We genuinely use our a/c for travel and unfortunately, don't use it as
much as we should for sheer joy of flight... but it took a long time to
get here and YMMV.

It was clear to me early in my flying life that spam can utility was
limited and expensive. I chose to soar and that was an enormously
satisfying experience. But time passed and we changed. We finally
stopped soaring all together.

We now live an airplane-travel-centric lifestyle. No $100 hamburgers
but plenty of $200 trips. Always the 2 of us, almost always overnight,
our playpen bounded by Key West, upstate NY, and Atlanta.

It's a slow plane but adequately equipped, and parked in the backyard.
The latter being the key to travel utility. IFR is mandatory but as
much for comfort as for dispatch flexibility. Getting above the
convection (or at least above cloud base where you can dodge it, is a
key to SE US flight. We put many more miles on the plane than in any
car. Until recently, we simply didn't travel 50+miles anywhere by car.

It's been the most rewarding time of our lives so far but time is
passing.... those kits sure are looking interesting.


wrote:
I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR capability
(pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70
respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been able
to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of
that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the
Northwest. Icing is a factor that sometimes keeps me on the ground (or
requires route adjustment) even with IFR capability. Nevertheless, travel
in a light airplane cannot even come close to being reliable without IFR
capability, with the possible exception of regions such as the American
Southwest where IFR weather is rare.

Most of my trips in the Arrow would be impossible by airline and impractical
by car. Often it's a matter of going IFR or not going at all (or possibly
taking the huge risk of VFR in marginal weather).