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

background: I got my single engine land VFR pilot certificate about 20 years ago, but I haven't flown much for the past 15 years and not as pilot in command. I know I'll need to get a new 3rd class medical certificate and probably some kind of radio operator permit that I can't remember the name of any more. But my main questions are not about me being pilot, but about everything I need to do and consider buying the airplane.

airplane: The airplane I plan to buy is the tail-wheel version of a pipistrel virus SW, completely manufactured, assembled and test flown by pipistrel before shipping to me. Therefore, not a "homebuilt kit airplane", even though they do offer kits too.

options: The following are the options I intend to get:
- MTV-33 constant speed propeller.
- 300 liter "extreme range" fuel tanks.
- Rotax 912iS engine (uncrippled 100HP version).
- 8" Barringer wheels/brakes/tires with fairings (for regular and long range flying).
- 26" Barringer wheels/brakes/tires, no farings (for bush/backcountry/STOL flying).
- extensive "glass cockpit avionics" based on Dynon Skyview HDX (just short of IFR capable).

avoinics: The following are the avionics I intend to get (just in case it matters):
- 2 * Dynon Skyview HDX displays (SV-HDX1000).
- 1 * Dynon ADAHRS (SV-ADAHRS-200).
- 2 * Dynon communications transceiver with 25.00KHz and 8.33KHz channel spacing (SV-COM-X83).
- 1 * Dynon dual stereo intercom panel (SV-INTEERCOM-2S).
- 1 * Dynon mode-s transponder with ADS-B out (SV-XPNDR-261).
- 1 * Dynon dual band ADS-B in receiver (SV-ADSB-472).
- 2 * Dynon autopilot servos (SV62).
- 1 * Dynon AOA / pitot tube with heater and controller (100667-000).
- 1 * Dynon WAAS enabled GPS receiver and antenna (SV-GPS-2020).
- 2 * Dynon unknown-to-me antennas for above.
- ... who knows what else? All this avionics is new to me... I'm used to old dials and pre-GPS.

category: What category this airplane will be is one of my questions. The default version of this airplane qualifies as a LSA/SLSA. However, my understanding is this airplane cannot be LSA/SLSA or any variation of "light sport aircraft" because of the following:
- the Rotax 912iS engine is too powerful (100HP).
- the cruise speed and Vne are too high (275kph and 302kph).
- the maximum takeoff weight is too high (750kg, due to 300 liter == 79 gallon fuel capacity).

purposes: When I stopped flying regularly, I assumed I would never be able to buy an airplane that would do everything I wanted... at a price anywhere near what I could ever afford. Though the price of this airplane will pretty much exhaust my life savings, I was amazed when I found this airplane could do what I wanted... at least in theory. My purposes for this airplane are:
- STOL to visit "crazy" places in the boonies (mountain ridges, tiny spots... bush flying).
- 4000km+ long range flying (from California to Hawaii, from Chile to south-pacific islands).
- land on extremely high mountaintops in the Atacama Andes (install small astronomy devices).

To make this work I need to change back and forth between the tiny conventional wheels/brakes/tires with fairings and the large 26" Tundra wheels/brakes/tires when I switch the type of flying I plan to do. That's tolerable. Also note that choosing the 300 liter tank option adds an extra 20kg to the airplane, most of which is to strengthen many places on the airplane to compensate for the extra 180kg == 350lbs of fuel these larger tanks support.

questions: I have so many questions I can't list them all. But the following are some major ones.

Q01: What category should my airplane be? Who decides? How is this specified and to whom?

Q02: I would like to perform basic maintenance and service on the airplane. I note that Rotax offers two 2-day courses for this purpose. Assuming I take these courses, can I perform all service short of 2000 hour TBO or repair of major problems? What is necessary to do so?

Q03: I would like to perform simple modifications to the airplane, though nothing "major". For example, drill a few small holes here and there to mount small gimbal stabilized cameras. Or perhaps add extra lighting (it will already have lighting required for night flying). I don't know what other modifications I will want to make at the moment, but again, nothing big or major. What is necessary to do so?

Q04: What avionics did I omit that I should have (or that I included but don't need)?

Q05: Somewhere I read that some people who get "experimental" airplanes must wait several to many months to get paperwork that allows them to fly the airplane. This seems insane! Is this correct?

Q06: I will be flying in north america, south america, hawaii, maybe alaska, and all over the south pacific (possibly including NZ and AU). I am almost certain I will never fly to Europe. My question is, should I buy communications radios that have both 25.00KHz and 8.33Khz channel spacing, or can I settle for cheaper alternatives that only support 25.00KHz channel spacing?

