How much is a broken attitude indicator in a Easa 172, how much in a N-reg 172 and how much in a ultralight/experimental?
It would depend on your “management” options.
For EASA-reg you need an EASA-1 form with an instrument repair. Maybe this depends on the instrument but normal Part M firms won’t touch it otherwise. This reduces the vendor options for instrument overhaul.
For N-reg you can use any overhauled part where the A&P can satisfy himself as to its airworthiness, though you will usually need an 8130-3 if a UK or European based company is to install it.
For a homebuilt you can probably use anything sourced on US Ebay 
But it does depend on the registry; for example I am fairly sure that isn’t true for the UK LAA regime which is quite tight in some respects. Also self installation is usually allowed which saves a lot of money and cuts out hanging around, but only if you have a hangar where you can perform work.
LeSving wrote:
UL (Ultralights, microlights) is an EASA-thing
As far as I understand an Ultralight with 600kg can be either EASA regulated, or if the national authority opts out, it can be nationally regulated.
LeSving wrote:
And which certified composite planes would that be?
I don’t know. I read that ultralights are not „baked“ using the same quality tools and have thinner main spars compared to certified planes such as diamonds etc…
Peter wrote:
It would depend on your “management” options.
A dynon autopilot control unit is 500 $, two servos are 1500 $ and a complete efis/ems pfd is between 3 and 5k…
A garmin G5 certified is 2+k $
For EASA LSA or UK LAA it’s a different story I guess.
Nreg might come close to experimental or „normal“ eu ultralights though… way cheaper than anything else. For the same product just without a piece of form 1 paper.
mh wrote:
Depends on what you want to do. Repairing an AI costs the same for all three.
Good point ;)
A bit pricey for a 20 year old pipe and fabric UL but it looks well built…
Any of you ever flown in one of these?
http://www.planecheck.com/?ent=da&id=42631 planecheck_PH_JHS_42631_pdf
That is Greg Swingle’s mount of Ohio Bush Planes’ fame.
RobertL18C wrote:
That is Greg Swingle’s mount of Ohio Bush Planes’ fame.
I googled Greg Swingle Rans. I don’t get it?
Greg is using the Rans in his show?
As MH says, repairing one costs the same, of course, but it is the rest of it where the differences come in.
For example some time ago I had a KI256 repaired. New bearings. The repair company was not EASA145 and they were borrowing another EASA145 company’s EASA1 form printing facility (the subject of much heated discussion here in the past, only to be followed by an email to me that the chief guy beating me up over it does the same ) but by the time they finished changing the bearings (which took about 6 months) they lost access to it, so I was presented with a fait accompli… If I was EASA-reg I would have a ~€10k instrument, rendered worthless.
Being able to use a G5 in place of these pricey gyros is a different scenario which will be good for those who can make use of it. There is a bunch of limitations but – apart from not being able to act as a pitch/roll reference for the King autopilots – I am not up to date on them.
Yes he uses a Rans S-7 I believe should be self evident from his Utube postings
Snoopy wrote:
As far as I understand an Ultralight with 600kg can be either EASA regulated, or if the national authority opts out, it can be nationally regulated.
No, very wrong Ultralight (or microlight, UL) is defined by EASA. The main definition is MTOW 450 kg and opt out for 600 kg, max stall speed, and max 2 person. There are no more details than that. They are all Annex I (former Annex II), and they are handled by each state individually, both regarding design/construction and operation/license. With opt out to 600 kg, there will be more standardization though. Germany has made a very good design specification (as always ) which they already have started using, and by the looks of it, it seems everybody else will use this specification “as is”. Kind of a “DIN” for light airplanes. From my understanding it’s a modification/extension of the existing German specification for UL (450 kg). But, this has nothing to do with EASA, it’s just other countries adopting an existing industry standard. It’s important to understand the difference between an industry standard and a standard by regulatory oversight (certification) in this respect.
But, EASA also has a 600 kg MTOW class called LSA (CS-LSA). This is an EASA standard, and aircraft will be certified after this. LSA requires LAPL/PPL.
Some of the planes (LSA, UL) can also be purchased as kits. Then they can be built as UL or as experimental homebuilt. If they become one or the other is a matter of how it is registered, under which regime.
This means, the same aircraft, a plane with 600 kg MTOW can be flown and operated as:
When thinking about it, the universal adoption (by the looks of it) of the German specs for 600 UL, could possibly be the most significant thing that has happened to light GA in Europe since – forever. It will not stop here IMO. MTOW will gradually be increased and more classes of aircraft will be included.
