Isn’t part of the MEL for IFR a heated pitot?
Would many classic 2 seaters have such a thing?
No, pitot heat is not legally required for IFR unless it is specifically required for the aircraft type. On some types it was optional, others never had it and never had a limitation on flight conditions in their TC.
No, pitot heat is not legally required for IFR
acc. FAA.
It is required acc. EASA.
Silvaire wrote:
I think that’s true and it is one of the downsides to more recently certified aircraft types,
The DA20 in certified (at least by EASA) according to the VLA certification specifications which are VFR only.
gallois wrote:
Isn’t part of the MEL for IFR a heated pitot?
Under current regulations, yes indeed (unless you have an equivalent replacement):
FAR 23.1323 (d) If certification for instrument flight rules or flight in icing conditions is requested, each airspeed system must have a heated pitot tube or an equivalent means of preventing malfunction due to icing.
EASA CS-23 in its current incarnation is fully harmonised with FAR.
There are also lots of 2+2-seaters available, which as a touring aircraft are not capable of carrying 4.
That’s a lot more flexible!
I don’t get the idea why the plane would need to be limited to two seats if not necessarily required like for the class (e.g. VLA or microlight). Technically it is a lot smarter to just have a 2+2 seater which gives flexibility in several directions. Aerodynamics are not worse with a second row, if you let aside those cool things like a Tarragon (tandem seats).
Other than that it is reasonable to define light aircraft with 4 seats as a two-seat-IFR-tourer.
That’s the obvious reason why certified 2-seat IFR is very rare. VLA and microlight are not accessible for IFR and it doesn’t make sense to limit a plane to two seats if not necessary.
However given the online availability of videos of microlight in full IMC, the game is IFR-capable or IMC-capable…? But that’s another matter.
acc. FAA. It is required acc. EASA
Too bad, if true also for aircraft certified without any restriction on flight conditions, not just those that have an explicit IFR certification as per recent practice. It would limit a lot of perfectly safe operations for no reason.
FAR 23.1323 (d) If certification for instrument flight rules or flight in icing conditions is requested, each airspeed system must have a heated pitot tube or an equivalent means of preventing malfunction due to icing.
@Ultranomad, “Certification” here means type certification, and therefore note that this is for newly developed aircraft designs applying for new type certification. Current FAA certification standards do not apply to aircraft certified before they existed so I don’t believe you must have pitot heat for IFR unless it was required by the standard in effect at the time of certification, and therefore required by the TC and reference documents for that particular aircraft type. One would hope that is also true under EASA regs, regardless of what former national certification standards may or may not have required.
FAA also doesn’t require new, safer seat designs to be installed retroactively in older aircraft types to maintain their certified status. That’s not how type certification works and it’s one of the benefits of having a plane certified under earlier standards, potentially including a plane produced in 2024 that was certified to earlier standards 
A lot of planes certified by FAA without mention of flight conditions in their TC (and reference docs) do have pitot heat either standard or optional, which is some compensation if that current EASA restriction applies for any plane flying IFR, in effect retroactively, regardless of the rules under which it was FAA certified.
Meanwhile my plane was limited by its long ago LBA certification to VFR day and night, for no particular reason, but has pitot heat anyway. Go figure. I’ve never used pitot heat in flight. Given that the FAA TC for the plane makes no mention of flight conditions except for requiring a placard, and that FAA does not directly utilize foreign TCs in US regulation, it would be interesting to discuss use of the plane under IFR with the FAA FSDO, equipped appropriately per FAA requirements, with a field approval to remove the inappropriate placard. It’s something I’ve considered, it would go along with the one-off field approvals for the installed propeller and use of auto fuel.
UdoR wrote:
don’t get the idea why the plane would need to be limited to two seats if not necessarily required like for the class (e.g. VLA or microlight). Technically it is a lot smarter to just have a 2+2 seater which gives flexibility in several directions. Aerodynamics are not worse with a second row, if you let aside those cool things like a Tarragon (tandem seats).
Let me give you two examples:
Certified Jodel Mascaret vs Jodel 1050
and
Experimental RV14 vs RV RV10
Mascaret was the 2 seater, sporty version of (technically) 4 place 1050. Both equipped with the same engine and same wing airfoil. Mascaret was slightly faster, more stable, acro capable with much more luggage space.
RV10 and RV 14 share the same wing, just shorter span in case of RV14. Both aircraft fly the same, 14 is slightly faster with its 4 banger. Think of acquisition, and maintenance cost difference between IO540 and IO390. RV 14 will fly upside down if asked to. View is much more limited in case of the composite bath tub of RV10 vs the bubble canopy of RV14. There is ample room for luggage in RV14, think two bromptons + oxygen + raft + camping gear …
Bottom line: there is no free lunch 
another words as with every architectural decision tradeoffs are necessary when choosing between 4 seat vs 2 seat design
Silvaire wrote:
One would hope that is also true under EASA regs, regardless of what former national certification standards may or may not have required.
Pitot heat isn’t required specifically, but some means of preventing icing or condensation from affecting the airspeed indication is.
NCO.IDE.A.125 Operations under IFR – flight and navigational instruments and associated equipment
Aeroplanes operated under IFR shall be equipped with:
(a) a means of measuring and displaying the following … (4) indicated airspeed …
…
(c) a means of preventing malfunction of the airspeed indicating system required in (a)(4) due to condensation or icing
