The first aircraft flight by the Wright Brothers.

[Showboatsix]

It's almost December 17, 106 years after the first aircraft flight by the Wright Brothers at Kittyhawk, NC, and as I sit here I have to think to myself, in those 106 years we have left the Earth for the first time, landed on the Moon, Mars, a Comet, and the list is so long to write about, so the question I have is this.

We have accomplished all of this, yet the engine in my C-172 hasn't changed since it was designed in 1930! Why is it that we have accomplished all of these other amazing feats, but yet we all are flying behind an engine that is a 78 year old design.

Are we to believe that our current design was the ultimate of all engine designs? Is there no-one out there who can design a better engine, I know that aircraft have evolved over these 106 years, but yet the engines have not, why is that?

Why is it that EVERY attempt to design an engine has met with failure, or should I say, was obstructed into oblivion.

How was it possible, that way back in the 20's and 30's, that engines and airplanes were designed, produced and were flying in the same year, and today it takes years and years to design and get one certified for sale to the public?

Were the engineers smarter back then, was technology more advanced then than it is today?

Are we to believe that there is nothing better to be had 106 years later?

Just my thoughts as the anniversary of man's first flight approaches.

first flight.jpg

[ronjenx]

It's difficult to improve what works when there is so much liability if new designs have even small flaws at first.

[GAHorn]

Showboatsix.... You seem preoccupied with the imagined obsolescence of your airplane. It does not seem that classic aircraft suit your tastes. I wonder why you have one. Perhaps you'd prefer to own a new $3 Million Eclipse (with it's bankrupt mfr'r) or perhaps one of the new "biofuel" Boeing 737's that are being introduced?

As for me, I like old airplanes and intend to keep flying them. Happily, I might add. I don't like the price associated with the "NEW" "ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY".

(While this is a tongue-in-cheek response.....it's not entirely without validity.)
George

[Zreyn]

I like old stuff too,still I often wonder where we would be with a/c engines if the research & development of general aviation engines had been rewarding monywise after ww2. My son has a car with a six cyl eng. of 230 cubic inches & it makes 300hp of course the RPM is out of range for a direct drive a/c engine but it still causes me to wonder,then thers that little 4 cyl air cooled boxer eng by Subaru that makes 270hp just being the hp hog that I am

[HA]

there are plenty of better, newer technologies out there. look at your car, and compare the quality and mechanical durability to your car of 20 yrs ago. wow.

but I think it all comes down to economies of scale - not too many airplanes being made compared to the scale of autos. and when the business was booming in the '70's (again, booming by aviation standards) the manufacturers were busy pumping out mostly the same stuff as fast as they could to sell it - by the time any R&D bubbled up it was over.

and the only folks putting new technology engines etc into 60 yr old cars are "hod rodders" or club enthusiasts - maybe not too far from guys who upgrade these old aircraft perhaps.

the time is coming when new light aircraft will be turbine powered or else sport class, I believe. it'll just keep sneaking up on us. and I'll probably be putting around in my spare time in my 50's classic airplane

for that matter, hopefully we'll get that blizzard they're promising this weekend so I can go putz around on my 40 yr old sled too.

[GAHorn]

Well... how many of you are still driving your 1970's Toyota? ...versus how many of you are flying your 1950's Cessna 170?

I'm not trying to stop the conversation... but I'm puzzled over the sometimes frequent complaints about the classic technology of our classic aircraft. You want newer technology do you? Well, then. Why didn't you buy one of those Quarter-Million dollar diesel-powered Cessna 172's? Yeah, you know the ones.... the ones that have been abandoned by their mfr'rs.

Why don't you go out and stick a "new technology" engine in your 170... and then see how many folks beat down your door to buy it from you? And at what price!

Get real. And quit blaming the FAA for holding mfr'rs up to a high standard of reliability in design, unless you're willing to pay for it. If it weren't for such standards then your 1950 airplane would have been sent to the crusher 20 years before your 1970 Toyota.

[Showboatsix]

No "G", you missed the point, my question is not that I don't like the old planes, it is this, I own an old plane, but I am paying modern today prices for old plane parts, NOTHING has changed on that engine "except" the prices, same old antique design, same old lack of reliability, same old lack of horsepower, but with the modern $1200.00 per cylinder to overhaul costs.

