Anyone ever equip a Sonex for light IFR?

[JimP]

This is an interesting thread for me (haven’t started building yet but a Sonex-B is at the top of my list). There seems to be a consensus that IFR is dangerous in a Sonex.

The only reason I saw explained was that you have to split your attention between the controls and the other IFR duties. OK, that’s reasonable.

To get back to the original question then, if I have all the required IFR instruments, a 2 axis autopilot (to hold course and level while I am busy doing IFR stuff) and this is not for storms or serious turbulence, just to be able to get through cloud decks (or just low visibility) to VFR on the other side, and not for takeoffs or landings, what is the issue (specific to a Sonex)? Let’s also say my autopilot has a 180 degree turn back option in case I don’t find the VFR on the other side when I expect to. Let’s also assume ADS-B traffic in and out (and weather of course).

It’s all about risk management. What risks are still in play, and can they be mitigated?

I am following up here to learn because evidently I am missing something important. I want a plane to fly for fun, but I also want it to be practical enough for cross country when I need that. “Light IFR” capability as the OP asked about makes a plane much more practical. Not go anywhere any time, but less likely to get delayed or diverted by something minor not in the forecast. Big weather is usually in the forecast. Little stuff that can still mess with VFR isn’t as reliable.

[MichaelFarley56]

Actually only one person read my original question, the guy in the second post.

The rest of you guys aren't answering my question. Try reading the question again.

Thank you.

PS. If what I am asking doesn't make sense to you, please ask me to explain but don't assume things and start lecturing me on things I did not ask.

Okay, fair enough. To answer the question you asked per the title of this thread, out of the 500+ Sonexes currently flying, I’ve heard of a grand total of 1 airplanes having appropriate equipment installed with the intention of using the aircraft for IFR operations. A long time ago that airplane was used for transition training (the owner had obtained a LODA) but I do not know the current status of that airplane. That’s the only airplane I’ve seen or heard of that was advertised as being “IFR capable”. If there has been any more, hopefully others can chime in with that information.

[MichaelFarley56]

To get back to the original question then, if I have all the required IFR instruments, a 2 axis autopilot (to hold course and level while I am busy doing IFR stuff) and this is not for storms or serious turbulence, just to be able to get through cloud decks (or just low visibility) to VFR on the other side, and not for takeoffs or landings, what is the issue (specific to a Sonex)? Let’s also say my autopilot has a 180 degree turn back option in case I don’t find the VFR on the other side when I expect to. Let’s also assume ADS-B traffic in and out (and weather of course).

If I may Jim, if you equip a Sonex as you’ve described and you have your Operating Limitations state that the airplane may be used for IFR, you would be legal to use it as such.

[subnoize]

This is an interesting thread for me (haven’t started building yet but a Sonex-B is at the top of my list). There seems to be a consensus that IFR is dangerous in a Sonex.

The only reason I saw explained was that you have to split your attention between the controls and the other IFR duties. OK, that’s reasonable.

To get back to the original question then, if I have all the required IFR instruments, a 2 axis autopilot (to hold course and level while I am busy doing IFR stuff) and this is not for storms or serious turbulence, just to be able to get through cloud decks (or just low visibility) to VFR on the other side, and not for takeoffs or landings, what is the issue (specific to a Sonex)? Let’s also say my autopilot has a 180 degree turn back option in case I don’t find the VFR on the other side when I expect to. Let’s also assume ADS-B traffic in and out (and weather of course).

It’s all about risk management. What risks are still in play, and can they be mitigated?

I am following up here to learn because evidently I am missing something important. I want a plane to fly for fun, but I also want it to be practical enough for cross country when I need that. “Light IFR” capability as the OP asked about makes a plane much more practical. Not go anywhere any time, but less likely to get delayed or diverted by something minor not in the forecast. Big weather is usually in the forecast. Little stuff that can still mess with VFR isn’t as reliable.

Bingo! Your EAA technical Adviser can get you the relevant info to meet IFR rules. It is shockingly simple.

I guess when you talk to non-IFR pilots they immediately jump to the mental image of slamming around in turbulence because that was the experience that convinced them quit flying in those situations. And that is understandable, I guess. Humans only think in the terms of extremes.

Marginal VFR (MVFR) is still VFR and nobody but you picked up on that. You are required to have ILS capabilities to ask for MVFR clearance. The vast majority of people flying under Light Sport rules will go out and scud run without a second thought but you bring up adding ILS to the plane and Katie bar the door!

I also find that 90% of the pilots who let their medical expire and claim Light Sport routinely fly with the ground obscured which is a violation of their limitations and brings me to requesting "VFR on top." Your time in actual IMC is maybe 30 seconds to 2 minutes. There is light turbulence and no precipitation because the air mass producing the cloud layer is stable (which is why these conditions can last for days). As you pointed out this is transitioning a stable cloud layer, not flying in thunderstorms.

Then there is simply the preference you receive while flying IFR. Flying IFR you get to go places Light Sport and VFR traffic are not allowed, like over flying ATL class Bravo airspace.

