Top Development in GA (30 years)

Everskyward said:
I think it's interesting how almost everything mentioned has to do with avionics or computers rather than the airframe.
Click to expand...

Did anything significant happen to any GA airframes in the past 30 years?
Semi-monocoque construction existed for quite a while and I'm not aware of any advancements in subsonic airfoils.
 
Everskyward said:
I think it's interesting how almost everything mentioned has to do with avionics or computers rather than the airframe.
Click to expand...

Well, as much of a pain as it is to certify a "regular" airplane without anything new or different, it doesn't surprise me too much that nobody's really pushing the envelope much here. If I felt like certifying something different, I'd think back to what happened to the Beech Starship and move on to another business... Or certify a plain old nothing-new airplane.
 
Not the engines

Not the wings

Not the cost

Not the fun

Yup guess the avionics is all we got.
 
MachFly said:
Did anything significant happen to any GA airframes in the past 30 years?
Semi-monocoque construction existed for quite a while and I'm not aware of any advancements in subsonic airfoils.
Click to expand...

there has been steady development in sailplane airfoils in the last 30 years, most of which will surely be applied to long duration UAV's.
 
1. Vastly improved situational awareness, due to many things cited by others, such as EFIS
2. Affordable, ubiquitous engine monitoring and management systems (EMS)
3. Improved weather forecasting and portrayal
 
Everskyward said:
I think it's interesting how almost everything mentioned has to do with avionics or computers rather than the airframe.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm the only one who mentioned Cirrus. I guess no one else thinks it's aerodynamics, safety and technology at the time wasn't a giant leap compared to other aircraft.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Well, as much of a pain as it is to certify a "regular" airplane without anything new or different, it doesn't surprise me too much that nobody's really pushing the envelope much here. If I felt like certifying something different, I'd think back to what happened to the Beech Starship and move on to another business... Or certify a plain old nothing-new airplane.
Click to expand...
There have been plenty of new aircraft certified in the past 30 years. It's just that only a few have been a radical departure from conventional design (Starship, Piaggio) and they haven't really caught on that well. One thing people haven't mentioned is the quieter (relatively speaking) and more fuel efficient jet engines they have these day.

Speaking of the Starship I saw one at Xjet (FBO) at Centennial yesterday. It's the one that I've seen in Aspen before.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah I'm the only one who mentioned Cirrus. I guess no one else thinks it's aerodynamics, safety and technology at the time wasn't a giant leap compared to other aircraft.
Click to expand...

As much as cirrus is hated right now.. they are selling so many aircraft, and flying everywhere.
 
I think both Cirrus and Diamond can be counted as innovations. However, I don't think their performace over conventional, aluminum counterparts is as significant as the avionics advances.
 
dell30rb said:
As much as cirrus is hated right now.. they are selling so many aircraft, and flying everywhere.
Click to expand...

You know not to hijack my own thread but what's the issue with Cirrus? It seems like the aircraft and those who fly them seem to get a lot of ridicule from other pilots.
 
LJS1993 said:
You know not to hijack my own thread but what's the issue with Cirrus? It seems like the aircraft and those who fly them seem to get a lot of ridicule from other pilots.
Click to expand...

I'll try to handle this :hairraise:

In a nutshell, the marketing and price of a Cirrus means they are stereotypically bought by lawyers, doctors, what have you (wealthy individuals) who are generally low time and don't have the professional pilot mindset. They also may or may not have rich ******* syndrome (you know the type, Porsche, speedboat, whatever) When you combine that with a fast and powerful airplane, it results in many smoking holes in the ground.

That said they are awesome planes and I want one.
 
Last edited:
dell30rb said:
I'll try to handle this :hairraise:

In a nutshell, the marketing and price of a Cirrus means they are stereotypically bought by lawyers, doctors, what have you (wealthy individuals) who are generally low time and don't have the professional pilot mindset. They also may or may not have rich ******* syndrome (you know the type, Porsche, speedboat, whatever) When you combine that with a fast and powerful airplane, it results in many smoking holes in the ground.

That said they are awesome planes and I want one.
Click to expand...


Hence, my signature.....
 
LJS1993 said:
You know not to hijack my own thread but what's the issue with Cirrus? It seems like the aircraft and those who fly them seem to get a lot of ridicule from other pilots.
Click to expand...
The closest I've been to a Cirrus is standing on its wing looking into the cockpit so I have no opinion on the flying characteristics. However I think it was a good thing for Cirrus to inject new life into the GA market, especially at the time.
 
for real utility travel cirri along with the 210 is the only viable single engine piston. Cirrus are on the edge of not being toys.
 
Everskyward said:
The closest I've been to a Cirrus is standing on its wing looking into the cockpit so I have no opinion on the flying characteristics. However I think it was a good thing for Cirrus to inject new life into the GA market, especially at the time.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
dell30rb said:
I'll try to handle this :hairraise:

In a nutshell, the marketing and price of a Cirrus means they are stereotypically bought by lawyers, doctors, what have you (wealthy individuals) who are generally low time and don't have the professional pilot mindset. They also may or may not have rich ******* syndrome (you know the type, Porsche, speedboat, whatever) When you combine that with a fast and powerful airplane, it results in many smoking holes in the ground.

