Really bare bones IFR can be done with one nav/com and a transponder. I've done it. But I don't recommend it. The workload can get horrendous on some approaches.

GPS approaches and enroute travel are the wave of the future, but they're here now. Going direct is as common as flying the airways, maybe more common in some areas of the country, And you can get in with a GPS WAAS RNAV approach to as tight an approach as an ILS. For instance, at my airplane's home drome Greeley, the ILS 35 minimums are 3/4 mile and 200'. The RNAV (GPS) 35 minimums are (drum roll) 3/4 mile and 200'. But in addition to the ILS and GPS to 35, there are similar approaches to 10, 17, and 28. The minimums for 10 are 3/4 mile and 250', but the others are both 3/4 mile and 200'. That's a whole lot better than the VOR-A approach, which is 1 mile and 700'. You'll find the same comparisons at Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, Boise, and a host of other airports.

But there are gobs of small airports around the country which only have GPS approaches--if you're going into one of them IFR, you must have an approach certified GPS; e.g., McCall, Caldwell (it still has an NDB, too), Nampa (also has an NDB), Grangeville, etc.

There are still some airports here and there with NDB approaches only. At the time I had my ADF installed, there were enough to justify it, but most of those have since been converted to GPS approaches. There are airports, such as Cheyenne, which have all the approaches, ILS, GPS, NDB, and VOR. There are a few airports around the country which require DME--Grand Island has a back course localizer (BC/LOC) which requires a DME.

But you can do all of these with an approach certified GPS/nav/com such as the 430W or 650. They aren't cheap, and the annual cost of updates is a factor--my annual cost for the entire US for my 430W is $425.

If on the other hand, you're not concerned about approaches at all, and you only want enroute IFR capabilities, you can still get by with a single nav/com and a transponder, and a 6 pack. Your airplane will have to be IFR certified, which means a pitot/static check and transponder check every 2 years, which should run about $500 or so. It'll be awhile before VORs are shut down and Victor airways go away, and it's still entirely possible to navigate electronically everywhere in the country via VOR. You need to make sure that if you're going to fly in the clouds, though, that you can get down through them, and as we all know, weather isn't entirely predictable. In fact, that's what persuaded me to have the 430W installed, because it was only by chance that I was able to get into an airport VFR through a hole in the clouds, which had a VOR approach and a GPS approach, but the VOR had gone down an hour before I got there.

With all that is happening in the avionics world these days, though, I'd wait until your airplane is completely built before deciding on the avionics. What is state of the art today may be an antique by then.

Cary

Battson wrote:I bet you know this already, to fly single pilot IFR in the Bearhawk means a full autopilot.

Yeah, that's why I said i it probably isn't a good idea. I'm not installing an autopilot but I do think some light IFR could be possible in the Bearhawk.

Cary wrote:If on the other hand, you're not concerned about approaches at all, and you only want enroute IFR capabilities, you can still get by with a single nav/com and a transponder, and a 6 pack.

With all that is happening in the avionics world these days, though, I'd wait until your airplane is completely built before deciding on the avionics. What is state of the art today may be an antique by then.

My concern is the other way around; I don't care about enroute IFR, just approach capabilities.

I don't plan to buy any avionics till the very end of the build...I've got a while.

I'm not ifr rated yet - but I don't see you doing approaches without enroute IFR. More likely you might be able to get the occasional departure - like for fog where otherwise you'd be on the ground with low ceilings and low tops - and then cancel. How often do you get that in ID? Never here in CO - but sometimes in long x-countries back east. No way do I want any actual IMC in any of our typical planes here in the Rocks.

Cary wrote:That's a whole lot better than the VOR-A approach, which is 1 mile and 700'. You'll find the same comparisons at Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, Boise, and a host of other airports.

But there are gobs of small airports around the country which only have GPS approaches--if you're going into one of them IFR, you must have an approach certified GPS; e.g., McCall, Caldwell (it still has an NDB, too), Nampa (also has an NDB), Grangeville, etc.

There are still some airports here and there with NDB approaches only. At the time I had my ADF installed, there were enough to justify it, but most of those have since been converted to GPS approaches.

Cary

Cary you are bringing back memories. I learned to fly out of Boise in 1980. Pre-Loran-C and certainly pre-GPS. Everything electronic was VOR's, ADF's and NDB's. I can still recall sunny winter days where everything was covered in white; roads, lakes, mountains, valleys. And those of us flying would meet in the air over the VOR, sometimes at the same time.

