| Author | Message | ||
     Jim Oyler New member Username: Midniteoyl Post Number: 2 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hey guys (and gals Got a question about the published specs: Is 1700+lbs really the useful load? Is 140 USGals the really the fuel capacity? I only ask becuase after reading what I could find about the Express's currently flying, it seems that the CT and S90's only had ~1000lbs useful load, and anywhere between 55-90 USGals tank capacity. I also have been reading about 'longer T/O rolls' than published on the site, along with lower climb rates. Has the new EAC improved the plane over the CT/S90 to a greater extend I thought was possible? And are these Standard figures or 'with all options'? (Still a great plane... would still have the same specs as my favorite Certified - the TB21 Turbo. Only more comfortable - and cheaper  ) Also, anybody know the G load limits (Operational and Ultimate), roll rate, and Max Landing Weight? Thanks again, Jim | ||
| Allyn Roe Unregistered guest |
Useful load is that high and we actually get 141 gal of fuel in the new wing. On the FT we suggest you install a tab at 90gal because of the 9 hour endurance. +6 -4 on the FT and +4 -2 on the RG with a safety factor of two. Max landing weight is gross weight and technically your take-off weight could be more. The engineer will be back next week and can expand on this. We have not calculated roll rate. The Series 2000 has been improved to ease the building process. There are too many to list but if you make it out to the factory I have old ones and new ones to compare. Another great website to see is our current builders Roy and Nancy at www.nancymoon.com Allyn Roe EAC | ||
| Jim Oyler New member Username: Midniteoyl Post Number: 8 Registered: 07-2003 |
Thanks for the reply Allen. If that engineer could post/send something, I would be grateful. So your saying that the FT has an Ultimate Load of +12/-8?!? Ya know, if the wing is really capable of so high of loads/stress, and with the fuel capacity, how come no ones making a 6 place plane? The specs of the Express seem to already be higher than most 6's out there as it is. Anyways, I had read/heard that the nose is a little on the heavy side when landing (as you stated), and have seen at least 2 accidents involving 'sudden drops' and a collapsed nose gear (Phil Hodge, and another who doesnt want to be named). The nose heavy condition has been through all the CT/Auriga/S90 planes - So was looking to see if any new EAC Express owners felt the same. I know Wayne says he has to place 140-150 lbs in the rear seat when solo. Not trying to knock the plane - every kit out there has problems of some sort. Shoot, most Certified craft are 'placarded' against a ton of flight regimes that most kitplanes can handle! I think the Express is a great plane. As for the moment, it get my vote. I but have a few concerns. Any current EAC Express owners willing to share? Believe me, the other 'contestants' are getting the same questions... Jim | ||
| Mark Rich New member Username: Mrich Post Number: 3 Registered: 01-2003 |
I have a CT tail and a IO540 k series so it's nose heavy. I used to fly with 140 lbs of sand in the back seats but recently put a 25 lb weight in the tail inspection area instead. Works fine with any number of PAX but I need a little nose down trim to cruise with 4 PAX + baggage. I've had 1200 lbs in the plane even at 7,000 ft density altitiude. At gross its kind of hard to get the weight far enough forward so 6 PAX would be a challenge. Four BIG PX is ok though. I don't have any problems with sudden drops and I routinely cut the power over the threshold (don't need to land with power on as others have reported). | ||
| Jim Oyler New member Username: Midniteoyl Post Number: 10 Registered: 07-2003 |
Thx Mark 25lbs in the tail huh? Good idea. Ya, realize that making it a 6 place would require a shift in CG - prolly move the wing back a bit. Prolly could be done however. Thx for the reply, Jim | ||
| wayne norris New member Username: Wayne_norris Post Number: 8 Registered: 02-2003 |
I can't speak for the CT tail group, but my plane lands great. With just me it is about 1" behind the fwd CG limit, with my wife and two teenagers in the rear, FF and 100# of bags we are at3000#s (mtgw is 3300) and in the middle. There is no sig. trim change either way, some times I throw a 25# sand bag in the bag area just to lighten the nose if I'm solo. It is nose heavy enough ,and the gear placement does tend to make the nose want to come down on landing so you need to keep back stick pressure on landing till you slow. BTW, the elevator is light enough and my plane is so pitch stable, I just flew the family to Halifax Nova Scotia and back, maybe blipped the trim swt twice and that was with 3 hrs of IMC and one ILS in 400/1.5. The plane is a great instrument platform. |