C

Chewie65

Member
I know of three people that have taken RV around the world. An Aussie (Jon Johanson)in an RV-4, an American in an RV-8 and a Brit in an RV-6.

This isn't a question on what to do to an RV to make the trip, but ideas are welcome. I am more interested in the logistics. Mostly the ins and outs of flying an RV in other countries. I know from Johanson that Australia requires the prints to be followed to the T when building.

But what happens if I showed up in Germany or Africa in a modified RV such as a Subie motor and tip tanks? Just an example folks! Could have used an Innodyn too, but the Subie gets people going anyway.....

Ideas? I would like to do this in the next 20 years or so, but I am curious.
 
This is what I've been told, it could be wrong.
The experimetal rules of that country don't apply to you. You're an FAA pilot flying and N numbered airplane. However, some country require special authorization to fly an experimental in their country.

The rest of the paperwork (flight permits), different flight rules, immigration... is the meat of it and info that's not so available. Ferry pilots keep it pretty secret as it's their livelyhood and the people who've done it have yet to write a manual on how to do it. Of course each experience would be different anyways for a world trip. It sure if fun to dream about though.
 
Earthrounders

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.earthrounders.com/

I met some of these people at OSH '05, and they are very open, and happy to share experiences, tips, tricks, and techniques.

There seems to be two ways to do it:

1) do all the logistics yourself;
2) outsource the logistics to a company that does this professionally.

I've spoken to people that have done it both ways, and as you can imagine there is a world of difference. Outsourcing it costs money, in the range of 50k USD, I've heard. It does greatly reduce the hassles. If you've never flown outside the "western world", then you might not be able to even imagine the kinds of problems you can run into. Having a local there to look after your interests can be very useful.

Bill Randolph (RV8) didn't use any logistics companies, but he said it was a great experience. He ran into all kinds of strange issues, but in the end, he made it.

Good luck!
 
A Sloviainian pilot friend of mine was attempting to fly around the world in a motor glider in 2002. Got 3/4's around the world to Alaska and was stopped by Air Canada. Paper work snafu. Had to turn around and go home! Canada for crying out loud! What would he hit if he crashed a moose?

He then attempted it again in '04". He landed at OSH after getting clearance from Air Canada and we thought all was well. Well, Air Canada started in again at OSH! in our own country! They were not going to let him travel through Canada again! It was really BS. All he wanted to do was fly though their air space! Not even stop! This time he just kept flying and made it. He could go 12 hours without refueling. His Pipistrel motor glider was all carbon fiber. Stealth! Scud running at it's best!

There is now a warrant for his arrest in Canada if he ever comes back.

Oh, he was almost shot down in Russia by 2 Migs. Due to the stealthly characteristics of the plane the Rooshkies were really nervous. They went up looking for him, but could not find him.

I copied this from earth rounders. = August 31, 2002: Slovenian Matevz Lenarcic has had to abandon his RTW (round the world) flight in Canada as the Canadian CAA does not allow him to fly on across the North Atlantic. What a pity, after all his efforts through the Russian bureaucracy and the flying difficulties. Congratulations to Matevz on an epic flight thus far.
http://www.worldtranssiberia.com/

It amazed me how one branch of the Canadian government wants tourism, and another branch tries to kill it. I would never fly into Canada in a private plane. I've seen the nasty side to Air Canada.
 
Last edited:
Pond Crossing..

