We have people here talking down the idea of plane electronics because the electrics of their Ford Cortina were susceptible to water ingress… in the 70es…
I had plenty of trouble with water ingress disabling the electronics of my 1996 Fiat Ducato. No need to mention the 1970’s.
But do you buy a plane because you want to fly it or because you want to fix it?
I will prefer one plane over another for not needing impromptu fixes at all, neither by myself nor by anyone else. Even if I do enjoy tinkering – about the car AND about the plane.
And for those insisting on “the future of GA”: some might well argue that there is no future at all for GA as the baby-boomer generation has known it. Neither with diesel engines nor with batteries nor with a micro-scale nuclear fusion generator. Traditional GA is a hobby for the upper middle-class, which could only exist in the “Western World” and only in the few decennia of (artificial?) post-WW2 wealth. The rest of world only knew poor people (who never leave terra firma anyway) and rich but then really rich people (who get themselves flown) and, IMHO, we are returning to that situation. Which Europe and North America saw up till 1945, to, by the way. Aerodromes are already neatly splitting up accordingly: either they offer full facilities, but then they are expensive, and discourage G/A, or they are basic, thus unaccommodating to those who want instrument approaches and WiFi in the terminal – even if there is one.
Things like diesel engines are not a success because someone has not yet made them commercially successful (rather than technically superior). As we know the two are not the same. So far the technical superiority is not such that they are a must have for a new aircraft. The Cirrus parachute has crossed the boundary and created a market for a technical innovation. For many, it is a must have.
Being a bit better is just not enough. For people to change it has to be dramatic and diesels are just a bit dull and have been beset with manufacturer problems so most have ignored them.
On carbon fibre reinforced plastics I think people overstate the point. It is fiberglass with carbon fiber replacing the glass fibre. Your typical plane part is not made in an autoclave to formula 1 standards. It is laid up like a fibreglass canoe. Yes it is light and strong. But not a panacea. And not exactly high tech.
Flyer59 wrote:
If even the ENGINEERS don’t want new technology in GA airplanes, then I am beginning to understand why it doesn’t happen … :-) There used to be a time when engineers were all striving for the best solution and couldn’t wait to make the next step.
That is exactly the problem. I don’t want new technology for the sake of new technology. I want new technology when and because it makes sense. And I want the best solution for a problem without having to justify that the solution is old. I am not talking about installing NOS A-65 engines into new airframes, I am talking about people claiming that high displacement air cooled engines were inferior to other engine designs because they were older. As far as I am concerned, the O-360 still is as bulletproof as an engine can get. I am talking about people designing a constant airfoil on a rectangular wing out of carbon fibre, claiming it would result in a better structure, whereas other technology could be cheaper to build, easier to maintain. Then they want the wing light, resulting in high bending moments in the wing root and massively overbuilt spars. They use expensive CFD modelling and throw away their analytical possibilities by using a stupid NACA4412 for the wing. The precision gain of these methods over classical “ancient” potential flow calculations are just a couple percent. But they result in funny colourful pictures.
I get the feeling, that some pilots think that with more technology we would somehow make everything easier. That is not the case. People install a skyview with a coupled autopilot, automated trim, FADEC, etc. and think it makes flying easier for them. Well, it doesn’t. They make the system more complex and the pilot has to stay on top of all those things. USFlyer may postulate it again and again, flying is never “turn the key and forget” and never will be. This attitude is extremely dangerous.
There is a saying that a computer can make a good engineer very good ,but a bad engineer dangerous. Same goes with pilots.
Sometimes, the cub with it’s undercomplex systems is the superior choice over a full blown CTLS or Dynamic where the pilot has no idea of what goes wrong if something goes wrong. And there is no such thing as THE right solution anyway. But “up-to-dateness” is not anything that should play a role in the evaluation of technical possibilities.
CAT is a complete different playground and fuel efficiency has a massively greater effect on total operation cost than in our kind of GA.
Flyer59 wrote:How about a layer of brushed aluminum, or wood? That was the fashion for decades. How much function does cherry wood add to a cockpit?
