US registered Experimental in Europe?
US registered Experimental in Europe?
Hi,
Looking at a Kitfox 5 "Experimental" in the US. Gross weight of 1550lbs (700kgs).
I know NOTHING about non-certified aircraft, so apologies for the rather simple question:
Can I bring it over to Europe and fly it about?! It is clearly heavier than the 450kgs which seems to be a limit for microlights?
As said, I know nothing about this part of flying (though looking forward to getting in there!).
Safe flights, Sam.
Looking at a Kitfox 5 "Experimental" in the US. Gross weight of 1550lbs (700kgs).
I know NOTHING about non-certified aircraft, so apologies for the rather simple question:
Can I bring it over to Europe and fly it about?! It is clearly heavier than the 450kgs which seems to be a limit for microlights?
As said, I know nothing about this part of flying (though looking forward to getting in there!).
Safe flights, Sam.
You can get short term permissions to operate an American experimental category aeroplane in the UK or most other European countries. The UK will normally give you 28 days in a given year, and it can potentially be extended to 90. However, it's not a long term solution, and not a European solution - such aeroplanes are sub-ICAO, and so each country will have to give individual permissions.
I would advise against it as a solution of your normal flying. If you want a Kitfox, or anything else that's sub-ICAO, buy something with your local national registration and approval already.
G
I would advise against it as a solution of your normal flying. If you want a Kitfox, or anything else that's sub-ICAO, buy something with your local national registration and approval already.
G
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you are talking about a Kitfox 7 which is a totally different beast to other and past Kitfox aircraft.There are only a couple currently on the UK register.
If you intend to have one on the 'G' reg the Kitfox 7 is already LAA approved as a homebuilt Permit aircraft in the UK at a MAUW of 635kg (1400lbs) and not 1550lbs as it is in the USA.
If you did intend to import a USA built Kitfox 7 and get on the G reg you would have to negotiate and prove to the LAA that the build had been done in compliance with UK LAA building standards and practices.
Probably easier and cheaper to buy a kit and build one from scratch!
If you intend to have one on the 'G' reg the Kitfox 7 is already LAA approved as a homebuilt Permit aircraft in the UK at a MAUW of 635kg (1400lbs) and not 1550lbs as it is in the USA.
If you did intend to import a USA built Kitfox 7 and get on the G reg you would have to negotiate and prove to the LAA that the build had been done in compliance with UK LAA building standards and practices.
Probably easier and cheaper to buy a kit and build one from scratch!
Kitfox 5 Vixen...
And yes, getting a UK registration was the idea (if possible). Still need to lose 65kgs but that could be manageable...
Anyone know of any '5' in the UK on the register? It has the O233 engine, 118hp.
Lastly, this one is 10 years old - does that in itself offer some sort of proof that it was properly built (ie it hasn't fallen out of the sky after 500+ hours)?
Thanks, Sam.
And yes, getting a UK registration was the idea (if possible). Still need to lose 65kgs but that could be manageable...
Anyone know of any '5' in the UK on the register? It has the O233 engine, 118hp.
Lastly, this one is 10 years old - does that in itself offer some sort of proof that it was properly built (ie it hasn't fallen out of the sky after 500+ hours)?
Thanks, Sam.
Last edited by Sam Rutherford; 23rd Nov 2014 at 19:37. Reason: correct engine model number
There's a single Kitfox 5 on the UK register; it has a Permit to Fly, which means that the type has been approved by the LAA.
GINFO Search Results | Aircraft Register | Operations and Safety
I would recommend not even bothering about bringing a 10 year old US build kitplane like this into the UK - it'll all end in tears because the cost and complexity of proving that it was built to the UK quality and design requirements will be prohibitive.
But, if you want the specific type, find out the cost of buying a kit in the UK approved build standard. Building your own, given an existing approval, should be pretty straightforward - just time and money anyhow.