I can tell you this (not you "G") if your car you own and drive had stagnated and not improved since 1930 you would be screaming to high heaven, which is why we have "modern cars today" but yet we all remain silent and happily consent to some bureaucrat in Washington telling us that our plane is grounded because we "do not have a cigar lighter in the hole in the instrument panel" (FAA demanded we remove it by the way) and that since this is the way it was designed....... must be the best it can ever be, so therefore it is this way!

Words to provoke thought...

A quote from JFK..."my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold."

Perhaps we need this kind of thinking in our community again.

And now you know "the rest of the story"! (Paul Harvey)

PS: A quote from "G" Happily, I might add. I don't like the price associated with the "NEW" "ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY". You are already paying "the price associated with the "NEW" "ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.... for your old technology!

[GAHorn]

... I own an old plane, but I am paying modern today prices for old plane parts,...

What are you paying for a loaf of bread? Or a bottle of water?

I'm not the one missing the point, in my opinion. (and the $1200 cylinders have new technology. Have you talked to the ECI folks lately?) ((and have you noticed how many AD notes are out against their cylinders?))

[Showboatsix]

"G".... no wonder you are like you are....LOL.... you are buying bottled water..... most of us just go to the sink and turn on the faucet and get a glass of water to drink!

"Although in the industrial world bottled water is often no healthier than tap water, it can cost up to 10,000 times more. At as much as $2.50 per liter ($10 per gallon), bottled water costs more than gasoline."

Where is the new technology in any aftermarket cylinders? They all are designed to the EXACT same dimensions and specs as the ORIGINAL 1930 design, same port locations, same runner designs, same plug dimensions, same valve diameters, so where have they improved the item, it's like the massive wire spark plugs, no matter who makes them they are the exact copies as they were in 1930! PS: look at how many AD's are against Continental cylinders! At least Lycoming is now starting to use "roller lifters" in their engines..... gee and how long has the auto engines been using them.... about 30 years now! And aviation is just now getting around to using them!

And as long as you have the FEDS controlling every move you make all you will ever get is total stagnation in any product that they are involved with!

It's like the leather seats and interior I had installed the C-172, we had to go through 6000 forms to the FAA to prove that the leather we used was indeed FIREPROOF..... have you ever seen an elk or a cow after a fire..... they don't burn, wool, leather are naturally FIREPROOF.. but not to the wonderful FAA!

Like I have said a long time ago, the only area of aviation that has progressed is the expermental catagory! And that IS because there is less Government intervention!

[wingnut]

From an A&P/IA standpoint, I think we are among the least government regulated occupations.
I would also add that getting an A&P and IA are very easy compared to other occupational licenses, permits etc. I have an electrician friend who has to get permits for every house he works on, has to meet local codes which vary, and the local inspector approve every job. He also has to attend recuuring training and submit reports on everything he does; has to be bonded and insured etc. I can totally rebuild the aircraft that flys your family and approve it for service without a second set of eyes ever seeing what I've done. How's that for government intervention. We are lucky and I like it that way. Of course, I and my guys always double check each others work whether required by the Feds or not.

[GAHorn]

Note: Ok, I'm just "discussing" here in this thread. Don't anybody get upset or claim that I'm trying to run-off participants or anything like that. This is just a spirited discussion, so ... if you're not prepared or in the mood for a friendly "argument" for the sake of discussion... then don't read any further.... just click on your "Back" button and go to another thread..... because Showboatsix and I are jackin' w'each other!

"G".... no wonder you are like you are....LOL.... you are buying bottled water..... most of us just go to the sink and turn on the faucet and get a glass of water to drink!...

I live on a ranch and have my own artesian water. I drink it out of the tap.
The question is: Have you priced water lately? It was not: What do you drink?
And you didn't answer the question, you diverted attention from the point, which is: EVERYTHING costs a lot more than it used to, but aircraft cylinder prices, in comparison to their original prices, are a bargain as far as inflation goes.

..Where is the new technology in any aftermarket cylinders? They all are designed to the EXACT same dimensions and specs as the ORIGINAL 1930 design, same port locations, same runner designs, same plug dimensions, same valve diameters, so where have they improved the item, it's like the massive wire spark plugs, no matter who makes them they are the exact copies as they were in 1930! PS: look at how many AD's are against Continental cylinders! At least Lycoming is now starting to use "roller lifters" in their engines..... gee and how long has the auto engines been using them.... about 30 years now! And aviation is just now getting around to using them!...

