At the risk of going going too far off on a tangent, I think Arne meant that US registration of a road vehicle kept for 21 years in Europe is “wrong”, presumably meaning illegal. There is no other logical interpretation that I can see, obviously what I described in terms of motorcycle maintenance (as well as aircraft maintenance) is typical practice in most of the world. The road vehicle situation fits into a grey area that European countries inflict on themselves, unless their intent is to outlaw non resident ownership of vehicles in Europe. If so, I don’t care. I use the vehicle for short periods on short term insurance, but store it off the road in Europe instead of removing it in between trips. Many, many other non-European residents do the same thing in Italy, Slovenia, Germany, UK and elsewhere with zero consequence. The legality issue (as with it seems almost everything in Europe) is about national VAT payment and non-importation to a particular European country, complicated by the fact that the vehicle is generally used to travel between countries, often several in one day!
Attempting to bring this into relevance for Euro GA: its a situation which is broadly the same as for the aircraft flown to Germany and the ridiculous fine in the other Euro GA thread. The difference is that road vehicle movements between European countries and to Switzerland are not generally recorded, and there is no way for any country to know how long the vehicle has been in their particular country. Why aircraft are singled out with flight plans, national points of entry etc I have never determined except for dimwitted concern about invading Piper Cherokees, but the reality on the road is handy during roadside stops, if one is prepared with current and paid up US state registration, proof of short term EU liability insurance, a passport and drivers license that matches the location of vehicle registration, and an international driver’s license. It is then a perfectly normal paperwork situation, given that vehicle registration in a European country is forbidden for somebody who cannot or does not choose to hold residency in that particular country.
Ok, here someone is trying to buy an airplane. Don’t we have threads for N vs EASA? I fear this thread is drifting off topic.
Agreed, though it is relevant to the route to ownership. It is a big factor. Probably of no relevance to a pilot with no FAA papers and probably no access to an A&P/IA.
Not so long ago somebody would have suggested buying a G-reg Cessna because it avoids the wing spar inspections, but I doubt many would suggest that to a German pilot today 
Peter wrote:
Agreed, though it is relevant to the route to ownership. It is a big factor. Probably of no relevance to a pilot with no FAA papers and probably no access to an A&P/IA.
The OP asking the question learned to fly at my US base. In his shoes I certainly would have obtained an FAA pilot certificate, for obvious reasons. I was anyway sorry not to have met him while he was here!
Germany has lots of N-registered planes, even N-registered Experimental Homebuilts which initially amazed me until I learned of that legal possibility, and lots of people working on them. I’ve already figured out who would be working on mine if it were there – I’m not averse to thinking ahead
I purchased an N reg aircraft with no FAA papers or really knowing anything in detail about it (not something I would recommend to others but it worked out well for me)
I certainly wouldn’t write one off for the OP, however as he’s fairly clear in a common type spam can the right individual aircraft is more important than the reg. as long you can fly it easily without having to change it over.
We are now 85 posts in and no one has suggested a fixed gear, fixed pitch 180HP Lycoming powered aircraft that will out perform both the PA-28 and C172.
I guess the aerodynamic masterpiece from Dijon just fails to figure in most pilots psyche.
Maybe people have diligently read up the utter disaster stories of somebody trying to modernise the avionics in them… a nightmare in the absence of FAA TCs.
There are some exceptions.
A_and_C wrote:
no one has suggested a fixed gear, fixed pitch 180HP Lycoming powered aircraft that will out perform both the PA-28 and C172.
Yes I did. The Grumman Tiger. 140 kt with fixed gear and prop, so basically identical to an Archer but 25 kts faster.
Wood-and-fabric is more susceptible to damp than metal – another reason to avoid the wood Robin.
Corrosion is expensive to repair, another reason to avoid metal.