Q07: Perhaps most important... what am I getting myself into that I don't realize? And what questions do I need to ask, but don't even realize I need to ask? I have a strong feeling there are many issues that I haven't even thought of yet. Tell me what they are! Thanks!

PS: I know I probably included too much information, but I figured "better safe than sorry".

 

You probably need to build it to get exactly what you want, at least in the US. But you aren’t US based.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

Pipistrel is perfectly willing to sell it to me, and have given me a quote. And I am based in the southwestern US... at least for the time being.

 

I don't think I understand the homework assignment.

You stated It cannot be LSA due to power, performance, and weight. Does it have a ghost of a chance of being E-AB? I don't know because you didn't specify build vs buy.

 

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

Yes, pipistrel does sell the airplane in kit form, but I don't want to buy a kit and build the airplane... at least not unless someone who has built a kit airplane before is willing to spend 40 hours per week for 3 months to help me.

 

So, it's not LSA or E-AB eligible. Is it actually conforming for a standard AWC?

Also, since you clarified you're in the US, there is no radioman's certificate needed (anymore).

 

Ask Pipistrel what kind of airworthiness certificate you'll be getting. It probably will be Special Light Sport Airplane. If they tell you that you'll have to obtain the certificate yourself, don't buy. But if it'll be delivered with a SLSA airworthiness certificate, it's their responsibility, not yours, and I wouldn't worry so much about your perception it doesn't qualify.

Ron Wanttaja

 

I assume AWC == "air worthiness certificate" (just guessing). I don't know the answer to that, because I'm just starting to get up to speed on so many issues that are totally new to me. What I can tell you is the following. The airplane with the 80HP Rotax 912 engine (or a 100HP Rotax 912iS engine that is "crippled" to lower performance) is certified as some kind of "light sport aircraft" in the USA... I think SLSA is the appropriate term.

And so, all that has changed is:
- increased size fuel tanks in wings (100 liter standard upgraded to 300 liter).
- many parts of the airframe and landing supports have been strengthened to accommodate the extra weight from 200 liters extra fuel.

As far as avionics, pretty much any avionics are acceptable even within the SLSA, so I doubt my selection of avionics makes any difference. But "just guessing".

I am also getting large 26" Barringer wheels/brakes/tires... but in addition I'm getting the standard small Barringer wheels/brakes/tires with fairings for long flights. So I don't think this can make any significant difference, since one of the two is standard equipment in the SLSA version.

I don't know if this answers your question, but I simply don't know how to answer it any better. What you're asking is a question I'd like to know the answer to.

 

That's interesting. I'll ask them about that, probably tomorrow.

Can you confirm that you are saying the following. That an airplane that does not qualify as SLSA because:
- it can fly faster than the maximum SLSA speed, and...
- it can takeoff and fly with a greater maximum weight up to 750kg...
can still be delivered with a "SLSA airworthiness certificate" because it qualifies for that certificate with a less powerful engine? That actually sorta makes sense, but obviously I'm not sure whether it works that way or not, because I'm totally new to all these issues.

Note that I shouldn't need the airplane to qualify as a light sport aircraft because I already have a private pilot certificate from years ago. Or so I assume.

Also read my message immediately above... it also gives some information that may be relevant to your question.

 

Here's what I think I know. <- note the wiggle room

S-LSA - must conform to the entire LSA definition for power, performance, and weight. No modifications can be done that are not authorized by the mfg.
E-LSA - must conform to the entire LSA definition for power, performance, and weight. BUT, the owner can make any change they desire, so long as it remains compliant with the LSA definition.
E-AB - build it yourself and do whatever you want, but must be ppl with minimum medical of BasicMed, whereas if you remain within the LSA designations you need only a driver's license.

I think @Stan Cooper might have some insights here. He's active LSA and has corrected me more than once in the past.

 

For VFR your avionics are already overkill.

If you’re in the US you might be able to go basic Med, you’d have to look into that.

If you’re looking to go to crazy places you might want to grab some bigger tires.

 

Which means... I think... that the airplane I want to order cannot qualify as SLSA or ELSA or EAB.

Note that I need the regular (not-crippled) 100HP 912iS Sport engine in order to enjoy the fuel efficiency required for my 4000km+ non-stop flights, so I can't compromise on that. The consequences of this is... the airplane has a 75% throttle "cruise speed" of 275kph and a Vne of 302kph.

