what do I need to know about buying a new experimental airplane?

[DaleB]

So let's recap.

With a gross weight over 1320#, OR a constant-speed prop, OR a cruise speed over 120 kt., it can't be S-LSA. Cross that off. You're not going to build a kit, so it can't be E-AB. Cross that off.

We have a delivered, assembled airplane, that can't be LSA, but doesn't have a type certificate and won't be amateur built. It's going to be something like Experimental Exhibition or some other restrictive category. Expect a good deal of extra paperwork to stay legal. I would advise doing a deep dive into the specifics of exactly how they plan to certificate that aircraft, and how YOU are going to keep it certificated and registered going forward. It would suck to end up with a $200K lawn ornament. And, if you have not already done so, you'll need to get that medical certificate renewed -- best to do that before making a large purchase.

It would also be interesting to explore the legality of flying an airplane with such a registration to other countries -- maybe not a problem. Plus there's a question of the availability of any sort of remotely suitable gasoline in the little island paradises at which you propose to land. Sure would suck to land and not be able to take off again; you could end up stranded for months on an island in the South Pacif..... oh... wait... holy crap, that's a stellar idea!!

Seriously, though, for long over-water legs in a light piston single, you'll also want to figure out how much of your available space and weight will be occupied by the life jacket, raft, water and provisions you'll need to carry. You really, really don't want to have to tread water for a few days until someone figures out where you might have drifted and picks you up.

 

[SkyDog58]

I intend to buy the airplane completely assembled and test flown by the manufacturer before shipping.

That does not mesh with your thread title:
“what do I need to know about buying a new experimental airplane?”

 

[max_reason]

The 4000 km range is not going to get you from California to Hawaii.

LA to Hawaii = 2479 miles

4000 km = 2485 miles

Even the slightest of headwinds (which you will have) will ensure you go for a swim.

As I said somewhere, owners of this airplane get about 50mpg at 75% throttle "cruise speed" and 60~70mpg at ~50% throttle "economy speed". So do the math:

300 liters == 79 gallons * 60mpg == 4740 miles == 7584 kilometers.

Any more questions?

I consider that plenty of safety margin against headwinds or whatever you worry about. But maybe you're in a hurry, so:

300 liters == 79 gallons * 50mpg == 3950 miles == 6320 kilometers.

Hmmm... still gets you there with 2320 kilometers to spare.

Satisfied? Oh, maybe your engine is inefficient and you only get 40mpg.

300 liters == 79 gallons * 40mpg == 3160 miles == 5056 kilometers.

Damn, still not a splash in the ocean. Lets get really negative now.

300 liters == 79 gallons * 30mpg == 2370 miles == 3839 kilometers.

Well, now we might get a spashdown a few miles off the coast. Fact is, my 4000km is a bit conservative because the real distance is more like 3800km. Which means, I'd be crazy to try to fly a 30mpg airplane that far with only 79 gallons of fuel. But I'm not. I got my pilot training and certificate in Monterey, California. I just started up google-earth and found that Monterey to Hilo on the Big Island of Hawaii is about 3740 kilometers. And so, I was being conservative at 4000km. Frankly, I think it is wise to be conservative in such situations. PS: No pilot of a tiny single-engine airplane would be stupid enough to fly from LAX to Honolulu. That's for commercial airlines... not people like me.

 

[texasclouds]

I think you should take some refresher lessons with a cfi and fly for 6 months in rental planes before buying anything. That will help you get a better idea on what options you want/need, and also confirm that you truly are going to stick with flying for a while. Go to some fly ins and talk with LSA owners and maybe score a few rides to see if that is truly what you want. Good luck.

 

[Stewartb]

The irony of the topic is that you all the questions and you have all the answers. You don’t need us.

 

[texasclouds]

Is this the plane?

 

[max_reason]

So let's recap.

With a gross weight over 1320#, OR a constant-speed prop, OR a cruise speed over 120 kt., it can't be S-LSA. Cross that off. You're not going to build a kit, so it can't be E-AB. Cross that off.

We have a delivered, assembled airplane, that can't be LSA, but doesn't have a type certificate and won't be amateur built. It's going to be something like Experimental Exhibition or some other restrictive category. Expect a good deal of extra paperwork to stay legal. I would advise doing a deep dive into the specifics of exactly how they plan to certificate that aircraft, and how YOU are going to keep it certificated and registered going forward. It would suck to end up with a $200K lawn ornament. And, if you have not already done so, you'll need to get that medical certificate renewed -- best to do that before making a large purchase.

It would also be interesting to explore the legality of flying an airplane with such a registration to other countries -- maybe not a problem. Plus there's a question of the availability of any sort of remotely suitable gasoline in the little island paradises at which you propose to land. Sure would suck to land and not be able to take off again; you could end up stranded for months on an island in the South Pacif..... oh... wait... holy crap, that's a stellar idea!!

Seriously, though, for long over-water legs in a light piston single, you'll also want to figure out how much of your available space and weight will be occupied by the life jacket, raft, water and provisions you'll need to carry. You really, really don't want to have to tread water for a few days until someone figures out where you might have drifted and picks you up.

Yes, the concerns you mention are why I am starting this journey of investigation into this issue. I just joined the AOPA and EAA... maybe they'll have someone who knows some of this stuff that I can speak with on the telephone. And hopefully I can learn something from people here and in other forums, including the pipistrel owners forum.

I agree with the logic of what you said. One thing that you said that surprises me is... that one would have to do ANYTHING to KEEP an airplane certificated and registered! Are you kidding? If you don't modify an airplane in any significant way, why would the owner need to do anything? I mean, obviously one needs to do 100 hour and 2000 TBO type work (or have it done), but otherwise... what do you mean?

Given your advice, which matches the general feeling I'm getting here and elsewhere, I will ask Michael Coates the pipistrel master distributor for the USA and Australia exactly what you ask.

As for fuel, I doubt that will be a problem. The Rotax 912iS engine prefers to run on premium automobile gasoline... with or without ethanol. It can also run on aviation 100LL, but then one must change oil and filters more often. So I intend to try to find automobile gasoline whenever I can... if not always. As long as there are cars on islands where I need to refuel, I should be fine. This is one area where having huge fuel tanks help. If 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 islands in a row don't have the right fuel, I can just keep flying until I find some.

Yes, even though I've had no significant health problems, I will get that medical before I get locked into the purchase.

From my research, I don't think I'll have a problem flying into other nations. But I intend to get at least a couple more confirmations on that before I pull the trigger.

One bad aspect of the airplane is cargo space. The cargo area behind the seats is not very big. OTOH, probably I won't have any passengers on those long 4000km hops, which opens up all the space on the passenger seat and where the passenger feet goes as cargo space. In that case, I will surely have plenty of space for rafts and everything else I need to take. And yes, I definitely prefer not to get stuck in the middle of the south pacific ocean for several days. OTOH, at least I won't freeze to death in those warm tropical conditions. I just need to remember not to leave the spotify in the airplane when I get into the raft!

 

[max_reason]

The irony of the topic is that you all the questions and you have all the answers. You don’t need us.

Oh really? Then you don't realize how many question I need to answer!

 

[DaleB]

I agree with the logic of what you said. One thing that you said that surprises me is... that one would have to do ANYTHING to KEEP an airplane certificated and registered! Are you kidding? If you don't modify an airplane in any significant way, why would the owner need to do anything? I mean, obviously one needs to do 100 hour and 2000 TBO type work (or have it done), but otherwise... what do you mean?

Read up on the annual paperwork requirements for Experimental-Exhibition. It can be done, but it MUST be done. These are not "fly whenever you want, wherever you want" certificates.

Given your advice, which matches the general feeling I'm getting here and elsewhere, I will ask Michael Coates the pipistrel master distributor for the USA and Australia exactly what you ask.

