Sorry that my first post is to contradict, but you DO get a VFR- clearance through airspace charly Frankfurt in FL160, at least sometimes and you DO get a permission with an Experimental into belgian airspace, you only have to pay for it – if you apply for it.
Since I didn’t want to be impolite, now comes what should have been my first post: Hello to all :-)
Hello and welcome, Orlando !
Ha! Spell check?
Welcome Roland!
And Welcome Cet!
Re airspace, there are unfortunately quite a few big TMAs in Europe which effectively ban VFR.
Some because they are class A (Milan, Rome, Amsterdam, London, Paris, etc).
Others because controllers will simply refuse the clearance (Zurich, Geneva, Frankfurt, Munich, plus a few others).
So plan for some substantial detours. But the faster the plane, the less it will hurt.
On the other side of the scale, there are TMAs (Copenhagen comes to mind) where there is zero difference between VFR and IFR – the clearance is guaranteed.
France above FL115 (Class D but they ban enroute VFR in it).
…only applies to about a quarter of the country (the airspace controlled by Paris ACC).
Those who say Belgian airspace is closed to non Belgian-registered homebuilts/experimentals should come to the Schaffen fly-In in mid-August and make a list. I understand there’s a few who even pay the official fee.
And of course from me too a warm welcome to Cet and Roland – I think I met Roland at a German microlight forum, too.
Sorry, Europacs, you are right – it’s here. Belgium is merely the one country which charges for a transit.
Re France, I did actually write “much of France above FL115” because I recall getting enroute notams on routes well away from Paris. The problem is that the “Paris quarter” is often transited when going to other parts of Europe, excluding Spain.
Belgium does not allow N-reg experimentals? I would be surprised if that was the case. Personally I’d go for N-reg if possible.
I don’t agree. An N-reg homebuilt cannot be based anywhere in Europe, unless you keep it well below the radar, which probably means
Whether anybody can dig out the relevant reg, for each country in whose airspace you might want to fly the N-reg homebuilt, is another matter. I bet some countries don’t even have such a reg because they never got around to formalising it. Like that rather interesting turboprop I saw in the Adriatic 
I am sure many have been down this road before but don’t write about it on forums. Otherwise, most of the homebuilt scene would be N-reg. The US system is also good for non-builder owners (i.e. the N+1 owner) with just an A&P being able to sign off any maintenance. See the links previously posted.
There is a lot of good stuff on the US market. I get to hear a lot of stuff which is advised to be kept off the spotlight so I am not going to write about it either.
One practical issue is that if you get a homebuilt on a reg which causes a problem where you are based, the plane is of no use unless you find a buyer in the country of its registration.
Hi @Cet,
you probably know this already, but there’s a gorgeous 360 currently for sale on the Dutch register – the seller is a very experienced and clued-up guy. He could probably answer a lot of your questions about the administration of experimental aircraft. Let me know if you want his contact details. There’s also a little ‘nest’ of Lancair 320 builders and pilots in SW France, so hope you will come and see us if you do take the plunge. Turn up in a Legacy and you’re going to make a lot of folks down here très jaloux…!! 
The US system is also good for non-builder owners (i.e. the N+1 owner) with just an A&P being able to sign off any maintenance.
There is no restriction on who performs maintenance, repair, or modification of an FAA registered aircraft originally built/flown in Experimental Category, regardless of who owns it. No certificate of any kind is necessary to perform those functions. 14 CFR 43.1 b There is a certificate requirement for the person who performs the condition inspection each year, as specified in the individual aircraft operating limitations. Almost invariably for a homebuilt that means the annual requires sign off by an A&P mechanic (not IA) or by the original builder, with the original builder additionally needing to be a legal US resident to be granted a repairman certificate for the plane he manufactured.
achimha wrote:
Personally I’d go for N-reg if possible.
Not with an experimental aircraft. You would need special permission to cross any and all borders, since the USA is not an ECAC country. Keep it registered in one of the Nordic countries, and you can also fly IFR (if that’s a requirement, which it doesn’t seem to be by your post), probably also France and Italy.
In my opinion IFR in anything less than a DA42 with full de-ice makes little sense in large parts of the year anyway, at least up here. We even have snow storms in the middle of June now. When the weather is nice, VFR is no problem.
Peter wrote:
Otherwise, most of the homebuilt scene would be N-reg.
I don’t get it. Most homebuilts are exactly that – homebuilts. That is why the homebuilt scene is a local thing everywhere with large variations in the rules from country to country. Regardless, I don’t see any benefit of “N-regging” a homebuilt whatsoever, unless you use it in N-reg land