As far as the weight goes, I think the airplane is still within SLSA weight limits (should be roughly 300kg), but the manufacturer increased the maximum take-off and flying weight to 750kg because the extra 200 liters of fuel weights roughly 180kg == 350lbs. Without that increase in maximum weight, one could not fill the tanks and fly.

Well, actually, maybe it is possible without exceeding 600kg... as long as the pilot does not take a passenger.

In practice, for those 4000km+ long-range flights across the ocean I will probably not have a passenger, but I will have a 35 pound raft and other supplies.

And on shorter/regular length flights there is no need to fill up the tanks because the airplane gets 50mpg at cruise and 60~70mpg at its "best economy speed" of around 220kph~240kph.

And finally, on any STOL / bush-flying mission, the tanks would only contain a little more fuel than necessary for each mission, because extra weight limits STOL performance.

 

You’re flying 4,000km VFR with little experience in that plane?

Huh

 

Yes, I know my avionics are "overkill". As far as I can tell, I only need to add two more instruments to make it capable of full-bore IFR. But given that I'll be flying across 4000km of ocean several times, I figured it was wise to buy every bit of avionics that will make my trip safer and easier. Plus a self-inflating life-raft. Plus a spotify (or whatever that's called). Plus... well... who has other suggestions to be "safe as possible" on such trips in a dinky little 300kg single-engine airplane?

I think I have to get 3rd class medical once because it has been so long since my last medical. I think I read that somewhere.

You think I need bigger tires than the Barringer 26" Tundra wheels/brakes/tires option they offer as an option? I suppose I could buy and install those monster Alaska 31" tires on the same wheels/brakes the 26" tires come on. But you really think it is important to move up to 31" from 26" tires for such a tiny, lightweight airplane?

 

Gross weight is what gross weight is declared to be. Just because the airplane is capable of a higher weight with extra fuel etc. does not mean that the certificated gross weight will be higher. You may have room for 300 litres, but not the weight availability.
Horsepower does not matter for LSA
VNE does not matter for LSA
"LSA aircraft have fixed pitch propellers and are limited to a full power, maximum straight and level speed of 120 knots as required by the FAA." https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Pipistrel-VirusSW-Information-Pack.pdf

So, it could be they plan to sell it to you as an SLSA with a fixed pitch prop, limited gross weight and limited speeds.

I would talk to your dealer and get an actual answer and not speculation.

 

It has a CS-LSA type certificate in Europe. No idea how the FAA views that.

https://www.pipistrel.si/photo/11219

 

Hahaha... no kidding. You can assume that I will fly at least 100 hours in 6 months over land before I fly those 4000km missions. But yes, once I get what I consider sufficient experience in the airplane, I do intend to fly 4000km VFR.

However, you need to understand me and my modus-operandi a bit. For one thing, I would have no specific dates I need to travel. One consequence of that is, I would not start such a flight unless the forecast for the next 24+ hours along my path is AWESOME. As in, virtually no chance whatsoever of more than a few puffy clouds.

In addition, I will have "mountain high" oxygen system with one large tank and one small backup tank... and the ceiling of the airplane is 23,000 feet. While the most efficient altitude to fly the airplane is more like 12,000 to 16,000 feet, the 23,000 foot ceiling and insanely long range means I can get above almost any bad weather, and I can fly so damn far that I am virtually assured of finding a place with ground visibility to land. Furthermore, as a "last resort" I will have "autopilot" and GPS with moving-maps and synthetic-vision, so even if the worst of the worst happens and I have to decline through clouds, I should have no problems avoiding mountains and keeping the airplane wings level and at a good pitch until I exit the bottom of the cloud layer. In other words, almost every possible reason for disaster is taken into consideration. Not that disaster cannot strike, but the chances of that should be low. I'm willing to take the risk.

The same is true of the bush/backcountry STOL flying. Even though I did a lot of that back when I was flying a lot... I'm not stupid. Which means I know how to work up slowly to more extreme situations, and [hopefully] make good judgements about when I shouldn't push it any further.

I know what I'm planning is a bit exceptional, but at least I'm someone who does exceptional things in a thoughtful and prudent manner. At least I try!

 

I think the tires are the least of your worries

Real world if you’re going to be crossing that much territory you really need to be able to go IFR, and single pilot IFR you’ll want a good auto pilot, and you probably have a ton of rust to blow off and a good deal of instructor time and time building before that haul is a good idea, also what backcountry experience do you have?

Tire wise it’s more a width and cushion thing, personally I wouldn’t go above 29”s

But like I said, I think for first investment needs to be in YOU, you got a bit of instruction and experience before any of that other stuff matters. The planes capabilities don’t matter if the pilot isn’t up to the mission.

