Peter wrote:
Without that, IFR is of minimal value to the vast majority of homebuilders – from what they tell me.
I think it’s mostly cost and complexity actually. If it was cheap and simple, everyone would do it, if for no other purpose than to “increase” the resale value or something. There is no cheap and simple way to do it. IFR equipment increases the cost by 30-50k at least.
I wish to publicly thank all the people (I’m lucky to personally know some of them) that made laa ifr possible in UK, I know this has taken many years of work. I will apply for my rv7.
LeSving wrote :
IFR equipment increases the price by 30-50k at least.
Even if you use non-certified instruments?
Any navigation equipment required for IFR (assuming you want to operate in controlled airspace) has to be approved by ETSO/TSO or CAA Class 1, as must be the Comm and transponder. That’s been an LAA requirement even prior to IFR capability.
Whilst you don’t need any Nav equipment for IMC in Class G, if you want to fly IFR in Class A-D or do an ILS or LPV approach then you have to carry the kit necessary to meet the airspace requirements. This isn’t made totally clear in the Tech leaflets.
That is what I have been banging on about for years e.g. here
Wigglyamp’s simple way of putting it is spot on.
I don’t think many people in the homebuilt community appreciate this.
You can still install uncertified avionics but it will be limited to the “non-navigation” stuff e.g. PFD, engine instruments, fuel flowmeter, etc. You can mount an Ipad in the panel, etc. Probably an uncertified autopilot too.
But the equipment required per airspace for IFR will all need to be certified, and in most (all?) cases this is a fait accompli because nobody makes the stuff in an uncertified form anyway e.g. there is no uncertified GPS which can fly any GPS approach (LPV or not).
AFAIK there is no uncertified panel mount NAV receiver which can fly an ILS. But there are handheld radios which can display an ILS (can’t drive an autopilot obviously) and I wonder what is the reference for why one of these would be illegal to fly an ILS with in the UK.
On the plus side, as to the cost, it won’t be 30k because you can do it with a GNS430W and a GTX330 
Whether many homebuilders, with the option of big moving maps etc, will want to screw in a GNS430W, is another matter… if you want nice TSOd avionics and want a GTN650+750 or similar then yes you are looking at 30k…
Peter wrote:
On the plus side, as to the cost, it won’t be 30k because you can do it with a GNS430W and a GTX330 Whether many homebuilders, with the option of big moving maps etc, will want to screw in a GNS430W, is another matter… if you want nice TSOd avionics and want a GTN650+750 or similar then yes you are looking at 30k…
Yes. What I meant was what is mentioned above, that IFR avionics in a homebuilt/experimental must all be certified. There are no short cuts or cheap alternatives (no non-certified products exist, and the airspace won’t allow it if they did). This is very different from all other stuff in homeuilts, except radio and transponder that also needs to be certified for VFR also
But what is the bare minimum? It’s different from airspace to airspace. Up until a couple of years ago, the bare minimum in Norway was VOR, DME and ADF. This is what many homebilds here have. Today the bare minimum is “Basic RNAV” above FL95. From FL95 and down, there are no requirements. However, there is a requirement that you shall be able to follow the track and know your position at all times, even when your main navigational equipment fails. But, the AIP also say that radar vectoring is good enough for nav and backup, so who knows? It seems to me it is very much up to the PIC to determine what he needs for any particular flight.
I guess the bare minimum is, as you say, a GNS430W, but will the majority of pilots be satisfied with just that one device? Wouldn’t you at least have VOR and DME, or a second device, autopilot etc.
In practice, I think people will install nothing less than what they are used to from certified aircraft. In a brand new RV-10 I think people would rather step it up a notch or two, considering the aircraft itself is 1/5 of a similar performance Cirrus, they have already saved a ton of money. In an older RV-8 or a Lancair, things are a bit different perhaps, but when re-building for IFR, at least I would never do it without also re-building the entire panel and include a couple of GTN650s for instance (or whatever else exist to give adequate redundancy). That will be 30k typically, or very close to it.
Peter wrote:
That would be a big plus. Without that, IFR is of minimal value to the vast majority of homebuilders – from what they tell me.
Come to think of this again. I think you will be rather surprised how this will turn out. Lots of IFR pilots have never looked at homebuilds as an alternative to anything. Therefore, the existing pilots flying homebuilds are to a very large extent VFR only pilots. They are not interested in IFR, they see no reason to invest in it (and the cost is substantial, almost the cost of a good used RV-4). What IFR will do however, is to open up for a whole new audience, professional pilots (military and civilians). They have little interest in being limited to VFR only, and little interest in flying a sedate C-172 or similar. But, an IFR equipped Lancair or an RV-8/7 (small and fast with fighter like performance and handling), would be close to irresistible. The imaginary complex matrix of yours, will not have much effect. As I have said before, very few countries explicitly forbid foreign overflight in a homebuilt IFR, the UK is one of them.
Germany is another one, according to many posts here and your own post here
But, sure, if homebuilts could fly freely IFR etc then it is a self evident fact that many certified owners would consider them. Probably not the ones with dodgy handling, however, because that is just another thing that’s going to get you killed, and not the “plastic” ones without bonding (which is virtually all “plastic” homebuilts), and then you get onto ice carrying capability v. de-ice options. Most of the certified planes can carry a significant amount of ice, which makes non-deiced IFR possible.
Ice is a certainty in IMC below 0C so “(small and fast with fighter like performance and handling), would be close to irresistible” may be slightly optimistic, when you realise just how how the perf was achieved
I think the majority of aircraft that will end up IFR certified will be the RV series. You can get high cruise speed performance, grass strip capability, and the benefits of owner maintenance in a very nice package that is apparently delightful to fly.
Peter wrote:
Germany is another one, according to many posts here and your own post here
That was a long time ago Besides, it is also wrong. Those AIP pages that should have this information does not exist anymore, and haven’t done so for ages apparently (decades literally). If you can give a link to the official and current AIP saying something else, I will gladly reconsider.
Peter wrote:
Probably not the ones with dodgy handling
And which ones have dodgy handling ? A Cirrus has dodgy handling (insane spin characteristics), and is made of plastic. 
Not to speak of lots of the older certified twins. A point here is that, in the end, a pilot has to sit in the pilot seat and feel comfortable flying it, feel comfortable with the instruments and avionics and all other equipment. This will set the minimum requirements more so than anything else. To get to that point will, IMO, cost minimum 30-50 k, maybe even more depending on pilot and experience, and comfort level. But it could also also cost less of course. Not being restricted by VFR only in nice summer weather is very different from having 100% availability in all kinds of weather, all seasons. An RV-8 is no substitute for a TBM or vice versa.
Neil wrote:
I think the majority of aircraft that will end up IFR certified will be the RV series
The majority of experimentals are RVs. I think it will depend more on who is flying them and building them. At ENVA we have two Lancairs and one Glastar. They all have IFR equipment. Only the Glastar owner has IFR rating though (airline pilot), while one of the Lancair owners had that rating earlier (maybe he got it back by now, I don’t know). If a builder is building for the sake of selling it later to a broad audience, it would probably be stupid not to include IFR in an RV, at least in a 10 or 14. An -8 or -4 ? Building to own it himself, it would be stupid to include it, if he has no intentions of flying IFR.
A Cirrus is bonded – as is the DA40/42 etc.
17-Jul-16 is this year.
It may well be the case that the majority of homebuilts accepted on the LAA IFR scheme will be RVs, not just because they are the most numerous.
