Express Aircraft of Olympia WA quits

"Dude" wrote:
I can see you point, but you are really stretching here IMO. First,
Mooney
now has a quality level similar to that of Beech.

Maybe so, but says who?


Me, I compared. Also a recent mag article agreed.

Well, *that* certainly settles it.

Second, there are
financially sound manufacturers who have left buyers in similar
situations
even without going TU.

Cite?


The only specific I can name by buyer is Art P who got a Cirrus lemon
beyond
compare. However, we have all heard stories about C, P, and B leaving a
customer in a lurch.

Once again, solid data!

Here's an idea, call Cessna and ask a question about
recommendations on how to fix your plane. See if you like their
"service".
I recently saw a new 182 with bad paint that the guy had to fight for 6
months to get fixed. Have you ever talked to people in the next hangar?

As a matter of fact, I know a flight school owner with 2 new Cessnas. He's
had no problems getting warranty service - not that any of this is to the
point.

So the plane needs a new spar, that does not make the plane worthless.

I didn't say it did. Airplanes get parked for a lot less than total
loss.
What do you reckon replacing the main spar would cost? Even if the
owner
bites the bullet and fixes the spar, he's still screwed for an awful lot
of
money. Plus, his airplane now has a major repair in the logs, which
will
affect its value.


There are lots of bad things that can screw you out of lots of money that
are more likely to happen. Sit and worry if you will. BTW, did any Mooney
owners ever get burned on their warranties? I remember they were worried,
but do not recall if the new company cleared it up each time.

I thought you knew all about this. As a matter of fact, new owners *were*
screwed; see Aaron Coolidge's post for an example.

I suppose you are of the everything but Beech and Cessna is a cr*p
sandwich
variety?

Why do you suppose that? You're setting some kind of record for putting
words in my mouth.


Note the question mark. I didn't put words in anyones mouth. I have had
it
up to hear with these attitudes, and they mostly end up being about the
same. Sorry if you don't quite fit the mold.

Put a cool cloth on your head and lie down a while, you'll feel better.

One day, barring a new design that is not forthcoming, those guys will
pull
out of piston planes for good.

Here, I agree with you.

If they don't manage to kill off our little
hobby (which they would do in a minute if they could sell more jets by
doing
it),

It's no secret that B and C are dubious about the pi


No, but you are worried about losing lots of money. Tried selling an
orphan
lately? Furthermore, I believe they will do whatever they think costs
least
in the long run. One day, some accountant in either company says they
should stop making parts, they will do it. CORRECT OR NOT!


what do you plan to do?

Are you willing to buy a Cirrus, Diamond, or Lancair?

I seriously doubt I'll *ever* buy a new airplane. If I were in the
market,
I would consider the above. Under no circumstances would I consider an
old
design from a company that had just emerged from bankruptcy.


Its nice to know there is hope for you. I can understand not buying new,
and I can understand being wary of a recent bankruptcy. What I don't
understand is your motivation to comment at all. Serious, if you are not
ever going to buy new, then where do you get off telling people that buy a
new Mooney they are stupid. What do you know about it all?

You have now officially broken the single-thread record for putting words in
my mouth. Congratulations, I guess.

People who keep up the
"nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude are just killing GA slowly. I see them
running all over the alphabet organizations, including AOPA. It's so
disappointing.

Uh, Cirrus is selling 40 piston planes a month; that's more than Cessna.
So
tell me again: how is the "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude killing GA?
--

40 is not enough to get the level of investment we need for real
innovation.
Please compare to the hundreds a month levels of production from the days
of
yore.

So you think those days would come back if Cessna folded its piston
business? What DO you think would bring those numbers back? What exactly
are you proposing?

New investors are looking at Cirrus, and have to be thinking that
they are nuts to risk so much money.

Seems to be turning out ok for them now.

Only aviation enthusiasts are going to
play, which may be a positive, but we really need to attract more pilots
and
more money. Companies like Cessna exist in many fields, and they keep
investment down due to their sheer market presence. The difference
between
Cessna and Microsoft is that MS has done something new in the last 10 or
20
years for its customers.

