It’s an ultralight under US rules.
No.
However, I strongly advise you get some training before attempting to fly one.
Depends on where, exactly, you live.
You definitely can not fly it within 30 miles of Reagan airport. Not unless you want a visit from the Feds. If you’ve really attracted their attention they may not wait until you land and, to be honest, I really would not want to ride out either the wake from a fixed wing intercept aircraft or the downwash from a military helicopter in that thing.
If you’re flying under Part 103 you can’t fly it in airspace labeled A, B, C, or D. Also, quite a bit of Class E. Basically, nowhere near airports with towers. Not over “congested areas” of cities or towns - basically, no flying over housing developments/neighborhoods/suburbs. There are ways to ask for an exception, but in every instance I’m aware of where such permission was granted the person getting authorization had at least a private pilot’s license.
You would be following Part 103. Here is a link to the actual chapter and verse of the regulations.
Your only alternative would be to try to get it licensed under some sort of “experimental” classification (that’s the reasons for shipping it only 50% complete - the remaining amount to put together let’s you call it a homebuilt under US rules, unless they’ve changed them since I last was flying those sorts of things). However, you’ll need either a Sport Pilot or Private Pilot rotor license (not the more common fixed-wing) to fully utilize the capabilities of such a classification, and to use it at any sort of airport you’ll need to add stuff like lighting. You’d still be limited in where you can fly it due to the powerplant/engine(s) combination, which do not exist in an FAA certified version.
I doubt it - but given the limited flight time I’m not sure I would, personally, bother with trying to gain much altitude. Also, one of the appeals (to me) of such an aircraft is the ability to fly low and slow.
It’s basically a rich man’s toy (or a rich woman’s toy). It’s clearly for cruising in fair weather and not much else. Which is fine - the bulk of my own flying could be described that way. I just use aircraft that are (for the most part) a lot cheaper, and certainly with a longer track record of use.
A lot of ultralights are described as such. Actually, some of them are. I would have some serious questions about this thing before I’d climb into it myself, and I’m probably one of the more tolerant of crazy minimal aircraft around here.
They claim it is flight stable with one failed engine. OK. What if two stop working?
Sure, they have a ballistic parachute on board. Skippy for them. Do they mention that the effectiveness of those is iffy at best below 100 feet altitude, and preferably you’d like to be three or four times that altitude? Don’t care how fast that 'chute opens, it still takes a certain amount of time to deploy fully.
That might be another reason for staying low - not that I’d want to fall 10 or 20 feet even with a roll cage, but that has at least a chance of survival. Much more so than, say, 50 feet would.
You want to be either low enough to survive a potential engine out or high enough to have time for the parachute to work. In between is not good.