For me, it would be if the one below could be flown both VFR and IFR all over Europe with no permissions required:
The regulars will also recognise the location of the first one
Do you really think you would save all that much compared to buying an older Jetprop?
(I know, this one looks and is more “sporty”…)
Not an aircraft owner any more, but with the kind of weather we have now, my choice of Non CofA aeroplane would be this one:
A two-seater would be better, but I don’t know if there are any “Air Bike” two seaters being made.
And for cold weather and after winning two or three lotteries, this one here:
Just to be precise: CofA aircraft = Spam can. I have never heard the term CofA aircraft before I stumbled upon this site. The term is not correct either. Experimental homebuilt also receives a Certificate of Airworthiness, a Special CofA, and I can fly it across the globe if I chose to.
Do you really think you would save all that much compared to buying an older Jetprop?
Probably not save money but that’s not the whole picture
I would also think the Evolution would outperform a Jetprop substantially, for the same fuel flow, despite the Jetprop already being pretty efficient (for a PT6 aircraft).
Just to be precise: CofA aircraft = Spam can.
That’s wrong, in the normal use of the term in English.
Experimental homebuilt also receives a Certificate of Airworthiness, a Special CofA, and I can fly it across the globe if I chose to
But presumably you’d need to request special permission from each country which you overfly?
CofA aircraft = Spam can
No: CofA aircraft = aircraft with a certificate of airworthiness issued.
Experimental homebuilt also receives a Certificate of Airworthiness, a Special CofA…
Not necessarily. Lots of them only get a permit to fly. Some will be denied even that.
Neither of the two aircraft in my post above will ever be able to get a CofA: The first one is some kind of homebuilt microlight and the second a vintage military jet built by a company that disappeared half a century ago and for which nobody will ever sign any kind of CofA.
Even a CofA is not a permanent thing. In my last job, we did aerial work with a modified Cessna 421. All we could get after the modification, going through considerable trouble and expenses, was a permit to fly with some very restricting operating conditions.
I would consider it seriously if the said non c of a plane could basically fly in private operation as it does in the US.
That is, IFR, no permits required within European airspace.
I saw several interesting non C of A airplanes in recent years which sparked my interest, amongst them the Lancair 4 P and the Express 2000 and the Velocity RG.
But in all likelyhood, in order to fly non C of A airplanes in this manner one needs to emigrate to the US. Which, from an aviation point of view, is anyway the best thing to do.
That’s wrong, in the normal use of the term in English.
You know what, I have only heard the word “spam can” been used to refer to CofA-aircraft by American experimental homebuilders, I have never heard it in any other context. I googled it now to find out what it actually mean, then I also found out what Spam actually is Anyway, a good (and funny) description for a CofA aircraft it is I thought it had something to do with spam as in spam mail, which it occurred to me I have never really understood either.
I would consider it seriously if the said non c of a plane could basically fly in private operation as it does in the US.
For most part it does. There are only requirements for equipment needed to operate in controlled air spaces. EASA has no intentions of touching local rules about experimental aircraft or rules about microlights. This is all up to the local member state. IFR in large part of Europe in an experimental classified homebuilt is no problem. If you are not allowed, why would you even fly in such an aircraft hostile country?
Which, from an aviation point of view, is anyway the best thing to do.
Yes it is. Retirement in a nice air park in some warm and sunny american state would be something.
‘Spam Can’ was a pejorative term invented long ago by traditionalists who preferred tube and rag tailwheel planes over the mass produced monocoque aluminum construction nose wheel aircraft introduced in the 50s. Those aircraft are hollow tin cans in the way they are constructed.
Having just (almost) completed US immigration proceedings for a family member, I’m positioned to say that relative freedom from aviation bureaucracy comes at the price of enduring the most byzantine Federal bureaucratic procedure ever invented. At least when it’s over you don’t have to do it again… (for yourself anyway)