Question:
 I know that Lancairs have been flying IFR for years, but they have
 certified engines, props and instruments.

 According to FAA rules, can rotary engined experimental with IFR
 instruments and IFR certified CS prop be registered as IFR-certified, or
 "IFR approved" ?

 Or should the engine be also IFR certified to start with, like eg.
 IO-360? This has some connections to PSRU project...

 Please comment. Did I forgot something?

 Cheers,
 Petri

 Question, what is an "IFR certified" powerplant or prop?

 C. Smith



 There is no IFR certification by the FAA of experimental aircraft. The
 standard operating limitations issued by the FAA for Experimental
 (Amateur Built) specify Day VFR operation "unless equipped for night VFR
 and/or IFR in accordance with FAR section 91.205.  The representative of
 the Administrator issuing the Airworthiness Certificate and accompanying
 Operating Limitations may add any other limitations they feel necessary
 for safety, so it would be prudent to discuss this issue with the
 persons you consider to employ for certification of your airplane.
 Choose a DAR who is not antagonistic towards rotary power. Both my
 IO-470 powered RV-8 and my Subaru-powered (all-electric, fuel injected)
 RV-6 have the preceding language permitting IFR if equipped per Part 91.

 Victor Roberts


 I'm fully aware of all of this Victor, which is why I asked the question,
 what is an IFR certified engine or prop.
 A "aircraft" is certified for operation as IFR, an experimental gets an
 airworthiness certificate with operating limitations.
 Powerplants and props get certification for use on certificated aircraft,
 but I'm not familiar with the "IFR" bit as it pertains
 an engine or propeller, and would like to know more about this.
 Thanks.
 C. Smith

  Hi,

  My question could be set confusingly, I am not familiar with the
  procedure how FAA gives permits for IFR flying for experimental
  aircraft. I just know that it could and has been done.

  That talk about IFR certifed prop and engine has it's origin on some
  shady bits of information like "you cannot get IFR with xxx prop" and
  "you need redundant systems to get a single IFR certified".

  What's interesting is how auto engine conversion like rotary engine mix
  with this - does 13B count as "sufficiently verified" design or should
  one expect difficulties when trying to get that IFR certification.

  Victor's reply implies that the result depends on the DAR's attitude.
  (Designated Airworthiness Representative?)
  Has anybody tried this yet?

  Cheers,
  Petri



 There isn't any IFR certification for experimental aircraft..  If the
 manufacturer (you) equips the airplane to meet FAR 91.205, and the
 pilot is properly rated, IFR flight is legal.

 Another point is that it's possible to have a glider meet IFR
 requirements - and be flown in clouds..  They don't have engines or
 props.

 An experimental will cause no problems for IFR flight from a
 regulatory standpoint.


 Matt-

 Matt, I would respectfully challenge the assertion that a glider can meet
 IFR requirements. One can certainly equip it to meet FAR 91.205(d), but
 there is no way you can do a missed approach, among many other reasons.
 If you have an example of a certificated glider operating IFR, or an
 experimental unpowered glider whose operating limitations allow operation
in
 IFR (and yes, it must state in the limitations that IFR approved) then I
 will stand corrected. A common misconception about the experimental
category
 is that you can do anything you want unless it is prohibited, but in fact
it
 is the other way around, your limitations will spell out exactly what you
 can LEGALLY do.
 If when making application, you do not include aerobatic flight, and your
 limitations do not say aerobatic flight is permitted, then you may not
 legally perform aerobatic maneuvers in that aircraft. The same is true for
 IFR. The reasoning is quite simple. In issuing your airworthiness
 certificate, the DAR would clearly want to know if for instance, the fuel
 system was capable of supplying fuel in inverted flight, or that the
 airframe has been designed and built to the necessary minimums for
aerobatic
 loads. Sure, people perform aerobatics in non-aerobatic aircraft and don't
 get caught, but it is illegal just the same (not to mention reckless
 behavior).
 The same would be true of operation in an IFR environment. Remember the
 primary mission of the FAA is supposed to be safety of flight.
 C. Smith



Certainly should you want to file for any kind of terminal operations
you would need to be able to meet all requirements of flying a
procedure in that environment.  However I don't believe being able to
make any kind of instrument approach is a requirement of IFR
operations..  I believe it's perfectly legal to file IFR from one
point in space to another - no terminal operations - or at least to
get a clearance.  I know it's legal to file departing from an airport
without any departure procedure so long as you maintain VFR until you
reach a minimum vectoring altitude and/or controlled airspace.  I
believe I have actually filed for an IFR clearance while in flight -
to an intersection and then to a VOR - my instructor wanted me to fly
within a cloud for a while.

I also know that gliders sometimes operate above 18k MSL and outside a
wave window, without a waver.  I'm pretty sure this requires IFR
equipment.

Regardless, the topic was whether flying IFR would require any
certification level of the powerplant.


Matt-


You got me there Matt. The topic thing negates the relevant points.
Technicly, operations above 18K are controlled operations, but that's not
realistic working IFR.
I know guys who race gliders, and do endurance flying, these events are all
very well monitored and controlled by ATC. Apples N Oranges.
C. Smith