| Author | Message | ||
     rvz Unregistered guest |
Anyone else notice that all evidence of the retract version has been eradicated from the Express factory website? | ||
| Charles M. Robinson New member Username: F15epilot Post Number: 18 Registered: 02-2004 |
I believe Nancy or someone in management sent out something a while back that talked about the company focussing on the core product: the 2000FT. It's in the archives, I'm sure, and mentioned that the Turbine project was being shelved. Personally, as a high-performance retract pilot (F-15Es and other fighters) for over 22 years, my first thought when I went to buy my own plane was to look for a retract. I equated retract to speed. One of the best things that happened to me early in my pursuit was having the deal on a Beech A-24R fall through. I wound up with a Grumman Traveler that was only a small amount slower, but got there using less gas and cost half or less to insure. The Traveler was a good 'starter' plane and led me to the Express. The difference between a well-addressed (fairings) fixed gear and a retractable version of the same plane, to me, just doesn't justify the significant increase in expense for the latter. I'm not in the loop for their reasons at Express Inc., but for me, this seems to be a sound decision. I want them around for a loooonnnggg time--savy, focused business practices go a long way towards that end. My 2 cents. | ||
| michal Unregistered guest |
As a bystander I agree with this too. I think it will automatically serve them better in the marketplace when they concentrate on their core product. | ||
| Nancy Moon Unregistered guest |
That's pretty much it, Chuck. Roy, Allyn, and I are focusing exclusively on the 2000FT right now. From a business point, Express has a strong winner product in the 2000FT, and we are doing great with it. From a design point, RGs don’t justify the very small difference in performance because of the added weight to the airframe. On top of that, you have much larger pilot insurance increases and expensive maintenance. You’ll notice there hasn’t been any new certified four-place RG planes in years. The other newer, single-prop companies such as Cirrus, Lancair, and Diamond Star have turned away from retractable gear because of the very reasons I’ve just stated. Nancy | ||
| Douglas Hoff New member Username: Dhoff Post Number: 13 Registered: 05-2003 |
Diamond Star has a new four place RG, the DA 42. They have, I've been told, 400 orders in the US. It will come out in early 2005. Have you taken care of my insurance matter Allyn? Thanks if you have. | ||
| Nancy Moon Unregistered guest |
DA 42 is a twin trainer for commercial pilot training for businesses like Embry-Riddle http://www.erau.edu/omni/sp/dbcapt/equipment.htmland it's "expected" price is $360K. http://www.southern-aviator.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=8722&-t oken.src=column&-nothing There's no published specs, but with a 52 GAL tank, it certainly is not designed for long-distance cruising.http://www.diamond-air.at/en/products/DA42/specifications.htm | ||
| Matthew Byrne New member Username: Mbyrne Post Number: 12 Registered: 07-2003 |
the diamond star does pretty good on range, its 52gal goes a long way with those diesel engines matt | ||
| Nancy Moon Unregistered guest |
The published fuel burn for the DA-42 at cruise is 12,7 USgal/per hour. With a 52 GAL tank and with fuel for four hours total and subtracting IFR reserves, it's worse than a 172. http://www.diamond-air.at/en/products/DA42/facts.htm | ||
| Douglas Hoff New member Username: Dhoff Post Number: 14 Registered: 05-2003 |
Hey Nancy- I have some literature on the 42. It states a fuel consumption of 10.7 US gph at a cruise speed of 181K and 11.8 US gph at a cruise speed of 201 knots. It lists the range as 1079 nm with the standard tanks and 1535 nm with the optional (but now standard I was told) 73 gallon tanks. The literature I have was printed in March though. It also lists a fuel burn of 7.8 gph at 60%. I see that they use a MT prop. I have an MT on my Express and like it pretty well. | ||
| rvz Unregistered guest |
Or, to put it another way, and quoting from the DA website: "The no-reserve range with standard (52 US gal) and optional long range (74 US gal) fuel tanks @75% power and 10,000 ft is 880 nm and 1,700 nm respectively. The theoretical maximum endurance and range at minimum power settings approach 19 hrs and 2,200 nm with the long range tank." As for the 'expected price' being $360K, big deal. The Express with full factory finish comes in around $255K according to your calculator, and that means I still have to come to WA 3 times. Assuming I'm a high-paid, high-powered NYC executive worth $500 per hour (which I'm not in any way shape or form), $255K + my (fictional) time is close enough to $360K to make it a tough decision. Comparing a single to a twin based on price tag and performance is usually apples and oranges, but assuming this thing isn't vaporware it actually looks pretty good. If I were in the market for a $360K plane, which I'm not. None of which has anything to do with the Express retract disappearing. I just found it amusing, odd, and typical that they simply 'erased' the retract with no announcement or explanation. Yea I know, they don't 'owe' anyone an explanation, just as they didn't 'owe' anyone information on the turbine crash, or what the status was of EAC during the week that Allyn was fired, a board of directors announced, Allyn was rehired, board gone, and the 2 current players announce that they now own the company. It's just one more (minor?) data point for a great plane that has a tumultuous history, both distant and recent, and one that also has a history of devouring checkbooks and escrow accounts via it's various owners. Until I see a bit more stability and consistency both in their PR and in my personal dealings with the factory I'm hesitant to get too close to them financially. This is meant as constructive criticism btw. Others have expressed the same reservations to me in private regarding EAC and it's future, some of whom have taken rather serious baths with the former manufacturers of the plane. Like it or not, EAC has to, or at least should, acknowledge that it has inherited a checkered history, and should deal with it head on, instead of the past 'sweep it under the rug' policy. rvz |