My dear friend, you cannot simply spew out that stuff and assume your statements are going to be accepted as valid or applicable. You clearly do not know what you are talking about and should contact the ECI and Superior folks if you want to know the advancements they have made in cylinder design and manufacturing over the original cylinders made back in the 1930'/40's such as your original claims. (But I still maintain it's not worth the money.)
Roller-lifters have also been condemned and had AD notes placed against them in Continental engines. They are notorious for inflight-failures. (And they are pretty much teats-on-a-boarhog in these low-rpm engines anyways.)
The AD notes on Continental cylinders are old, have been addressed by the mfr'r in new production cyls, and are NOT applicable to superceded designs anyway....which is EXACTLY the proof against your main argument that mfr'rs haven't kept up with the times! Not true. They re-designed the cylinders and improved them to get rid of the obsolescent design and the AD note!

And besides, what if they DID change the port locations on the cylinders. Wouldn't you then just simply complain that your standard exhaust system no longer fits? And wouldn't you be absolutely orbital over the price of those new cylinders with the relocated ports?

As for spark plugs.... I still install 98-cent Champions in my 1939 Ford tractor and it runs just as reliably as it always did. Why would I want to buy those $5.99 Bosch Platinum Fine-Wire plugs that Auto-Zone sells? They wouldn't do a damn thing the 98-cent plugs don't do!
And the same thing goes for aviation spark plugs. What kind of "modern technology" do you need or expect for a device that screws in a threaded hole and makes a spark! You want something more "technologically" advanced? Like what? Some "modern" fine-wire platinum spark plugs? Too late! They've been around in aviation since the 1940's! It's the automotive world that's behind the times in spark technology!

"And as long as you have the FEDS controlling every move you make all you will ever get is total stagnation in any product that they are involved with!

The Feds do not stop innovation. They encourage it. The problem is they are not going to approve junk for installation on certificated designs, and I'm GLAD they don't! I want to keep my airplane in a condition of airworthiness relative to certificated design. If I wanted to relegate it to an "experimental" category... guess what? The Feds would allow THAT too! So quit blaming the
Feds for everything. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing! Keeping mfr'rs feet to the fire and keeping bogus parts-makers out of selling me things that have no business on my certificated airplane!

"It's like the leather seats and interior I had installed the C-172, we had to go through 6000 forms to the FAA to prove that the leather we used was indeed FIREPROOF..... have you ever seen an elk or a cow after a fire..... they don't burn, wool, leather are naturally FIREPROOF.. but not to the wonderful FAA!

Then you simply have a habit of doing things the hard way. All you have to do is purchase leather and fabrics from approved sources or do a simple burn-test and document it. The rules have not changed for CAR3/4 airplanes in personal use. The burn tests for upholstery materials on our airplanes can be performed with a match and a stop-watch. No 6,000 forms are required.

"Like I have said a long time ago, the only area of aviation that has progressed is the expermental catagory! And that IS because there is less Government intervention!

I"m not going to spend any more time on this subject because I don't believe you are amenable to reality, you simply want to be mad and complain about something. You should join a hot-rodders club and enjoy. (But you're gonna be mad when you find the State Troopers, those neanderthal-morons, won't let you run racing slick tires on public highways and requre you to have lights at night. This is to keep you from killing my wife and grandkids on the public streets.)
"And that's a good thing." - M. Stewart

[Showboatsix]

"G".. Not mad... as I said...... wondering "why".. as for the hotrod.. yup I am into that too, see latest photos of last hotrod and current project!

IMG_0726 X 900.jpg

econoline.jpg

see this link for the hotrod .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1ov4n7NxK0

[GAHorn]

HA!!!

I just LOVE that "Runamucka!" Is that nose from a Stude?

[Showboatsix]

Yup a 50 Stude nose, 32 ford grill shell, 40 Ford wheels, 38 Ford wishbones, 40-47 Ford pickup cab chopped 4", 9" Ford rear end, Model A, spring perch, 40-47 Jeep cans, 85 Jag V12 engine with 75 Carbs,

All paterned after the Curtiss P-40, painted in the 2nd Pursuit Squadron colors of the Flying Tigers!

Did you go to the you tube link? I made that video, Jim Mesi Band did the song.

[HA]

now that rod is just SWEET, Showboat!