Lastly, I like having more options, not less when weather is involved. The more capable your aircraft is the safer it is. This is especially true when the mission is cross country. John Monette says the average Sonex gets less than 50 hours a year and rust is the biggest threat to the engine.

Sorry but I'm not staying home with this plane! I am going to fly its wings off. At the risk of repeating myself, the objective is to come home alive at the end of the day.

[subnoize]

Okay, fair enough. To answer the question you asked per the title of this thread, out of the 500+ Sonexes currently flying, I’ve heard of a grand total of 1 airplanes having appropriate equipment installed with the intention of using the aircraft for IFR operations. A long time ago that airplane was used for transition training (the owner had obtained a LODA) but I do not know the current status of that airplane. That’s the only airplane I’ve seen or heard of that was advertised as being “IFR capable”. If there has been any more, hopefully others can chime in with that information.

Thank You!

[jmtraylor]

When I first started building, I asked myself the same question. After some research and thinking it became clear that it could not be done adequately. Let me explain why.
The first step is to gather the minimum equipment list from the FAA for an aircraft to be legal for IFR flight. It's a lengthy list which equates to MORE WEIGHT! But, I thought with more modern avionics the weight penalty could be overcome, albeit with a severe penalty on available load (passenger, baggage, etc.)
However, I found that no matter what equipment I might use and the weight I saved I could not get past the limitation of available electrical power to run it all. There are many posts on this forum by members discussing lack of adequate electrical power in VFR conditions and low power settings. Most simply start turning off equipment if the voltage becomes critical. Even in "light" IFR conditions, you won't have that option. A heated pitot tube is a must in visible moisture regardless of the OAT. Lighting is non-negotiable. Radios and minimum navigation equipment; again, non-negotiable. A low power descent through the clouds without adequate electrical power and the maximum load being drawn from the battery is a recipe for making my wife an insurance lottery winner.
In the end, I have come to the conclusion that it is physically impossible to equip the plane sufficiently for legal IFR flight. Do I want as much equipment as possible in case of an inadvertent IMC condition? You bet I do! But that is by definition and emergency situation, does not meet minimum equipment requirements and should not be an intentional mode of flight for the Sonex.
As to flying a control sensitive aircraft like the Sonex in IMC conditions, well it can be done and without an autopilot but it is miserable and requires two trained, IFR-qualified and proficient pilots to do it safely, in my opinion. As an former Army Aviator, I did it in the OH-58 and AH-1F, neither of which were designed for IFR flight, but had the minimum equipment. Nothing squirrelier that an OH-58 in flight but we were able to accomplish precision and non-precision approaches and IFR navigation sufficiently to get out of IMC if we allowed ourselves to get into it. A Sonex feels rock solid in comparison. But those flights were always practice for or an IFR checkride in VMC conditions to maintain currency. And if we ever allowed ourselves to get trapped in an inadvertent IMC situation, a radio call to ATC declaring an emergency was always the first step after transitioning to the instruments, leveling the aircraft and starting a climb.
Anyway, the bottom line was I found I could not overcome the weight and electrical power penalties imposed by equipping for IFR. Just my two cents and I hope it gives you some additional information to consider.

[JimP]

So, excellent point on available power. Will depend on engine and available alternators. Certainly want to be even more proactive about battery replacement before EOL also. Weight is also a consideration but with modern avionics I hope the difference is only a few pounds.

Expense may be the biggest hurdle. Do any of the common E-AB EFIS systems have full IFR capabilities? Or do you have to step up to certified systems?

[jerryhain]

I am planning on doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons you are. I’m building a OneX and going with an alternative engine for more power, reliability and a larger alternator. I fly smaller aircraft for a living and having an auto pilot makes all the difference.

[subnoize]

So, excellent point on available power. Will depend on engine and available alternators. Certainly want to be even more proactive about battery replacement before EOL also. Weight is also a consideration but with modern avionics I hope the difference is only a few pounds.

Expense may be the biggest hurdle. Do any of the common E-AB EFIS systems have full IFR capabilities? Or do you have to step up to certified systems?

So the MGL EFIS both Lite and regular are ILS ready, just add a Garmin radio nav and you are good to go.

From MGL: "The iEFIS can interface with the Garmin SL30 Nav/Comm and display active and standby navigation on the screen with a VOR/Localizer/Glideslope indicator."

The MGL auto-pilot will also fly the ILS approach and holding patterns for you. Just tweak the engine and talk on the radio for the most part.

In fact it is legal in emergency situations to use the bare MGL EFIS to do ILS. Which is why the auto pilot is so cool. Even then its a ticket out of potential harm.

If the power situation is so dire on the Sonex, why are they offering dual screens and auto pilots? That is odd. Those servo suck a lot of juice.

[subnoize]

The GRT Avionics Horizon HXr EFIS is designed to meet the requirements of ILS but the question falls to EAA and how you approach it.

http://grtavionics.com/home/efis-system ... ch-option/