Good idea. Don't forget to read the applicable regs yourself to actually verify what the guy with a substantial financial stake in selling you an airplane says.

As for fuel, I doubt that will be a problem. The Rotax 912iS engine prefers to run on premium automobile gasoline... with or without ethanol. It can also run on aviation 100LL, but then one must change oil and filters more often. So I intend to try to find automobile gasoline whenever I can... if not always. As long as there are cars on islands where I need to refuel, I should be fine. This is one area where having huge fuel tanks help. If 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 islands in a row don't have the right fuel, I can just keep flying until I find some.

Uhh, sure. Unless they have no 90-plus octane gasoline, or all the cars and trucks on the island are diesel, or whatever. I'm not saying that's the case, I've never been to those places. Sucks to be me, right? But neither have you, I suspect, so call ahead. It's not the US, things can be different there. I'm very familiar with the Rotax 912 - though mine is a ULS - it's happy with premium MOGAS, but I don't think I'd want to feed it the low-octane crap you're likely to find in remote places. Pick islands with a fair number of BMWs or Ferraris, I guess, otherwise you're likely to find only stale 85 octane.

One bad aspect of the airplane is cargo space. The cargo area behind the seats is not very big. OTOH, probably I won't have any passengers on those long 4000km hops, which opens up all the space on the passenger seat and where the passenger feet goes as cargo space. In that case, I will surely have plenty of space for rafts and everything else I need to take. And yes, I definitely prefer not to get stuck in the middle of the south pacific ocean for several days. OTOH, at least I won't freeze to death in those warm tropical conditions. I just need to remember not to leave the spotify in the airplane when I get into the raft!

Good luck remembering, being able to access, and having the time to get everything you need if you end up ditching. The flights you propose are something I would not undertake; far too risky for me in a small piston single, and I'm a pretty adventurous guy. I have been told by the guys who have been there, though, that if you're not wearing it when the plane goes down you're probably not going to have it if you get out.

I read your post like I read the ones from guys who are starting to build an E-AB plane from plans, and figure they'll be done and flying in a year or so. It's an interesting mental exercise, and you can plan all you want... at some point some inconvenient reality will disrupt your plans, and you'll maybe end up needing to modify them. Until that point, soldier on and have fun.

 

[max_reason]

View attachment 69270 Is this the plane?

I think that's the pipistrel virus airplane. In other words, it is not the pipistrel virus sw airplane, where the SW stands for "short wing". Also, the one you show has the 912 UL or ULS engine, not the 912iS engine. However, the difference in engine doesn't change the outside dimensions of the airplane, just the paint job and labeling.

Let me see if I can post a photo of the airplane below:

You will find several photos of the airplane in this PDF file.

Let me see whether this image will display:

https://www.pipistrel.si/photo/7724 [/IMG]

 

[max_reason]

That does not mesh with your thread title:
“what do I need to know about buying a new experimental airplane?”

Why is that? Are you saying that no airplane built and assembled and test flown by the manufacturer can be in any of the "experimental" categories? What do you mean?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I think I can keep the weight down to 600kg... as long as I don't take any passengers on those long-range trips, which is most likely the case.

Actual weight is irrelevant. What matters is the weight that comes with the certificate.

Hopefully the MTV-33 constant speed propeller qualifies as "fixed pitch".

Nope.
FAR 1.1 Definitions for LSA
(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.
(8) A fixed or feathering propeller system if a powered glider.

Fixed means fixed. Not constant speed.

With that prop it is not going to be an S-LSA / E-LSA.

 

[max_reason]

I think you should take some refresher lessons with a cfi and fly for 6 months in rental planes before buying anything. That will help you get a better idea on what options you want/need, and also confirm that you truly are going to stick with flying for a while. Go to some fly ins and talk with LSA owners and maybe score a few rides to see if that is truly what you want. Good luck.

Well, once I order the airplane, I won't have it for 5 months. For sure, if I can find someone in the southwestern USA with one of these airplanes, I will attempt to get them to let me fly it around with him as much has he can tolerate. Hahaha. I'm already signed up to start a "rusty pilots" course. I'll also need to go practice tail-wheel. I'm supposed to get a list of owners of this airplane in a couple days. Probably few or none have extreme range tanks. Probably most have 912 ULS engines instead of 912iS engines, but that shouldn't matter much (the 912iS is simpler). I'm also looking for a place that teaches STOL. Though I was really great at that (more than anything else) back when I was flying, I wasn't flying tail-wheels then. So probably I should get my tail-wheel training and refresh my STOL skills all at the same time at one of these places.

I can't spend too much though, or I won't have enough remaining to buy the airplane!

Sadly, every good place I've found so far is in the northwest, not the southwest. Bummer.

Oh, one thing I didn't mention before. I can spend full time on my planned endeavors. While I won't have much savings left after buying the airplane, I won't need to worry about day to day living expenses. So I'll have a lot more time and flexibility than a typical working stiff.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

One thing that you said that surprises me is... that one would have to do ANYTHING to KEEP an airplane certificated and registered!

Standard airworthiness certificates don't expire. E-AB, S-LSA, E-LSA don't expire. Experimental air racing or exhibition are a whole nudder world.
Registrations do expire every few years, snow big deal.

 

[max_reason]

Actual weight is irrelevant. What matters is the weight that comes with the certificate.

Nope.
FAR 1.1 Definitions for LSA
(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.
(8) A fixed or feathering propeller system if a powered glider.

Fixed means fixed. Not constant speed.

With that prop it is not going to be an S-LSA / E-LSA.

Well, the consensus of pretty much everyone here (as well as the pipistrel dealer) agrees... not gonna be any variant of LSA. The question remains... what will it be?

 

[wanttaja]

That does not mesh with your thread title:
“what do I need to know about buying a new experimental airplane?”

Well, he admits he doesn't know much about certification; just a mistake, I think.

Max, there are two major certification categories: Standard and Special. Standard are traditional aircraft, produced in the traditional fashion, whose airworthiness and quality are verified in the traditional ways. A plane with Standard airworthiness can be used for any (legal) purpose, as long as the pilot qualification and maintenance requirements of the FARs are followed.

Special airworthiness is for planes for which these traditional processes interfere with specific goals. The traditional requirements are relaxed to a certain extent, and other, broader, requirements are put in place to maintain some protection.

One example is former military aircraft. Many non-cargo, non-trainer planes did not undergo the Standard airworthiness process, yet, obviously, they still are adequate aircraft with some niche uses. So the FAA may allow them to be certified in the Special/Limited or Special/Restricted categories. Areas such as required pilot qualification and maintenance are then defined in specific Operations Limitation documents rather than requiring compliance with Part 43/63 like a Standard airplane. These limitations may include a prohibition on carrying passengers.

As the diagram shows, the Special/Experimental category includes a number of sub-categories. All come with limitations. The Experimental/Amateur-Built category was added in the early '50s. Experience over nearly 70 years as led to the FAA relaxing some of the restrictions, here...no longer does the FAA have to re-license the plane every year, no longer is the FAA required to inspect the structure of a plane before covering, etc. The Experimental Amateur-Built (EAB) category is probably the most "relaxed" of all the Experimental sub-categories.

In exchange, though, EAB aircraft CANNOT be sold as ready-to-fly. The majority of each aircraft has to be constructed for "education or recreation." The Special Light Sport Airplane (SLSA) category was essentially created to permit ready-to-fly light aircraft, using a less complex criteria for production approval. It also allows simplified pilot licensing and medical verification. SLSAs can also, if the owner wished, be licensed as Experimental Light Sport, but all of the SLSA limitations will still apply.

The "Super Virus" you've been describing would not qualify as SLSA, as most of the changes you mention clearly take the plane past the limitations. It would also not qualify as Experimental Amateur-Built, as it's being sold to you ready to fly. Any other certification category is basically at the FAA's whim, and such whims aren't permanent (like SLSA or EAB certification are).

