doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (01/21/86)
A recurring theme in some aviation periodicals is, "Modern automobiles
are much advanced over those of a few decades ago, but most modern light
planes are based on designs that are 20-40 years old."
This is obviously true, yes?
Well, let's see. Twenty years ago the "average American" drove a car
which held six people in reasonable comfort. A huge trunk held a lot of
luggage. With its V-8 engine and automatic transmission, the car could
accelerate quickly and could easily cruise all day at speeds of 70 mph.
Today, the "average American" drives a car which holds two adults and
two children in reasonable comfort. The trunks don't hold much luggage;
this is usually circumvented by providing a hatchback arrangement and
using an undersized spare tire. With its 4-cylinder engine and manual
transmission, the acceleration ranges from poor to adequate, and the car
is designed to cruise at 55 mph.
*This* is progress??? (I'm not talking about social progress of making
the type of car fit the usage; I'm talking about technical advances).
Don't everyone holler at once. Okay, I hear shouting about gas mileage.
Yes, and pollution control. And also crashworthiness (called "safety").
I concede that there have been major advances in those areas. But wait:
what do those three aspects of car design have in common? I'll tell
you in a minute.
First, let's look at the progress in general aviation. Twenty years
ago the "average American" was flying a two-seat tube-and-fabric
taildragger. The 65-85 horsepower Continental engine provided a cruise
speed of 60-90 mph. The plane didn't have even a simple communications
radio. The only gyro instrument was a turn needle. The interior of
the plane was stark, the control cables providing visual relief.
Today, the "average American" flies a 4-seat all-metal retractable.
200 horses and a constant-speed prop pull the plane along at 160 mph.
The radio stack includes dual nav/comms, a transponder, probably ILS and
maybe DME. The instrument panel is fully outfitted for IFR, including
autopilot. The interior is plush, with carpeting and velour everywhere.
Now *that* sounds like some progress.
But what about the "ancient designs"?
First off, what does it matter if the design is new or old, as long as
it's good? What is really *wrong* with the design of the Cessna 172 and
182, or the Piper Warrior and Archer, for example?
Second, let's consider the "ancient design" of the Cessna 172. Sure,
you can trace its ancestry back to the 1948 Cessna 170. At least on
paper. But the current plane does not have the same engine, nor the
same fuselage, nor the same wings, nor the same landing gear, nor the
same tail, nor the same electrical system, nor the same instrument
panel, nor the same interior components, as the original. In fact,
about the only thing that a 1985 C-172 has in common with a 1948 C-170
is the number on the type certificate.
It appears that the "cars have advanced more than planes" hoopla is
referring not to technical matters, but to exterior styling. Sure,
the car makers love to change the appearance of their product to match
whatever the latest rage is. If fins are "in", then the cars get fins.
If sharp corners are in, then cars have sharp corners. This year, it
looks like round edges are in. Oh, and "airplane style" doors. Say,
don't the Piper singles have airplane style doors?
Now what about mileage, pollution, and safety. What do they have in
common? We had to enact Federal laws to get the car makers to improve
these points, that's what.
Maybe Congress should have included airplane makers too. Then we could
all be flying ultralights and bragging about the technical advances
made in modern general aviation planes. :-)
--
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!dougwanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja) (01/23/86)
> First, let's look at the progress in general aviation. Twenty years > ago the "average American" was flying a two-seat tube-and-fabric > taildragger. > > Today, the "average American" flies a 4-seat all-metal retractable. > 200 horses and a constant-speed prop pull the plane along at 160 mph. > The radio stack includes dual nav/comms, a transponder, probably ILS and > maybe DME. The instrument panel is fully outfitted for IFR, including > autopilot. The interior is plush, with carpeting and velour everywhere. > > Now *that* sounds like some progress. > Actually, that sounds (except for avionics) like a 1948 Bonanza. And "twenty years ago" the "average American" was flying a Cessna 150, 172 or a Cherokee 140/180. But that does hold for "thirty years ago," I will admit. But as the famous saying goes, "What have you done for me lately?" I see three impediments to General Aviation progress: Certification costs, product liability, and manufacturer's inertia. Eliminate these three items, and you have the homebuilt branch of general aviation. HOLD ON! I am not about to dredge up our old argument about "The flying public doesn't want a 700 pound, 15 foot wingspan homebuilt, it wants a 200 mph, large interior X-country machine!" Due to product liability, a homebuilder can experiment; a manufacuturer finds it too expensive. Certification costs are paralleled with product liability... much of the data must be used to protect the company when it gets sued later. Even that might not help... witness the case where Beech lost even though the aircraft meet all requirements at the date of its original certification. Twenty years later the requirements were changed, and the court held Beech to them for the old design. Innovation is part of the homebuilt element due to cost. But what about Manufacturer's inertia? When a flock of penguins are uncertain about whether killer whales or other predators are in the water they're going to swim in, they crowd along the edge. Eventually, one gets crowded in and the question gets answered either way. When a manufacturer has a success with an unusual concept, the others will crowd in. That's true in aviation, true in autos, true in electronics. Remember the Windecker Eagle? The Bellanca Skyrocket? If either had been sucessful, Piper and Cessna would have composite aircraft today. I'm gunning for the Beech Starship, but I don't know... Anyway, I'm rambling again (I should use s and vi, not *f*). I still feel my original point holds true... other than avionics, you could take your 1985 C-172 back in time to 1947 and any A&P would keep that airplane in tiptop shape. No composites (except maybe wingtips, I don't know), no Wankels, no aluminum block Buick V-8s. Same construction. Same engines. Same controls. The only safety advantage is the nosewheel. Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja) "Did you know he checks his sanity with a stopwatch?" "Whatdaya check your's with... a dipstick?"
