| Author | Message | ||
     Clive Ure New member Username: Cliveure Post Number: 1 Registered: 02-2009 |
I am a 30 year A&P and have previously built a Lancair Legacy, a Velocity, An RV 7 and an RV 10. I have been asked to finish the build of an Express 90 that a friend purchased 'half finished' from somewhere in California. I came across an Express Kit in construction a few years back and the general impression we had at the time was that the wing was way too heavy and that the useful load of the airplane with 4 people aboard would be next to useless. Please can someone tell me (who has built and has one flying) what the differences are between the 90 and the 2000 AND honestly what the strengths and weaknesses of the airplane are, also, I laugh when I hear that the Velocity and the Lancair are 3000 build hour airplanes, more like triple that, again what is the realistic number of hours that would need to go into the building of this airplane from scratch. I am trying to decide whether I want to get into this with him. Thanks | ||
| Al Kittleson New member Username: Al38kit Post Number: 34 Registered: 07-2007 |
To you, what is an acceptable useful load? I don't have the RV-10 numbers before me, but I suspect the Express beats it by a considerable amount. | ||
| Bill Copeland New member Username: Cbros Post Number: 46 Registered: 09-1999 |
I don't have any direct experience with the S-90 or the 2000, but our CT with a Lyc IO-540 can load 4 seats, 90 gals of fuel and a baggage compartment full of stuff and cruise at 175kts plus for an easy four hours. I suspect that the S-90 and 2000 models may not achieve all of that, but will come close. | ||
| JAMES MARLEN KAZMIERCZAK New member Username: Kazair1 Post Number: 2 Registered: 05-2008 |
I now own Bob Kazmierczak’s Auriga N235BK (he died in a crash last May while crop dusting in Wisconsin) I don’t know what model he built (some out there know?) anyway 96 gal of gas, four adults and some baggage I usually figure 165 mph at 15 gph with 0-540, taking off about 1800 ft. It took Bob 8 years, (working on it only during winter, so say 4 years) but he had paid for help. He finally got it all done, paint and interior last spring, looks real fine. Best so far was WI to FL in 5.5 hr. could of done it with no stop, but can’t sit that long. I put an 80k price on it for the estate, is this close? 850 on plane, engine and 3 blade prop. Jim Kazmierczak 319 Millston Ave. Lodi, WI 53555 608-592-5809, fax same 608-576-4470 cell kazair1@aol.com www.kazair.net | ||
| Charles M. Robinson New member Username: F15epilot Post Number: 60 Registered: 02-2004 |
I acquired an Auriga, which is the predecessor of the Series 90, that was on its legs, motor mounted, plumbing all done, avionics installed, front seats installed, back seat ready to install, and 'only' some minor fiberglass work to finish the wing root fairings, training edges, and cowling edges. It took me four months to finish that 'little' bit and trouble-shoot all the errors of the previous builders (that was the hardest part). So...you already have the right idea on how much time. I just got back from a 400nm out-n-back in the plane. It sits empty at 1725lbs; max gross of 3200. It holds 92 gal of which 90 is useful (verified by flight test with drain). I have an IO-540-C4B5 with a 3-blade Hartzell Q-Tip. Cruise at 8K is 166-kts (max) burning 15.7-gal/hr solo or with two on board, or lean/pull it back down to 160-kts and 14.5-gal/hr. You can compute your own people-bags limits with the 1485-lbs. I've had four adults (725-lbs) with full fuel (600-lbs) and two small bags--cruise was still 165-kts at 16-gal/hr +/- a bit. In other words, it is FAR from useless. So...depending on the version of motor (the IO-540/550 300-hp birds are faster but burn more gas), you have a 200-mph (+/- a bit), long-range cross-country machine. Hope that helps... And if you want some suggestions on avionics, let me know...a good bit has changed since the original dash designs. | ||
| Michael Farley New member Username: Mikefarley Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2006 |