Fortunately, after 16 pond crossings for my Uncle in a single engine jet, all of the logistics hassles were taken care of for me. 8 hours and 6 refuelings later, you are there. If I was doing it in my RV, some "outside the box" thinking would ensue.
First thought, why land at all? I helped modify a Cessna 210A for a missionary organization that flew the airplane from Sacramento to Tanzania. The hardest part of the trip for them was landing. Most of the places were hostile or prohibitive. One stop nearly landed them in jail. The debrief item they gave me was "I wish we had more gas and could have gone non-stop".
You could be the first non stop RV flight. How, you say? Air Refuel my brother! Why not take 2 pilots or 2 good AP's, and build in an air refueling capability and have aerial tankers fill you inflight. It's been done before many times in small airplanes, the longest flight is recorded on the side of the C-172 that did it, one month airborne back in 1959 I believe. The C-172 now hangs in the Las Vegas airport. It still holds the longest airborne time record.
Long distance is nothing new either. Charles Lindberg took off with 425 gallons in the Spirit of St Louis back in 1927 and averaged 82 knots burning over 10 gph for 33.5 hours with a 220hp engine. In Paris, he still had enough gas left to divert to Rome! Max Conrad flew a Comanche from Tripoli Libya to Los Angeles, non-stop back in 1960. He emerged from the Comanche after 30 hours in a Tuxedo! Max's book, The Flying Grandpa is a must-read for anyone who likes the idea of long flights over water. Dick Rutan and Mike Melville flew their Long EZ's together around the world 8 years ago. I think with todays technology, you could do even better.
A wet-wing RV (or whatever you want to call the new experimental) could be built to carry well over 200 gallons. At 7 gph and 150 knots GS that's enough to require you only 3 or 4 refuelings (or landings). You could refuel over international waters and not need a permit (or pick 3 friendly countries to land in). The beauty of air refueling is landing gear and tire loads are reduced and the airplane avoids takeoff and climb fully loaded.
Or, you could just figure the distance and do several "closed courses" around friendly country. UK-US, UK-Japan, Japan-US. All of those legs have been done by lightplanes over the years and are well documented. 100 consecutive flying hours sounds painful to me, but if you're determined, that's my 2 pennies.

My advice, avoid landing in bad-guy land. If Steve Fosset can do it, you can too...

Rob Ray
 
Last edited:
Rob,
Sounds good, but one small anomaly. I don't think you're going to get 150kts @7 gph while carrying 200 gallons of fuel.
 
Law of Averages...

I agree Mel, I just threw it out as a rough gouge. Realistically I think JJ averaged closer to 130 in his RV4. Max Conrad flew the Comanche at 105 knots and increased speed as he burned fuel. My longest leg ever was 12 hours in the F16, that one hurt..

30+ must be really painful.

seeya!

RR
 
Johannson

According to his book, Jon had 18 hours of fuel aboard his -4. That included 300 lbs in his rear seat... :eek:

Regards,
 
Geico266 said:
A Sloviainian pilot friend of mine was attempting to fly around the world in a motor glider in 2002. Got 3/4's around the world to Alaska and was stopped by Air Canada. Paper work snafu. Had to turn around and go home! Canada for crying out loud! What would he hit if he crashed a moose?

He then attempted it again in '04". He landed at OSH after getting clearance from Air Canada and we thought all was well. Well, Air Canada started in again at OSH! in our own country! They were not going to let him travel through Canada again! It was really BS. All he wanted to do was fly though their air space! Not even stop! This time he just kept flying and made it. He could go 12 hours without refueling. His Pipistrel motor glider was all carbon fiber. Stealth! Scud running at it's best!

There is now a warrant for his arrest in Canada if he ever comes back.

Oh, he was almost shot down in Russia by 2 Migs. Due to the stealthly characteristics of the plane the Rooshkies were really nervous. They went up looking for him, but could not find him.

I copied this from earth rounders. = August 31, 2002: Slovenian Matevz Lenarcic has had to abandon his RTW (round the world) flight in Canada as the Canadian CAA does not allow him to fly on across the North Atlantic. What a pity, after all his efforts through the Russian bureaucracy and the flying difficulties. Congratulations to Matevz on an epic flight thus far.
http://www.worldtranssiberia.com/

It amazed me how one branch of the Canadian government wants tourism, and another branch tries to kill it. I would never fly into Canada in a private plane. I've seen the nasty side to Air Canada.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta follow the regs in each country. We could say the US is not too friendly to Canadian pilots wanting to visit too. We need a passport now, have to alert prior to entry, flight plan, land at a customs airport and be within 15 minutes on the ETA or you'll get intercepted.

