There has been considerable progress in designing and operating commercial airlines in the transonic segment in the last 40 years – sub sonically I posit that other than materials allowing extreme aspect ratio wings for gliding, and some tweaks at the STOL end, there has not been a significant development.
SciFi materials, fuel cells and blown wings might be Dan Dare visions for 2075, but the central hypothesis is that in 2075 a DA 40 may be the generic GA aircraft, if such an industry still exists.
The Super Cub and it’s derivatives, refinements will still be produced. Unless someone produces a poor man’s helicopter that operates off airport as cheaply and reliably as a SC.
I’m with Krister on this one. At the very least, Cessna/Piper/Mooney could at least update the exterior & interior aesthetics into something modern-ish. (does Piper Seminole still come w/ashtrays in the cabin?)
I think we’re confusing virtue with necessity – if private light GA hadn’t lost its broad relevance years ago, aircraft makers would have kept building updated designs. Instead we’re stuck in this weird time warp. (Google images: “cuba cars”)
Thanks Hodja, you’re absolutely in my realm of thinking.
Robert, I know there’s been progress in high speed aerodynamics where the bread and butter of aviation lives and unfortunately the low end is not as interesting, unless you work at a university in Germany that happens to enjoy developing longer and longer and longer wings for gliding. Hardly a practical solution for the T-hangars of GA, but efficient, I’ll give them that. So, it takes some radical, probably lateral, thinking from rogue designers to make these leaps forward in the GA segment. I don’t know if you’ve had any interest in the work that McGinnis has done, or if you’ve seen it, but it would be really interesting to hear what other engineers and aerodynamicists say about his reasoning. I wish I had the knowledge myself. Unfortunately, all I do know is how to fly the damn things.
Yet, still, if you look at a 1960 Cessna 172 and today’s models, also they have evolved quite a bit.
When viewed as aircraft, as opposed to a styling exercise, the late 50s C172 airframes are arguably the best of the bunch. I think a fast back early 172 with the current engine would be the best functional combination.
Vintage is fashionable nowadays..;-), I removed the ashtrays on my V35 when redoing the interior ain’t that a major design improvement. For the long wings this can be solved also. Look at the new 777X it will have fold-able wing tips…. 
Things may improve when the FAA has done rewriting FAR 23 will Europe follow ..?:
http://www.flyingmag.com/news/opinion-mystery-part-23-rewrite
The Synergy quarter scale RC model does look futuristic. I am not sure about the 100% increase in efficiency that the proof of concept will attempt to demonstrate! but I do hope they produce a full scale prototype.
Well, they’re hard at work. Have a look at their Facebook page: Synergy
There’s an interesting link on the page to this: 10x reduction
Based on an ultralight glider no less, and designed by someone other than John. So, at least he’s not alone…
I wish I had the engineering genes of these guys…
From that 10x link:
100LL is going to have to go away, it is the major source of lead pollution
100LL is an insignificant source of lead pollution
The Single Engine Piston market is going to die a slow death unless we can provide new technology solutions that are environmentally friendly and economically sustainable.
I don’t see a reason why pistons should die when there is no better solution at anywhere near the cost
Next consider the real range required for a typical GA flight, where a 200 to 300 mile range would be sufficient.
Only for PPL training…
Certainly a more complete life cycle analysis is required to amortize the batteries over their typical 2000 cycle life
I’d like to see the manufacturer underwrite the 2000 cycles… that has never been achieved in reality with any battery (other than a capacitor ).
It’s good stuff, for a small specific market.
Electric cars, all the rage a year or two ago here in the UK, with full page adverts, are going nowhere.
Have a look at Norway Peter. Electric cars, possibly the Tesla S and Nissan Leaf, account for 12% of the total new registry! That was 2012 and 2013.
They may have been going nowhere, but that was 2 years ago. I’m pretty sure Top Gear’s test did little to aid sales… :)
With regards to some of the information in the NASA (edited, my mistake) material, I do agree that it’s a bit off target.
100LL is probably the most significant lead pollutant in terms of Fuels. Batteries must account for the majority of lead, right?
The Tesla ought to be a good benchmark for battery cycles in vehicles, and provided they only discharge to about 50% the cycles apparently increase from 3-400 to 1200-1500.
That’s what a survey found based on the roadster model. Anyway, off the mark of 2000 cycles, but electric power for aircraft is still somewhere in the future. Maybe a hybrid solution like the one used in the Chevy Volt/Opel Ampere is a way to extend range while improving on fuel efficiency. I don’t really know. A small diesel generator and efficient electric motor..?
100LL is probably the most significant lead pollutant in terms of Fuels.
I don’t think 100LL features at all on the atmospheric pollution scale. It is used in such minute quantities. Unleaded petrol and diesel produce huge amounts of pollutants. They just don’t contain lead so everybody has a nice warm fuzzy feeling
Batteries must account for the majority of lead, right?
I read somewhere that dumped car batteries are still the biggest single source of lead entering the environment – despite such disposal being illegal etc etc.
I’m pretty sure Top Gear’s test did little to aid sales…
I don’t know anybody who takes TG seriously. Many years ago, it used to be a serious car review/test programme. Now it is just a comic like Big Brother, etc.
Recently I went to a presentation by a big figure in the electric vehicle R&D business and he admitted their current claims of 1000 cycles are not reached, anywhere near. At £5000/battery, that makes a big difference. I really don’t see lithium battery technology in cars being any better than those in the top end consumer goods and as far as I can see none of those go past a few hundred before you have to throw them away, and start looking on Ebay for a (hopefully non-fake) replacement. With e.g. laptops one can often partly recover the battery by running it right down a few times but with a car that isn’t possible – you really don’t want to drive an electric car anywhere near its range because if you run out you get a huge hassle.