Hello Clive, There are plenty of people on this board who have a much more thorough knowledge of the Express history than myself, but to give you a quick lesson the Series 90 was basically a redesign of the original 'CT' tail Express where the horizontal stab was enlarged and placed in a lower, standard configuration location. This helped the flight characteristics of the CT Express when the plane was loaded in an aft - c.g. situation. (The elevator can get fairly sensitive). The Series 2000 was a slight redesign of the Series 90 that was geared more for ease of assembly rather than any performance change. Bigger engine options became available, and around that time the main landing gear was switched from steel to aluminum, which allowed a gross weight increase from 3200-3400 lbs. Having flown several different variations of Express, ranging from original CT’s to the Series 2000 (also being an ATP-CFII/MEI), I can tell you the Express is a wonderful cross country traveler and one of the most stable IFR platforms you’ll find- in my opinion, as good as or even better than a Cessna 210. Control forces tend to be fairly heavy, yet at the same time anyone with some Bonanza/Cessna 210 time shouldn’t have any big challenge transitioning to an Express. I’ve seen useful loads ranging from 1000-1500 lbs with generous c.g. envelopes, so they’re very useful family haulers as well. The only real quirk with flying an Express only relates to the original CT Express, and that is that the plane has poor cross-controlled stall characteristics. (i.e. don’t get to slow if the ball’s not centered) With regards to build times, there’s nothing unexpected with an Express as you’re building one, so it really all depends on you. The people who make trophy winning airplanes can spend thousands of hours filling and sanding before paint alone. I don’t see how it could be any harder than your Velocity. If you’re looking for a nice family hauler and/or a great long distance flier, the Express is a great choice. Feel free to email me at michaelfarley1@hotmail.com if I can answer any more questions. | ||
| Shawn kelley New member Username: Skelley Post Number: 24 Registered: 01-2004 |
Hello Clive. I have a S-90 and over 250hrs on her and I just finished pianting her . I have found about eight defferent Expresses from CT to S-2000. Micheal F is right on all accounts it is a great aircraft. I can fly hands off with fuel balance and elevator trim right with no autopilot for and long time Haven built two of them one CT and one S-90 and worked on two others I can say that perseverence is work get it done. I flew mine around in primer for along time and I still don,t have a interior in it just to fun to fly. Also I like the lager tail then the Ct If you are going to put a large engine in it. Any more help I can give you please email me at sechadog@epud.net | ||
| Barry Hecker New member Username: Golfirving Post Number: 5 Registered: 12-2004 |
I have been long considering the Express also. In looking at the NTSB reports it appears there is a rather high incidents of fatalities with the Express design. I find less in the Lancair ES and some other designs. Does anyone have an explanation of why this would be? Are there design issues or are these build problems due to lack of a company supporting for many different periods of time? | ||
| Jim Ward New member Username: Jehward Post Number: 61 Registered: 02-2000 |
Barry; I checked your statistics, and don't come up with the same conclusions that you do. It appears that since 1989 there have been 5 fatalities/10 accidents reported in Express aircraft(88 registered), and 4 fatalities/12 accidents reported in Lancair ES aircraft(69 registered). This doesn't support a "marked" difference between the two designs. The true way to look at this (which is near impossible to do) would be to look at number of hours flown per year and in total by each owner. The Express (both tail designs) are fine aircraft that must be flown with respect, like other high performance airplanes. You would probably do well with either choice. Get a ride in each, and decide from that. | ||
| Jerry Sjostrand New member Username: Jerry Post Number: 78 Registered: 08-1999 |
The most definitive testing of an Express was done on my CT version by the CAFE foundation. You can go to my website and read the complete article. It is a great airplane and, in my estimation, was the best configuration. However, all the Expresses are ok if built right. www.sierratel.com/jerico Jerry Sjostrand gsjostrand@sti.net | ||
| Terry Sack New member Username: Terrysack Post Number: 46 Registered: 11-2002 |
Susan Sack here, widow of Terry Sack (4-16-07 SNF). The Express CT is a beautiful plane, great for the long haul trip, and easy to fly during cruise. There was never a problem with our Express during cruise flight. But as Mike Farley has said, it takes experience to land the CT in a slow, low, tight landing. No sharp turns ever, please, at low speed! I miss flying in our plane and all the fun associated with it. My final recommendation is to 'go for it', build that Express and most of all, have fun! |