact and lightweight, it was little more than a cordless screwdriver motor. Not only did it have a hard time deflecting flaps at higher speeds, it was designed to run on voltage much less than the standard 12v system (around 3.8v I believe). As you can imagine, there were a number of people that found out the hard way as the units burned out or caught fire. Scary... There are a myriad of other aspects to consider, and you will probably receive a diverse set of opinions on every topic (ie. teflon bearings vs. needle bearings, 4 fuel tanks vs. 2, cables and pulleys vs. push-pull tubes, etc). Hopefully others here will contribute their opinions and experiences to help in your research. - Chris | ||
| Ben Baltrusaitis New member Username: Freepistol Post Number: 5 Registered: 09-2005 |
Thanks Chris and Bob, that information clears up a lot of questions! I do have another one: Was there any change in the gross weight between models? (I like the 3600). I really appreciate the "watch out for" list. This is the exact knowledge I need. Bob, I have confidence that I can handle the building process and appreciate the warning. Ben | ||
| Chris M (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
You're quite welcome, Ben. Actually, there was a difference over the years. Earlier CT models were generally limited to a 2,895 lb gross weight. However, with upgraded landing gear and a 300 hp engine, most were successfully operated at a 3,200 lb gross weight later on. The catch, however, was that the beefy 300 hp engines made CT models rather nose-heavy. The smaller horizontal stab didn't have the same control force as the larger conventional tail. As a result, some builders experienced hard landings and broken nose gear. To compensate, many use a higher approach & landing speed. It was a trade-off of sorts. The rule of thumb was if the engine was above 250 hp and the landing gear upgraded, it was OK to use the higher weights. At 250 hp or below, it was recommended to keep the 2,895 lb gross weight. The original Express structure was rather over-engineered for the initial loads it carried, and this allowed enough buffer for the weight increase when the time came. The landing gear was the limiting factor at that point. EAC's initial fiberglass gear were successfully tested to the 3,200 gross wt limit, and there wasn't any reason to need more at the time. Moving forward to today, as the RG version developed, additional fuel capacity was needed and the empty weight continued to grow as larger, heavier engines were planned. To restore the useful load and provide for these other requirments, a completely new, more efficient wing was designed. Logic stated that you might as well give the fixed-gear model the added benefits too, so I believe the higher 3,600 lb limit is really contingent on using the new Express wing and the upgraded aluminum gear. I would not suggest loading that much weight with the old kits by any means. Hope that helps. - Chris | ||
| Charles King New member Username: Chazking Post Number: 6 Registered: 01-2005 |
When did the Express kits start using the new wing? And, where are new wing details available? |