Peter wrote:
The real savings come from the two types being a different aircraft. The former tend to be smaller, simpler, less well equipped, etc, and a smaller cockpit will need less fuel for a given speed.
I’d call all of this, and the rest, dancing on the thin ice of knowledge 
First point, calling the airplane the OP titled experimental, as such is wrong. It is wrong in the European countries where it is now called amateur-built or homebuilt, and also in the US where they are called E/A-B for Experimental/Amateur-Built. An experimental aircraft as such is usually a prototype, as was probably the case for the first TB-20s or other now certified aircraft, or an aircraft being developed for research or… experimentation, as in racing, electric flight etc.
The EAA offers some explanation:
The term “Experimental” is actually a bit of a misnomer; it refers to the FAA category in which the airplane is registered, not the exclusivity or the use of the airplane.
While there are a handful of homebuilt aircraft that are original designs, the vast majority of homebuilt airplanes are built using standardized, tried- and-true kits or plans that have been successfully constructed thousands of times.
Peter wrote:
doing the work yourself (and not accounting for your time)
Not necessarily possible, country of registration dependent.
Peter wrote:
not having to, in most cases, use parts with “aviation” paperwork
Correct, though again, country dependent.
Peter wrote:
not having to scrap parts based on arbitrary life limits
Not necessarily possible, country of registration dependent.
Savings: if these 3 points can be taken advantage of, the savings can be big, the more so if your hourly income is smaller than Peter’s Seriously, shops in my area have “fixed” infection rates, and a simple non-retract fixed pitch prop single engine annual will be listed at CHF3’500. Now, doing the same inspection myself, on a similar aircraft, would take 2 days, e.g. 16 hours of my time. The oil, the rags, the cleaning of the non-certified oil filter, and an occasional spark plugs replacement will amount to an average of say CHF500.
Now that sounds like good savings to me…
Back to that sentence:
Peter wrote:The real savings come from the two types being a different aircraft. The former tend to be smaller, simpler, less well equipped, etc, and a smaller cockpit will need less fuel for a given speed.
It is true that many older homebuilts were smaller etc, but the homebuilt Peter is dreaming of is described in this very thread Lancair Evolution Turboprop… not sure that this one is a good example of less well equipped etc 
Most modern homebuilt are better equipped than certified counterparts, smaller since the vast majority are 2 seater.
In a nutshell today’s homebuilts offer far superior performance and joy of piloting for much less K€s than most antiquated certified aircraft being shown and discussed here.
You are agreeing with everything I wrote
Not using a company for servicing saves a pile of money, but only because you do it yourself and do not account for your time. That’s fair enough; it is called a “hobby” after all.
Well, apart from me dreaming about the Evo – that is a useless plane for Europe because it needs to be flown IFR and in most countries here it cannot do so legally, practically, or both.
The OP is in Romania and I would bet that Romania has a near total lack of enforcement of most relevant matters Bulgaria is next door and probably the same, hence gems like this. A quick look on FR24 and certain types finds them flying largely in the former Soviet Bloc and for good reasons. So, yeah, anything “country dependent” is likely to work in the OP’s favour.
“Less well equipped” obviously doesn’t apply to your RV, which is why I wrote “tend to be” – because I know counter-examples. There is however considerable variation in build quality; one RV I flew in had gaps in the skin big enough to see outside.
On a wider topic, I would also not recommend this whole area to a novice owner. It is jumping in at the deep end. I avoided that as described here and I am happy I did so, despite being a competent engineer who could easily build e.g. an RV. A non tech owner is going to find this hard going; basically you need to find somebody (the English word is “wangle”) who will do the work for you.
Peter wrote:
You are agreeing with everything I wrote
As usual Peter, and reciprocal
Now regarding the Evo, where do you see it needing to be flown IFR?
