Artificial Horizon versus Turn Coordinator in very light VFR aircraft.
One thing has always puzzled me in many VFR only light aircraft. And that is the airworthiness policy (if any) behind the installation of the turn coordinator. This instrument is a gyro operated, electrically powered, flight instrument and as far as I know was designed as an alternate source of flight instrument power should the suction driven artificial horizon fail for whatever reason. It takes considerable skill to fly the turn coordinator in IMC.
Of course, aircraft with only a turn coordinator for pitch and roll reference are VFR only. Many modern ultra light types have a turn coordinators only. If an electrical failure occurs, you have no attitude indicator left to fall back on. But as presumably you will be in clear air it doesn't really matter as long as you have a visual horizon. In that case what is the point of having any attitude flight instrument unless one day you might need it for real.
So, in these types, why not have an electrically powered artificial horizon instead of a electrically powered turn coordinator? For very light homebuilt aircraft there is no airworthiness requirement to have two attitude indicators (AH and TC) with separate power supplies, since these aircraft are VFR only.
An AH is far easier to use if the aircraft happens to get in IMC and less chance of the pilot losing control while struggling to fly on instruments on a TC only. Is there a significant cost difference between an electrically powered AH and a TC? Give me an AH anytime rather than wrestling with a TC which requires serious instrument flying skills.
....