best piston aircraft for single pilot ifr...

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.
Ugh. K. At least we know where we all stand.

Part 23 and 25 cert are immediately available to read, if you need there are a number of sae docs available if you'd like to learn more. Its a well paying niche industry that makes a lot of money because it's all a scam... Or hugely important. One of those.

Idk man, you do you.

Im not making fun of the eaa guys. They love that stuff. Good on them. Just enjoy the nice days with them.
 
Part 23 and 25 cert are immediately available to read, if you need there are a number of sae docs available if you'd like to learn more. Its a well paying niche industry that makes a lot of money because it's all a scam... Or hugely important. One of those.

Wish you would answer my previous question as to what sets a brand new C-172 apart from a RV-9 with similar equipment. This was the same question I posed to Cessna engineers when I took a tour at their factory. After their sales garbage, they admitted they didn't expect GA pilots to actively fly hard IFR especially their 100 series Cessna's all of which have no serious anti-icing measures.
 
I would never fly hard IFR in any piston single. Eff that.

I'd like to say that the difference between the two is "consistency of build quality" but uh.... I opened up the floor of a 172 and found a bucking bar and a row of rivets that looked like a 2 year old folded them over with a claw hammer and this was in the landing gear box area.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
The thread is best aircraft for IMC with autopilot !
So what is an acceptable autopilot in the age of GPS.

Take from another discussion of this issue.

"10 Jan 2010, 15:12
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Aircraft: Bonanza P35

You need to decide on the mission for an autopilot, which will help you decide what is minimum.

If all you're ever going to do is look at a chart for a few moments in VMC, and don't want the plane to get away from you, a wing leveler is probably enough.

If you fly IMC regularly, and want to be able to momentarily suspend your scan while you attend to writing down a lengthy clearance or tune a radio or check routing, an altitude hold is important.

If you regularly fly long cross-countries and need/want help keeping on the course line over longer distances, NAV / HDG hold seems to become important.

If you regularly fly IMC through busy airspace with lots of heading changes and distractions, rate-based steering is important.

If you just want all the bells and whistles, include GPS Steering, maybe a yaw dampener, extra coal furnace, and voice feedback to tell you what a great pilot you are to be able to afford such expensive toys."

_________________
Marc Zorn
1962 P35 Bonanza
 
Last edited:
Wish you would answer my previous question as to what sets a brand new C-172 apart from a RV-9 with similar equipment. This was the same question I posed to Cessna engineers when I took a tour at their factory. After their sales garbage, they admitted they didn't expect GA pilots to actively fly hard IFR especially their 100 series Cessna's all of which have no serious anti-icing measures.
I did answer it but if you need real world examples of the 23 (example), you'd have bonding tests to meet cert which other posters talked about. Often there will be a ground interaction between equipment (computers) integrated that will bounce a ground only because the two systems are tied together. In one case is froze a digital gs in place with no flag, and that wad the flight test (scary scary stuff). Integration of avionics is the huge problem now and for two decades. Groundplanes bounce during use or HFRF or some sort of SAE 5412 event and boom youre off to the races, or the equipment blows because a MOV is busticated with no diode backup off the big box or bus box.

Its complex stuff engineers engineer and then lab monkeys break because the real world is different than grid paper, and finally re engineered satisfactorily. If you Eclipse it together with duct tape faa busts you back to day vfr experimental and you can reapply and reprove the whole plane (kind of like a 609 or 709 for a manufacturer though).
 
Wish you would answer my previous question as to what sets a brand new C-172 apart from a RV-9 with similar equipment. This was the same question I posed to Cessna engineers when I took a tour at their factory. After their sales garbage, they admitted they didn't expect GA pilots to actively fly hard IFR especially their 100 series Cessna's all of which have no serious anti-icing measures.
Also not every engineer is built equally. The guy making six figures leading the 300 engineer core would be the guy, or if you can talk to a senior test engineer. Furthermore if you walked a cessna guy into RV or someone and had him asking questions about their initial cert stuff (assuming the cessna engineer even delves into initial cert) his heart might have an attack when he finds out your not even doing industry best practices for bonding of materials because he came out of college and learned the cessna way (for instance). Usually the guys charging $4k a day as a third party would be your best source. Maybe one of the 100~ faa appointed DER would be a good start, but they cant tellyou how to do it except that youre doing it wrong. Old passed away Green or whatever his name was on this web board wrote an article once after interviewing a couple engineers at my old place of work and still didnt quite get it all to translate correctly and still won an award from someone doing something with biz aviation. He flew big military tin cans around in the 70s with no composite so theres some learning interference there.