And yes, you can’t do it legally, but practically. The subtlety was already raised in another thread… one can have a registered homebuilt and file, and then fly on an IFR flight plan. Unless more noise is being created on the subject by honourable members of this and other forums, the registration and certification status of aircraft filing and flying said flight plans are not verified by neither Eurocontrol, nor air traffic services. It is not their job, period. Law enforcement is performed by the police for terrestrial transportation, and our different NAAs (or CAAs) for flying objects.
Yes, eastern EU countries are probably easier going on some restrictions as implemented around central and western Europe. Not sure how popular the homebuilt concepts such as we know them are implemented, but as you mention, operating exotic types seems pretty liberal.
PS
My own steed, sans AP remember , is certainly not “Less well equipped”, nor is it “Well equipped”… and not representative of the latest homebuilts, RV or not, I have seen being completed lately. Most of those are “Superiorly equipped”.
EASA “Annex 1” includes “Orphan” aircraft whose builders no longer support them, and individual aircraft with an odd maintenance history, as well as homebuilt aircraft.
Jodel DR1050 aircraft were factory built, Certified. My Bolkow Junior was on an EASA Permit. It’s now on a UK LAA Permit. Most are still Certified EASA aircraft.
My last Annual cost £200, + 2 small self -tappers. Indo my own oil and filter changes. I pay the local FBO to do skilled upgrade work.
A Jodel D140 is a good 4 seater with fuel, factory built but now Annex 1. But it’s wood-and-fabric and tailwheel. Look up its weight carrying potential.
@Maoraigh not all D140s are factory built and when they are it is not always the same factory.
Like most Jodels a high proportion of Jodels flying in France have also been built from plans.
There is a huge range of wood and fabric plans built aircraft flying in France.
And the tradition is being kept alive in many lycée especially with a 4 seater (whose name I forget at the moment) but if you see one you might think you are looking at a DR400.
The MCR4 is also a popular kit built aircraft within the Lycée.
Registering and keeping an kit build or plans built aircraft in France is quite an easy and straightforward process. As is building and registering one to your own design. There are so many types that IMO ot is impossible to list them all. And that is the problem. French aircraft designs for the GA market don’t tend to commercial success through volume production and sales. In fact the vast majority see less than 10 built. They are labours of love.
I’m sure that Jacko would disagree about that bit as he wrote that he intensely dislikes his D140. But perhaps you need to be a francophile.
I should have added it is simple when registered by the builder.
I’m sure that Jacko would disagree about that bit as he wrote that he intensely dislikes his D140
I looked for that but could not find it. I flew in @Jacko ’s D140. It goes really well – great short field performance.
It was when his Maule went and he replaced it with the Mousquetaire.
IMO it is a great plane and very adaptable for camping, or landing on glaciers in the alps.
I don’t know if its just me but when climbing into one, they always seem much bigger than one expects.
gallois wrote:
And the tradition is being kept alive in many lycée especially with a 4 seater (whose name I forget at the moment) but if you see one you might think you are looking at a DR400
It’s the Océanair, which I just googled, and found a post on EuroGA by (embarassingly) myself
@Capitaine yes you are quite right the Océnair is a nice aircraft. The older I get the more names escape me. If I remember rightly the BIA group at one of the lycée at Cholet built one as a follow up to their MCR4S. I understand that both were able to be used for the student builders to train for their PPLs or perhaps LAPLs. They allowed 2 students and a flight instructor on x country flights. One would fly there and the other back.
I seem to remember an article about them in Info Pilote but it was a while ago.
BTW have you read “C’est la folie”? I was given the book about a week ago. Nicely written with good humour.
@gallois I think I remember the Info-Pilote article. I’ve never seen an Océnair in real life though, or flown one.
The local IUT (technical university) were on their second plane when I was doing my PPL 15 years ago, but I’ve not heard about it for a while. The first one took aboout 20 years, but they gave flights to all those who worked on it.
I really liked C’est la folie. Shameless feelgood story It was recommended by RobertL18C somewhere so I got it for my mother’s birthday but secretly read it first. There’s a sequel with more flying, but it wasn’t as good in my opinion.