If you want a different engine on it - that's just a mod. It's more work, but manageable amounts of it. It looks from the photographs on G-INFO that this has already flown with two different engines anyhow.
G
GINFO Search Results | Aircraft Register | Operations and Safety
I would recommend not even bothering about bringing a 10 year old US build kitplane like this into the UK - it'll all end in tears because the cost and complexity of proving that it was built to the UK quality and design requirements will be prohibitive.
But, if you want the specific type, find out the cost of buying a kit in the UK approved build standard. Building your own, given an existing approval, should be pretty straightforward - just time and money anyhow.
If you want a different engine on it - that's just a mod. It's more work, but manageable amounts of it. It looks from the photographs on G-INFO that this has already flown with two different engines anyhow.
G
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tricycle undercarriage has been offered on most off the latter Kitfoxes - it has never been approved in the UK so that would be something of a challenge.
The owner of the first mk 7 spent a fair bit of time with the PFA as it was trying to get the 1550 gross - no deal. It has subsequently been exported to New Zealand.
'Losing' 65kg is actually a massive challenge - it simply cannot be done and still have a complete aircraft.... The difficulty is that a Mk5 or later has a heavier airframe and so in most cases less payload than the earlier ones - unless it has a 912S. Unfortunately if it has the 912S, then it could usefully use another 25hp to cope with the gross weight....
The owner of the first mk 7 spent a fair bit of time with the PFA as it was trying to get the 1550 gross - no deal. It has subsequently been exported to New Zealand.
'Losing' 65kg is actually a massive challenge - it simply cannot be done and still have a complete aircraft.... The difficulty is that a Mk5 or later has a heavier airframe and so in most cases less payload than the earlier ones - unless it has a 912S. Unfortunately if it has the 912S, then it could usefully use another 25hp to cope with the gross weight....
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contrary to what Genghis has said the Kitfox 5 Vixen is NOT currently approved by the LAA in the UK. The link provided by Genghis is for a Kitfox 5 and not a Kitfox 5 Vixen which again is a totally different aircraft.
The Vixen has a Nosewheeel , has much shorter different dihedral wings with an all flying Stabilator and different rudder.
There is one shown on G-INFO, ex French register, which has been going through a very protracted approval process with the LAA for some 18month-2years and hasn't quite got there yet. When approved it will be at MAUW 543kg(1195lbs) which is nowhere near the 1550lbs approval it can have on the Experimental category it goes on in the States.
Forget it and buy/import a kit and build a Kitfox 7SS direct from Kitfox in Homedale, Idaho, USA.
The Vixen has a Nosewheeel , has much shorter different dihedral wings with an all flying Stabilator and different rudder.
There is one shown on G-INFO, ex French register, which has been going through a very protracted approval process with the LAA for some 18month-2years and hasn't quite got there yet. When approved it will be at MAUW 543kg(1195lbs) which is nowhere near the 1550lbs approval it can have on the Experimental category it goes on in the States.
Forget it and buy/import a kit and build a Kitfox 7SS direct from Kitfox in Homedale, Idaho, USA.
Last edited by Shoestring Flyer; 24th Nov 2014 at 15:02.
I contacted Francis at the LAA, and received an extremely comprehensive reply. With his permission, his reply in full is below.
So, will rethink my plan!
Fly safe, Sam.
So, will rethink my plan!
Fly safe, Sam.
Dear Sam
Buying any amateur built aircraft from a country with regulations that are on a much lower level than the UK is a lottery, if you are lucky it may be OK but many are below an acceptable UK standard – it just depends how careful the builders were and whether they stuck to the manual or did their own thing and included mods.
In this case the type of aircraft is a Kitfox Vixen, not a Mk 5, and the Vixen is not a type we have yet cleared in the UK. We do have one Kitfox Vixen going through the process (has been for about a year) but that is powered by a Rotax engine not the much heavier Lycoming.
