Is this only about new planes? Because there are some old two seat spam cans perfectly IFR, like the 152.
(It sounds a little off in English though)
The pronunciation is (of course) different. Stress is on the second syllable, the first I is short as in ‘hit’ and the first vowel practically disappears: c’nVIVjal, not conviviAL.
Because there are some old two seat spam cans perfectly IFR, like the 152
Virtually all of them in fact, unless there is a specific limitation preventing IFR operation.
Well most aircraft manuals specify this in their limitations. If the POH says VFR day, the aircraft can only ever do VFR day. It may be different in the US, but the airframe does have to be certified as far as I understand it.
Pretty sure something like a DA20 is not IFR certified (and therefore cannot, ever, fly IFR, except maybe if converted to experimental). I’ll have to double check the POH.
Well most aircraft manuals specify this in their limitations. If the POH says VFR day, the aircraft can only ever do VFR day. It may be different in the US, but the airframe does have to be certified as far as I understand it.
You understand it incorrectly for aircraft that were originally FAA certified, until very recent times. Unless there is a specific limitation against IFR it is legal when the aircraft is appropriately equipped, and most types do not have that limitation or any reference to flight conditions in the TC.
I know a guy who took most of his IFR training in a Cessna 140, because he was 18 at the time and it was the plane he owned. There is a near endless list of similar types that can be flown IFR if that’s what the owner wants to do. Given the performance limitations of most of them, this is mainly useful for getting off through e.g. coastal mist, for example filing IFR to a nearby VOR and canceling when in VMC.
Pretty sure something like a DA20 is not IFR certified (and therefore cannot, ever, fly IFR, except maybe if converted to experimental). I’ll have to double check the POH.
I think that’s true and it is one of the downsides to more recently certified aircraft types, and also older types that were originally certified in e.g. Germany where this restrictive regime has existed for longer. I own one of the latter, although it is flown on an FAA TC issued on the basis of a US-German treaty. As a result the explicit TC limitation to VFR is gone (there is no mention of flight conditions) and the only reference to the issue is a placard requirement, where presumably an FAA error was made and the placard requirements weren’t aligned with the rest of the FAA TC and reference documents.
Interesting.
I guess the (supposed) lack of IFR 2-seaters is really a lack of touring 2-seaters in general. We’ll have to see if this develops into a somewhat new niche.
The current issue for new planes in the US is that there is nearly no market for factory built ‘touring’ two seat aircraft. That market has been taken over by RVs, which as E-AB aircraft can and do fly IFR in the US. The factory built two seaters nowadays are mostly LSA aircraft, which under FAA regs have a specific provision to be moved to E-LSA if the owner wants to fly IFR. That also means they can’t be used for commercial flight training anymore, but most flight training is being done in larger planes for other reasons. So in the US the lack of new, factory built certified IFR two seaters is a non-issue to almost everybody who is buying new planes. And in Europe where homebuilts and factory built ULs are mostly limited to VFR it’s so difficult to get and stay instrument rated that there’s no market volume there either.
The Elixir is definitely interesting (915iS variant). IFR with cruise speeds up to 170kts (probably exaggerated a bit, but not too far off given the nimble 2-seater airframe)
Yes, it’s good to see new entrants with new ideas, assuming this ‘one-shot’ composite design really brings something meaningful, whatever it may be. As to cruise speed, I think you are right that 170 KTAS is pushing it. According to data from an owner, the Bristell B23 (Certified) with the Rotax 915 does 131 KTAS, 75% power, FL100 and 135 KTAS, 70%, FL150. So here’s a completely uneducated, back-of-an-envelope, WAG calculation: add 10 knots for the lack of rivets and another 10 for less frontal area/less wetted area/slightly more streamline. So that’s around 150 KTAS at FL100. Still not bad at all. No doubt some of you here will be able to come up with a more accurate figure 
