Sunfish, I wasn't getting on the old, "suppression conspiracy" bandwagon - I was referring to the inertia of corporations towards innovation and design improvements, as they prefer to keep the status quo in eternity, and will resist change as long as they can.
Robotic substantially reduce expensive labour costs, I thought, by eliminating large amounts of tedious labour requirements? Or did I get that wrong, too?
Robotic welders put your current production vehicles together at much lower cost and with far superior accuracy than any welding done by hand.
Stationair8, the XMC was a prototype design, produced to try and find improvements in basic light aircraft design layout. The XMC apparently provided no substantial aeronautical efficiencies, and actually incurred higher levels of cabin noise.
The basic design layout of the 172 appears to be highly satisfactory, what I am saying is that there could have been a number of build and material improvements in the construction, as well as engine efficiency improvements in the last 60 years, that haven't happened.
In the same period we have seen substantial improvements in the build and material improvements in motor vehicles, as well as at least a 30% improvement in fuel efficiency.
That fuel efficiency improvement has largely been driven by legislation, not by any competition or innovation on the part of manufacturers.
Yes, I understand certification is a big bogey in aircraft manufacture, but it hasn't stopped a vast number of aircraft design improvements in other aircraft. The European "plastic fantastic" composite offerings prove that.
It's a shame that everything European-built seems to come with a substantial cost component that I am convinced has little to do with actual build cost, and a lot more to do with the heavy levels of European socialist taxation, and a desire to ensure very substantial levels of profit.