Boy am I glad GPS exists!

Another thing to consider is how you'll meet the ADS-b requirements. Looks like there's devices coming out that are all-in-one solutions with a WAAS GPS and ADS-b output, but it seems silly to not use the input for weather and traffic.

I will second the wait til near the end for avionics. I have building my carboncub for two years and changed my mind from a Dynon 180 to G3X to the G3X touch. I think the G3X series or the new Dynon would give you the IFR capability. If the DAR puts in on the airworthiness. They can be had for about the same or less than a six pack new and it replaces all your engine instruments. You can use remote radio and xpdr for ease of install and maintenance. They replace all the engine instruments and record data for tuning and trouble shooting the motor. Much lighter. Will drive an autopilot if you change your mind later.

It is an all your eggs in one basket however. But is is a really cool basket.

Jake

Battson wrote:I bet you know this already, to fly single pilot IFR in the Bearhawk means a full autopilot.

Not sure I understand this. Unless there's something about the Bearhawk that I don't know, an autopilot isn't a requirement for single pilot IFR in hardly any airplane, other than certain SE Part 135 ops--which aren't possible in any experimental. I'm not suggesting that having an autopilot is a bad idea, but I've been flying IFR for nearly 40 years, and probably 98% of that has been sans autopilot, either because the airplane didn't have one, the one in the airplane didn't work well, or I didn't trust it.

My current airplane doesn't have an autopilot. While I don't do a lot of IFR flying in it, most of my long trips have involved some IMC. The longest one which was a bit more IMC than I expected was one of my annual trips to OSH. Those normally take about 7 1/2 hours of flight time, although due to weather diversions, this one took about an hour extra. Of those 8 1/2 hours, 7 were in IMC, requiring an approach at GRI and another at DBQ. I broke out early enough at OSH that it was a visual.

To give an idea of how useful being able to go IFR can be, tied to the kind of flying most of us on BCP do, my last trip to Marble was delayed by the weather by a day, but I had tried to go that first day. The weather was an overcast layer at something like 3000 or so AGL, with holes here and there showing blue above. I took off from Greeley, and it was obvious that my usual route over Milner Pass was totally blocked, but there was a large hole over Longmont, so I burrowed up through it, anticipating going over Rollins (Corona) Pass. When I got above the clouds, it was clear, but as I got within about 5 miles east of Rollins Pass, I could see that it was socked in on the other side of the pass. So I turned around to return to Greeley, but now that large hole had filled in. I was in good VMC over a solid layer, all white in all directions. I motored on toward Greeley, with the plan that if there was a decent enough hole within a few miles of Greeley, I'd go through it. But no holes opened up, so about 10 west of Greeley, I called Denver Approach and requested a clearance into Greeley. The controller asked how I'd found myself on top, and I told him about the big hole I'd used, but that it had filled in. He then asked if I was IFR qualified and current, which I was, and if my airplane was IFR certified, which it is. I'm sure he asked these questions, because how ATC deals with a VFR pilot caught on top is different from dealing with an IR pilot in an IFR capable airplane. He gave me descending vectors through the clouds, which were about 2000' thick. When I broke out, I didn't need an approach, so I cancelled IFR and returned to Greeley VFR.

Cary

soyAnarchisto wrote:I'm not ifr rated yet - but I don't see you doing approaches without enroute IFR.

I'm sure that some enroute IFR would be done, however IDA gets closed in by ground fog or low ceilings frequently in the fall and spring. Getting though the fog and the low cloud layer is the kind of IMC conditions I want to be able to deal with. IMC over the mountains is not something I'm wanting to do.

UngaWunga wrote:Another thing to consider is how you'll meet the ADS-b requirements. Looks like there's devices coming out that are all-in-one solutions with a WAAS GPS and ADS-b output, but it seems silly to not use the input for weather and traffic.

Something to think about for sure. Thanks. I haven't really been thinking about ADS-b because I haven't been planing on installing a Xponder; that will all change if I decide to set up for IFR.

