| Author | Message | ||
     Douglas Hoff New member Username: Dhoff Post Number: 22 Registered: 05-2003 |
My Express is very short of legroom for the pilot/co-pilot. Does anyone know if there is a fix for this? I'm guessing there isn't, but thought I'd ask anyway. Sure would be nice if all that room in the back could be utilized better. doug h | ||
| Charles M. Robinson New member Username: F15epilot Post Number: 53 Registered: 02-2004 |
Doug, I'm 6'2", and my Auriga already had the tall pannel installed when I got the project. The previous builder had also installed floor-mounted rudder pedals from a C-140, which ate up even more room. The main spar carry-through is the issue, and there is no way to move it, obviously. That said, my friends Jim and Lou are building another Auriga, and I've sat in their plane numerous times. Unlike mine, theirs has the shorter instrument pannel and bulkhead-mounted, standard Express rudder pedals. It's like night and day comparing the difference in leg room. The pedals are further forward, and the bottom of the pannel higher up. Those two attributes make the leg room quite sufficient, and I've got a 35" inseam. So, if you've got the taller instrument pannel, and perhaps have considered a 'panel upgrade', you might get some inches back by doing that. Otherwise, you're stuck with the room you've got. Just my thoughts. Chuck | ||
| Jim Ward New member Username: Jehward Post Number: 53 Registered: 02-2000 |
Hans: Could you tell me what the fuel drain block looks like? My wings were closed when I obtained the kit, so it's not something I've done.I have a leaky left main tank, at the fuel drain. I'd like to know what the block size is before I start trying to fix the leak(from the outside). Thanks, Jim | ||
| Hans Georg Schmid New member Username: Hgschmid Post Number: 37 Registered: 02-2001 |
Hello Jim, I estimate the fuel drain block to measure 2 x 2 x 3/8 in. The picture shows the drain block after I had removed it from the wing. The drain valve had been corroded (water?) and when I wanted to exchange it, it broke. Then I used the wrong tool to remove the stem which expanded the thin aluminium and the tool got stuck... Luckily a friend of mine could thereafter repair the block. Now everything seems to be OK again. Good luck HG   | ||
| Doug Stone New member Username: Dougstone Post Number: 2 Registered: 05-2007 |
Thank's so much for all of the help in finding the right plane for me. I had emails and calls from lots of you guys on what to look out for, along with great encouragement in general, that I was getting a great aircraft within the Express family. I went up to Doug Shell's place just to fly a WE and to get familiar with the design. He had the most gorgeous plane in his hangar/garage that I have ever seen. I felt like turning around and going home totally depressed, because I knew I could never buy a partially built plane or newly built that could ever come close the quality of craftsmanship and beautiful lines that he had created in 94PG....short story...He made me an offer I couldn't refuse...I flew it home to TSP on 6/2/07. Thank's so much Doug Shell, for everything, you are great asset to any community you are involved with. | ||
| Douglas Hoff New member Username: Dhoff Post Number: 26 Registered: 05-2003 |
Hi Everyone- I was wondering if anyone has a weight on the old fiberglass legs vs the new aluminum legs? I was told that the aluminum legs increase the useful load to 1800 lbs but can't see how this could be if they're heavier. Also, has anyone else had trouble with the original battery not being able to turn over the io 550 fast enough. I'd like to put a bigger battery in but my cg seems too forward as it is. Any suggestions? Doug Hoff | ||
| AndyFawcett New member Username: Drew Post Number: 14 Registered: 03-2003 |
Hi Doug I got the same pitch when Larry sold me the upgrade to al legs. His argument was the landing gear load was the limiting factor in useful load. Whatever the reason I went with aluminum & they work fine. As to the battery what are you using? I initially went with a gell battery for the simplicity of installation but after replacing it (twice) switched to a conventional wet lead acid. This seems to be the way to go for me. If i were to do it again i'd put the battery aft as with it on the firewall i need a big chunk of lead in the tail. Of course you'd have to use #0 wire which is pretty heavy too. Has anyone tried a small battery on the firewall to start the motor with a regular battery aft to hold up the radios through an alternator failure? Regards - AndyF | ||