It's possible that someone at Pipistrel will wave their hands and claim you can get it licensed as Experimental Exhibition, like a dozen or more Viruses are already licensed. Be advised that, to achieve this, you will have to explain to the FAA's satisfaction what kind of "exhibition" the plane will undergo. You may even have to list, in advance, everywhere you're planning to take the airplane in the next year.

Or...you may not. Some folks have reported relaxed attitude by their local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), that they accepted a brief explanation and some broad geographic areas.

Good news? Well, that year, at least. You'll need to apply for renewal every year, and the previous year's restrictions will be up for review. If you get a different FSDO employee, he or she may impose more strict limitations.

So... be real cautious about this.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[RyanShort1]

Well, the consensus of pretty much everyone here (as well as the pipistrel dealer) agrees... not gonna be any variant of LSA. The question remains... what will it be?

I really want to know, because folks I know are flying them in Europe as aerial photography platforms and if I could figure out how to legally do it, I'd love to have one for aerial photography.
I've flown the Virus with these guys http://www.salsaaviation.com/index.html and it's a fun airplane in the motorglider category.

 

[James331]

A maule can fly 4000km non-stop? Interesting. Can you provide a link? I've heard Maule as a great airplane for STOL/bush/backcountry, but never heard it was long range... and cheap.

BTW, I can't spend more than $200K, and this pipistrel virus sw with Rotax 912iS and 300 liter extreme range tanks and MTV-33 constant speed propeller and all those avionics comes in under that $200K price limit. So, does the maule qualify?

Real talk, you’re not flying 4000km non stop.
For one that far and not being able to pull IFR = noooope
For two not even a multi million dollar turboprop PC-12 is going to go that far non stop.

If you want a nice little cruiser and has a decent cruise speed for under your budget and can land in the backcountry a maule is probably the best bet.

If I judge I'm not up to those missions, then I won't do them. But your words and opinions aren't going to stop me.

I have done a great many things in my life that most people told me was impossible. So I have quite a bit of experience ignoring people... and making judgements for myself.

Well..... send it

 

[Bill Watson]

Standard airworthiness certificates don't expire. E-AB, S-LSA, E-LSA don't expire. Experimental air racing or exhibition are a whole nudder world.
Registrations do expire every few years, snow big deal.

Your certification issue seems to be the major issue in terms of being legal.

Experimental racing and exhibition certificates are manageable, particularly if the proper case is made in the initial application. My experience with Exp Racing certificates suggests that maintaining them over time may or may not be a major obstacle. The reported fact that a good number of Pipis are certificated under one of these categories should confirm the problem you face, and give you access to some real world experience with getting and maintaining them.

Not just to be a wise guy, but my original post suggesting that you need to build it still may be a good option if not your best. You can get an Experimental Certificate which would permit 100% of your desired configuration to properly certified, maintained and flown without limit or exception. There are many paths to “building it” relative to the quality of the kit, builder assistance, etc.

It would seem that while you are very confident about aspects of your desired mission, missions that most people here would blanch at, you are dismissive of the build option, which some here would be quite confident in pursuing. Your missions are a long stretch, getting the Pipi of your dreams built and properly certificated is not such a stretch taking the pure experimental route.

PS: No matter what non-standard certificate you have, flying internationally will present issues. In the parts of the world where you intend to operate I wouldn’t worry so much about those issues. IMHO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[max_reason]

Well, he admits he doesn't know much about certification; just a mistake, I think.

Max, there are two major certification categories: Standard and Special. Standard are traditional aircraft, produced in the traditional fashion, whose airworthiness and quality are verified in the traditional ways. A plane with Standard airworthiness can be used for any (legal) purpose, as long as the pilot qualification and maintenance requirements of the FARs are followed.

Special airworthiness is for planes for which these traditional processes interfere with specific goals. The traditional requirements are relaxed to a certain extent, and other, broader, requirements are put in place to maintain some protection.

One example is former military aircraft. Many non-cargo, non-trainer planes did not undergo the Standard airworthiness process, yet, obviously, they still are adequate aircraft with some niche uses. So the FAA may allow them to be certified in the Special/Limited or Special/Restricted categories. Areas such as required pilot qualification and maintenance are then defined in specific Operations Limitation documents rather than requiring compliance with Part 43/63 like a Standard airplane. These limitations may include a prohibition on carrying passengers.

As the diagram shows, the Special/Experimental category includes a number of sub-categories. All come with limitations. The Experimental/Amateur-Built category was added in the early '50s. Experience over nearly 70 years as led to the FAA relaxing some of the restrictions, here...no longer does the FAA have to re-license the plane every year, no longer is the FAA required to inspect the structure of a plane before covering, etc. The Experimental Amateur-Built (EAB) category is probably the most "relaxed" of all the Experimental sub-categories.

In exchange, though, EAB aircraft CANNOT be sold as ready-to-fly. The majority of each aircraft has to be constructed for "education or recreation." The Special Light Sport Airplane (SLSA) category was essentially created to permit ready-to-fly light aircraft, using a less complex criteria for production approval. It also allows simplified pilot licensing and medical verification. SLSAs can also, if the owner wished, be licensed as Experimental Light Sport, but all of the SLSA limitations will still apply.

The "Super Virus" you've been describing would not qualify as SLSA, as most of the changes you mention clearly take the plane past the limitations. It would also not qualify as Experimental Amateur-Built, as it's being sold to you ready to fly. Any other certification category is basically at the FAA's whim, and such whims aren't permanent (like SLSA or EAB certification are).

It's possible that someone at Pipistrel will wave their hands and claim you can get it licensed as Experimental Exhibition, like a dozen or more Viruses are already licensed. Be advised that, to achieve this, you will have to explain to the FAA's satisfaction what kind of "exhibition" the plane will undergo. You may even have to list, in advance, everywhere you're planning to take the airplane in the next year.

Or...you may not. Some folks have reported relaxed attitude by their local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), that they accepted a brief explanation and some broad geographic areas.

Good news? Well, that year, at least. You'll need to apply for renewal every year, and the previous year's restrictions will be up for review. If you get a different FSDO employee, he or she may impose more strict limitations.

So... be real cautious about this.

Ron Wanttaja

This is probably the most useful message yet. I'm sure I'm still being naive, but I see various categories that nobody has discussed. For example, I see boxes containing the following: "limited", "primary", "restricted", "experimental R&D". I don't know whether any of those will help me, but that's the next question, perhaps. Obviously I want a category that does not prohibit me from flying to international locations, because that's one of my major goals. The first three boxes I mentioned, "limited", "primary", "restricted" are so vague that I can't guess anything. The "experimental R&D" sounds a bit more interesting. Perhaps testing out "extreme range flying" with a tiny, single-engine airplane could be considered "R&D"? Obviously I don't know, but at least it makes some sense in general terms.

Also, at one time (when I still lived in Maui), I was in discussions with pipistrel to become their dealer for Hawaii and every island in the pacific ocean (and maybe Alaska). Apparently the still don't have a dealer for Hawaii, Alaska or any of the thousands of small islands in the pacific ocean, so I suppose another weird idea would be to tap into the "experimental market survey" and fly all around the south pacific to talk to people about buying pipistrel airplanes (the only tiny single-engine airplanes capable of letting them fly across the pacific ocean and on to anywhere in the world). Seem like a stretch? Maybe so, maybe no. Obviously I have no freaking idea... yet.

