Logic behind day VFR

[Dillon Pyron]

I'm looking at this from a newbie's point of view.

Why build day VFR? Not so much of a question of why not IFR, I can
understand that. But why day only? Is it just that much simpler to
build? In many areas (I learned to fly in the LA basin, Torrance)
lights are almost a neccesity.

Just looking for the logic, not being critical of the decision.
--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

[Rich S.]

"Dillon Pyron" > wrote in message
...
> I'm looking at this from a newbie's point of view.
>
> Why build day VFR? Not so much of a question of why not IFR, I can
> understand that. But why day only? Is it just that much simpler to
> build? In many areas (I learned to fly in the LA basin, Torrance)
> lights are almost a neccesity.
>
> Just looking for the logic, not being critical of the decision.

Dillon..........

In many urban areas of the U.S. it is possible to fly night VFR almost as
safely in the daytime. If you maintain adequate altitude, you can safely
glide to a well-lit airstrip.

But in 90%+ of the U.S. (the most well-lit country on the planet) if you
have an engine failure at night, you will probably die. The side of a barn
looks the same as a sod farm at night. Many pilots treat nighttime as solid
IFR and will not fly without multi-engine.

That being said, if adding night capability to your homebuilt is what you
want - do it. Just consider that you will be carrying around that extra
weight forever.

Gravity. It's all about gravity! (and mass, too)

Rich S.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Rich S." > wrote:

> "Dillon Pyron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm looking at this from a newbie's point of view.
> >
> > Why build day VFR? Not so much of a question of why not IFR, I can
> > understand that. But why day only? Is it just that much simpler to
> > build? In many areas (I learned to fly in the LA basin, Torrance)
> > lights are almost a neccesity.
> >
> > Just looking for the logic, not being critical of the decision.
>
> Dillon..........
>
> In many urban areas of the U.S. it is possible to fly night VFR almost as
> safely in the daytime. If you maintain adequate altitude, you can safely
> glide to a well-lit airstrip.
>
> But in 90%+ of the U.S. (the most well-lit country on the planet) if you
> have an engine failure at night, you will probably die. The side of a barn
> looks the same as a sod farm at night. Many pilots treat nighttime as solid
> IFR and will not fly without multi-engine.
>
> That being said, if adding night capability to your homebuilt is what you
> want - do it. Just consider that you will be carrying around that extra
> weight forever.
>
> Gravity. It's all about gravity! (and mass, too)
>
> Rich S.
>
>

It really isn't that much extra weight -- less than a gallon of fuel to
have full night capability. I find the added night capability to br
extermely useful.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:08:40 GMT, Dillon Pyron
> wrote:

>I'm looking at this from a newbie's point of view.
>
>Why build day VFR? Not so much of a question of why not IFR, I can
>understand that. But why day only? Is it just that much simpler to
>build? In many areas (I learned to fly in the LA basin, Torrance)
>lights are almost a neccesity.
>
>Just looking for the logic, not being critical of the decision.

Most Fly Babies are day VFR aircraft, are most Pietenpols, Baby Aces, etc.

Mine has lights and a strobe, and I've been contemplating removing them.
It's a waste of weight, it's a source of potential problems. I've made one
night flight since buying the airplane ~8 years ago. The strobe,
especially, has a big power supply and puts an ugly wart on the tail.

A strobe would help in your location, I doubt the little red, green, and
white lights do much good toward visibility, even in the LA basin. Install
a strobe from the start, if you plan on flying in conditions where it'll
help, and lay the wires for the wingtip and tail lights.

Ron Wanttaja

[JH]

Personally, I enjoy an evening flight that lasts into twilight and a
little beyond. The air is calmer. Air traffic chatter is less. The lights of
the countryside are beautiful. And the stars and moon seem closer. Realize
it is riskier. But leaving the ground is riskier.

Don't have to use it if installed. If not installed, CAN'T use it. If it
helps you get home once or twice a year, it is well worth it. IMHO

Joe


"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:08:40 GMT, Dillon Pyron
> > wrote:
>
> >I'm looking at this from a newbie's point of view.
> >
> >Why build day VFR? Not so much of a question of why not IFR, I can
> >understand that. But why day only? Is it just that much simpler to
> >build? In many areas (I learned to fly in the LA basin, Torrance)
> >lights are almost a neccesity.
> >
> >Just looking for the logic, not being critical of the decision.
>
> Most Fly Babies are day VFR aircraft, are most Pietenpols, Baby Aces,
etc.
>
> Mine has lights and a strobe, and I've been contemplating removing them.
> It's a waste of weight, it's a source of potential problems. I've made
one
> night flight since buying the airplane ~8 years ago. The strobe,
> especially, has a big power supply and puts an ugly wart on the tail.
>
> A strobe would help in your location, I doubt the little red, green, and
> white lights do much good toward visibility, even in the LA basin.
Install
> a strobe from the start, if you plan on flying in conditions where it'll
> help, and lay the wires for the wingtip and tail lights.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:58:44 -0600, "JH" <u> wrote:

> Personally, I enjoy an evening flight that lasts into twilight and a
>little beyond. The air is calmer. Air traffic chatter is less. The lights of
>the countryside are beautiful. And the stars and moon seem closer. Realize
>it is riskier. But leaving the ground is riskier.
>
> Don't have to use it if installed. If not installed, CAN'T use it. If it
>helps you get home once or twice a year, it is well worth it. IMHO

As ever, it depends on the builder's mission. Putting lights (and the
capability to power them) on a typical Fly Baby would add ~40-60 pounds.
That's a 10-20% hit on useful load.

Just illustrates the ever-present danger of mission creep. Most folks
won't be satisfied with just nav lights and a strobe. They want a landing
light, too. Oops, got a taildragger, so I need *two* landing lights (one
to light the taxiway in three-point attitude). What about the panel
lights? Most people probably aren't happy with the cyalume lightstick I
use, so in goes the post lighting for the instrument panel.

So now you're running dozens of feet of wire through the aircraft, plus the
light fixtures, plus the strobe power supply, plus the switches, plus the
fuses, plus the spare fuses, plus the generator, plus the battery, plus the
battery cables, plus the maintenance access for the battery, all the
crimp-on connections, etc. etc. etc. You'll have to add a transponder,
too, if you live within a Class B veil.

I flew a club no-electric Fly Baby for seven years, then bought a Fly Baby
with a very basic electrical system for my very own. Empty weight of
no-radio Fly Baby: 650 pounds. Empty weight of electrical-system'd Fly
Baby with same engine: 812 pounds. Some of that is a starter that I don't
really need and some overbuilding of some aspects of the airframe. Heck, I
saved 6 pounds when I switched to a drycell battery, and was happy to get
it.

Again, I'm not anti-lights. If someone's mission includes night or
twilight flying, go for it. But otherwise, I'd just run the wires through
the wings and tail to the proper locations and install that stuff later, if
it turns out it's needed.

Ron Wanttaja

[JH]

Ron, I agree re: mission creep. However, I sometimes think of something
like no lights as mission restriction. In re: to weight, most of us (not
you) could make up the difference easily with 20lbs of pilot weight jetison.

A plane like the flybaby is the perfect day VFR toy. It is not used as
much for cross-country. ie. getting home after a day at a fly-in 250 miles
away may not often be an issue.

I built my panel lights with LEDs for less than 10 dollars and less than 2
pounds total. Switches included.

Happy Flying,
Joe


"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:58:44 -0600, "JH" <u> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I enjoy an evening flight that lasts into twilight and a
> >little beyond. The air is calmer. Air traffic chatter is less. The
lights of
> >the countryside are beautiful. And the stars and moon seem closer.
Realize
> >it is riskier. But leaving the ground is riskier.
> >r
> > Don't have to use it if installed. If not installed, CAN'T use it. If
it
> >helps you get home once or twice a year, it is well worth it. IMHO
>
> As ever, it depends on the builder's mission. Putting lights (and the
> capability to power them) on a typical Fly Baby would add ~40-60 pounds.
> That's a 10-20% hit on useful load.
>
> Just illustrates the ever-present danger of mission creep. Most folks
> won't be satisfied with just nav lights and a strobe. They want a
landing
> light, too. Oops, got a taildragger, so I need *two* landing lights
(one
> to light the taxiway in three-point attitude). What about the panel
> lights? Most people probably aren't happy with the cyalume lightstick I
> use, so in goes the post lighting for the instrument panel.
>
> So now you're running dozens of feet of wire through the aircraft, plus
the
> light fixtures, plus the strobe power supply, plus the switches, plus
the
> fuses, plus the spare fuses, plus the generator, plus the battery, plus
the
> battery cables, plus the maintenance access for the battery, all the
> crimp-on connections, etc. etc. etc. You'll have to add a transponder,
> too, if you live within a Class B veil.
>
> I flew a club no-electric Fly Baby for seven years, then bought a Fly
Baby
> with a very basic electrical system for my very own. Empty weight of
> no-radio Fly Baby: 650 pounds. Empty weight of electrical-system'd Fly
> Baby with same engine: 812 pounds. Some of that is a starter that I
don't
> really need and some overbuilding of some aspects of the airframe.
Heck, I
> saved 6 pounds when I switched to a drycell battery, and was happy to
get
> it.
>
> Again, I'm not anti-lights. If someone's mission includes night or
> twilight flying, go for it. But otherwise, I'd just run the wires
through
> the wings and tail to the proper locations and install that stuff later,
if
> it turns out it's needed.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Jerry Guy]

It's mission creep that scared me enough to finish removal of the
remnants of IFR/night equipment from my Pitts S1T. The thought of
landing it at night even fully equipped was to scary to contemplate.

Jerry

[Blueskies]

Any 'as removed' goodies sitting in the hanger?

--
Dan D.



..
"Jerry Guy" > wrote in message ...
>
> It's mission creep that scared me enough to finish removal of the
> remnants of IFR/night equipment from my Pitts S1T. The thought of
> landing it at night even fully equipped was to scary to contemplate.
>
> Jerry
>