What about your beloved Mooney? When's the last time they had anything
really new? How are they different in this respect from C and B?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

The Express assets will be picked up by someone sooner or later. This
kit will never go away. It has always been popular and can be
successful if the group that takes it over sticks to the basics.
History shows the company comes apart when they try to compete with
Lancair or whoever. The Express is a solid design as is. Let's hope
it falls into the right hands.

The Express assets will be picked up by someone sooner or later. This
kit will never go away. It has always been popular and can be
successful if the group that takes it over sticks to the basics.
History shows the company comes apart when they try to compete with
Lancair or whoever. The Express is a solid design as is. Let's hope
it falls into the right hands.

The only reply your letter deserves is for me to note that I am no longer
interested in your opinion. Furthermore, I am sad for your mother, and the
rest of your family.


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
I can see you point, but you are really stretching here IMO. First,
Mooney
now has a quality level similar to that of Beech.

Maybe so, but says who?


Me, I compared. Also a recent mag article agreed.

Well, *that* certainly settles it.

Second, there are
financially sound manufacturers who have left buyers in similar
situations
even without going TU.

Cite?


The only specific I can name by buyer is Art P who got a Cirrus lemon
beyond
compare. However, we have all heard stories about C, P, and B leaving a
customer in a lurch.

Once again, solid data!

Here's an idea, call Cessna and ask a question about
recommendations on how to fix your plane. See if you like their
"service".
I recently saw a new 182 with bad paint that the guy had to fight for 6
months to get fixed. Have you ever talked to people in the next hangar?

As a matter of fact, I know a flight school owner with 2 new Cessnas.
He's
had no problems getting warranty service - not that any of this is to the
point.

So the plane needs a new spar, that does not make the plane
worthless.

I didn't say it did. Airplanes get parked for a lot less than total
loss.
What do you reckon replacing the main spar would cost? Even if the
owner
bites the bullet and fixes the spar, he's still screwed for an awful
lot
of
money. Plus, his airplane now has a major repair in the logs, which
will
affect its value.


There are lots of bad things that can screw you out of lots of money
that
are more likely to happen. Sit and worry if you will. BTW, did any
Mooney
owners ever get burned on their warranties? I remember they were
worried,
but do not recall if the new company cleared it up each time.

I thought you knew all about this. As a matter of fact, new owners *were*
screwed; see Aaron Coolidge's post for an example.

I suppose you are of the everything but Beech and Cessna is a cr*p
sandwich
variety?

Why do you suppose that? You're setting some kind of record for
putting
words in my mouth.


Note the question mark. I didn't put words in anyones mouth. I have
had
it
up to hear with these attitudes, and they mostly end up being about the
same. Sorry if you don't quite fit the mold.

Put a cool cloth on your head and lie down a while, you'll feel better.

One day, barring a new design that is not forthcoming, those guys
will
pull
out of piston planes for good.

Here, I agree with you.

If they don't manage to kill off our little
hobby (which they would do in a minute if they could sell more jets
by
doing
it),

It's no secret that B and C are dubious about the pi


No, but you are worried about losing lots of money. Tried selling an
orphan
lately? Furthermore, I believe they will do whatever they think costs
least
in the long run. One day, some accountant in either company says they
should stop making parts, they will do it. CORRECT OR NOT!


what do you plan to do?

Are you willing to buy a Cirrus, Diamond, or Lancair?

I seriously doubt I'll *ever* buy a new airplane. If I were in the
market,
I would consider the above. Under no circumstances would I consider
an
old
design from a company that had just emerged from bankruptcy.


Its nice to know there is hope for you. I can understand not buying
new,
and I can understand being wary of a recent bankruptcy. What I don't
understand is your motivation to comment at all. Serious, if you are
not
ever going to buy new, then where do you get off telling people that buy
a
new Mooney they are stupid. What do you know about it all?

You have now officially broken the single-thread record for putting words
in
my mouth. Congratulations, I guess.

People who keep up the
"nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude are just killing GA slowly. I see
them
running all over the alphabet organizations, including AOPA. It's so
disappointing.

Uh, Cirrus is selling 40 piston planes a month; that's more than
Cessna.
So
tell me again: how is the "nuth'n but a Cessna" attitude killing GA?
--

40 is not enough to get the level of investment we need for real
innovation.
Please compare to the hundreds a month levels of production from the
days
of
yore.

So you think those days would come back if Cessna folded its piston
business? What DO you think would bring those numbers back? What exactly
are you proposing?

