Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!wanttaja
From: wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: No advances in GA plane designs?
Message-ID: <502@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Jan-86 17:49:18 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.502
Posted: Wed Jan 22 17:49:18 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 08:16:25 EST
References: <1009@terak.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 61

> 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?"