Ever so often I read and hear people moaning about us flying the same 1950s designs and 1930s engines. I can not agree because on the one hand It is not completely true, on the other hand there is more to aircraft design than pure performance or efficiency. So basically I don’t understand what those people who argue in this way, think where we should be in the design of modern aircraft. What do you expect from a modern aircraft either in terms of efficiency, performance, comfort? I would like to understand what is driving the notion that today’s aircraft were designs of the 1950s with engines of the 1930s.
Of course a year 2015 won’t make a 1961 Cessna 172b a modern aircraft, but in my book we do see quite a lot of development in current general aviation aircraft.
Cheaper and more reliable to run than a C152.
I don’t mind what it costs as long as after 2000 hours I have the extra outlay for the initial purchase back in reduced running costs.
but in my book we do see quite a lot of development in current general aviation aircraft.
I can’t see much development. Avionics have come on, and there is some engine development albeit very early days. I suppose materials have also improved a bit with composites.
Beyond that what has really changed?
If you compare it with changes in commercial aircraft, GA has developed glacially.
Maybe the market is happy with current designs and hence the demand for innovation is low.
I really don’t agree. Diamond DA40/42: Common rail FADEC turbodiesels in a highly advanced composite airframe. There is no higher tech than this in any comparable industry, not even in fighter aircraft. The DA-42 is the most popular twin today (most sold new one). Let’s not forget the tens of thousands of microlights with carbon composite airframe and Rotax 912 iS.
In small aircraft, the recreational part is relatively large. Which means efficiency and performance often take the back seat relative to feelings and value and fun. This is why the Cub will never die 
flying the same 1950s designs and 1930s engines. I can not agree because on the one hand It is not completely true
Where exactly would I find the improvements or even just differences between a Lycoming from 1963 and 2015? Don’t say digital engine monitoring because that has nothing to do with the engine…
The iron curtain people were also told that Ladas and the like were good cars and there was nothing worth improving. The gap between a modern car engine and a car engine from 1963 is as big as between an aero engine from 1963 and how an aero engine could be today if there was any market justifying R&D.
Then also show me the improvements of the C172 between the 1950s and today. There is nothing substantial and what there is was just low hanging fruit like airbags. Like Jason said, avionics can be excluded because they are relatively cheap to develop and can be applied to all airframes so the total addressable market is significantly larger than that of an engine or airframe.
Hey. Value,…perhaps not so much 
, but the DA42 sure is fun to fly!
“No higher tech” might be a bit over the top though. We’re literally flying a pair of 2004 Merc car diesels. We won’t quite match supercruise of an F22 twin turbofan…
There are two separate issues here:
It’s not use going over #2 because everybody knows how hard it is to innovate in this business and make money out of it.
Regards #1, I would like
The first one will never happen but the others could if there was a will to do it.
@Peter :
I think your second point is also part of the equation regarding cost of development.
the third point would really be nice and improve interaction with some cumbersome devices that are onboard GPSes
Thermawing ? does not that work properly ? just tumbled upon it the other day and looks nice
“No higher tech” might be a bit over the top though. We’re literally flying a pair of 2004 Merc car diesels. We won’t quite match supercruise of an F22 twin turbofan…
Everything is relative of course A 2004 diesel is relatively state of the art regarding diesels, and the F22 is so expensive, not even the US Air Force can afford more than a handful. What I meant was that it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect more advanced engine and airframe tech in a commercially viable platform, than what already exists in the DA42.
What I’d like to see is technology that increases the utility of the aircraft without concurrently designing in indefinite dependence on the manufacturer (a man needs a dream)
The reason that a lot of stuff doesn’t change that fast in light, low speed aviation is that for several decades some of the best people available were involved and they designed the stuff scientifically, to first principles. Structures are a good example and the improvements there have come mainly from materials and manufacturing techniques. The analysis techniques available in the mid-20th century were pretty effective and more to the point they used them! Most other consumer items were not ‘properly’ designed at that time and even now, to a lesser extent.