New investors are looking at Cirrus, and have to be thinking that
they are nuts to risk so much money.

Seems to be turning out ok for them now.

Only aviation enthusiasts are going to
play, which may be a positive, but we really need to attract more pilots
and
more money. Companies like Cessna exist in many fields, and they keep
investment down due to their sheer market presence. The difference
between
Cessna and Microsoft is that MS has done something new in the last 10 or
20
years for its customers.

What about your beloved Mooney? When's the last time they had anything
really new? How are they different in this respect from C and B?

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Dude" wrote in message
...
The only reply your letter deserves is for me to note that I am no
longer
interested in your opinion. Furthermore, I am sad for your mother,
and the
rest of your family.

Haw-haw! Brilliant.

'Bye.
--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?" - Jiminy Glick

"Dave S" wrote in message nk.net...
I think he was referring to Boats in the sense of them being an alternative "Money Pit". The joke is down here in
Houston (with the largest recreational boat fleet in the US on Clear Lake) that you can save lots of time by just going
out to the peir and dumping your money in the water by the bucket.. instead of actually spending it on your boat....
Kinda like airplanes... now that your think of it.

Dave


More registered 'watercraft' in Michigan than any other state...

and yes, they are money pits too....

Express Builder wrote:
The Express assets will be picked up by someone sooner or later. This
kit will never go away. It has always been popular and can be
successful if the group that takes it over sticks to the basics.
History shows the company comes apart when they try to compete with
Lancair or whoever. The Express is a solid design as is. Let's hope
it falls into the right hands.

I wholeheartedly agree. One of the problems with the last incarnation of
this company was the different directions that were pursuing--inverted
V-8 version, retractable version, turbocharged version, T-tail, etc.
The new owners should stick to the basics and concentrate on customer
support rather than R&D.

I have flown these many times and they are a wonderful aircraft.

Antonio

"dancingstar" wrote in
message ...
Express Builder wrote:
The Express assets will be picked up by someone sooner or later. This
kit will never go away. It has always been popular and can be
successful if the group that takes it over sticks to the basics.
History shows the company comes apart when they try to compete with
Lancair or whoever. The Express is a solid design as is. Let's hope
it falls into the right hands.

I wholeheartedly agree. One of the problems with the last incarnation of
this company was the different directions that were pursuing--inverted V-8
version, retractable version, turbocharged version, T-tail, etc.
The new owners should stick to the basics and concentrate on customer
support rather than R&D.

I have flown these many times and they are a wonderful aircraft.

Antonio

The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to capture
the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better company
reputation. Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
when RV-10 was announced. I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling
the bite too.

KB

Kyle Boatright wrote:

The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to
capture
the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better
company
reputation.

Yes - that market, the RV-10 will own, for those folks that don't mind
burning 13 gal/hr. to get it.

......Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
when RV-10 was announced.

I'm not sure about that - the Express is a lot faster, IIRC - I'm not
sure they're the same market.

.....I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling the bite too.

I don't know about the Velocity, but COZY plans are still selling at the
same rate that they were prior to the RV-10's announcement. Those two
planes are really NOT the same market, due to speed, fuel consumption,
and load capacity. So far, the RV-10 and COZY are orthogonal, not
competing.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
Kyle Boatright wrote:


The Expres may be a wonderful aircraft, but Vans' RV-10 is going to

capture

the 4 seat/ 160-170 knot market due to lower pricing and a better

company

reputation.


Yes - that market, the RV-10 will own, for those folks that don't mind
burning 13 gal/hr. to get it.


......Whatever market there was for the Express shrunk considerably
when RV-10 was announced.


I'm not sure about that - the Express is a lot faster, IIRC - I'm not
sure they're the same market.


How do you figure it is a lot faster? I don't know anything about an Express
other than what their web site says and it says 175kts cruise. Vans says the
RV-10 cruises at 200-201 that seems to be about the same cruise speed.


Jerry


.....I'm sure the Velocity and Cozy guys are feeling the bite too.


I don't know about the Velocity, but COZY plans are still selling at the
same rate that they were prior to the RV-10's announcement. Those two
planes are really NOT the same market, due to speed, fuel consumption,
and load capacity. So far, the RV-10 and COZY are orthogonal, not
competing.