I hate to mention it out loud, but I could buy an SLSA version with the 300 liter extreme range tanks and 912iS engine. They have such an airplane, but they have some kind of restraint on the throttle somewhere that prevents it from producing more than 80HP (or whatever gets it to fly over 120 knots). Obviously holding it down to 80HP does the trick, because the 80HP version of the 912 engine is what they put in the SLSA version of the airplane. This would leave me with two problems. One would be finding and removing the restraint, which would not be kosher, technically speaking. The other would be replacing the propeller with a constant speed propeller, which also would not be kosher, technically. Or perhaps as an alternative, perhaps a ground adjustable propeller is considered "fixed pitch" as far as the rules are concerned, because during flight it is in fact "fixed pitch". Sorry if someone wants to label me a troll again for saying that!

##########

I suppose, if all else fails, I could build the damn airplane myself. But I'm not sure I'm willing to do that. In fact, probably not unless someone who has already built a kit airplane is willing to help me, and I mean like 40~60 hours a week until it is completed. I know one guy in Alberta Canada who built his in 3 months (in 40 hour weeks), while others took up to 3 years working on weekends or "when able". But I guess this gets around most of the problems, right?

So... who wants to help me build this airplane? Anyone?

 

[max_reason]

Real talk, you’re not flying 4000km non stop.
For one that far and not being able to pull IFR = noooope
For two not even a multi million dollar turboprop PC-12 is going to go that far non stop.

If you want a nice little cruiser and has a decent cruise speed for under your budget and can land in the backcountry a maule is probably the best bet.

Well..... send it

For one, there is no place to land between California and Hawaii.
For two, there is no place to land between Easter Island and <forget the name of the island>.
So there are no alternatives to flying 3800~3900km non-stop if you intend to fly those routes, which I do.

I'll check out the maule, which I've heard great things about for bush and backcountry flying. But most likely if all I do is STOL, I'd still buy this same airplane. But I'll check. Good to hear the maule is within my budget. I also liked what I saw in the STOL version of the CarbonCub, though that might be a bit above my maximum price... not sure.

Somehow, I have to guess you're a huge fan of Maule, and a bit biased! Come on, admit it!

 

[max_reason]

I really want to know, because folks I know are flying them in Europe as aerial photography platforms and if I could figure out how to legally do it, I'd love to have one for aerial photography.

I've flown the Virus with these guys http://www.salsaaviation.com/index.html and it's a fun airplane in the motorglider category.

I've talked with the following guy on the phone a couple times, and have exchanged about 30 emails back and forth. He has exactly the same airplane I plan to buy, except he doesn't have the 180 liter or 300 liter extreme range tank option (which he regrets). He earns money with his airplane exactly as you say... doing arial photography/mapping. But he is in Alberta, Canada so the rules aren't the same as here. He had pipistrel make several modifications so he could mount a big honking camera in the bottom.

Nonetheless, you should enjoy this video and his youtube channel:

.

 

[James331]

For one, there is no place to land between California and Hawaii.
For two, there is no place to land between Easter Island and <forget the name of the island>.
So there are no alternatives to flying 3800~3900km non-stop if you intend to fly those routes, which I do.

I'll check out the maule, which I've heard great things about for bush and backcountry flying. But most likely if all I do is STOL, I'd still buy this same airplane. But I'll check. Good to hear the maule is within my budget. I also liked what I saw in the STOL version of the CarbonCub, though that might be a bit above my maximum price... not sure.

Somehow, I have to guess you're a huge fan of Maule! Come on, admit it!

They are great planes and I have toured the factory, however I’m more of a skywagon guy.

Aside from the backcountry aspect it’s a standard airworthy plane, waaaay easier for international stuff, and for 200k or less you can find one with enough payload to add additional tanks, you’d have to look into this, but that’s what I’d do and that’s what others do.

Still there is the aspect of YOU, this is still a mute point if you’re not IFR able and get a ton more experience.

 

[wanttaja]

This is probably the most useful message yet. I'm sure I'm still being naive, but I see various categories that nobody has discussed. For example, I see boxes containing the following: "limited", "primary", "restricted", "experimental R&D". I don't know whether any of those will help me, but that's the next question, perhaps. Obviously I want a category that does not prohibit me from flying to international locations, because that's one of my major goals. The first three boxes I mentioned, "limited", "primary", "restricted" are so vague that I can't guess anything. The "experimental R&D" sounds a bit more interesting. Perhaps testing out "extreme range flying" with a tiny, single-engine airplane could be considered "R&D"? Obviously I don't know, but at least it makes some sense in general terms.

The thing to understand is that most of the categories under Special airworthiness were created with a specific application in mind. Limited, for instance, came about due to the desire to operate the large number of WWII aircraft that came available. Restricted deals with aircraft built for or modified to support specific types of operation, such as crop spraying or cloud seeding. It's easy enough to find this information...just google "FAA limited category" or "FAA restricted category."

The point is you could *apply* for licensing in one of those categories, but an FAA person will decide if your claimed use falls within what's allowable for that category. And you may have to provide additional backup information. If you try for Experimental Research and Development, for example, the FAA will at a minimum want to know what the final product of that research is intended to be and the test process that'll get you there. And, yearly, you'll have to summarize your testing so far and how it's leading you to eventual completion of the testing (at which time the airworthiness will be revoked completely...no more R&D to be done).

Sure, you can dance around and try to word things in a way to make things *appear* to be compliant. But I'm trying to encourage you to NOT count on this. You might talk to one FAA guy who agrees what you're doing qualifies as Research and Development. But that doesn't mean that the man's supervisors will accept it, or that the FSDO rep the next year agrees. You might well end up with an airplane that you can't legally fly.

There are always some people in a bureaucracy that utterly hate people trying "loophole" their way around what they consider are reasonable restrictions. You have no guarantee of NOT encountering someone like this, in your period of ownership, and the results may mean you could never license the aircraft again.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Ravioli]

Well, the consensus of pretty much everyone here (as well as the pipistrel dealer) agrees... not gonna be any variant of LSA. The question remains... what will it be?

It should end up being a curiosity that you considered and never spent a penny on.

But with all you know... it may be something very different.

 

[max_reason]

Your certification issue seems to be the major issue in terms of being legal.

Experimental racing and exhibition certificates are manageable, particularly if the proper case is made in the initial application. My experience with Exp Racing certificates suggests that maintaining them over time may or may not be a major obstacle. The reported fact that a good number of Pipis are certificated under one of these categories should confirm the problem you face, and give you access to some real world experience with getting and maintaining them.

Not just to be a wise guy, but my original post suggesting that you need to build it still may be a good option if not your best. You can get an Experimental Certificate which would permit 100% of your desired configuration to properly certified, maintained and flown without limit or exception. There are many paths to “building it” relative to the quality of the kit, builder assistance, etc.

It would seem that while you are very confident about aspects of your desired mission, missions that most people here would blanch at, you are dismissive of the build option, which some here would be quite confident in pursuing. Your missions are a long stretch, getting the Pipi of your dreams built and properly certificated is not such a stretch taking the pure experimental route.

PS: No matter what non-standard certificate you have, flying internationally will present issues. In the parts of the world where you intend to operate I wouldn’t worry so much about those issues. IMHO

Without a doubt, it does seem like building the airplane from their kit does solve a lot of other problems. But it creates a huge new problem, namely "building the airplane from a kit". The guy I mentioned in Alberta, Canada built his in 3 months of full time work. Other folks have taken 2, 3, 4 years (probably not full time).

I wonder what the "exhibition" in "experimental exhibition" means... in practice. I mean, obviously I can show/exhibit the airplane to people wherever I go, but obviously not in a formal setting in most cases. I mean... seriously! Who is going to hold an airplane event on an island in the middle of the south pacific ocean? That's right... nobody!

I find it strange that anyone would register a pipistrel under "experimental racing". What do they intend to race? I know nothing about airplane racing, but what? Do they have racing in many separate categories or something, like "racing for under 300kg airplanes" or "racing for airplanes <= 100HP" or what? Seems strange to me.

