@Peter – There is definitely a huge bandwith, to say the least :-)
I would recommend visiting Aero Friedrichshafen and checking out what is on show, and comparing the build quality and the various weight saving approaches. Then you can make up your own mind, rather than listening to me
I rather hope meeting you guys over there in person…. :-)
If I were you, I’d first fly some time with different planes and do some mountain flying training to strengthen my view on what’s really important for me when it comes to flying.
Then you can judge better if you want a plane for mountain flying mostly, or compromise for higher cruise speed and load-carrying capability. (Many ULs are overloaded once you sit down in it with your buddy.)
Also you’ll be able to decide what budget is required for what mission. In airplane ownership, everything is a compromise. Where will you make yours? Buying cheap might be very expensive, as I and many others had to learn the hard way.
I’m not writing this to talk down to you, to the contrary. A few years ago I was in a similar situation, and didn’t really make the best choices by buying prematurely and with incomplete information.
Airplanes are a not very liquid asset and can be a money sink. Even worse if you buy something which might not fulfill your long-term needs. So it’s better to know exactly what you’re getting for spending your money, time, and effort.
Since you seem to be based in Switzerland: You are probably aware of this, but if you want to keep your plane in Switzerland, especially Zürich area, finding a hangar spot (or even tie-down) might be your biggest challenge. They’re quite rare and catch eye-watering prices (easily in the range CHF 500-700 per month indoors).
Then keep in mind that flights from Switzerland to Italy and France will require customs processing at a designated airfield on both sides, which costs time and money. That makes quick hops across the border less straightforward as desirable.
Having flown gliders in my early times
Good. There’s definitely a difference in attitude and culture between people having started early in life (model airplanes at young age and gliders at teenage typically) and people who started late.
Late starters tend to use expression like “mission profile” (but always meaning touring), “utility value”, “food chain”, “Eurocontrol”, “EASA”, “N-reg”, “build quality” (but meaning color scheme).
Early starters more often use expressions like “loop”, " roll" , “G”, “perfect 3 pointer”, " fun", “bush”, “build quality” (and meaning a riveted joint, he has made himself)
Not that far from the truth 
Regarding 30 min difference for a 300nm flight: a realistic cruise speed for a Kitfox may be 80kts, for a RV7 maybe 140 kts. Thus 300nm require 3:45 vs 2:15 h, which is 90min more. I would be happy to be forced to fly for a longer period of time through the swiss alps, it’s pure fun. Then a slower plane=more fun.
But: your scope of interest will definitely grow if you become an aircraft owner (south france, croatia, italy, spain, GB…). A weekend trip will be limited with a slower plane. Furthermore, you may not be able to profit from a „weather window“ eg in the alps, further limiting your options.
Microlight: safe, versatile, shiny, sometimes fast planes. Very good STOLand climb performance. IFR impossible
Experimental: sexy, fun planes with sometime very good performance. IFR impossible
Certified: safe, solid, average performance, a bit boring, high maintenance costs. IFR possible
Like me, you do anything to avoid controversy
I have a certifed plane which isnt boring but which cannot legally fly IFR due to legal limitations buried deep within the type certificate’s reference data. It isn’t expensive to maintain.
Meanwhile most of those I fly with have Experimental category planes, some of which fly IFR. RVs are prominent, and are surely flown IFR. They aren’t expensive to maintain either.
In both cases the owners chose four cylinder Lycoming engines because of their power, serviceability, and low cost of maintenance in comparison to either Continental or (moreso) Rotax.
Nobody I know flies Microlights because the performance to cost ratio sucks, except when and where regulation warps the market.
I think in conflating what is “impossible” with what is locally illegal a_kraut may be describing Germany, not Europe generally and for sure not elsewhere
Silvaire wrote:
In both cases the owners chose four cylinder Lycoming engines because of their power, serviceability, and low cost of maintenance in comparison to either Continental or (moreso) Rotax.
To each his own, but few people I know would choose a Rotax if they do anything on the engine themselves or have others do work in the field. They’re not badly designed engines but they suffer from relatively low power output and the ‘Apple-Garmin syndrome’ of limited owner options and virtually unbreakable ties to the OEM. In a highly structured, low infrastructure environment where maintenance options are few and nobody is hands-on except company employed mechanics and repair stations, they do make more sense and yes, that better describes EASA regulated maintenance than FAA practice.
In contrast those who take advantage of the options can buy Lycoming parts from a wide spectrum of suppliers at low cost (e.g. a complete set of cylinders, half the engine, for $4K) and the engines are simple to service or even overhaul in the field. Lycomings don’t have a multi piece pressed together roller bearing crankshaft, they have a completely serviceable crankshaft… and so on. And they make twice the power.