[quote="C130jake"I think the G3X series or the new Dynon would give you the IFR capability. If the DAR puts in on the airworthiness. They can be had for about the same or less than a six pack new and it replaces all your engine instruments.[/quote]

Two things, I'm not going glass so this really isn't a factor for me. Second, Dynon says right on their website that they believe a certified navigation system must be installed in the plane for it to legally fly IFR. So you spend $5K for a Dynon or G3X then still have to install a 430 or some other approach certified GPS. That's a lot of bling for a bushplane and for me using it just enough to stay current it just doesn't make sense. A do agree though, the G3X does look like a really cool basket and would fit a CC nicely.

Cary wrote:

Battson wrote:I bet you know this already, to fly single pilot IFR in the Bearhawk means a full autopilot.

Not sure I understand this. Unless there's something about the Bearhawk that I don't know, an autopilot isn't a requirement for single pilot IFR in hardly any airplane, other than certain SE Part 135 ops--which aren't possible in any experimental.

This is my opinion but the Bearhawk is not a stable airplane with stability being defined:Stability is the tendency of an airplane in flight to remain in straight, level, upright flight and to return to this attitude, if displaced, without corrective action by the pilot. A Bearhawk does exactly what the pilot tells it to, nothing more nothing less. No doubt it would be a handful in IMC.

I don't want to be flying 7hrs enroute in IMC even over the flatlands but your Marble trip is a pretty good representation of what I'm wanting to do.

Helicopters do not have dynamic neutral stability. The scan had to be much faster than in fixed wing when in IMC. This is very tiring and requires two pilots for safety. Why would anyone design an airplane without dynamic neutral stability? Even VFR in a light observation helicopter, you had to use the collective pitch hand to scratch your nose. You only forgot once.

From someone who flys IFR single pilot for work, here's my take on a lite version IFR panel.

Keep it a standard six pack configuration if at all possible,

ASI. AI. ALT
T&B DG. VSI

I would also install a slip skid ball under your AI.

BE SURE YOU HAVE A OAT, you NEED to know when you're getting close to icing conditions.

I second what every other person said about a WAAS GPS.
I've seen some Garmin 400W (no com or nav radio) sell for not too much.

One cheat, when updating a garmin 500/400 series unit, the cards are interchangeable, meaning you can use someone else's update on your card, or use their card, if you can find someone accommodating.

Also you can get a King HSI setup with remote gyro and flux for very little on eBay (good and safe place to look for avionics) and barnstormers.

A HSI is a big thing, it will replace one VOR head, it will give you way better situational awareness and quicken your scan, and it won't have precession like a normal DG because it's slaved to a remote compass.
When I bought my 185 a HSI was a requirement

I also like vertical card compasses, they are easier to read and are laid out just like your DG/HSI, also they are cheap.

Be sure you have good instrument lighting, a single overhead red light shining on the panel is a effective and inexpensive option.

Make sure your battery and charging system are good.


Hold off on the ADSB, I'd wager closer to 2020 you'll be able to pick up "yesteryears" ADSB compliant transponders, used and for less

Blue skies....or in your case not really

Thanks 93K. Now I need to go figure out what a HSI is and how to use it.

contactflying wrote:Helicopters do not have dynamic neutral stability. The scan had to be much faster than in fixed wing when in IMC. This is very tiring and requires two pilots for safety. Why would anyone design an airplane without dynamic neutral stability? Even VFR in a light observation helicopter, you had to use the collective pitch hand to scratch your nose. You only forgot once.

The Bearhawk will fly hands off just fine in smooth air. It flies fine it's just not a Cessna. After my first flight in a BH I called one of my friends all freaked out because I thought the thing was going to fall out of the sky and I wasn't sure I wanted to fly it anymore. He asked if it felt like I was trying to stand on a basket ball; that's exactly what it felt like and completely normal for a BH. After a few hours it was a non issue but I can imagine in IMC you could get in trouble really fast.

I would recommend changing your plan slightly to include enroute ifr capability to your list of desires. There are such things as pop up ifr clearances and they are pretty easy to get in California from my experience. In oregon last year with a friend IFR rated in a baron, we asked for a pop up into salem. They gave it to us but took us far and away from the published approach, it really wasnt a very smooth transition to the approach but it worked...my buddy is a very competent IFR pilot. It seemed like they really werent into the whole pop up into salem part of our flight plan.

