gallois wrote:
Maybe the Bristell has been IFR certified now and I believe the Elixir is possibly going to be.
Both can be sold with IFR equipment, but both are limited to Night VFR in their TCDS.
Nowadays, the TC application explicitly states if the aircraft is IFR (with associated MEL, further requirements from the airframe and procedures that will be looked at by the regulator before approving the TC). When exactly this started is not entirely clear, but type certificates started in 1927 in the US, with the first IFR regulations not long after from what I understand. So presumably this TC IFR specification has been around for the better part of a century. Not many airframes this old apart from collector’s aircrafts.
I am sure it is much more recent because IFR or VFR didn’t exist until some time after WW2, AFAIK.
An online 152 TC datasheet (the datasheet itself dating from 2003) explicitly states the 152 as “certified for IFR [operations]”. I don’t know if this was added retrospectively, but if not it would indicate that the distinct certification for IFR was in effect at least in the 70’s.
I did a table of EASA IFR certified aircraft which (in theory) could still be purchased new. The post is here. It has links to the relevant type certificates. I don’t promise that it is complete, but at the time I only found three two-seaters in the category: Tecnam P-Mentor, Aviat Husky, Zlin 242L. I didn’t consider out-of-production models like the Cessna 152. Surprisingly, I could not find an EASA type certificate for the C152 on the search tool
It is more simple.
No “VFR-only” restriction → fully IFR capable (subject only to carrying avionics required by the owner of the airspace).
And “VFR-only” is quite a new thing. It is common in Europe where the regulatory psychology is different and where “VFR” is a quid pro quo to get deregulation (this is set in concrete which is why there is so little progress on a more accessible IR) so if you want to make some lightweight type which would fall apart in serious convective wx then you agree to “VFR only” on the TC and the regulator lets you make it and sell it. VFR is also a quid pro quo to get airspace access; specifically accepting that since ATC can always refuse CAS access to VFR traffic, you aren’t going to cause trouble in the “professional pilot” airspace. That is of course also why the PPL is VFR-only, and the IR (which in Europe is pretty well necessary to get decent airspace access) is much more work. It’s basically regulatory politics 
In the US, airspace access is pretty easy below 18000ft so most of the above doesn’t apply, and a C150 would not be limited to VFR even today. Whereas if somebody in Europe made a “C150” today, notwithstanding that it would most likely be made of “plastic”, it would be limited to VFR.
Addressing operating limitations based on flight conditions specifically (regardless of number of seats) it appears to me that FAA certified types originally certified under CAR 3 were not restricted to any particular flight conditions, and it was in effect for initial certification until the mid-60s. And I also believe that Part 23 aircraft were not initially affected, although finding any references on this is difficult. So the common Mooneys, Cherokees and Cessnas weren’t originally affected, as we know, although subsequent derivatives may have been, depending on whether the manufacturer and FAA implemented a TC revision, and how. For Mooneys, the first reference I find to flight conditions in the TC is for the M20M, the Bravo, which is a derivative that started production in 1989. See Note 2. I’m not certain I understand the regulatory chronology exactly but regardless you have to look at the TCDS for particular type and model to see if any limitations apply.
Re IFR in two seaters the idea that a C150 or Tomahawk or Beech Skipper etc would be limited to VFR would strike US pilots as very odd, a lot of people did their instrument ratings in 150s and the like and they are flown IFR regularly today, obviously in conditions appropriate for their performance. Two seat homebuilts like the RVs that have basically taken over the two seat market are likewise equipped for and flown IFR as a regular practice. FAA LSA two seaters are certified under a regulatory concept imported from Europe and with that came a limitation to VFR, but FAA intentionally implemented a ‘get out of jail free’ policy in the US that allows LSAs to be converted to E-LSAs, moving them into Experimental category and thereby allowing IFR, as with a homebuilt.
Interesting.
Indeed, to my knowledge, there is very little IR practice in 152s in France, despite lots of VFR training in them. As far as I can tell IR instruction is generally done / advertised in 172s (generally Cutlasses) and equivalent / bigger (182, DR400, sometimes TB10/TB20, PA28 etc.). This could change big time if clubs order IFR Elixirs (probably 250-280k€ for a brand new IFR Elixir, which is less than ANY certified new 4-seater today, while keeping minimal fuel costs).
maxbc wrote:
As far as I can tell IR instruction is generally done / advertised in 172s (generally Cutlasses) and equivalent / bigger (182, DR400, sometimes TB10/TB20, PA28 etc.)
This is also true for IFR training in US schools, e.g. those that might be operating under Part 141 and focused on training professional pilots. Nowadays they have outgrown two-seaters – they often have another student in the back, observing. They also want something that has enough performance with three on board to prepare the pilot for flying IFR in twins and jets. However, in the US an instrument rating is equally associated with private pilot training, often under Part 61 which does not require any school or ‘club’, and it is commonly done in the students own plane, one which might’ve cost $40K, not $400K. Or perhaps partly done in the students own plane, and partly in something else. Basically whatever’s available to get the student rated might be used.
Interesting. I would take IFR instruction at half the price in a 2-seater any day. Maybe avionics cost reduce this gap between 2 and 4 seats.
