I think I may have been confused by your question @LeSving I thought you were asking about registering your Savannah on the French register.
All the other things you mention are roughly the same here except for the word experimental. An approved kit build would not have to go through the experimental stage F-W but could go directly to F-P.
The DGAC have a list of approved factory built ULMs. Basically it’s everything that fits the French ULM limits and that is basically everything that is sold as a ULM in France. (Not by individuals).
Supersonic wrote:
Is that a Norwegian thing?
Obviously yes (being national registered), but other countries have the same, Czech R for instance, probably many more. It’s not a normal thing to do for new aircraft, but an old Cub or similar falls in that category, usually (could also be experimental, but that’s only exceptionally).
The story behind it is that CAA Norway (LT) wanted to open the possibility of using MTOW 600 kg as trainers for Part FCL. A better alternative, and with lots more options than the existing overweight and underpowered VLA/CS-LSA in existence today, and/or as a replacement for old C-172s. Particularly for aeroclubs. As a national registered airplane, it can be used for all kinds of things, also VFR-N and IFR. Today anyone can register their UL as a national certified aircraft if the MTOW is more than 475 kg, but not more than 600 kg. This obviously also requires Part FCL to fly, and a stricter maintenance regime (much simpler than EASA though, because LT can decide on a personal basis who can do the maintenance).
But, what happened was that EASA, as Putin, said Njet. Part FCL has to be done with CS-XXX aircraft according to EASA. LT still went through with it though, because a national registered aircraft (that is not an UL) has certain legal upsides to it. An UL is legally equipment for airsport, and this has some disadvantages for passengers regarding insurance and other stuff like that. There’s also a financial benefits of having it on the normal national register. It’s an option for those who don’t want an UL (with all the legal “downsides”), but still want new tech at an affordable cost. As a rental plane in a club and/or as a trainer for UL, this definitely has it’s own advantages for instance. If anyone bothers to mess with it though? we just have to wait and see.
Another, more sinister way to look at it is of course that this is the first step of LT to take over the whole UL thing from NLF (the Norwegian air sport federation). At least for aircraft more than 475 kg. Something like the MOSAIC thing is bound to come in Europe as well, with much heavier aircraft at some point, and this is not likely to be done without both EASA and the CAAs.
@LeSving: thanks for the explanation! I never heard about such a concept before.
What I did not understand completely, is how the EASA looks at this. Can you fly within Europe, with that registration? Would you have the same freedom (NVFR, IFR) as in Norway?
LeSving wrote:
The story behind it is that CAA Norway (LT) wanted to open the possibility of using MTOW 600 kg as trainers for Part FCL. A better alternative, and with lots more options than the existing overweight and underpowered VLA/CS-LSA in existence today,
CS-LSA are EASA CofA normal category aircraft with MTOM 600 kg. CS-VLA aircraft even have a 750 kg MTOM. I don’t see why they should be more overweight or underpowered that the 600 kg aircraft that LT now proposes to give a national CofA. They can also be used for night VFR. (Technically, CS-LSA/VLA are day VFR only, but EASA has granted so many exceptions for night VFR that for practical purposes that isn’t a limitation anymore.) Sure, CS-LSA/VLA only allow two seats, but a 600 kg four-seater is impossible anyway.
So what’s the point of LT’s move, really? (Except for the IFR bit.)
Supersonic wrote:
Can you fly within Europe, with that registration? Would you have the same freedom (NVFR, IFR) as in Norway?
Who knows? Technically, as far as EASA regulations go, it’s still a 600 kg MTOW UL. EASA has no strings on how such an aircraft shall be registered or it’s operation. The only thing EASA say, it has to be on a national register, and with no reference to the EASA regs. I don’t see any problems there. But, some countries, Denmark for instance, requires that you have and can show an UL license in particular. That could be a problem. Sweden, Germany, no problems (I think, not 100% sure about Germany). France – big problem (or perhaps not). Rules aren’t typically made for easy flying into France anyway 
Airborne_Again wrote:
I don’t see why they should be more overweight or underpowered
No good reason I guess, but except for Pipistrel, which has a tiny cabin, they all are. The Club has a Tecnam P2008 for instance. It’s a VLA. Examiners refuse to use it, because there is no way it will fly with two grown up Norwegian guys and not be overweight or not have adequate fuel reserves. You cannot fly like that on a skill-test. The other thing is maintenance. To maintain an EASA aircraft is a PITA if you are not living in a densely populated part of Europe.
We can fly night VFR also with a normal UL now, on a UL license. The requirements is adequate training (as of today only Part-FCL night rating will do, but a separate UL training is already in place. It’s just too new, nobody has it yet). Adequate instruments is another requirement (G3X or similar will do just fine), and a rescue chute.
Airborne_Again wrote:
So what’s the point of LT’s move, really?
Exactly as I said. But the main purpose was shut down by EASA. Still, there are legal upsides to it, as well as financial (not particularly for private use, but club use). Or it can be a more sinister thing A CAA is a CAA after all
LeSving wrote:
No good reason I guess, but except for Pipistrel, which has a tiny cabin, they all are.
No, they’re not. E.g. our CS-LSA Evektor Sportstar RTC, powered by a Rotax 912S, climbs very well at MTOM. The POH says 870 fpm which IME is correct. With a 62 kt Vy, that corresponds to a 14% climb gradient. It can carry two 100 kg persons and still take fuel for 2 hr + reserves without being overweight.
Airborne_Again wrote:
CS-LSA Evektor Sportstar RTC
I have never flown an Evektor xxxStar. Looks like a nice plane (the UL-version, with an Edgeperformance 120-140 hp for short field/montain performance )
LeSving wrote:
I have never flown an Evektor xxxStar.
If you ever find yourself in Uppsala, give me a call.
Will do