You have to realize that for the most part, Canada is sparsely settled compared to much of the US. When planes go missing, we like to know where to look. Some people have had to foot part of the SAR bill by doing stupid things. C130s can run up big fuel bills!

We get many US pilots lost here in the mountains and not knowing the regs. We help out whenever we can and if you have to land elsewhere, sometimes the RCMP can do a customs clearance for you although you might be asked some questions.

Just for clarification, Air Canada is our big airline, NAV Canada is our privatized ATC and Transport Canada is who you answer to if you get violated by NAV Canada for doing something stupid. :)
 
Depends..

Having done some international flying in my RV4 and other airplanes and plenty for my uncle, I too have my view of customs. It depends where you stop. Jon Johansen documented his longest delay and hassle on the big Island of Hawaii. Yep, US customs. It is well known here in FL that certain Customs offices are friendlier than others. Having flown back from the Bahamas in my RV4 with small N numbers, one customs office knows the regs about Experimental airplanes not needing big numbers, the others don't. One office actually likes experimentals and enjoys a visit.
I have delivered 4 airplanes to Alaska over the years and my experience in Canada has always been positive. I followed instructions (I know, RTFQ)and always stopped at the same office (Penticton, BC)and was always treated well. Mexico, Spain, Azores, Italy, Greece and even Iraq all have their own small requirements. With a little prior study and a phone call, you can avoid alot of pain later. The only downside as most of you know in small countries is fuel costs and landing fees...

The fewer stops, the better.

Rob Ray

Check out this site:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/nwpilot's_tranatlantic_flight.htm
 
Last edited:
rv6ejguy said:
Just for clarification, Air Canada is our big airline, NAV Canada is our privatized ATC and Transport Canada is who you answer to if you get violated by NAV Canada for doing something stupid. :)
Click to expand...
I knew that, :eek: I stand corrected. Transport Canada it is.

Why on God's green earth would TC have turned this pilot away? He was 3/4 the way around the world and they turned him away from simply using Candian airspace. If I remember right he needed a certain kinda of insurance for North America. The US waived it, and Canada enforced it.
 
In Europe, you would officially need authorization from each country you overfly or land in with an experimental airplane. Some countries, like Belgium and France are reluctant to give such a written permission eventhough they accept experimental aircraft in their territory and have a large number of experimental aircraft on their civil aircraft register. The Exerimental Aircraft Organization of each country that you plan to visit or overfly, should be able to help you with this paperwork. If I would plan such a trip, I wouldn't bother getting all these permissions, it's a lot of red tape that would probably only matter in an insurance matter if something should happen along the way.

I ferried a Piper Warrior to Iran last year through France, Italy, Greece, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Couple of do's and don'ts:
-Wear an official pilot's uniform including stripes. Specially in the Middle East, you will be treated with much more respect if you show up decent instead of in a worn t-shirt and cut-off jeans !
-Arrange overflight pemissions ahead. Try to do it yourself by looking at the national AIP publications. Some countries like Egypt want you to use an agent, which is just an excuse for ripping you off...Don't expect to receive overflight permission or landing permission without using an agent. We used a Canadian speciality firm which arranged everything at premium dollar prices.
-Arrange fuel at your planned landing airports. In Europe you will have no problem finding sufficient 100LL fuel but in the Middle East this is a major handicap. We had to take 98 in Alexandria (if that is what it was..) and 95 in Saudi Arabia. The engines ran fine but there is always the vapor-lock risk.
-Fuel prices and landing fees in the Middle East are unreal. Paid $ 850,- for landing and handling in Alexandria and $ 500 in Luxor. Most handlers want cash. Saudi Arabian prices were in the same region. We used Jet Aviation as our handler which turned out to be the most expensive. Arabasco is a cheaper handler in Jeddah and Riyadh.
-Credit cards are widely accepted but American Express is not very popular in Europe and Middle East. Bring VISA.

