Presumably the avionics install (no autopilot) was carried out via an EASA single STC approval? Am guessing this would limit the market to Europe.
For a sale to a US buyer that depends on whether the buyer wants it in standard category. The one adjacent to me has a similar setup but is in experimental exhibition, like all the ex-military ones in the US. While this is actually better in many ways for a private owner, it might affect value given the perception that some future buyer, someday might want to use it for commercial flight training.
there’s a good chance that you will get a fairly nasty secondary stall
Yep, reminds me of the Falco with displays the same characteristics… of course, the wing being the same, albeit in natural composites and sans tip tanks.
Quoting from an online AOPA article so that hopefully I get it right: “With the B version, which entered production in 1970, the airplane got a forward spar reinforcement and a leading-edge cuff on the outer portion of the wing. The vertical stabilizer was also enlarged”. Then somewhere along the line they also added servo tabs to the ailerons to lighten them up, allowing shorter control sticks.
The earlier ones are faster but not forgiving when stalled.
The fuel system on the original design has four small tanks with no interconnections, meaning frequent tank changes to keep the plane in balance and the fuel flowing to the engine.
johnh wrote:
Stall recovery has to be done carefully.
Yes the stall characteristics are designed to mimic that for a swept wing jet style recovery, not the minimum height loss still required on the CPL. Hopefully the regulators will align the practical test standards to the Standard Stall Recovery convention, rather than eliminate negative transfer training through A-UPRT courses.
I am wondering if the OP planned a refurb to sale afterwards or if something happened unexpected 
I don’t recall any vices other than the relatively high wing loading given it pseudo jet like characteristics.
Stall recovery has to be done carefully. If you just put the stick forward, let it accelerate until it is flying again, then ease the stick back to stop the descent, there’s a good chance that you will get a fairly nasty secondary stall. It’s recoverable if you have altitude, but best avoided. You have to let it accelerate to about 10 knots above the stall speed before pulling back.
My former aerobatics instructor had one, which he loved, and showed me this. (He just sold it with much regret and bought an Extra 300, but that’s another story).
the less forgiving aerodynamics
I don’t recall any vices other than the relatively high wing loading given it pseudo jet like characteristics. You wouldn’t attempt to land it using a full stall technique, although don’t recall it being prone to a wing drop in a normal, 1-g clean, power off stall. Agree the fuel system is complicated with confusing ergonomics.
Presumably the avionics install (no autopilot) was carried out via an EASA single STC approval? Am guessing this would limit the market to Europe.
It’s a beautiful plane. I’d prefer a less trendy paint scheme myself but that could be changed for $20K or less. The only other downside to me is the less forgiving aerodynamics and labor intensive fuel management of the early version. Otherwise it’s wonderful and I hope the builder recoups his investment.
I wonder how the panel was approved in standard category.
If @Norflyer still is the current seller, then he could tell us. But judging by the effort and parts that went into it, yes, I would guess about 500k.
Looks stunning and immaculate? A ground up restoration I wonder what they are asking €500k?
