mancival wrote:
How hard would be for the certified Virus 121 LSA to become an IFR platform?
CS-LSA is VFR day only. CS-VLA is VFR day/night. CS-23 is IFR. To “upgrade” LSA to 23 is a big step, as LSA is merely UL with some additional paperwork (psst, don’t tell mh 
). VLA to 23 is ? don’t know, but it must be something, engine probably?
mancival wrote:
Does anybody knows ALL the Rotax-powered certified planes with BRS (like the Elixir, but already in the market)? I only know the Virus 121 LSA and the PS-28 Cruiser (more than enough to give Elixir a hard time to gain market share IMHO). Still, Tecnam is winning a large share of the rotax-powered PPL training industry without BRS-equipped planes, which has always puzzled me (and makes me think further that Elixir will struggle).
Flight Design CTLS
That one is interesting.
LeSving wrote:
CS-LSA is VFR day only. CS-VLA is VFR day/night. CS-23 is IFR
that’s really helpful. would be nice to put together a list of rotax-powered planes certified in each of the 3 categories, specifying if BRS is available. I understand that basic PPL can be taught in any of the 3 categories, and IR only on the third.
LeSving wrote:
VLA to 23 is ? don’t know, but it must be something, engine probably?
I believe the major issue is lightning resistance. If a composite aircraft without proper design (e.g. metal mesh in the composites) is struck by lightning the entire structure can disintegrate.
Also my understanding is that you don’t automatically get night VFR with CS-VLA, but that you can get an exemption.
One thread on that topic is here.
It is partly lightning resistance but e.g. the UK LAA IFR programme declared (in a proposal produced by some external consultancy, AFAIK) that lightning is a low risk. It is also the general issue of flight in IMC i.e. shedding of charge via water droplets.
Certainly certifying an IFR version is not easy. Many manufacturers said they would (Sonaca, APM, Elixir etc..), but few did it. It must require some structural properties that must be designed from the beginning.
I am not sure it was so difficult in the golden era of the 60-70s.
A shame too that experimentals can’t be IFR approved (except in the UK, you are lucky guys).
These are reasons why IFR is so small in europe. Whether it is intentional or not from the authorities, I don’t know.
Jujupilote wrote:
Certainly certifying an IFR version is not easy. Many manufacturers said they would (Sonaca, APM, Elixir etc..), but few did it. It must require some structural properties that must be designed from the beginning.
Not sure it relates to IFR vs VFR, probably more CS-23 vs CS-VLA or CS-LSA?
There should be no difference (except for the instruments) for CS-23 a/c in terms of IFR vs VFR.
IF we are talking about the genuinely EASA CS-23 certified aircraft with proper type certificate and not “aircraft meets or exceeds requirements set by CS-23”.