Clearly I need to have a long, serious conversation with Michael Coates, the master distributor of pipistrel for USA and Australia about this certification issue. Whatever he says I'll run past you guys here again to see if it sounds plausible to this crowd. Like someone said, I don't want a $200K lawn ornament.

The guy in Alberta, Canada who built one of these said he believes it is one of the easiest kit airplanes to build. I have no idea if that's true. But the fact that virtually every part of the body is a pre-fabricated carbon fiber piece certainly does make it seem simpler than cutting pieces of aluminum and riveting them together like some kit airplanes seem to be.

So my question is... what paths to building this airplane exist? I mean, obviously the kit airplane is cheaper, so if someone is willing to help me build the kit for a price that makes the end result less or equal to the finished airplane... I'd at least consider it (especially if no other option appears workable).

I know my missions seem extreme. Oh well, I'm weird. Always have been. And getting older hasn't made me less weird like most people. So be it. Once I drove coast to coast without stopping. Once I drove a motorcycle 80% of the way across without stopping. Both of those took 3 or 4 times longer than a 4000km trip in the airplane would take. The difference, I suppose, is that any failure results in crashing into the ocean. The fact is, if I found the airplane and engine not solid and reliable during the 6 months before a planned flight... then I would just chuck my plan in the toilet. Though I'd still fly down to Chile and have a great time in the Atacama Andes (a place I love like crazy, and might decide to stay indefinitely). That would not require flights across thousands of miles of ocean. So, if that turns out to be the case, I'd still be okay. STOL and south america... good enough.

The problem isn't that I'm not mechanically oriented. I used to have an optics shop, a precision machine shop, and designed and fabricated many products with mechanical, electronic and optical components. However, while I'm great with glass, metal and electronics, I'm a total klutz with wood and materials like fiberglass. And I just totally hate activities like sanding fiberglass pieces and such. Oh gag, I hate that so much. Just one of my quirks. I love carbon fiber as a material for airplanes... I just don't want to mess with those kinds of materials myself, at least not sanding and such. To bolt carbon fiber pieces together is no problem though.

BTW, just think about how stupid this is. Apparently it is too dangerous or otherwise unacceptable to fly an airplane that was built by the airplane designers who build and test fly dozens or hundreds of the airplane every year... but not too dangerous and acceptable to fly an airplane that was built by a skill-free doofus who has never done anything like that before. Wow... that makes lots of sense, huh? !!!!! NOT !!!!!

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

So my question is... what paths to building this airplane exist? I mean, obviously the kit airplane is cheaper, so if someone is willing to help me build the kit for a price that makes the end result less or equal to the finished airplane... I'd at least consider it (especially if no other option appears workable).

First of all - there is the question of E-AB vs. E-LSA. The Pipstral Virus appears to be approved as a 51% E-AB kit - https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av...uilt/kits/media/amateur_built_kit_listing.pdf That means that you are not limited by LSA limits. But here is the issue - too much professional assistance or too many add-on pre-built parts and any particular DAR may decline to issue your airworthiness certificate. How much is too much? There is a check list that you can fill out to show a score of 51 or higher - that's where the quick build assist programs get creative...

 

[Ravioli]

First of all - there is the question of E-AB vs. E-LSA.

OP said assembled and flight tested. Not a lot of room there to squeeze into E-AB.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Max, I have read through this thread and I have to tell you a lot of things don’t add up. It sounds like your mind is made up and no advice, or real world experience, or what-have-you is going to change your mind. That is a hazardous attitude. A lot of good people are giving advise that you don’t seem to want to listen to.

The issues as I see it:

1). Range. You talk in miles per gallon. Or kilometers per gallon if you will. I don’t think in metric so I will stick to mpg. You really need to be thinking in gallons per hour because an airplane doesn’t care about distance, only time.

It’s 2500 miles from Los Angeles to Honolulu. At 175 miles per hour, that is approximately 14 hours in the air. At 5 gallons per hour that comes out to 70 gallons even. With 70 gallons of fuel capacity, you have ZERO reserve. I am not sure how much you can reduce power to extend the range but but I don’t think it would be enough to give you a comfortable reserve margin. Yeah, you may be able to lean it out and reduce power enough to get the fuel flow down to 2.5 GPH, but you won’t be doing 175 mph anymore.

So range, whether you like it or not, is an issue.

2). Aircraft. I am sure Pipistrel will sell you an aircraft built to your exact specifications. But the problem is getting it certified in the U. S. With a usable airworthiness certificate. Since a standard airworthiness certificate is not an option, you have to go down the expermental route. Unless Pipistrel can sell you one with a standard airworthiness certificate. Research research.

There is only one experimental airworthiness certificate that will allow you to do what you want to do. It is the one that allows you to go wherever and whenever you want. Some of the ones you have mentioned have restrictions that won’t allow you to do what you want.

2a). Aircraft part 2. You could probably do the flight with a VHF radio but you would be relying on other aircraft to relay position reports to San Francisco radio for you. An HF radio would be a must have for me.

3). Pilot. You are a single engine, VFR Pilot, correct? I am not 100 percent sure, but I don’t think you can do ocean crossings VFR. I think you need to be instrument rated. I could be wrong. More research.

4). Budget. For $200,000 you could get an off the shelf production aircraft that is much more capable and do the trip more comfortably. Yeah, it would mean dealing with a ferry tank, but I would think it would be more comfortable in the long run.

Also, those long distance flights to far flung places are expensive. You say the $200,000 budget is about the max you can afford. Does that include the trip itself, or just the airplane?

Max, what you want to do is a massive undertaking. From what you have presented here, it is pretty clear that you have a lot more research to do. Please don’t discount the advice being offered here. We just want you to be sure you know what you are getting yourself into.

 

[max_reason]

First of all - there is the question of E-AB vs. E-LSA. The Pipstral Virus appears to be approved as a 51% E-AB kit - https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av...uilt/kits/media/amateur_built_kit_listing.pdf That means that you are not limited by LSA limits. But here is the issue - too much professional assistance or too many add-on pre-built parts and any particular DAR may decline to issue your airworthiness certificate. How much is too much? There is a check list that you can fill out to show a score of 51 or higher - that's where the quick build assist programs get creative...

So if you have 3 friends helping you... the airplane doesn't qualify? Or it does qualify... because your friends are not "professional airplane mechanics/builders"?

Would adding a lot of avionics throw you over the 51% limit (because they are pre-built parts)? If so, it seems you could install a minimal subset of the avionics, then once approved, you could add the rest. This kind of situation just seems insane (but maybe not surprising when it comes to "government").

What is a DAR ???

I assume pipistrel has figured out how much they can do and stay just barely below that 51% level.

 

[kyleb]

What you need to do is call the local Pipstrel rep and have him put in writing what it would take for you to have an aircraft like you describe registered in anything other than an Amature Exhibition category in the US and point you to an aircraft registered that way.

Until he can show you that path forward, you're dead in the water.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

OP said assembled and flight tested. Not a lot of room there to squeeze into E-AB.

He also asked about building it himself at one point.

Or it does qualify... because your friends are not "professional airplane mechanics/builders"?

That - assuming you aren't paying them to build it for you.

Would adding a lot of avionics throw you over the 51% limit (because they are pre-built parts)?

No. You have to look at the list. Google FAA 51% rule or something like that. Has nothing to do with any actual percentage of work or parts - it's how many things you check on the list.

What is a DAR ???

Designated something something - gets paid by the builder so the FDSO does not have to do stuff. Google.

 

[Ravioli]

So if you have 3 friends helping you... the airplane doesn't qualify? Or it does qualify... because your friends are not "professional airplane mechanics/builders"?
What is a DAR ???

Two more things anyone remotely interested in Exp can find out anywhere.

Safe bet it isn't Daughters of the American Revolution.

Perhaps it is a Designated Airworthiness Representative? yah, that might make some sense.