It's a great experience but not everything can be planned ahead, bring patience and make sure you have enough time to cater for the unexpected.
 
Geico266 said:
I knew that, :eek: I stand corrected. Transport Canada it is.

Why on God's green earth would TC have turned this pilot away? He was 3/4 the way around the world and they turned him away from simply using Candian airspace. If I remember right he needed a certain kinda of insurance for North America. The US waived it, and Canada enforced it.
Click to expand...

I can't overfly the US without prior permission nor do I expect to. Most countries consider their airspace sovereign. If your friend had no flight plan filed for entry into Canadian airspace he'd certainly be in trouble if he penetrated it. As far as insurance goes, all aircraft operating in Canada must carry liability insurance so that could be a problem also. Finally, private licenses from all all countries are not accepted here to my knowledge so that should be checked as well. As a minimum, brush up on air regs which are different from yours. One thing in Canada, it is mandatory to file a flight plan or flight note on all flights over 25NM from base. US visitors take note.

With a little more planning and checking with TC prior to his flight, I'm sure your friend would have been able to enjoy his flight through Canadian airspace. Naturally we have our officials and customs officers which can be less than reasonable and cooperative at times. I'm sure we've all experienced this in different countries. It just takes one guy with some power having a bad day and he can ruin your day as well.

For the round the world flight, planning and checking regs for each stopping or overflying country will be a daunting task. I know of others which could not receive overflight permission in the past and had to plan a different route.

I can relate an interesting story from a motorglider friend well prior to 9/11. He was up over the Rockies, near the US border at about 20,000 feet and must have strayed a little too far South. Suddenly an F16 appeared on his wing with everything hanging out just to take a look and see who he was. The F16 peeled off, satisfied that the glider was no threat and my friend never heard anything about it.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Why on God's green earth would TC have turned this pilot away? He was 3/4 the way around the world and they turned him away from simply using Candian airspace. If I remember right he needed a certain kinda of insurance for North America. The US waived it, and Canada enforced it.
Click to expand...
It may have had something to do with either him or the aircraft not meeting the transoceanic flight requirements of the Canadian Aviation Regulations:

Transoceanic Flight

602.39 No pilot-in-command of a single-engined aircraft, or of a multi-engined aircraft that would be unable to maintain flight in the event of the failure of any engine, shall commence a flight that will leave Canadian Domestic Airspace and enter airspace over the high seas unless

(a) the pilot-in-command holds a pilot licence endorsed with an instrument rating;

(b) the aircraft is equipped with

(i) the equipment referred to in section 605.18,

(ii) a high frequency radio capable of transmitting and receiving on a minimum of two appropriate international air-ground general purpose frequencies, and

(iii) hypothermia protection for each person on board; and

(c) the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to meet the requirements of section 602.88 and, in addition, carries contingency fuel equal to at least 10 per cent of the fuel required pursuant to section 602.88 to complete the flight to the aerodrome of destination.
Click to expand...
 
It may have had something to do with either him or the aircraft not meeting the transoceanic flight requirements of the Canadian Aviation Regulations:
Click to expand...
LOL. So they sent him back across the ocean.
 
alternatively

A lot of Lindburgh's adventures were with float planes for lack of useable airfields, eg., his Caribbean sorties in 1930 with a Sikorsky and the great circle to the Orient in '31 using the Sirius all by compass of course. I think a spirited "Lindburgh like" today would circumvent the beauracracy and do the same thing for a different reason. You'd have to research boat refueling spots you could get in to, but since they'd have no experience with foreign float planes and as long as you didn't look suspicious, .eg, drug trafficker, couldn't imagine they would report you, much less know who to call. Use the radio and transponder only when it is safe to do so. Of course this would be more challenging and adventurous because you wouldn't have the extensive logistic support and if caught you'd have to be a good story teller. :rolleyes:
 
David Johnson said:
LOL. So they sent him back across the ocean.
Click to expand...
LOL Makes sense to someone, but it don't make sense to me. lol

Take about your diversion. 3/4 around the world, 3/4 back. That's 1.5 times around the world and he didn't make it!. Then he traveled around the world again. So he flew 2.5 times around the world just to complete his journey. :eek:

Good thing his plane burns 3.5 GPH. ;)
 
More details about Matevz's Canada problems

From: http://archive.copanational.org/non-members/Newsletter/2002/newsDec02A.htm

"In the end the flight was halted, not by any of those factors, but by Canadian Aviation Regulation 602.39 and a new legal opinion on it, as sought by Transport Canada just before Lenarcic departed on his flight.

CAR 602.39 requires that anyone flying a single engine aircraft from Canada transoceanic must have an instrument rating, and the aircraft must be IFR equipped, although not necessarily ?IFR Certified.? The aircraft must also have an HF radio, hypothermia protection and extra fuel reserves for the flight. Lenarcic had actually approached Transport Canada two years before his flight to ask if CAR 602.39 would apply to his flight. He received written assurance that it would not apply. At that time Transport Canada did not consider flights via Greenland to be ?Transoceanic.? The legal opinion that Transport Canada received from the Department of Justice indicated that they believed that flights via Greenland did constitute ?Transoceanic? flights.

It was only some five weeks before his departure, after more than two years of planning, that Transport Canada let Lenarcic know of the new legal opinion about the applicability of the CAR. At that point Lenarcic felt that it was too late in the planning process to either comply with the CAR or cancel the flight.
Lenarcic was lacking the instrument rating and some of the required equipment. Ultralight pilots do not generally have instrument ratings and Lenarcic?s CH 701 was not completely IFR equipped, although it had most of the instrumentation required.

Lenarcic flew to Canada hoping to find solution to the problem while here, but Transport Canada would not let Lenarcic depart Canada for Greenland without complying with all the requirements of CAR 602.39. This refusal by Transport Canada resulted in much diplomatic action that saw Transport Canada officials called to the Slovenian embassy in Ottawa and appeals for a resolution from the Slovenian Minister of Transport to the Canadian Minister of Transport. It also resulted in a huge flurry of domestic and worldwide press coverage, not about the flight itself, but of the intransigence of the Canadian government to allow this world record flight to continue. COPA was asked late in the proceedings to intervene in the matter, but was not able to facilitate a resolution.

As a result of this flight and its end, Canada now has a reputation amongst the international aviation community for bureaucracy that is unparalleled anywhere in the world.

Lenarcic spent many weeks in Canada trying to resolve the issue and ended up going home on an airline flight while his CH 701 remains parked in Canada.

During the many discussions with Transport Canada officials it was apparent that the only way to facilitate these sorts of flights in the future is through an amendment to the CARs. In examining this issue COPA can understand that the Canadian government does have some responsibilities in this area. In general, the CARs exist for reasons of the ?safety of the public? and also for ?the public interest.? In examining CAR 602.39 it is not obvious where it protects either of those issues in the case of these types of solo flights. There are no passengers to protect and little risk to persons on the ground (or high seas). The only ?public interest? argument that has been made to date by Transport Canada is that these flights may put Canadian SAR resources at risk, should a rescue be needed. This argument does not succeed when one considers that there are no such similar prohibitions on transoceanic sailing or boating and that Canadian SAR resources are launched on a regular basis to rescue boaters in the North Atlantic. If boats were similarly restricted then this CAR might be seen as at least consistent.

As it is currently written, this CAR imposes very high standards on world record flights and other long distance non-commercial flights. The sole argument for the existence of this CAR seems to be to protect unsuspecting passengers from these risks. COPA does understand this concern and supports the need to reduce exposure for non-crew members on these types of flights but the onerous restrictions on personal freedoms posed by this CAR are not justified. Based on these concerns, COPA has made the request to Transport Canada that CAR 602.39 be amended to affect only those flights that carry passengers and that flights with only essential crew on board be permitted to depart Canada without complying with the onerous requirements of CAR 602.39."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.