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) (01/23/86)
> Today, the "average American" flies a 4-seat all-metal retractable. > 200 horses and a constant-speed prop pull the plane along at 160 mph. > The radio stack includes dual nav/comms, a transponder, probably ILS and > maybe DME. The instrument panel is fully outfitted for IFR, including > autopilot. The interior is plush, with carpeting and velour everywhere. Wow, I wish I were "average"! I guess my C150 puts me below the poverty level :-). I believe if you check the number of civil planes regestered, you'll find the "average" is somewhere between a C150 and a C172, hardly a retractable with 200 horses and constant-speed prop.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (01/23/86)
> Today, the "average American" flies a 4-seat all-metal retractable. > 200 horses and a constant-speed prop pull the plane along at 160 mph. > The radio stack includes dual nav/comms, a transponder, probably ILS and > maybe DME. The instrument panel is fully outfitted for IFR, including > autopilot. The interior is plush, with carpeting and velour everywhere. Assuming, of course, that the "average American" can afford this marvel of modern technology. Increasingly he can't. The advances have not been the result of greater sophistication; they have been the result of bigger price tags. Which is what the complaint is about. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (01/28/86)
> "twenty years ago" the "average American" was flying a Cessna 150, 172 or a > Cherokee 140/180. A number were flying the 150 and 172, but the Cherokees were brand new. Even so, the bulk of the planes at the time were tube-and-fabric taildraggers produced during the "boom years" of 1946 and 1947. > I see three impediments to General Aviation progress: Certification > costs, product liability, and manufacturer's inertia. Eliminate these > three items, and you have the homebuilt branch of general aviation. This argument presupposes that GA's progress has been impeded. I think that the record shows that it hasn't. > my original point holds true... other than avionics, you could take your > 1985 C-172 back in time to 1947 and any A&P would keep that airplane in > tiptop shape. No composites (except maybe wingtips, I don't know), no > Wankels, no aluminum block Buick V-8s. Same construction. Same engines. > Same controls. The only safety advantage is the nosewheel. Same engine? No way. The engine in the modern 172 is either the O-320 (for the Skyhawk) or the O-360 (for the Cutlass). Neither engine existed in 1947. The original (late '50s) 172 used the Continental O-300 (I think -- don't hold me to this). But my point is this: other than electronics, you could take your 1985 Ford back to 1947 and any backyard mechanic could keep it in tiptop shape. No composites, no Wankels, no aluminum block Buick V-8s. Same construction. Same engines (at least to the same degree that the 172's engine is the same). Same controls. The only safety advantages are those mandated by law. -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (01/28/86)
> The advances have not been > the result of greater sophistication; they have been the result of bigger > price tags. Which is what the complaint is about. Cause and effect; which is which? High prices didn't bring about sophistication. Sophistication brought about high prices. In 1983, AOPA Pilot noted that the base price of a '83 Skyhawk was virtually identical to that of a '63 Skyhawk after allowing for inflation. And the '83 is better equipped than the '63 was. (This doesn't mean stuff like radios; the base price doesn't include any radios. It means stuff like dual toe brakes and full gyro panel.) What has increased is the sophistication demanded by buyers. In '63 many pilots would buy a 'hawk with only a few options; but in '83 the plane that AOPA flew for a review had $36,000 worth of options (added to a $44,000 base price!) -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/04/86)
> > The advances have not been > > the result of greater sophistication; they have been the result of bigger > > price tags. Which is what the complaint is about. > > Cause and effect; which is which? High prices didn't bring about > sophistication. Sophistication brought about high prices. I wasn't implying a cause-and-effect relationship, I was pointing out that a comparison of today's very expensive aircraft loaded with options against yesterday's fairly cheap aircraft in minimal configuration is obviously going to conclude that the modern one has more useful features. But useful features that I cannot afford are of no use to me. > In 1983, AOPA Pilot noted that the base price of a '83 Skyhawk was > virtually identical to that of a '63 Skyhawk after allowing for > inflation. And the '83 is better equipped than the '63 was... Now *this* is a reasonable comparison, since it's normalized on price. More detail on this one would be nice. > What has increased is the sophistication demanded by buyers. In '63 > many pilots would buy a 'hawk with only a few options; but in '83 the > plane that AOPA flew for a review had $36,000 worth of options (added > to a $44,000 base price!) What AOPA gets for a review isn't necessarily what its members will buy, although one would hope for a correlation. This also doesn't consider the possibility that the buyers demanding the sophistication are the high end of the market only, with the low end increasingly giving up entirely on aircraft ownership. Not many people buy bare-bones yachts, either. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry