Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: No advances in GA plane designs?
Message-ID: <1009@terak.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Jan-86 16:55:35 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.1009
Posted: Mon Jan 20 16:55:35 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 09:16:43 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Calcomp Display Products Division, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 74

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!doug