Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

...regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For
instance,
most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a
decade
non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and
faster
at the same time.

I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.

And where does the "cost factor" derive from?

The Semi-Monocoque construction ("aluminum-and-rivets") technique is
defiantely antiquated but is still the most cost effective method of
producing a lightweight faired structure. Composites, while very
effective in reducing weight and increasing the strength of the
airframe, are extreemly difficult to work with, both in the
manufacturing stage and during life-cycle maintainance (de-lamination
anyone). Also the cost involved far outways the advantages, from a
production point of view, in the general aviation sector at least.

It should be noted that some of the most inovative aircraft in recent
times have not been overly successful. A prime example is the late
Starship. Ruthan's Scaled Composites company have also produced some
very advanced aircraft but these have seen limited appeal.

One should also bear in mind that the older cessnas and pipers which are
the mainstay of the GA world were designed with a 30 year life-cycle and
are still going strong. And the popularity of vintage string and fabric
aircraft is ever increasing.

So, what you say is "the hell with innovation and new products"?

Interesting.

Maybe we should go back to 13" B&W TV's?

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

...regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For

instance,

most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a

decade

non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and

faster

at the same time.

I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.


And where does the "cost factor" derive from?

The manufacturing industry has long had cost savings in mind. If they
can save money by employing a different process without overly
compromising the end product they will do so. Likewise if they see that
there is not yet a significant market for the new technology they will
hesitate to employ it. They are a business like any other and are there
to make a profit.

It may not be widely understood but aircraft manufacturers may have to
have production running for up to 7 or 8 years before they reach a
"break-even" point, ie. before they see a cent of profit. Before that
all they are doing is paying off the cost of manufacture -
jigs,tools,floorspace,manpower.... It is not surprising that they are
reluctant to take such a long term risk.



The Semi-Monocoque construction ("aluminum-and-rivets") technique is
defiantely antiquated but is still the most cost effective method of
producing a lightweight faired structure. Composites, while very
effective in reducing weight and increasing the strength of the
airframe, are extreemly difficult to work with, both in the
manufacturing stage and during life-cycle maintainance (de-lamination
anyone). Also the cost involved far outways the advantages, from a
production point of view, in the general aviation sector at least.

It should be noted that some of the most inovative aircraft in recent
times have not been overly successful. A prime example is the late
Starship. Ruthan's Scaled Composites company have also produced some
very advanced aircraft but these have seen limited appeal.

One should also bear in mind that the older cessnas and pipers which are
the mainstay of the GA world were designed with a 30 year life-cycle and
are still going strong. And the popularity of vintage string and fabric
aircraft is ever increasing.


So, what you say is "the hell with innovation and new products"?

Interesting.

Maybe we should go back to 13" B&W TV's?



Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
State" governmental policies. However what I also see is that these
factors alone are not the sole inhibitor of innovation within the GA
community. Just because the technology is there does not mean that it
should be immediately used regardless of the cost incurred.

For example, technology developed for automotive engines which has been
around for years has only recently made its way into the aero engine
sector on a large scale. Turbo and superchargers have existed on aero
engines since WWII but their general use is only now being seen. Direct
injection had not seen widespread use until the last 10 years or so, and
with the long life-cycle of aircraft we are only now beginning to see
the demise of the carb in GA, despite the obvious benefits with relation
to safety and running costs. We are only now seeing aero diesels coming
into use and the next small leap in technology will probably be the
adoption of full engine management and control units.

And all of this is not the result of any infringement by government
regulators, but a common trend amongst manufacturers worldwide to keep
production and service costs to a minimum and avoid major risks. Only in
this way can they undercut competition and obtain the lions share of the
market.

When the Boeing Corporation decided to press ahead with the design of
the 747 in the early 60's they risked the entire future of the company
on the project. Every market study said that an aircraft that size would
be unnecessary, that passenger numbers didn't require something that big
- even Boeing hedged their bets by adding the raised flight deck to
allow the aircraft to be marketed for cargo purposed should it's initial
design purpose prove unprofitable. Imagine what would have happened had
it not been a success. It is not too surprising that companies are
unwilling to make the leap with new technology. I'm sure that Beechcraft
are licking their wounds as we speak and if they didn't have the likes
of the King-air, baron etc they would definately face a bleak future.