On the other side of things, i really feel you are doing yourself a disservice by eliminating an IFR approved gps for your panel. I have purchased a few avionics items for my 182 off of ebay including a steal on a GDL 69 weather and satelite radio downlink. I have seen GNS 430's and 530's on there for a reasonable price. I have a really good buddy who just started doing avionics full time in addition to his repair shop, it is relatively easy for them to make a harness and install one of those into a panel from what he tells me.

My panel consists of a 530W with a KX155 under it, they both drove heads until i upgraded to an aspen this year. Now my 530 displays on the HSI portion of the aspen. You will regret not spending the money to at least have a HSI installed, especially a slaved one. I started my instrument training on a DG, and it really is nice when you get into something like a HSI or aspen that once its set it is set!

If you want to go cheap and get a really cool piece of equipment that really works well, i would buy a King KNS80 off of ebay. I have been flying a bonanza that has one, and once you get passed the monumental learning curve on it, it will astonish you what that thing can do. I really like playing with it and flying behind it.

My personal opinion is this: IFR flying is becoming somewhat easier for the single pilot due to advances in technology. I understand not putting all eggs into the technology side of things because that does fail sometimes, however i think any time you can reduce your personal workload and concentrate on flying the plane in the ping pong ball safer you bet your ass im going to do it!

Good Luck!

Mike

Stability has two definitions in aero, but probably the most important to IFR flight is Static Stability. Static stability is positive if the aircraft (of its own accord) initially tends to restore itself back to equilibrium after a perturbation. Equilibrium would be your trimmed flight condition and the perturbation could be anything from turbulence to a gust or even you bumping a flight control while folding your enroute low altitude chart. Think of a ball in a cereal bowl. If I move the ball, it will initially try to roll back to the center of the bowl.

Dynamic stability is the response of the aircraft over time after the initial reaction.

Way off topic, but we're in that phase of the course so I thought I'd share.

Whee, I know you're looking for a shampoo-simple panel but I don't know how well your forever-plane will handle airspace in the future. All we have is VOR and ILS capability in out Blackhawks here and it is pretty tough to even get practice approaches. There's only one airport we can go to within our local flying area that had those approaches and doesn't require DME.

Whee,

I'd recommend you get your instrument rating before deciding what you need in your plane. A little knowledge will be much more valuable than equipment you are not proficient in operating (your insurance company will agree).

Steam is fine, but glass will be cheaper in the long run and provide much more information. A Dynon D-180 would be a good economical choice (and would be a lot lighter than steam). The engine monitoring and HSI display would reduce your workload substantially. An approach certified GPS would also be a wise investment. The additional utility this would provide comes with a cost (just like Bushwheels) but I believe it to be worthwhile if you evaluate the benefits it would provide. A used 430 doesn't cost much more than a SL30...

As far as an autopilot being "required" to fly Single pilot IFR in a Bearhawk... I'd suggest some additional training to anyone who believes hand flying a 120 knot family plane in the clouds is too challenging.

CamTom12 wrote:Whee, I know you're looking for a shampoo-simple panel but I don't know how well your forever-plane will handle airspace in the future.

Who knows what the future airspace will bring us but if glass and waas gps are going to be required to fly in class E and non towered fields then I'm not sure I'll want to continue flying anyways.

fly wrote:Whee,

I'd recommend you get your instrument rating before deciding what you need in your plane. A little knowledge will be much more valuable than equipment you are not proficient in operating (your insurance company will agree).

Steam is fine, but glass will be cheaper in the long run and provide much more information.

If I do get my IR rating it won't be in my plane and it will likely be done before I equip my plane for IFR flight. Going with steam isn't about being cheaper, simpler, or lighter. It is about what I want in my airplane. If I had unlimited funds I'd buy a C195 because I like classic aircraft and everything that goes with it. One major reason I like the Bearhawk is because it looks like a classic; I intend to keep that look throughout the entire plane. Also, I do plan on sourcing used gauges and I believe that even after getting them IRAN and marked appropriately for the Bearhawk they will be much cheaper than any glass available. The only digital instrument I plan to use is a engine monitor.

As far as an autopilot being "required" to fly Single pilot IFR in a Bearhawk... I'd suggest some additional training to anyone who believes hand flying a 120 knot family plane in the clouds is too challenging.

Do you have Bearhawk time Fly? If you do then this statement means something and is an outlier. Every Bearhawk pilot I have talked to says pretty much the same thing; auto pilot is a extremely good idea if you want to do real IFR in the Bearhawk.

whee wrote:

d.grimm wrote:Realize with GPS only that you won't be able to fly anything lower than 2000 and 3.

