OK after reading this tread for the past two weeks I had to get an answer
from some one who has had actual IFR Cert experience. I've known Mike Vivion
to be a bulldog when he feels he is correct but also quick to understand
differing opinions. I then sent a copy of the above thread to my friend
in Florida who I mentioned has the IFR Cub with the proper TC. This
is exactly Mike's very valid point.
The following is Ron's response:
Joe, Vivion is correct. This was the point I tried to make about my airplane,
that the equipment alone does not make an airplane legal to fly under IFR.
It must also be FAA certified IFR. Some airplanes have this approval on
their TC, mine does. Others IFR legal planes do not. This is because mine,
like others, received the IFR certification during manufacturing.
Others received IFR certification after manufacture through a Supplemental TC,
usually through a "Field Approval". Since the original Type Certificate,
without IFR, has already been "printed", the approval is issued on another
piece of paper called a Supplemental Type Certificate, along with the
Form 337. To be IFR legal, it must have the equipment, the airplane,
and the installation all approved on one or the other type of certificate.
Wishing it were otherwise so you could have an IFR airplane doesn't make it so.
This is why I made an "issue" that, as far as I know, N117RB is the only PA18
that is IFR approved on the TC. All others, and I believe there are very few,
got them through the STC process. That is a major reason that my PA18
cost me so much money and took Jim Richardson so long to finish
manufacturing the plane - FAA and paper work. I believe this is also
why he refuses to build another one IFR legal. It is also why I named
it Ultimate Cub. Now Jim is using that "name" to describe one of his
models. They however are not IFR legal, even with the equipment.
Ron