Depending on your engine(O-235 or O-320) and DA, you are looking at about 2400 to 3000 ft paved strip. The aircraft is optimized for long range cruise. Does not have flaps either.
best piston aircraft for single pilot ifr...
- Thread starter firedawg1513
- Start date
ozziecat35
4 out of 5 great lakes prefer Michigan.
An Arrow with the big engine and decent panel / autopilot would be high on my list for good / affordable. Retractable gear though and gets a bit tricky for insurance.
Last edited:
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
The insurance won't be that bad, especially after the first year. The savings in fuel will more than make up for the increase insurance cost for being an RG anyway.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Lol. I know i get a bad rap for hating on experimentals but my concern is purely from a certifcation of part 23 and 25 standpoint on avionics and integration (until i started thinking about it then i just lose it). I think the tradeoff is brutal for stepping down to an experimental, and I've met a lot of pilots who are completely convinced you can toss some ifr equpiment in the plane (satisfying some regs for experimental) and with the sign of the holy cross you're somehow magically in the same safety league as a part 23 certified aircraft... Or even 25 for real idiots.
I think if you keep them day vfr and you're gonna be ok. You watch some crazy things almost pass in part 23 and 25 until that last stage of testing and you wonder how suseptable the experimentals are who just slapped that collins mfd in their rv8. One would imagine you're terribly suseptable. On top of that the idea some wrench turner in BUF is somehow equal in skill to a 10yr union riveter in ICT is bizarre to me. What kind of toolbag to you have to be to think you popping rivets in 3 glasses of beer in at the hanger fri-sun night to get away from your wife is equal to the skill of a guy pounding them in for 10yrs 38 hours a week. The people buying them twist themselves in the same logic pretzels.
Anyway. Just take it easy hard ifr on those things. Every moron experimental sales guy and owner pretends like the experimental world is better for the consumer and thats what thwy always intended. Most of those morons, including Rutan, tried like crazy to get their design certified and either the controlling agency or the 3rd party lab flipped them the bird and the manufacturer gave up because they ran out of money and brainpower, sometimes instantaneously, and other times after a short fight.
The aircraft has a GTN 650 with a Garmin G3X autopilot and Dynon backup. I am sorry you feel that way about Experimentals but not all of them are created the same. I have seen many RV's with factory finishes. While your concerns are reasonable, it is very narrow. There are many certified IFR flightschool spam cans I wouldn't fly my ex-girlfriend in. There are many Experimentals built by really smart people some of whom work in the aircraft design/production industry. I doubt they will put their butt in something subpar.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
I agree that hard IFR in experimental aircraft (or poorly maintained certified aircraft) is playing pretty close to the edge of my risk envelope.
RVs weren't ever designed to be anything other than VFR fun planes. Single power source, no ice protection, no electrical bonding of flight controls, no static wicks, ect, ect, ect. When I build mine, I'll equip the panel for IFR and routinely file for cross country trips. I wouldn't think twice about climbing or descending through a layer of clouds, but if the forecast at my destination is cold and MVFR, I'll pass.
EZs and other high performance experimental aircraft (glassair, lancair, ect) are also not for rookie pilots. They have very high approach speeds and "unpredictable" low speed handling. Think about giving a 16 year old a Corvette. It's not that they can't be safely flown, but the pilot needs to bring their A game.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Certification is the right start, if they arent maintained because mx pencil whips the annual then what the hell are we talking about here?
bimmerphile
MCAS Meat Inhibition Logic
I think you'd have to worry about instrument currency more than the instruments themselves, if we're talking about Joe RV on 123.45 with the Saturday morning fuel flow and IAS report
A
Adler
Guest
but really this
A 2016 Cessna 172 is very basic when it comes to IFR capabilities and isn't any different from a similarly equipped RV. Heated pitot tube is about all it has and most RV builders put that so your day VFR argument does not hold water. Some of these RV's panels alone cost as much as $30K with multiple redundant features. Recently saw a guy with 2 generators and 2 batteries for his so called "IFR" flying. He did a lot of night flying over mountainous areas, so I understand his reasoning.
The Rutan wing is actually optimized for low speed performance - landing phase due to absence of flap. So your "unpredictable" claim is bogus. And I bet you haven't even flown one enough to make such an unqualified statement. The EZ's have their Cons but "unpredictable" is not it.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Despite certification status, a Skyhawk isn't a real IFR machine either (even if it has glass and an AP).
I was lumping quite a few varied designs into one generalization that most fiberglass experimentals are not "beginner" airplanes.