It’s not a fashion statement. A friend of mine nearly lost his life, as a carbon panel broke on an off field landing and almost perforated the artery in his left leg. Carbon fibre plastic is really nasty in case of a crash. You better use Aramid, but that’s a pita to work with. And yet, you jumped on fashion and carbon fibre would be better than cherry wood.. That is exactly what I was aiming at.
Silvaire wrote:
position of selling an RV-7A, a 200 mph, 1800 fpm climb aircraft, for $75K
Sure, but such a plane does not exist.
Well, all these arguments could well be used to justify 1950 engines in cars.
You want new technology when it makes sense?
I think we have such a case. We want more reliable, more efficient, easier to start and to handle and maybe even a bit cheaper to buy engines. Hey, maybe even with electronic ignition and catalyt converters.
If traditionalists prefer to fly +70 year old engines – fine with me. But that’s not the “future of GA”. I think it’s time for something new.
If you have a look at the statistics about catastrophic engine failures you will find another reason why new engines should be developed. Hundreds of pilots and passengers die every year because airplane engines in small aircraft fail. I think these engines are not reliable enough. Whenever an airplane crashes for technical reasons – it’s almost always the engine that failed.
I know a guy who bought a brand new Cirrus – and the engine failed at the first flight with the company CFI. He got a new engine by Conti – which failed again after 200 hrs. If that is good enough for you, fine. I think that is terrible and that it is unacceptable.
There will always be room for vintage aircraft, don’t worry ;-)
Quoting myself:
position of selling an RV-7A, a 200 mph, 1800 fpm climb aircraft, for $75K
USFlyer replied:
Sure, but such a plane does not exist.
A guy three hangars from me just bought one for $75K as I described above, O-320 powered, and now has both that and an O-290 powered RV-9A that I assume will be going up for sale. I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying “doesn’t exist”, if its the performance numbers instead of the price here they are. Given a choice between buying the RV-7A and a used Light Sport with injected Rotax for more money, there is zero chance I’d choose the latter.
I’ve never understood judging any idea by its date of origination, I’d certainly agree with mh on that point, and I find it mildly annoying because for an engineer it would be indicative of a lack of intellectual discipline. Same in my mind for new versus used… who cares? But certainly the latter issue is more of a personal aesthetic thing.
I do know for sure that if I want the best plane for my own practical use, it’s likely to have a four cylinder Lycoming engine now and into the foreseeable future. The Lycoming sixes are OK, but I don’t anticipate needing 300 HP. The little Continentals are a little antiquey in detail design, I’d agree with that, but they work fine too. The six cylinder Continentals don’t appeal greatly to me. There’s a reason why western businessmen sell companies to the Chinese (just my opinion).
Silvaire wrote:
but I don’t anticipate needing 300 HP
You don’t get to 180ktas cruise unless you are over 300hp. No one climbs at 1800 fpm unless you are talking about a plane with a jet engine as well.
USFlyer wrote:
No one climbs at 1800 fpm unless you are talking about a plane with a jet engine as well.
Virtually all the RVs can climb at that rate, and RV-7 with 200 HP can climb at 2550 fpm Max. My favorite plane with climb rate in mind is the Pitts S2C which climbs at just under 3000 fpm, not the fastest climbing piston engine plane but in my mind the coolest plane that climbs really fast. A Yak 50 is pretty good too!
Note that I didn’t mention either cruise speed or knots, but I’ve been in an RV at 205 mph level.
The above debate clearly demonstrates that not everyone wants newer, quieter, faster, cleaner, shinier etc… It probably correlates with low and slow (and fun!) like a Cub vs high and fast and economic like a Cirrus…. In the above arguments I kind of lean towards Silvaire’s way of thinking….vive la difference!
None of this has anything to do with the topic. And while the RV’s are great planes … what exactly is the useful load and range for that performance?
That’s like saying a Lotus Super Seven is the future of the automotive industry ;-)
(Which ones of the traditional engines are the smoothest? I think the big bore Contis!)
