Peter wrote:
Looks like this DAR may be the savior for a lot of people wanting to build and operate experimental (homebuilt) aircraft outside the US.
This sounds odd. How can a US DAR decide, or have any saying at all, where an untested experimental aircraft can fly within another country? Most countries explicitly say in the AIP that foreign experimental aircraft can only be flown if they have already gone through all test phases.
Peter wrote:
phi/II flight testing
Under FAA process for homebuilts, Phase I is for flight testing. Phase II is not for flight testing, although it sounds like it, it is for all subsequent operations after Phase I is completed and properly documented in the aircraft maintenance records. As per normal practice, Phase I on this plane was 40 hrs and as is typical included geographic limitations (although geographic restrictions within Germany are not typical!). Those geographic restrictions were removed for Phase II. Details on the above for this particular aircraft are in the Airworthiness link.
I’ve made some enquiries. The airworthiness certificate is below.
Looks like the German builder owner has a trust and also had someone from the US come over as a DAR and certificate the aircraft. Looks like New Mexico.
You can see his name on the application and there are only limitations in the area of the German airport for phi/II flight testing. Looks like this DAR may be the savior for a lot of people wanting to build and operate experimental (homebuilt) aircraft outside the US.
Jujupilote wrote:
What is most surprising … is that this plane is German !!
(The protytpe is N reg so they flight test in the US)
Here is the FAA registration, showing Experimental Amateur Built C of A. That would imply that it was built and test flown within the US, as per FAA regulations for individually designed & manufactured planes. The principal of the company is listed as the builder and trust ownership is explained by it being owned by somebody (perhaps he) without legal US residence. There must be a story about how that combination of circumstances occurred! The website mentions Czech effort so maybe they built a knocked down plane, shipped it to the US for completion and he successfully claimed 51% builder effort done in the US? That would be similar to how RVs are done with Philippine (used to be Czech) manufactured kits.
A photo on the net shows it on the ramp during a transatlantic flight, so I would guess that it’s now resident in Germany after being built, registered and tested in the US. There are a number of such FAA E-AB planes in Germany, operating on a renewable permit allowing local operation.
It would be interesting if none of the above were true and instead that the N-registered prototype was somehow built and given an FAA C of A in Germany, with test hours flown off before being flown to Oshkosh for display. That kind of overseas E-AB effort would take some serious ‘maneuvering’ with FAA and an FAA DAR.
tmo wrote:
There is (was?) a turbine Wilga called Draco as well.
Was. Mike Patey (the designer/builder/pilot) crashed it whilst trying to take off in too strong a crosswind. I think he has plans to re-built it.
DRACO was the star of Oshkosh 2019. Never heard of the explorer 
Looks like the ultimate backcountry family plane ! The True Flying SUV !
If I was american and had the money, I would look into it for weekends at Johnson creek 
What is most surprising … is that this plane is German !!
(The protytpe is N reg so they flight test in the US)
Emir wrote:
Because I don’t know how you can legally run A to A operation (plus paradropping) in Europe on experimental aircraft. AFAIK no EASA country would allow it.
I don’t see the problem. You certainly can run “non EASA” operations with “non EASA” aircraft. Is there a regulation saying dropping jumpers has to be done with “EASA aircraft” ?
LeSving wrote:
I can see it useful only in paradropping operations but for that it has to be certified aircraft.
Why?
Because I don’t know how you can legally run A to A operation (plus paradropping) in Europe on experimental aircraft. AFAIK no EASA country would allow it.
I can’t imagine anybody calling a plane “Beaver” today