Really, 2000' AGL and 3sm vis? Crap that's PVFR...instead going home to IDA just land at Rigby 10 miles away. No sense in spending gas money on something so unuseful.

No, the requirement for "other means of navigation" only applies if your IFR GPS is not WAAS enabled. And the older King units aren't.

And, no, an autopilot is not required.

Whee, here's my suggestion:

If you are going to plan to fly IFR, do it right. What does that mean? One WAAS enabled GPS. Forget VOR/ADF/ILS/Marker Beacon Receivers, etc.

Don't even think about installing stone age vacuum gauges. There are magnificent PFD's from a number of manufacturers like Dynon which are for EXP only, but would work fine for occasional IFR.

Figure the cost of a vacuum system....the pump, which WILL fail at the most inopportune time, the plumbing, and the gauges. By the time you're done, you'll have close to the same cost as just buying a Dynon, and the Dynon comes with Airspeed, Altimeter, etc as well, AND a stand alone GPS.

Why in the hell would anyone starting from scratch buy all that old, maintenance intensive junk in the first place? I've had so many attitude indicators go tits up in airplanes used off airport that it isn't even funny. I've had practically NEW attitude gyros go belly up....yes, warranty covered, but if I'd been in the goo when it rolled over.....

If you're starting from scratch, you will be waaay ahead of the power curve AND money curve to install one of those Dynon or similar PFDs, a good engine gauge system, and a good, overhauled, WAAS enabled GPS. As someone else pointed out, it's not like you won't wind up using that WAAS enabled IFR GPS for VFR anyway. Save the cost of a $1300 portable GPS, and put that money into something that offers value added.

Check the prices on even used, overhauled VOR/COMM radios with glide slope receiver and the associated indicator.....they aren't cheap, and if it is cheap, why would you put junk in a brand new airplane? Cause it IS going to fail shortly.

And, if you want to be actually legal in IFR, install a steam gauge Airspeed and Altimeter. The PFD provides everything else.

Don't be a Troglodyte. There's enough of us around here as it is...

MTV

Whee,
Like everything else you have to define the mission. Mine with essentially a enroute GPS is flying Midwest flatlands
were 3sm in Haze is a summer standard.
I fly IFR most everyday for work and am much more comfortable in my area IFR.
I won't be flying in the clouds around the Great Lakes in the winter however.
Dave

mtv wrote:If you are going to plan to fly IFR, do it right. What does that mean? One WAAS enabled GPS. Forget VOR/ADF/ILS/Marker Beacon Receivers, etc.

That's far from doing it right.
If you have a GPS outage (which happens) you're screwed, then what? you need to find a ASR or PAR?

I wouldnt take a plane equipped with only GPS into actual, also you'd have no capability to shoot a percision approach.

One of the only regrets I have from my flight training was renting a clapped out 172 for my IFR vs just IFRing my Stinson.

Even though the 172 was cheap, I could have made my Stinson into a basic IFR plane (just like the 172, but nicer ) for less money and afterwards had a IFR panel vs receipts for rentals.

You can get a used nav/com cheap, add a GNS400W if you want GPS, and the king HSI set which will take the VOR/ILS input from the simple nav/com and the GPS input from the garmin. Keep your existing com for a second com, and your transponder. That'll cost less than what you'll pay to rent a plane for your IFR ticket.

As for the autopilot, that's not required, but if you're going to be doing some serious IMC flying, you should get a STEC with Alt hold and GPSS, for just occasional pop ups and getting your IFR ticket, don't worry about the autopilot.

Whee,

It's your Airplane, build what you want. Those were just my thoughts and recommendations as a professional pilot and A&P.

I have flown 3 different Bearhawks? Two had O-360's and one had an O-540. I didn't find them to be unstable or difficult to fly. They were not as stable as a 180 but that doesn't mean they can't be flown by a human without looking out the window.

Maybe I am the outlier here. It wouldn't be the first time!

I equipped my E-3 for IFR and flew it in the clouds when I had to get somewhere. It rolled 400 degrees a second, and was designed to be unstable. It didn't have an autopilot....



These guys flew their Pitts S-2B's all over the country IFR in the 1990's without autopilots (sometimes in formation).



I think it can be done in a Bearhawk. Thats just my opinion. YMMV...