"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...
I think that this is more a product of the cost factor than regulation.


And where does the "cost factor" derive from?

The manufacturing industry has long had cost savings in mind. If they
can save money by employing a different process without overly
compromising the end product they will do so. Likewise if they see that
there is not yet a significant market for the new technology they will
hesitate to employ it. They are a business like any other and are there
to make a profit.

Being more efficient is, and always has been, a factor in progress. An
example would be the pin making machine of the late 1700's, or the assemply
lines of the early 20th century.


It may not be widely understood but aircraft manufacturers may have to
have production running for up to 7 or 8 years before they reach a
"break-even" point, ie. before they see a cent of profit. Before that
all they are doing is paying off the cost of manufacture -
jigs,tools,floorspace,manpower.... It is not surprising that they are
reluctant to take such a long term risk.

Quite so, but not only is the manufacturing process costly (where sold goods
are being created), but the R&D process where revenue is not assured and
legal claims ON THE SOLD GOODS can wipe out everything.



So, what you say is "the hell with innovation and new products"?

Interesting.

Maybe we should go back to 13" B&W TV's?



Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
State" governmental policies.

And an obscene legal system...

However what I also see is that these
factors alone are not the sole inhibitor of innovation within the GA
community. Just because the technology is there does not mean that it
should be immediately used regardless of the cost incurred.

That's not even a point of issue.

For example, technology developed for automotive engines which has been
around for years has only recently made its way into the aero engine
sector on a large scale. Turbo and superchargers have existed on aero
engines since WWII but their general use is only now being seen.

Hell, turbochargers have been in GA planes for over 40 years.

See what TATurbo has been doing for turbo-normalization. See also what
they're doing for ignition systems (PRISM system).

Direct
injection had not seen widespread use until the last 10 years or so, and
with the long life-cycle of aircraft we are only now beginning to see
the demise of the carb in GA, despite the obvious benefits with relation
to safety and running costs.

First, FI has been in GA a long time, but also the mandated costs of
converting from, say, a O-470 to a IO-470 has been prohibitive.

We are only now seeing aero diesels coming
into use and the next small leap in technology will probably be the
adoption of full engine management and control units.

Consider if PC technology gains had mirrored GA engine and airframe
technology.

And all of this is not the result of any infringement by government
regulators, but a common trend amongst manufacturers worldwide to keep
production and service costs to a minimum and avoid major risks.

Evidently you're not considering the FAA and STC costs.

Only in
this way can they undercut competition and obtain the lions share of the
market.

By innovating...

When the Boeing Corporation decided to press ahead with the design of
the 747 in the early 60's they risked the entire future of the company
on the project. Every market study said that an aircraft that size would
be unnecessary, that passenger numbers didn't require something that big
- even Boeing hedged their bets by adding the raised flight deck to
allow the aircraft to be marketed for cargo purposed should it's initial
design purpose prove unprofitable. Imagine what would have happened had
it not been a success. It is not too surprising that companies are
unwilling to make the leap with new technology. I'm sure that Beechcraft
are licking their wounds as we speak and if they didn't have the likes
of the King-air, baron etc they would definately face a bleak future.

Those risks were market risks, not what the issue is here. Besides, the 747
was an extension of existing design and technology, not an entirely new
paradigm.

You're right in what you observe, but it's not the topic of the article. The
biggest detriment is our tort system first, and the regulatory system
second.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
State" governmental policies.


And an obscene legal system...


Ah yes. The legal system. I was thinking it from a different angle. But
what you say is true, and not only in aviation - but lets not digress.
I'm not in the US but I can certainly sympathise.

I had thought that the Warsaw Convention had placed limits on damages
involving the airlines. Are US domestic flights exempt from this?

"gerrcoin" wrote in message
...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Not Necessarily. I agree with the general thrust of your argument and I
do see that there is overregulation of the industry by the "Nanny
State" governmental policies.


And an obscene legal system...


Ah yes. The legal system. I was thinking it from a different angle. But
what you say is true, and not only in aviation - but lets not digress.
I'm not in the US but I can certainly sympathise.

I had thought that the Warsaw Convention had placed limits on damages
involving the airlines. Are US domestic flights exempt from this?

Doesn't matter when the legal system (tort law) "requires" prescience and
omnipotence.