 

[Dana]

Some SLSA aircraft make the max speed limit by using a "special" version of the engine that's made just for that aircraft model. The engine is (on paper) limited to some time limited maximum power setting (wink wink nudge nudge).

Any of the experimental categories will limit your ability to fly internationally. E-AB and E-LSA, I believe, can fly to Canada and the Bahamas, but that's about it. Limited, Restricted, and Primary are out, forget about it. You might get it registered Experimental-Exhibition, but the requirements are usually that you have to provide the FAA, every year, with a list of airshows and fly-ins you plan to attend. No other flying is allowed, except for limited local "proficiency" flying, which is the usual loophole, depending on how your particular paperwork is worded... don't count on it!

4000km, 2485 miles, that's over 20 hours... sitting in the same seat. You going to set the autopilot and sleep? Not a good idea. How fresh will you be for landing? And what about when nature calls? Not trying to rain on your parade, but... yeah, I'm trying to rain on your parade. Long distance over water flights are within the theoretical capabilities of lots of small planes, and many people dream about doing them, but practical considerations intrued, and very few actually attempt them... and even fewer actually complete the flight.

 

[max_reason]

Max, I have read through this thread and I have to tell you a lot of things don’t add up. It sounds like your mind is made up and no advice, or real world experience, or what-have-you is going to change your mind. That is a hazardous attitude. A lot of good people are giving advise that you don’t seem to want to listen to.

The issues as I see it:

1). Range. You talk in miles per gallon. Or kilometers per gallon if you will. I don’t think in metric so I will stick to mpg. You really need to be thinking in gallons per hour because an airplane doesn’t care about distance, only time.

It’s 2500 miles from Los Angeles to Honolulu. At 175 miles per hour, that is approximately 14 hours in the air. At 5 gallons per hour that comes out to 70 gallons even. With 70 gallons of fuel capacity, you have ZERO reserve. I am not sure how much you can reduce power to extend the range but but I don’t think it would be enough to give you a comfortable reserve margin. Yeah, you may be able to lean it out and reduce power enough to get the fuel flow down to 2.5 GPH, but you won’t be doing 175 mph anymore.

So range, whether you like it or not, is an issue.

2). Aircraft. I am sure Pipistrel will sell you an aircraft built to your exact specifications. But the problem is getting it certified in the U. S. With a usable airworthiness certificate. Since a standard airworthiness certificate is not an option, you have to go down the experimental route. Unless Pipistrel can sell you one with a standard airworthiness certificate. Research research.

There is only one experimental airworthiness certificate that will allow you to do what you want to do. It is the one that allows you to go wherever and whenever you want. Some of the ones you have mentioned have restrictions that won’t allow you to do what you want.

2a). Aircraft part 2. You could probably do the flight with a VHF radio but you would be relying on other aircraft to relay position reports to San Francisco radio for you. An HF radio would be a must have for me.

3). Pilot. You are a single engine, VFR Pilot, correct? I am not 100 percent sure, but I don’t think you can do ocean crossings VFR. I think you need to be instrument rated. I could be wrong. More research.

4). Budget. For $200,000 you could get an off the shelf production aircraft that is much more capable and do the trip more comfortably. Yeah, it would mean dealing with a ferry tank, but I would think it would be more comfortable in the long run.

Also, those long distance flights to far flung places are expensive. You say the $200,000 budget is about the max you can afford. Does that include the trip itself, or just the airplane?

Max, what you want to do is a massive undertaking. From what you have presented here, it is pretty clear that you have a lot more research to do. Please don’t discount the advice being offered here. We just want you to be sure you know what you are getting yourself into.

#1: If you think I want to crash my airplane into the ocean, you are very wrong. I am not in the habit of ignoring information or believing fantasy. So, let me go through the numbers I have taken from the pipistrel specification PDF for this airplane. Please be careful. The nominal pipistrel virus sw airplanes have 912 UL or 912 ULS engines, which are about 25% to 33% less fuel efficient. If you want the numbers for the 912iS engine, you need to look at page 5 of the PDF document that I linked to a few times in messages above.

engine == Rotax 912iS (takes premium unleaded gasoline... or 100LL)
fuel capacity == 300 liters (with optional "extreme range" fuel tanks in the wings).
cruise speed at 75% power == 273 kph == 169 mph
fuel consumption at 75% power == 15.7 liters per hour == 4.15 gallons per hour
endurance == 300 liters / 15.7 liters per hour == 19.1 hours
range == 273 kph * 19.1 hours == 5216 km == 3241 miles

The distance from Monterey, California to Hilo, Hawaii == 3800 km (2400 miles) == 13.9 hours at 273kph (169mph) cruise speed.

Therefore, the airplane can travel 1.37 times as far as necessary... which should be enough safety factor to allow for extreme headwinds.

According to owners, they get much better fuel economy at "economy speed", which they variously peg at 220kph to 240kph. They also claim to get much worse fuel economy at maximum speed of 300 kph. So clearly the consequences of drag between 220kph and 300kph is very nonlinear. They get 1.30 times the mpg (and thus range) at economy speed, which puts the maximum range at an insane 7800 kilometers or 4800 miles! But we'll stick to the faster "cruise speed" numbers taken directly from the pipistrel manual for safety.

Again, I think you're looking at the data for the Rotax 912UL or 912ULS engines, which are not nearly as efficient as the newer Rotax 912iS Sport engine.

I did not adopt the fuel economy numbers from pipistrel owners, which are uniformly better to much better than the pipistrel specifications.

#2: This may be a problem and I need to make sure I don't get screwed on this one. The worst case seems to be, I'll have to build the kit... or drop this entire project. What I do know is, pipistrel cannot provide a standard airworthiness certificate. I'm not sure what you mean about position reports. The airplane avionics includes GPS, so I'll know my position at every moment. If you mean the other way around (to report my position to someone else), I believe the spotify gizmo will report my position via satellite in the event something goes wrong. Or am I missing something. Please explain what you mean in your 2A.

#3: I did some research on this question, and I found that VFR is okay. To be sure, in most cases one would be stupid to do that. But I will not have any schedule, so I can wait weeks if necessary until weather conditions and projections on my intended route are superb. Plus, remember, the ceiling is 23,000 feet, I'll have oxygen, and I'll have GPS and autopilot. So even in the worst case I should have a way to escape disaster, even if I have to illegal drop through clouds at the other end. However, having lived in Maui for years... that kind of weather (clouds all the way to the ground) is pretty much as rare as hens teeth.

#4: The $200K is my budget for the airplane. I have modest ongoing income to pay for gasoline. I also know how to live frugally. Though such trips are not cheap, you need to remember that this aircraft gets 50mpg to 70mpg in practice. Which means 2500 miles / 50mpg == 50 gallons * $4/gallon == $200 for fuel (cheaper than a one-way ticket to Hawaii... barely). Also, premium gasoline is currently just over $3 here, so I'm being a tiny bit pessimistic. Of course $4 might be optimistic some places in the south pacific!

I have done weeks of research already, but you are absolutely correct to say I need to do a lot more research before I pull the trigger and buy this airplane. When I answer questions here maybe I sound like I'm being stubborn and ignoring advice. I'm not. What you're seeing is a consequence of me actually having done a fair bit of research already, and hence knowing answers to some of the issues. However, you will also notice that I have been claiming to be utterly ignorant of other issues (like the categories and registration and airworthiness issues), and in those cases I am not pretending to know anything... just the opposite.

I thank everyone for every comment... even those comments that contradict what I already think I know. That will just make me re-check everything I think I know yet again, which is fine.

 

[max_reason]

Some SLSA aircraft make the max speed limit by using a "special" version of the engine that's made just for that aircraft model. The engine is (on paper) limited to some time limited maximum power setting (wink wink nudge nudge).