Theres probably 60 to 80 guys with full balls to bones initial cert experience (experience but they arent completely knowledgable)in the usa. They are mostly employed through 3rd parties cessna pay big bucks to even talk to. Cessna for instance should still have billy Martin, not the coach, and he shepards every aircraft through conformity, somehow the cj1 and CitationX are the same thing. Most of those cessna guys couldnt tell you a waveform 3 from 5b, nm different antenna bs. If they can run a oscilloscope at x1000 for a inductive clamp probe ill eat my hat (pf course new ones can knock the signal down internally, but thats a good way to lose a box.) Ask billy about that gfs or gfx or gxs something (company name that does the windshields for cessna jets) he blasted to pieces in testing because he manhandled the probe up to the stupid metal frame. We all had a good laugh after the rep left, he felt so bad but he had such a good sense of humor and we all laughed with him.

Maybe 15 guys in the US can honestly give you correct and full answers and i worked with 8 or so of them. You didnt meet any.

That above is just me talking, im not trying to talk down to you, old jhugz and i had this out a while back. Its tough when you and i dont speak the same language. It aint because I think you're dumb or anything but its a deep dark world with lots of OJT and it's own language.
 
Last edited:
Also not every engineer is built equally. The guy making six figures leading the 300 engineer core would be the guy, or if you can talk to a senior test engineer. Furthermore if you walked a cessna guy into RV or someone and had him asking questions about their initial cert stuff (assuming the cessna engineer even delves into initial cert) his heart might have an attack when he finds out your not even doing industry best practices for bonding of materials because he came out of college and learned the cessna way (for instance). Usually the guys charging $4k a day as a third party would be your best source. Maybe one of the 100~ faa appointed DER would be a good start, but they cant tellyou how to do it except that youre doing it wrong. Old passed away Green or whatever his name was on this web board wrote an article once after interviewing a couple engineers at my old place of work and still didnt quite get it all to translate correctly and still won an award from someone doing something with biz aviation. He flew big military tin cans around in the 70s with no composite so theres some learning interference there.

Theres probably 60 to 80 guys with full balls to bones initial cert experience (experience but they arent completely knowledgable)in the usa. They are mostly employed through 3rd parties cessna pay big bucks to even talk to. Cessna for instance should still have billy Martin, not the coach, and he shepards every aircraft through conformity, somehow the cj1 and CitationX are the same thing. Most of those cessna guys couldnt tell you a waveform 3 from 5b, nm different antenna bs. If they can run a oscilloscope at x1000 for a inductive clamp probe ill eat my hat (pf course new ones can knock the signal down internally, but thats a good way to lose a box.) Ask billy about that gfs or gfx or gxs something (company name that does the windshields for cessna jets) he blasted to pieces in testing because he manhandled the probe up to the stupid metal frame. We all had a good laugh after the rep left, he felt so bad but he had such a good sense of humor and we all laughed with him.

Maybe 15 guys in the US can honestly give you correct and full answers and i worked with 8 or so of them. You didnt meet any.

That above is just me talking, im not trying to talk down to you, old jhugz and i had this out a while back. Its tough when you and i dont speak the same language. It aint because I think you're dumb or anything but its a deep dark world with lots of OJT and it's own language.
Hell, even certified stuff installed in part 23 aircraft per STC manuals doesn't get that kind of design assurance.
 
Hell, even certified stuff installed in part 23 aircraft per STC manuals doesn't get that kind of design assurance.
I know it drives EAA nuts (good nuts) crazy but fully formed and certified airplanes cost big bucks. We aint billing hours yanking our wee wees.
 
The thread is best aircraft for IMC with autopilot !
..."