 

https://www.pipistrel.si/plane/virus-sw/certificates

Says that the aircraft is an LSA in the U.S. which means you gross weight is going to be 1300 pounds. Period. No matter how big the tanks are.
You will also get the fixed pitch propeller (required for LSA) - you will want to re-calculate your expectations for speed / fuel consumption.

 

Has Pipistrel TOLD you the plane qualifies as Light Sport?

Pipistrel is not a US company. They'd be quite happy to take your money and ship you a completed airplane, but if they tell you its your responsibility to get the airplane its US airworthiness certificate, forget it.

I looked up the Pipistrel Virus aircraft in the US registry. Out of 39 entries, 32 were registered as Experimental Exhibition or Experimental Racing. About half and half. IMHO, this is a bad sign; this is people scrambling to get SOME sort of use out of a bad purchase. These categories are more restrictive than Experimental Amateur-Built; for instance, the Experimental Exhibition licensing is, in effect, not permanent and must be re-applied for and renewed each year.

Just two of the Viruses on the registry are listed as Special Light Sport Airplanes. Four more are listed as Special Light Sport Gliders (motorgliders, I presume). The two SLSA ones are listed as having Rotax 912ULS engines.

I'd be really cautious.

Ron Wanttaja

 

Thanks much for that information. Interesting.

I did forget to mention, I am planning to get an MTV-33 constant speed propeller. So maybe that's one more reason this airplane cannot be SLSA? True? False? I'm not sure, but I don't think that propeller is "pilot adjustable" (neither on the ground nor in flight). But I could be wrong about that.

Note that they DO offer the airplane with the exact same Rotax 912iS engine, but with some device (perhaps a throttle range limiter) that prevents the airplane from going faster than 120 knots. But the airplane can exceed 300kph == 165 knots with the engine at full power (at least at some altitudes and conditions), which is WELL in excess of the 120 knots you mentioned. The problem for me is, if I get this SLSA version, it won't be nearly as good for STOL, and it won't get as good fuel economy... though I don't know why.

Note: the following is the document you need to examine (see page 5): https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Pipistrel-VirusSWiS-Information-Pack.pdf

 

True.

So, given that it won't be an LSA, what is it going to be?

 

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.

Hopefully the MTV-33 constant speed propeller qualifies as "fixed pitch". I don't think it is "pilot adjustable", so maybe that qualifies.

Note that I need to get whatever is required to be most fuel efficient. To fly across 4000km (2500 miles) of "nothing but ocean" requires one to not cut corners.

I do note that pipistrel says the maximum takeoff and flying weight of the aircraft with the 300 liter "extreme range" tanks is 750kg. Obviously that doesn't mean the owner or pilot MUST fly with more than 600kg of weight, it means that they consider the extra strengthening they do makes the airplane safe with up to 750kg. This leads to an interesting situation in which the airplane could be "rated" for only 600kg, and theoretically a pilot [with "sport pilot rating"] should not load it down with more than 600kg, but... that leaves open what other classes of pilots might be able to do. Maybe. I just don't know. That's one reason I posted here... to figure these subtle questions out.

 

A maule would be a better option.

 

I don't think that's exactly the same airplane as I intend to buy.

See this (especially page 5): https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Pipistrel-VirusSWiS-Information-Pack.pdf

 

Now we're getting into troll territory.

EVERYBODY (who can still exchange oxygen unassisted) with a PPL knows that CONSTANT SPEED PROPS are not Fixed Pitched. Ground Adjustable are fixed to whatever they are set to ON THE GROUND. Changing the pitch of a fixed pitched prop has nothing to do with constant speed.

Like, really man.

 

Yes, pipistrel is in Slovenia. They won two NASA awards for extreme fuel efficiency. As a result, they are pretty much the only cheap single-engine airplane that can fly 4000km+ non-stop... when powered by the Rotax 912iS engine (and with the 300 liter in-wing "extreme range" fuel tanks).

No, you don't understand. The STANDARD pipistrel virus sw qualifies as SLSA. That's what they told me. That comes with an 80HP Rotax 912 ULS (or something like that)... and only 100 liter tanks... and fixed-pitch propeller.

BUT... they ALSO offer a version with 100HP Rotax 912iS engine which exceeds the 120 knot "speed limit" by quite a bit (as in roughly 160 knots). One feature of the Rotax 912iS engine is... it is a computerized fuel-injected engine that gets somewhere between 25% and 33% better fuel economy than their regular conventional carburetor (not computer controlled) engines (which I think are 912 UL and 912 ULS).

I am not 100% certain why so many pipistrel aircraft are experimental instead of SLSA, but I can guess. For one thing, the airplane was available for a long time before they got SLSA approval, and a lot of people wanted the airplane anyway. And so, until they got approval from USA for SLSA approval, everyone HAD to buy it as experimental. Many of them purchased the airplane in kit form, which I think automatically makes it "experimental".

I think this explains why so few are in the SLSA category. But also, everyone who wants the 912iS engine has no choice, because the speed is too great.

 

I was told "experimental". But I was not told anything more specific, like "experimental glider", "experimental airplane", "experimental exhibition", "experimental racing"... and so forth. These are terms I've seen but don't know what they mean, or what are the consequences of each. That's part of what I want to find out here... hopefully. I also heard that an airplane can be in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more of these categories simultaneously! All confusing to me!

 

Have you contacted these guys: https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/

There are a couple of Pipistrel based at my homedrome (KFUL) and those guys should be able to answer, or get an answer, for you.

 

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?

 

Im sorry, but im just gonna say it. Your expectations are completely unrealistic.

Flying 100 hours in 6 months is not going to properly prepare you for the goals you are trying to set.

You seem to have the idea that as long as if this aircraft it has the capability, you can just go out and do extreme flying. The kind of challenges you are suggesting take a life time of experience, and even then, the risks are high.

 

Your mission sounds like a fantasy. 2,480 miles non stop in a 700# airplane doesn’t sound like any fun. To each their own.

 

Thanks. Yes, I have had a couple phone calls and several email exchanges with Michael Coates, who is the master distributor and dealer for the USA and Australia. He sent me an excel spreadsheet pricelist with all the options I requested, which is how I know the total price is under my limit of $200K (though not much). I've been making a few tweaks, like switching the avionics from Garmin to Dynon equivalents. But otherwise, his spreadsheet seems right to me.

I don't want to trust ANY one source of information. I don't want to spend my entire life savings and end up with a white elephant for some odd reason. That's why I'm asking questions here as well as of Michael Coates. I also few in a pipistrel virus sw about 1 year ago, and I've talked on the phone and by email with a couple other owners. They love their airplanes, though they don't get the best follow-up service here in north america.

 

Learn a little about the experimental categories.

https://spark.adobe.com/page/Jbqy5ovEBcqZd/

 

I mentioned above, I got my private pilot license a long time ago. After that, I just rented whatever Cessna 152 or 172 or 182 or similar they had available when I wanted to fly. So explain to me why I'm a troll because I never studied the different kinds of propellers? Tell me why I'm a troll because GPS didn't exist then (at least not in general aviation airplanes). Good grief, sorry I offended you, but I'm afraid you're wrong. It is possible to get behind the times when you don't fly much for 20 years. I more-or-less understand what the various propeller terms mean, but not entirely. You can call me a moron, but that doesn't make my intentions any less real. They are real.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Frankly, it doesn't sound like much fun to me either. However, if you ever bothered to wander around the south pacific in google earth, you will find that there are literally thousands of small islands in the south pacific once you get there. And that's the point. The problem is, to get to where the fun starts, one must fly one leg that is nearly 4000km. That's the price. Either that, or ship the airplane out there, which is an expensive proposition.

Of course it sounds like fantasy! For 20 years I thought for sure I'd never purchase an airplane... because no way would an airplane exist that could do what I want to do and cost less than my life savings (or even close). When pipistrel won those two NASA awards for super efficient airplanes, and I checked out what was possible... that changed my mind. And nothing I've learned since... including from owners of that airplane... convince me the airplane isn't capable of that.

In fact, one owner flew his pipistrel virus sw around the world, including a stop in Antarctica and flying over the top of Mount Everest, and including that long 4000km hop required to fly across the south pacific. And so, sorry, but it has already been done. I won't be going as far as he did... or as high.

So yeah, it is a fantasy... unless you buy that airplane with those options. Because as far as I can tell, no other tiny "cheap" airplane can make it. BTW, the range of the airplane I described is considerably more than 4000km... more like 7500km. Which means it has a safety margin against headwinds. But as I said elsewhere, when the headwinds are not favorable, I won't start. Or I'll turn back if it gets bad. But also, the airplane can fly up to 23,000 feet ceiling, so a pilot has a lot of options to find favorable headwinds.

 

Thanks for that link. I will read carefully.

 

bottom line, if it does not meet the requirements of LSA and it is built by the manufacturer, the only category you will get it in are Experimental exhibition or experimental racing. neither of which you want to be in. they are very restrictive about when, where, and how it can be flow.
bob