Any of the experimental categories will limit your ability to fly internationally. E-AB and E-LSA, I believe, can fly to Canada and the Bahamas, but that's about it. Limited, Restricted, and Primary are out, forget about it. You might get it registered Experimental-Exhibition, but the requirements are usually that you have to provide the FAA, every year, with a list of airshows and fly-ins you plan to attend. No other flying is allowed, except for limited local "proficiency" flying, which is the usual loophole, depending on how your particular paperwork is worded... don't count on it!

4000km, 2485 miles, that's over 20 hours... sitting in the same seat. You going to set the autopilot and sleep? Not a good idea. How fresh will you be for landing? And what about when nature calls? Not trying to rain on your parade, but... yeah, I'm trying to rain on your parade. Long distance over water flights are within the theoretical capabilities of lots of small planes, and many people dream about doing them, but practical considerations intruded, and very few actually attempt them... and even fewer actually complete the flight.

I will definitely need to check which categories limit international flying, because I don't want that limitation. I pretty much discounted "experimental exhibition" above, because obviously nobody will schedule an air-show on some small island in the middle of the pacific ocean. Not even Hawaii, but certainly not the hundreds of small islands in the south pacific I want to visit. However, this just gave me an idea. I suppose I could visit those islands on the way to an air-show in... New Zealand, or Australia, or Indonesia, or anywhere along the pacific rim. Truth is, I really don't want to go anywhere north of Australia, but if necessary I suppose I would be willing to venture a short distance north of Australia. So... maybe "experimental exhibition" might work, though I'm really not into "events". As someone already guessed in a message above, I'm much more a loner and hermit type... more the "rugged individualist" (even if I don't look like Indiana Jones).

A 3800km == 2400 mile flight takes 13.9 hours, not 20+ hours. Not sure how you get 20+ hours. Look at my previous message for specific calculations. I'm not saying 14 hours in a seat isn't a pain in the ass! It will be a pain in the ass, of that I am certain. But... that's the price of getting to a region of the south pacific where there are literally thousands of fascinating little islands. Some cannot be landed upon, some are uninhabited but can be landed upon, others are inhabited and can be landed on, and a surprising number have airstrips. In fact, I was blown away at how many have airstrips. OTOH, that makes lots of sense, because how else can people get to and from those small islands except small airplanes and ocean vessels? That's pretty much all there is. As a small aside, depending on how much "junk" (if any) I end up needing to put in the passenger seat, I won't actually have to sit in my seat the whole trip. Not that I'll have a bed I can lie in, but it is possible to create several alternate positions to spread around (and thus lessen) the sore spots. The videos of the guy who flew this airplane around the world show some of those positions.

I was trying to avoid this issue, but I guess you won't let me. The doors of this airplane can be opened at slow to modest speeds. They open upward and lock against the bottom side of the high wing. I hope I don't need to go into additional detail about "when nature calls". There are a few variations, but again, I'm not going into this further if you don't mind. I'm sure nobody else minds that I leave that issue only half addressed.

One guy flew around the world in this airplane already... twice in fact (once in each direction). So he already flew the 3800km stretch across the south pacific... in both directions. He also few over the top of Mount Everest, something I have no intention to try. I'll settle for landing on a 20,000 foot mountain in northern Chile that has a flattish (gently undulating) top that is about 1km across. Or at least I'll try... after working up from lower elevations of course. But Mount Everest? Not this kid! Not even just a "fly over".

I don't blame people for "chickening out". Who knows, maybe I will. If I fly the airplane for several months, and I do not consider the airplane or engine or anything to be so highly reliable that a 4000km non-stop is at least 99% likely to succeed, then I'll drop that part of my plan. I can still do all my bush/backcountry/STOL flying, and I can still fly down to the Atacama Desert and Atacama Andes in northern Chile (my favorite place in the world), and fly all around that gorgeous part of the world. If I have to live without the ocean crossings, I will. But I'll still like having a 4000km, 5000km, 6000km, even 7000km range... so I don't need to land in most nations I would rather avoid on the way down to Chile. OTOH, I'd like to stop in Ecuador and Peru and fly around the high Andes mountains and various pretty areas, so I don't need to fly all the way to Chile in one flight. Maybe I'd even stop in Mexico and/or Panama on the way. I dunno. I just like the idea that "I don't have to" because of the long range. Plus, having a long range is a great safety feature... a great way to escape getting "trapped on top" for example. When you can fly an extra 3000km or 4000km, the chances you can find a hole in the clouds is just about 100%. Nonetheless, I intend to fly across the ocean... until and unless I decide it isn't safe enough for my risk tolerance. But another consideration is... I'll have a nice comfortable self-inflating raft, the waters in the south pacific are warm, and I'm a strong swimmer. Hahaha.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

#1: If you think I want to crash my airplane into the ocean, you are very wrong.

Well, I never hinted at such a thing.

Therefore, the airplane can travel 1.37 times as far as necessary... which should be enough safety factor to allow for extreme headwinds.

It only takes a 40 knot headwind to knock that safety margin to zero. Not uncommon.

According to owners, they get much better fuel economy at "economy speed", which they variously peg at 220kph to 240kph.

Keep in mind manufacturers put their product's performance in the best light possible and owners lie.

I'm not sure what you mean about position reports. The airplane avionics includes GPS, so I'll know my position at every moment. If you mean the other way around (to report my position to someone else), I believe the spotify gizmo will report my position via satellite in the event something goes wrong. Or am I missing something. Please explain what you mean in your 2A.

Yeah, you are missing something. When you cross the ocean IFR, you pass along position reports on a set schedule. That lets ATC know you are still alive, so to say, and it also provides spacing information for other IFR traffic along the route. Since I have never crossed an ocean VFR, I will have to take your word for it that it is possible, but I believe you would still have to make position reports along the way. Someone with more experience will have to chime in on that aspect of it.

#3: I did some research on this question, and I found that VFR is okay.

I will take your word for that.

To be sure, in most cases one would be stupid to do that.

These are your words. I have been doing long haul ocean crossings a long time. Frankly, I would leave out the qualifier.

But I will not have any schedule, so I can wait weeks if necessary until weather conditions and projections on my intended route are superb.

But actual weather has a nasty habit of not reading the forecasts. In other words, forecasts can sometimes be very unreliable. It is a gamble, but you did say you would have the option of turning back, provide you haven't hit the point of no return.

Plus, remember, the ceiling is 23,000 feet, I'll have oxygen, and I'll have GPS and autopilot.

All good things, but if you think that will help you TOP weather, contrary to popular belief, it takes a lot more than 23,000 feet to top a lot of weather out there.

Though such trips are not cheap, you need to remember that this aircraft gets 50mpg to 70mpg in practice.

You keep saying that, but I keep saying you need to think about gallons per hour and how the winds affect the length of the trip, time wise.

Of course $4 might be optimistic some places in the south pacific!

I live on Guam. Currently our gas is $4.42 a gallon. Our advantage is that it contains no ethanol. I haven't priced avgas but I think it is well over $10.00 a gallon.

The thing you have to figure out is how are you going to get mogas out to the airplane? None of the airports out here sell mogas so you have to get it from the gas station to the airplane. No mean feat.

When I answer questions here maybe I sound like I'm being stubborn and ignoring advice. I'm not. What you're seeing is a consequence of me actually having done a fair bit of research already, and hence knowing answers to some of the issues.

Please don't take offense. But what I am afraid of is that you are getting answers that you want to hear. Not necessarily answers that reflect reality. I hope what you are doing is taking answers and comment you get here and factoring them in to what you have gleaned from your own research. Oceanic flying is terribly unforgiving of poor planning and under equipped airplanes.

I thank everyone for every comment... even those comments that contradict what I already think I know. That will just make me re-check everything I think I know yet again, which is fine.

As well it should.

 

[max_reason]

Well, I never hinted at such a thing.

