| Author | Message | ||
     M. Hunter Unregistered guest |
Gary & JD... you are both correct by my experiences too. According to the FSDO's & MIDO's I've talked to over the years, you would need to totally strip the airplane down into individual components (smaller than an assembled wing structure even), rebuilt, reinspected and recertified as Experimental - Amateur Built meeting the 51% requirement. I suppose it is doable as Andy pointed out, but BOY, what a super PITA! (again, to use Andy's phrase :-). Factory demo's are unique birds, and are built & licensed as such. For all the reconstructive effort necessary, I would think you would have to seriously devalue the aircraft at sale to the point of just above 'salvagable' condition. - Mike | ||
| Brian McKinney New member Username: Bmckinney Post Number: 61 Registered: 05-2000 |
I believe this is why N90ED was used for the retract conversion to 512EA instead of 511EA. N90ED was registered as experimental from EDI as an Ulrich Auriga Express FT or something like that. They were able to make the modifications to it and re-register it as N512EA without having to have it re-inspected. My guess is that it is tougher with the FAA to mess around with the exhibition one? Since 511EA was built by the factory and not an individual, they probably had no other choice but to go the exhibition route. N90ED was originally built by Mike Betts (Canada Auriga guy) and then sold to EDI(Ulrich) with the molds, then sold to EAC. I don't claim to be 100% correct with the above information, but I think it is close... | ||
| Chris M. Unregistered guest |
Brian, Mike, Gary and all... When we built & registered N511EA back in 1999, we had no option but to go the Experimental-Exhibition route with the FAA since it was a factory built airplane for R&D and demonstration purposes. Amateur Built classification was not an option with the FAA. 90ED was actually chosen to be the retract guinea pig because it was far inferior to 511EA, and we really didn't have any special use for it when 511 was completed. So instead of building a whole new RG airplane at great cost, the idea was to simply modify 90ED with the new RG wings to prove the airfoil and gear system sound. Changing registration to 512EA was actually to help distinquish it as a different airplane than 90ED, plus keep the factory airplanes with similar EA designations. Either way, the licensing catagory wouldn't have made a difference on approving this modification with the feds... it would have been just as easy for 511EA as it would be for 90ED. Mike, JD and Gary are correct in their comments regarding re-certifying 511 in the Amateur Built catagory. Unless the airplane is completely broken down, re-assembled (and documented) by an individual to meet the intent and 51% builder-built requirements of the Amateur Built catagory, it won't get re-certificated. Chris | ||
| Brian McKinney New member Username: Bmckinney Post Number: 63 Registered: 05-2000 |
... yeah, that's what I meant, just like Chris said... Thanks Chris for the detail. You gotta jump in faster before we make up our own stories!  Brian | ||
| Chris M. Unregistered guest |
You are most welcome Brian, and I'll try to chime in a bit faster next time (but sometimes your versions are more interesting that what reality is, so I didn't want to ruin the enjoyment) Chris | ||
| Matthew Byrne New member Username: Mbyrne Post Number: 16 Registered: 07-2003 |
I am wondering what patents exist for the Wheeler/Auriga/Express if any. Also I am trying to find the data on what the problem was with the CT tail (hard data, tests, and so on). Any and all insight is much appreciated. | ||
| Steve Furjesi Unregistered guest |
Experimental Aircraft Metal Fabrication has produced a web site with some information on metal parts. There is no pricing at this time , but shortly we will update it with parts/ pricing. The Web Address is WWW.eametalfab.com Steve Furjesi | ||
| M. Hunter Unregistered guest |
Been awful quiet here lately. Anyone know of any news on company happenings post-shutdown? Mike | ||
| Gary H. Wolfelt New member Username: Wolfelt Post Number: 8 Registered: 11-2003 |
Well Mike since you asked, I just returned from a fact finding mission to Olympia this last Monday evening. Please check: www.wolfelt.com/express/post3.htm for the whole story. I will be looking forward to hearing from all of you that care to respond. GHW | ||
| Tom R. Hutchison New member Username: Tomhutch Post Number: 163 Registered: 01-2003 |
Everyone! I am sorry but I am deleting the previous three posts re: the current and past situation of EAC. Unfortunately there are some very strong feelings re: EAC and the past owners and employees. I DO NOT feel airing of these greviances and personal judgements of others motivations are useful to any current and future Express builders. Suffice it to say, the situation at EAC is still in flux. There are parties interested in aquiring the assests of the company and continuing the production of the Express Aircraft. Any information pertaining to that outome is welcomed on this forum. Personal accusations and/allegations are not welcome. Tom Hutchison Express-Builder.com |