Personally I would not dream of flying an amateur built US built kitplane trans Atlantic unless I had been through every inch of it first, and established its safety through a great deal of proving flying over land, remember this is an Experimental category aeroplane in the USA and it will never have had any kind of inspection like we are accustomed to in the UK, and its reliability levels may be much lower than in a certified aircraft like you’ve ferried over before. For example early Kitfoxes had a lot of problems with fuel feed and fuel starvation, the header tank arrangement and routing of the fuel lines is critical – you’d not want to in mid-Atlantic that the fuel was feeding only from one tank and the other was not useable.
All this makes your plan not impossible but a high risk enterprise booth in terms of personal safety in the crossing and the risk of the aircraft being found to be substandard and not eligible for a UK permit to fly on arrival, or needing a major rework programme or modifications to make it acceptable. While perhaps more reliable than a Rotax, the heavier Lycoming engine means the aircraft would have to be able to cleared to a higher max gross weight if it is to have a worthwhile payload, and after changes of ownership and long elapsed time since it was first designed, I am not sure whether the manufacturers will have the data needed to satisfy LAA that the airframe can be cleared structurally at the higher weight, or that they will have the strength calculations for the Lycoming engine mount on file still. The effect on flight handling of the much heavier engine, giving amore forward cg would also need to be evaluated. The Rotax powered Vixen had problems with the flight test (pitch instability with full flap) and this has already meant that one needing a mod doing to restrict the flap travel to first stage only, at the expense of the STOL landing performance.
For more advice see this technical leaflet
http://www.lightaircraftassociation....20Aircraft.pdf
Sorry to be not very encouraging,
Kind regards
Francis Donaldson
Chief Engineer
www.laa.uk.com • +44 (0)1280 846786
Buying any amateur built aircraft from a country with regulations that are on a much lower level than the UK is a lottery, if you are lucky it may be OK but many are below an acceptable UK standard – it just depends how careful the builders were and whether they stuck to the manual or did their own thing and included mods.
In this case the type of aircraft is a Kitfox Vixen, not a Mk 5, and the Vixen is not a type we have yet cleared in the UK. We do have one Kitfox Vixen going through the process (has been for about a year) but that is powered by a Rotax engine not the much heavier Lycoming.
Personally I would not dream of flying an amateur built US built kitplane trans Atlantic unless I had been through every inch of it first, and established its safety through a great deal of proving flying over land, remember this is an Experimental category aeroplane in the USA and it will never have had any kind of inspection like we are accustomed to in the UK, and its reliability levels may be much lower than in a certified aircraft like you’ve ferried over before. For example early Kitfoxes had a lot of problems with fuel feed and fuel starvation, the header tank arrangement and routing of the fuel lines is critical – you’d not want to in mid-Atlantic that the fuel was feeding only from one tank and the other was not useable.
All this makes your plan not impossible but a high risk enterprise booth in terms of personal safety in the crossing and the risk of the aircraft being found to be substandard and not eligible for a UK permit to fly on arrival, or needing a major rework programme or modifications to make it acceptable. While perhaps more reliable than a Rotax, the heavier Lycoming engine means the aircraft would have to be able to cleared to a higher max gross weight if it is to have a worthwhile payload, and after changes of ownership and long elapsed time since it was first designed, I am not sure whether the manufacturers will have the data needed to satisfy LAA that the airframe can be cleared structurally at the higher weight, or that they will have the strength calculations for the Lycoming engine mount on file still. The effect on flight handling of the much heavier engine, giving amore forward cg would also need to be evaluated. The Rotax powered Vixen had problems with the flight test (pitch instability with full flap) and this has already meant that one needing a mod doing to restrict the flap travel to first stage only, at the expense of the STOL landing performance.
For more advice see this technical leaflet
http://www.lightaircraftassociation....20Aircraft.pdf
Sorry to be not very encouraging,
Kind regards
Francis Donaldson
Chief Engineer
www.laa.uk.com • +44 (0)1280 846786