| Douglas Hoff New member Username: Dhoff Post Number: 27 Registered: 05-2003 |
Hi Andy- And thanks for the advise. I got another email from Jim Hurd who said that he uses a 32 amp battery from B&C Specialty Products that is the same physical size as the 25 amp Gill battery that most use. It more than likely has more cold cranking power. Your idea of another battery in the rear has merit, especially when you consider the forward cg we have. I've never been able to figure out where the 1600 & 1800 lb useful loads come from. My first weight empty was 1857, and using 3200 as max weight that equals a useful load of 1343. I have another empty weight showing the new gear as being approx. 400 lbs. heavier (could this be possible?), which would reduce the useful load to 943. Making the cg more aft would make the plane safer, and I wonder if many of us don't fly out of the limits with the cg too forward, making hard nose landings a lot easier! I also try to always have some dead weight in the baggage compartment. Thanks again, and have a great Christmas season. Doug Hoff | ||
| Charles M. Robinson New member Username: F15epilot Post Number: 58 Registered: 02-2004 |
Doug, I use a PowerSonic 12350 which you can get at almost any Battery Warehouse or equivalent. It's a sealed AGM (absorptive Gas Mat) battery with these specs: AH: 35 AH Terminal: NB (lead posts with holes; uses a bolt) Weight: 26.5 Lbs Length: 7.71 Width: 5.19 Height: 6.11 That makes it almost the same size as the Gill batteries (it's not as long), but a WHOLE lot less expensive (they run about $50 to $60). If you want a bit more power, the PS-12400 gives 5 more amp-hrs but is wider--won't fit a standard battery box, but if you're mounting inside, that won't matter. Specs for the 12400: AH: 40 AH Terminal: NB Weight: 30.9 Lbs Length: 7.75 Width: 6.52 Height: 6.69 I had a PS12330 in a previous plane (won't say the type) and the voltage regulator failed to the full charge position, if you will. The battery took a full 50-amp output off the alternator for an hour without rupturing the case--it swelled, but didn't rupture. These batteries have two weaknesses: they don't like heat and they don't particularly like vibration. You can mount them in the engine compartment, but mine likes sitting just behind the seat a LOT better. I fashioned a bracket for the base (prevents sliding) and attached it to the rear seat-belt attachment points. The battery sits on the passenger side, just behind the rear seat where it offsets the single-pilot's weight, and offers a bit of rear ballast. I used #4 speaker wire (available at any custom speaker shop--ask the nearest teenager with a car that bounces to the beat) which is quite flexible and has very little loss. It is also fairly reasonable in cost and turns over my IO-540 with ease. Since I now had the wires running through the center console, I installed a battery disconnect (from the alternator) and jumper connector. These let the battery power the essential avionics without the alternator, and take the avionics out of the loop if I want to use a jump-assist from a portable jumper battery. That's an easy way to have dual-batteries, too. I used plastic 40-amp connectors similar to what you see on golf carts versus the bulky aircraft versions--makes for lighter and 'more aesthetic' connector. Hope that helps. Chuck N336FS | ||
| Jim Oyler New member Username: Midniteoyl Post Number: 122 Registered: 07-2003 |
Andy: [q]My first weight empty was 1857, and using 3200 as max weight that equals a useful load of 1343. I have another empty weight showing the new gear as being approx. 400 lbs. heavier (could this be possible?), which would reduce the useful load to 943. [/q] I too was told the AL gear made for a higher useful load, making the max landing weight the same as max take-off weight. I've never weighed the legs side-by-side so cant comment on the weight difference, although I can't see it being very much. In the example given above, the 'extra' 400lbs of weight is off-set by the 200lbs increase in load for a net decrease of 200lbs, not 400. However, I suspect something was off in the original weigh in as 1300+lbs of useful load seems excessive. Dont quote me, but most Express's I've seen with the AL legs have a useful load of around 100-1100lbs which would mean your spot on. |