It only takes a 40 knot headwind to knock that safety margin to zero. Not uncommon.

Keep in mind manufacturers put their product's performance in the best light possible and owners lie.

Yeah, you are missing something. When you cross the ocean IFR, you pass along position reports on a set schedule. That lets ATC know you are still alive, so to say, and it also provides spacing information for other IFR traffic along the route. Since I have never crossed an ocean VFR, I will have to take your word for it that it is possible, but I believe you would still have to make position reports along the way. Someone with more experience will have to chime in on that aspect of it.

But actual weather has a nasty habit of not reading the forecasts. In other words, forecasts can sometimes be very unreliable. It is a gamble, but you did say you would have the option of turning back, provide you haven't hit the point of no return.

All good things, but if you think that will help you TOP weather, contrary to popular belief, it takes a lot more than 23,000 feet to top a lot of weather out there.

You keep saying that, but I keep saying you need to think about gallons per hour and how the winds affect the length of the trip, time wise.

I live on Guam. Currently our gas is $4.42 a gallon. Our advantage is that it contains no ethanol. I haven't priced avgas but I think it is well over $10.00 a gallon.

The thing you have to figure out is how are you going to get mogas out to the airplane? None of the airports out here sell mogas so you have to get it from the gas station to the airplane. No mean feat.

Please don't take offense. But what I am afraid of is that you are getting answers that you want to hear. Not necessarily answers that reflect reality. I hope what you are doing is taking answers and comment you get here and factoring them in to what you have gleaned from your own research. Oceanic flying is terribly unforgiving of poor planning and under equipped airplanes.

Well, let's agree that "everything can go wrong" and sometimes does. But usually, not everything goes wrong simultaneously!

For example, what's the chances I won't be able to find an altitude with less than 40 knot winds directly against me? True, 40 knot winds are not that uncommon, but how uncommon are 40 knot winds at all altitudes from 500 feet to 23,000 feet? I don't know the definitive answer to that question, but have rarely seen behavior like that reported when I poke around on www.windy.com for example. Plus, what you describe would have to happen when the current situation and forecasts are quite different from that. Plus, if I encountered such in the first 1/3 of the trip, I'd just turn around and try again later. If I did not encounter such in the first 1/3 of the trip, then that gives me more margin for worse winds in the rest of the trip, and so forth. One is not committed until the point of no return.

Well, perhaps pipistrel is lying and perhaps all pipistrel owners are lying. I suppose that's possible, but I find that a bit over the top. Nonetheless, I will have flown the airplane for at least 6 months before I try a 3800km flight across the ocean, so I will know for sure what my fuel economy is before I fly. If they're all lying, then either I won't be able to fly, or I'll have to buy one or two fuel bladders and hook them into the fuel line (which the airplane supports). They even have an accessory 50 liter fuel tank that can be put in the cargo area, but I'm really not very interested in consuming cargo area volume.

Where would I get one of these radios that communicate from anywhere? Are they a type of avionics transceiver?

I suppose I'll need to do more research about weather along the way, but I know from living in Maui for 16 years that the sky is clear virtually every day from late afternoon through the night and for a few hours in the morning... then puffy cumulus for a few hours in midday. Solid overcast is rare, and virtually unheard of when not forecast. For sure, I cannot be sure how far such behavior extends into the wide open pacific ocean. For sure cumulus clouds can extend above 23,000 feet, but usually not, and exceptions can be navigated around (at the price of a little extra fuel, of course). Actually, best not to fly at 23,000 feet anyway, since the engine is not turbocharged, only fuel injected. The most efficient altitudes seem to extend from about 11,000 feet to 18,000 feet.

One can compute in gallons per hours and speed, or one can compute in miles per gallon at specified speed (cruise speed or economy speed). I don't see the difference when the question is "will we make it?".

I will be carrying at least two fuel bladders, and perhaps up to five of them. They are quite compact and light when empty, so that's not a huge burden. However, as you say, it can be a pain in the butt to make several trips to an off-airport gasoline station to fill up. However, one advantage of this airplane is the extremely short distance required to land and takeoff (as in 80 meters or less). So if there is a rural gas station on a rural road with appropriate surroundings, it is possible to land on the road or an open space next to the gasoline station, roll up to the pumps, and fill-er-up. This obviously doesn't work everywhere, but in a place like the Hawaiian Islands, definitely does work (because there are so many places to try). I know a couple on Maui myself, plus at least one on Molokai. I'm sure there are lots more. In the south pacific this is an unknown question, but where there are many islands in an island group (like 330 islands in the Fiji islands group), chances are good that at least one location exists where this can be done. Nonetheless, one must be prepared to "bite it" and make multiple trips to a gas station. Then again, multiple trips would not be needed unless you need to fill up those 300 liter tanks for one of those long hops. Most often (once at any island group in the south pacific), one doesn't need anywhere near a 4000km range (much less 5000km, 6000km, 7000km range)... and thus doesn't need to top off the tanks. In such cases a stop at a gas station with the fuel bladders before driving to the airstrip (or field where the airplane is parked) will bring sufficient fuel. Nonetheless, in the worst cases, you're right.

The bottom line is... sometimes life will be inconvenient. The fuel hassle is one example, but not the only example.

Precisely because over ocean long haul flying is inherently problematic, careful planning and absolute unwillingness to execute in anything but optimal situations is crucial. The fact that I will not have schedules to "push me" helps me somewhat, but plenty can still go wrong. I wonder if anyone makes a gasoline octane tester? That would be good to have to make sure I'm not buying bogus gasoline (like 85 octane labeled 91). One more accessory for me to search for.

 

[rtk11]

Max_reason, just wanted to share what I mapped out in ForeFlight. But knowing that you would be carrying 300 liters (79.25 gallons) of fuel, and assuming you took off from Santa Ana (KSNA) and did a direct flight to Hilo (PHKO), I mapped these scenarios. (Note that at the time of this writing, the headwinds were lowest from 1,000-4,500 AGL (1 knot) and got worse at altitude. 10,500-12,000 was about 9 knot headwind.)

That being said, the images are below for you to review. Two scenarios at the 148 knot cruise with a very generous 5 gph fuel burn. I suspect fuel burn will be higher at that cruise speed. And one scenario at 130 knots at 4.2 gph (which is what I found on the internet as the published fuel burn rate at that 75% cruise speed.)

What I see is pretty concerning. Specifically:

1) At 148 knots and a low altitude for more favorable headwinds, (which I would HATE to do over open ocean) you would land with 4 gallons remaining in supremely optimal conditions.

2) At 148 knots and a high altitude (9 knot headwinds) you will have .35 gallons (1/3 of a gallon!) of fuel remaining... if it is at all usable. And this is against the FAA flight rules for having a safe amount of fuel to complete a mission (which is 1 hour of fuel remaining for night flights which yours would most likely be.)

3). At 130 knots (most economical cruise) and 4.2 gph fuel burn at 4,500 feet AGL, you’d need 17 hours and burn 72.1 gallons under optimal conditions, leaving 7.1 gallons.

This is straight line to the nearest airport in Hawaii (Hilo). No change of course for weather, no climbs (higher fuel burn) once at altitude... like I said, best case scenario.

For me, these odds are pretty slim and I’d plunk down cash for a commercial flight and rent a plane in Hawaii. Or ship the plane via cargo ship.

 

[James331]

So, let’s say you LEGALLY do it VFR.

You’re going to get to a point of no return, ie after which point you can not turn back and make land.

So you’re buzzing along and along and along, cross that point and viz goes to 6, 3, 2, 1, IMC. What’s your call go VFR into IMC and likely lawn dart and die (number 1 cause of death in GA) or turn back and crash VMC into the ocean?

If you can’t go IFR you’re playing the odds in a bad way, and you’re already playing the odds bud