Originally Posted by
joshperry
... It doesn't matter if you're flying a 50 year old 172 or a 6 month old R44 with fuel-injection and AC, these machines are using archaic tech invented over half a century ago, and it seems like the manufacturers and regulators have settled into enjoying it that way...
Josh, I recommend you start a new thread along the lines of "Archaic technology in the General Aviation sector" to see what spread of views you get back. But you should give more specific examples of areas you see as archaic technology on say a Cessna 172 or a Robinson R44. For example, are you saying the engine tech is old?, instrumentation?, structural materials?, aerodynamic design?, safety aids available to the pilots?
Taking one extreme, you could say we are still using the same basic concept of wings that the Wright brothers used. But that doesn't mean wings are archaic.
Some years ago Cessna had developed a new design of light aircraft that was composite construction, but it seemed to have been a dud. As I understand, the limited numbers produced were re-acquired by Cessna and demolished. Not sure what went wrong. After that you could understand Cessna would be wary of trying anything new in the light GA market and would stick to a proven design, even if the airframe is dated.
I should also add that it isn't really the regulators that need to be innovative. Regulators need to work with industry to address proposed new technologies to make sure they have acceptable levels of safety. For example when "fly by wire" was introduced, or to deal with uncrewed aircraft, or battery powered aircraft etc.