Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: No advances in GA plane designs?
Message-ID: <1023@terak.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Jan-86 19:21:45 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.1023
Posted: Mon Jan 27 19:21:45 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 04:20:59 EST
References: <1009@terak.UUCP> <502@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Calcomp Display Products Division, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 33

> "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