Every time I personally meet other pilots who hang out on here, I hear the same thing: they would like more VFR content.
Many find EuroGA too technical / too IFR.
Maybe that is just the way pilots are… the “techy” ones are most likely to write.
But I am sure the others (clearly the great majority) do have great things to say and great questions to ask. Let’s face it – we all started as VFR pilots.
Over to you 
Yes Peter,
seems that VFRs either have little experience or simply dont take the pain to write about the obvious little things,supposedly known to everyone.
It is also a matter of free time plus energy to spend quareling about everything.Personalities are different.
High spending or investing makes a difference too,in the way one experiences GA.Last but not least,the country of residence, lifts or lows the morale !
One point which I think is worth making is that there is no such thing as a stupid question. In fact I don’t recall the last time I have seen a stupid question posted by a pilot.
What does happen on most of the other forums is that people get flamed or ridiculed. I hear a lot of concern about this when I meet people personally. They think they will be asking a stupid question – because there are so many experienced pilots here. That will never be a problem on EuroGA. On a commercial site you have to allow a “free for all” to get the traffic, so you get a lot of abusive behaviour, but that is not EuroGA.
Last but not least,the country of residence, lifts or lows the morale !
In that case, your morale, MedFlyer, should be approaching infinity 
What does VFR content mean ? Different Flightplanning ? CAVOK ? Without Oxygen ?
Whether VFR or IFR does not really matter for me, I think most of us fly both VFR and IFR. And Trip reports are VFR just as interesting as IFR reports.
One can find here amazingly detailed knowledge which makes reading often very interesting, this affects both IFR and VFR, since the plane does not know about the rules.
And on a Z- or Y plan you have both, IFR and VFR.
I fly to leave earthbound cares, to take a break from verbal discussions and negotiations, and face my own independent challenges with machinery and nature. Also to show others how much fun it can be to do same, in a plane that I can own and maintain. I can travel concurrently if I fly where the skies are relatively free, and relatively cloudless. That’s my VFR contribution
I don’t know. Seems to me IFR is a whole lot of fancy acronyms and old tech for the sole purpose of getting from point A to point B. VFR is pure fun and covers a vast space of different flying, different skills, different techniques. This weekend I had my first aerobatics lesson in an old Saab Safir. There is no way you can describe aerobatics with words. Of course lots of book have been written on the subject, but learning aerobatics by reading books is like learning to ski by reading books. This describes aerobatics more than a thousand words:
Later this week I’m going glider towing (also VFR). I am not very good at taking pictures, but I can try.
VFR does not really mean anything, it’s all kinds of flying. It really is more like IFR is one particular form of VFR, the sort of “VFR” you do to get from A to B in an efficient and secure manner, but nothing else. It would be more meaningful to discuss VFR in topics, for instance; Glider towing, sea planes, aerobatics, bush flying etc.
Arguably you need to invest more time in analysing the weather for VFR cross country, and be more flexible in stopping enroute to wait for better weather – which should lead to quite interesting posts.
Some of the best books (Sentimental Journey, Gift of Wings) are strictly VFR without nail biting back course localiser approaches to minimums in iced up piston aircraft.
I find there is a good mix on the forum, and it does what it says on the tin: lots of cross country trip reports especially in Europe.
I tend to agree. All in all, VFR flying tends to turn out more fun. That’s because things sometimes go a little different than planned, which, in hindsight, often turns out a very positive thing (meeting unexpected people in unexpected places, enjoying their help, mastering minor challenges, etc.) Far too many things in our lives go “according to plan”. VFR flying gives that bit of variety, of spontaneious action.
That is not to say IFR flying cannot be fun. It can, definitely. But it is more “reward” and “satisfaction” than “fun”.
What I had in mind wasn’t just VFR flying (in the strict sense of “VFR”) but also stuff on basics like aircraft handling, techniques, etc.
I can see that the number of people doing long VFR trips is never going to be all that big. The cost of the fuel alone limits that sort of activity to the most dedicated and a lot of those are instrument rated, and once you have that, you tend to go mostly IFR because it is so much less work.
But yes IFR is no magic tool. Only a heavily equipped aircraft can just drill a long hole through almost anything, in IMC. The rest of us still have to look at the wx carefully. Cloud top forecasting will never be anywhere near good enough for VFR i.e. whether one can be VMC on top and still below CAS (or below some level in CAS above which ATC won’t allow VFR e.g. much of France FL120-FL195). The best one can ever do with cloud top forecasts (or even actuals i.e. IR images) is to get an idea whether a reasonably high perf plane can get above it if it is encountered enroute.
Indeed what we lack is more discussion of flying, other than travelling. Whether VFR or IFR is then less relevant. We also want more discussion of technical issues on less ambitious planes – I’ve a few subjects coming up soon, as there’s a couple of jobs at hand on my own pride and beauty.