That said they are awesome planes and I want one.
Click to expand...

Except many are being bought in a partnership by people who don't fit the above profile. They are the best value out there if you want a trip plane. Just look at controller. As for me, I'm an engineer (semiconductors).
 
cirrusmx said:
for real utility travel cirri along with the 210 is the only viable single engine piston. Cirrus are on the edge of not being toys.
Click to expand...

What about Bonanzas, Mooneys, etc? All of the above are fast, capable airplanes that can be had with turbos, FIKI, etc... :dunno:
 
tonycondon said:
there has been steady development in sailplane airfoils in the last 30 years, most of which will surely be applied to long duration UAV's.
Click to expand...

That hardly qualifies as general aviation. You either have big expensive UAVs for the military or the miniature once that qualify as RC.
 
Anthony said:
I think both Cirrus and Diamond can be counted as innovations. However, I don't think their performace over conventional, aluminum counterparts is as significant as the avionics advances.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
Anthony said:
I think both Cirrus and Diamond can be counted as innovations. However, I don't think their performace over conventional, aluminum counterparts is as significant as the avionics advances.
Click to expand...

Innovations....maybe


Improvements.....not from an A&P standpoint. Knock a wing tip on a cessna, its maybe 2,000 to fix. Do that to a columbia and they have to saw the entire wing tip off an rebond another tip on.

Hail damage repair......

Major leading edge ding........

They look great, but I will take a cheaper used retract mooney over a cirrius any day. In the end your money ahead by a long shot.



I fly the bosses columbia from time to time, we had it before the phenom. I hated that plane as a mechanic, and am not super impressed with it as a pilot.

Aluminum for the win!
 
peppy said:
I don't think GA level ADHARS use ring gyros. I may be mistaken but I think they use accelerometers which are much cheaper.
Click to expand...

Accelerometers only sense lineal motion (good for stabilization inputs to control laws in autopilots). Ring lasers (fibre optics these days) sense angular rate. Before laser gyros there was a move to non-gimbaled spinning mass gyros called strap-down gyros but they were quickly made obsolete by the now mass produced laser rings.
 
3 - Loran and GPS

2- Any experimental kit or plans that came along in the last 30 years


And the Number one answer is................................

...........................

................

POA...:idea::cheers:
 
Ken Ibold said:
Yep. But the credit lines were MUCH lower and they were harder to get. Hence the "easily accessible."
Click to expand...
I remember my CFI suggesting that I get a credit card so that I could pay for fuel when away from base. I had never had a credit card before (I was 19) but it was not difficult to get one even though I didn't have much income. I didn't need a cosigner either. On the other hand I don't remember what the credit limit was.
 
DrMack said:
Accelerometers only sense lineal motion (good for stabilization inputs to control laws in autopilots). Ring lasers (fibre optics these days) sense angular rate. Before laser gyros there was a move to non-gimbaled spinning mass gyros called strap-down gyros but they were quickly made obsolete by the now mass produced laser rings.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that they're using S-RLG's and not MEMS gyroscopes?
 
Thirty years puts us back to 1982.

It's going to be CMOS based ICs or some high density silicone chip fabrication technology or something like that.

Current computers and ICs weren't possible when all we has were current operated transistors and low density fabrication technology.

Electronics needed too much power, made too much heat, and were too slow and took up whole rooms.
 
Maybe flat panel technology. GPS goes back a ways. It just wasn't consumer electronics.
 
DrMack said:
You are right, I found a 2004 Flying Magazine article in which they reveal that the G1000 AHRS uses MEMS gyros.
Click to expand...

Cool! Neat to have a confirmation. Were there any other geeky details in the article? What issue was it in, and is it available online?

Thanks! :)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Cool! Neat to have a confirmation. Were there any other geeky details in the article? What issue was it in, and is it available online?

Thanks! :)
Click to expand...

For more info you can check here for a MEMS gyro data sheet including principles of operation. A more general overview is here.
 
peppy said:
For more info you can check here for a MEMS gyro data sheet including principles of operation. A more general overview is here.
Click to expand...

Thanks! As mentioned before, I did some research WRT glass cockpits using MEMS gyros and S-RLG's about a year ago. Fun stuff, one of the most interesting school projects I ever did. I think I posted my paper and presentation on it in a thread somewhere on here.
 
cirrusmx said:
and bonanzas...mooneys are way to small and not in production anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm 6'4" and nearly 300# and I fit WAY better in a Mooney than I do in a Bonanza. The "Mooneys are way too small" is an OWT, as are most other things people say about Mooneys IME.

FWIW, Mooney is still in business, just not producing airplanes - Not enough demand in this market. Too bad, I'd really like to take an Acclaim Type S for a test flight! :yes:
 
LJS1993 said:
Okay gentlemen in your opinion what has been the best development in general aviation within the last thirty years? This can be related to technology, policy, or training methodology.
Click to expand...

Austin Meyer ;) ;)

(the dude does some really cool stuff; "Xavion", a current project/collaboration comes to mind)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top