I would agree with the point about importing an aircraft from the US.

However, if an aircraft has a current permit from the LAA then it should be up to scratch, one would hope.

That's not much of a job for a Long Eze - I met a guy who flew one from Hawaii to California :) So again, with an O-235 sipping auto fuel like a C152, cruising at something not too far below your goal, it's an aircraft that was designed to do what you're wanting to do.... if you have hard runways. About $40K for a nice one.

The problem with non certified aircraft in Europe is the weather. Certainly in the UK they are limited to day VFR only. Makes them somewhat restrictive.

you have to factor a lot more than fuel cost.
Hangarage
Insurance
Servicing
Annuals
.. plus incidentals on top. Tyres, oil, repairs etc. etc

These added together will almost certainly exceed your fuel cost per hour unless you fly at least 100+ hours per year

Well, coming to think of it, there actually is an airplane that pretty much fits your bill: Marchetti 260. They are pretty rare (in the civilian version), but go like hell and are fully aerobatic. Not sure about the economics, though.

Economics........Marchetti........same thread...........me going to lay down in a dark room ,

"you have to factor a lot more than fuel cost.
Hangarage
Insurance
Servicing
Annuals
.. plus incidentals on top. Tyres, oil, repairs etc. etc"


- Are you implying that these costs would be higher than for a PA28?

Jonty
 

While you opinion that an aircraft with a current LAA permit would be OK is well founded some do slip through the net.

It was the wing tip strobe electrical cables routed through a length of (leaking) garden hose in the wing tip fuel tank that got my attention on one USA import.

Piss poor standard. How hard can it be to find a length of non-leaking garden hose?

In Norway you'd want an IR and deice :) how about an older Seneca, what with all that terrain around? Probably cheaper than owning a car in Norway !

get a nice RV-4 with a 160 or a 180 on the front. That's fast enough.

Pipistrel Virus or Sinus is my choice. Fast, very efficient, ideal for cross-country flying. In 2012 a Pipistrel Virus completed a long westbound flight around the world (from/to Slovenia via Senegal, Antarctica, Easter Island, New Zealand, Mt. Everest, Seychelles, etc.). Average fuel burn was 4.78 gph in 369 hours flown. The total distance was 49,138 nm, 17,873 of which were above water. The average ground speed was a little over 133 knots with an average headwind of 12 knots. The highest recorded GS was 190 knots and the highest recorded altitude was 29,413 feet near Mt. Everest. (sources: Flying Magazine, Full Itinerary, GreenLight WorldFlight | North Pole - Why)

Why would someone who specified an aircraft capable of 180-200kts be interested in a Pipistrel Virus? Seriously, do take the time to read the original question...:ugh:

You could have a look at a Harmon Rocket ?

The Harmon Rocket seems on the face of things to be an attractive idea but the rear cockpit is very cramped and more important the RV4 it is derived from can have issues with the firewall structure, given the extra weight of the O-540 this is likely to be an issue even with the extra structure to support the bigger engine.

On the whole I think it is just a bit too much power and likely to upset the balance of the very nice RV4.

You could buy my Arrow 2 instead, which is currently "priced to sell". Admittedly, it's not quite as fast as your spec (and not 6g) but with the price difference you could operate two aircraft - one for travel and one for aeros.

HFD