_________________
Marc Zorn
1962 P35 Bonanza

Came here to say something similar. I have been doing a fair amount of single pilot IFR over the past year in a V35 Bonanza with an autopilot from the early 70s. Until recently the autopilot was basically just a wing leveler and it was very high workload to copy down clearances and route changes and reprogram the GPS accordingly in actual IMC. It now has heading and nav mode working, but no altitude hold and a limitation on having it off for approaches.

That being said, even the addition of heading mode has made a huge difference in workload reduction as I can attest to after a flight in IMC this past weekend. Altitude hold would be nice, but the Bo is pretty good at holding altitude if you have it trimmed correctly.

I would say the best single pilot IFR piston single is one that is 1) well maintained, especially the engine and vacuum/pressure gyro system (ex. replacing the pump proactively way before the mean time between failure interval), 2) a capable autopilot, and 3) reliable electrical and radios/nav, in that order.
 
Hell, even certified stuff installed in part 23 aircraft per STC manuals doesn't get that kind of design assurance.
I remember our 180 horsepower 172 conversion that came with exactly one performance chart, a fuel flow chart that was hand drawn.

The rest: "meets or exceeds book values"

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
I remember our 180 horsepower 172 conversion that came with exactly one performance chart, a fuel flow chart that was hand drawn.

The rest: "meets or exceeds book values"

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
While that's true, that's not exactly what I'm getting at. In the case of the 172 conversion they probably had to do all kinds of engineering work and flight testing to determine stuff like did the fuel system have enough head pressure to provide adequate fuel flow at all attitudes likely to be encountered in flight, does it have enough cooling without adding cowl flaps, vibration studies, etc. in the world even of certified STC avionics installs, they don't get nearly the testing that jynxy was talking about. I mean the boxes still get torture tested, but a lot of the "hey be careful about ground loops when mounting this thing" stuff still doesn't get discovered other than by trial and error because field retrofits vary so widely.

And then you have Garmin with their little WAAS antenna issue they've effectively hushed up...
 
[QUOTE="Roger Roger, post: 2681145, member: ]

And then you have Garmin with their little WAAS antenna issue they've effectively hushed up...[/QUOTE]

Do tell. We are having an antenna issue with our Arrow that has a WAAS 430 in it. @Roger Roger




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
[QUOTE="Roger Roger, post: 2681145, member: ]

And then you have Garmin with their little WAAS antenna issue they've effectively hushed up...

Do tell. We are having an antenna issue with our Arrow that has a WAAS 430 in it. @Roger Roger




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[/QUOTE]
You should have seen the old TI (texas instrument) gps modulars that went into the Magellan gps. Not only could it locate you to within a meter or so, it could inadvertently jam all gps signals around it for 2ft. It was an ungrounded antenna or something, but that little hand held did a number on echo interference (or whatever the HIRF term is) to anything around it.
 
[QUOTE="Roger Roger, post: 2681145, member: ]

And then you have Garmin with their little WAAS antenna issue they've effectively hushed up...

Do tell. We are having an antenna issue with our Arrow that has a WAAS 430 in it. @Roger Roger




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[/QUOTE]
3 times that I am directly familiar with a Garmin WAAS antenna has taken a dump and started radiating on GPS frequency knocking out all other GPS in the aircraft, until the offending unit is powered down. If you dig through owner forums you'll find more stories. It's a known issue with no fix from Garmin (antenna update or mod or anything) which is IMHO really bad because the WAAS units are certified as a sole source of navigation. Actually really similar to @jynxyjoe story.
 
3 times that I am directly familiar with a Garmin WAAS antenna has taken a dump and started radiating on GPS frequency knocking out all other GPS in the aircraft, until the offending unit is powered down. If you dig through owner forums you'll find more stories. It's a known issue with no fix from Garmin (antenna update or mod or anything) which is IMHO really bad because the WAAS units are certified as a sole source of navigation. Actually really similar to @jynxyjoe story.

Hmm. Not the problem we're having then. We're still having that COM1 problem I told you about...
 
112520081756278493.jpg


but really this
catbird.jpg

I see your Rutan designs and raise you a real SPIFR XC machine.

1590243462cb947df754b654a9babd4b.jpeg
 
I earned my stripes in a T182 G1000. After jumping to twins, I wouldn't say a single engine to be completely safe, but If I had a choice, it would be a 210, a Saratoga, or a 182, in that order.
 
Back
Top