Quote: "A plane aint proven until proven in the official certification process. "
How true, Burt Rutan went through the certification process before he won the first amateur built aircraft to fly in sapce....didn't he ???
Yeh, you all better stay away from "any" airplane that is not certified because only idiots build experimentals.
Cat Driver
I toured the kitfox factory a couple of years ago, and was very impressed with the quality of work, attention to detail, and professional set up of the shop, and the professionalism of the workers. They make a good product.
A kit airplane is only as good as the builder. Thus far, someone has inferred that the seller is not the builder; the seller therefore cannot hold a repairman certificate for the aircraft, but also doesn't need to in order to maintain it.
Rather than get caught up in conjecture as to the qualifications of this older gentleman, why don't you inspect the airplane for yourself? Who cares what his qualifications are? It's an experimental, after all. Concern yourself here with safety; is his work of high standard, and does he employ quality craftsmanship? Has he used proper industry standard practices? Is the airframe indeed airworthy? If so, then what object lies in your path to prevent purchase of the aircraft? Either it's up to speed or it's not. Take a trusted mechanic with you, inspect it, and make up your mind.
jbDC9 offered some good advice regarding your question. Ignore most of what you've read here, and go back to read his post.
You want some advise on buying a used experimental aircraft with a 2-cycle rotax engine? The best advise I could give you is
DON'T DO IT!!! 
Why not? Bombardier, who owns Learjet, also owns Rotax. Lots of rotax out there in use. As for two cycle...did you know that many of the Oshkosh rigs that serve your crash rescue needs, the same vehicles that absolutely, positively MUST be reliable and ready to work, use two cycle engines?
Kitfoxes have all manner of engines installed, with great success. My first preference wouldn't be that engine, but do as you please. A lot of those airplanes are flying with those engines. My biggest beef is the sound, followed by the mixing of fuel.
Does the term "EXPERIMENTAL" mean anything to you? Are you ready to start experimenting with your life at this point? Do you have a wife and or kids? Valid questions to think about. A plane aint proven until proven in the official certification process. So, my advice is save your money or buy something proven. Seen too many private pilot folks get killed this way.
I've seen a lot of experiemental aircraft in which the quality of design and workmanship far exceeds that of production, type certificated aircraft. Let's not forget that the Cirrus and Lancair aircraft were kit airplanes before they were production airplanes, as was the Alarus.
I've also seen a lot of production airplanes that I wouldn't set foot in. Weather the aircraft has met type design criterial and obtained a type certificate is irrelevant if the aircraft hasn't received impeccable maintenance. I have flown a number of experimental and restricted category aircraft, and wouldn't hesitate over the category of airworthiness certificate held by the airplane. Inspect it. If it's safe to fly, it's safe to fly. Get proper instruction by one qualified to do so in that aircraft (factory springs to mind), and go fly. You always have the option of inviting the factory or a factory rep to inspect it.
Let's say you have a problem with either the airframe or engine. There won't be mechanic around that will work on that bird. Why? Because that mechanic must sign his name to the aircraft log books that the repair complied with current FAA standards/procedures. That may be true enough, but the aircraft was not certified as being built to comply with any set standards so how can he certify that his repair will not fail as a result of some other failure or cause some other problem downstream of his fix??
Not true. Some shops and some mechanics will be reluctant to work on the aircraft, some will not. The mechanic does not need to sign the aircraft logbook certifying that the repair has been performed within current FAA standards, only that the repair is airworthy. Further, in many cases, the repair need not be made by a FAA certificated mechanic. I will work on an experimental aircraft, but only at my discretion, continent on my personal assesment of the airplane and the attitude of the owner.
An A&P should check compression, check the oil quality and perform a spectro-analysis if possible, borescope the cylinders and check crankshaft tolerances. Take your time and do lots of research.....
Checking crankshaft tolerances isn't part of a normal inspection. A major powerplant inspection during an overhaul, yes. However, the advice is sound; do oil analysis, and have the aircaft thoroughly inspected.
But if it's any consolation, I won't touch helicopters either. I watch them as we are taxiing out. Forget about it.
You're missing out, and shortchanging yourself on one of the greatest pleasures (and challenges) in aviation.
To save ones own life is divine, but... What about saving the airplane also?
And isn't it faster to push a button than to unbuckle, unlock/open the door, and have everyone jump one at a time out of a plane that is out of control? That doesn't seem realistic.
Ballistic parachute installations were never intended to save the aircraft, just the occupants. Anybody that has ever landed a round parachute might think twice about deploying such a syste in the first place.
These installations are more often than not utilized as panic buttons. How about more self-regulation regarding maintaining one's airplane, and seeking better training as a pilot. A parachute is no substitute for common sense, even though it's often a whole lot more fun.
Someone, perhaps the original poster, mentioned that the owner hasn't run the engine, but has been pulling the propeller through. Pulling the propeller through on an engine doesn't provide any appreciable benifit. What it does do instead is cause excessive wear, and promotes corrosion as residual oil films on various surfaces are disturbed or displaced. This means the engine is moving without lubrication, and has lost it's corrosion protection. This also means increased wear during engine start, the worst time for the engine.
I'd sure be a lot more comfortable seeing that engine run. I'd also be very interested if I were doing the purchase in seeing the condition of the fuel cells, lines, and associated equipment after auto fuel has been sitting so long. Good luck!