EZ's are very slick airplanes that take a lot of room to slow down, I have exactly 30 minutes in a Long EZ, but the DPE/corporate pilot/owner who was flying showed me how hard it was to merge into a pattern of skyhawks. It's not a plane I would recommend to someone who just passed their PPL.
That I will give you.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
I love the "I'd rather trust my experimental than a falling apart rental". Sure. If it came down to it, I'd rather sit on a barbed wire fence than ride a seatless bicycle over 15 miles of a cobblestone and railwayties loosely secured in gravel while naked at top speed.
We're talking about an unproven airframe hard ifr which hasn't been tested for things we know for a fact can bring down airplanes (and that's why we do the testing) , or it has and failed in some cases so "eff it, keep it experimental" vs a skyhawk which has been tested.
I'll take the chickenhawk. All the above can be true and it doesn't mean you're a dangerous screwball with bad judgement because you picked the experimental. The reasoning though seems to be, "well it makes me feel better" or "common, we all feel better taking the one with a better paintjob". I'm not sure if thats a valid argument to some of you, but objectively you're twisting yourself into pretzels trying to rationalize this stuff.
We're talking about an unproven airframe hard ifr which hasn't been tested for things we know for a fact can bring down airplanes (and that's why we do the testing) , or it has and failed in some cases so "eff it, keep it experimental" vs a skyhawk which has been tested.
I'll take the chickenhawk. All the above can be true and it doesn't mean you're a dangerous screwball with bad judgement because you picked the experimental. The reasoning though seems to be, "well it makes me feel better" or "common, we all feel better taking the one with a better paintjob". I'm not sure if thats a valid argument to some of you, but objectively you're twisting yourself into pretzels trying to rationalize this stuff.
And who says an experimental equates no test. Sounds absurd as you have suggested. What makes an airframe unproven and what is the test you think proves an airframe is IFR worthy?. Let me clue you in, it has very little to do with the airframe. You can experience severe turbulence in and clear of clouds. I suspect like most out there, you aren't knowledgeable about the Experimental certification process or what it entails. While there are backyard hack jobs out there, there are product lines like the RV's with several hours of test and proven flight hours as reference. Because an aircraft is labeled "Experimental" does not make it inherently unsafe.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Imma go with "the guy who did cert testing for a living knows something about cert testing".
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Yeah I get a kick out of all of this "rabble rabble gummint don't know nuthin I don't know". I mean I'm sure in certain imaginations, the major manufacturers have gummint mandated pens full of engineers lapping up money whilst digging holes and filling them back up, but my reading of the accident statistics for certified vs. experimental leads me to believe that they might be, you know, there for a purpose.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Again, there are facts and there are feelings. Im not guest staring on The View here. I did it for a living, it's a business I'm still tied to a little for reasons i can actually flippantly say in the next few years, and I'm at my best when flippant.
This is not a SCREW YOU IM RIGHT thing, it's a listen to yourself thing. Ive got more than one coworker in the experimental world, with EAA madness written all over their soul. You aren't a bad person for flying experimentals. Please don't take them hard ifr and please believe me the testing we do on part 23 and 25 is important and adds significantly important safety layers to the safety swiss cheese thing.
Most RVs are probably a little safer than the trainers at the part 61 i worked at because they were beat up, tons of time, and maintenance was done to pass annuals. Many experimentals are lovingly taken care of and probably have less flying in a year than a trainer gets in 3 months.
(Also experimentals is less testing, not no testing.)
jynxyjoe
Queso King
Hey man, who knew certification of aircraft was so hard. No one knew. No one. This job sure is tougher than my last job. I continue to make aviation great again.
What makes a factory new C-172 "uniquely" suitable for "hard" IFR? I have flown in hard IFR and this notion that Part 23/25 testing makes it safer is hangar comedy. It is a whole other ball of wax for complex and high performance fliers. But the argument is bologna for the run of the mill spam-can.
The crazy EAA crowd are just as bad as the so called engineers.
bimmerphile
MCAS Meat Inhibition Logic
I think about the times I flew hard IFR in my 172N with the H2AD in it, just because I wanted the experience. Never paid much attention to the stupidity of the magneto setup on that engine.
No thanks, no more. MVFR at best, so I can see what I'm crashing into when the engine decides to punch the time clock early one day
Still carry that sportys nav com handheld whenever I fly the skychicken, especially after getting freaked out by a dual AHRS failure in the Dash at work (thankfully it wasn't LIFR). Electricity is funky.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk