Why don't plane manufactures update their models?

[A_User55555]

When I was young, I used to play Microsoft Flight Simulator. When Flight Simulator 98 came out, they added the Cessna Skylane 182. I figured the 182 was a new plane that came out in 1998.

Soo today I randomly googled the history of the Cessna Skylane and found out the 182 came out in 1952! And it seems that the most common private planes today actually came out before the 1960s.

So it got me thinking, Why don't plane manufactures refresh their models more often?

A Ford F150 from 1960 looks wayyyy different than an F150 today. But for planes, The 182 hasn't changed much on the outside. And the interior looks the same unless you have digital avionics.

I can understand a Boeing 747 staying the same since its a complex and expensive plane. But for small single engine planes, I figured they would change more over the years

 

[vw7674]

aerodynamics have not changed either. Neither has the powerplant & the propeller or the air molecules it moves.
so you won't see the 182 or the Caravan or the Beaver (last built 1967) change much, other than new pontoon floats or wing-end appendages. They would only change for actual performance improvement. And those improvements are few & far between.

 

[joegreen]

I don’t know much about flying but i think pilots are trained to fly a certain aircraft and so it seems easier if the plane stays the same so they can be qualified to fly it instead of having to re train?

 

[Kuato]

Because changes to aircraft must be run through the FAA and certified, which costs $, time, and effort.

Nowhere as easy as making a design change on a car.

 

[billt460]

You don't mess with success. If a given air frame has proven itself over the decades, with excellent flight characteristics, performance, and a good safety record. Along with good, steady sales. Why change it?

They'll make improvements in instruments and avionics as they are brought on line. CRT screens, synthetic vision, along with other navigation updates. Along with updated, nicer interiors and paint schemes. But there is no need or reason to make changes to anything else.

Pilots become big fans of how an airplane flies, more than how it looks, or how stylish it is at that moment in time.

 

[mrsilv04]

It is not a small plane, but the Boeing 737 Max is one reason why...

 

[FowVay]

I spent thirty years working for a major air line doing engineering and QC work. My job was to ensure the effectivity of every item that went onto the aircraft during overhaul. Even after a specific airframe has been out of production there are updates and modifications to improve the safety and reliability.

Aviation isn't like automotive or motorcycles where they are constantly trying to appeal to a buying audience. Aviation carries a far greater liability with regard to safety and the manufacturer is held liable long after any warranty has expired.

Those little Cessna planes are like a baseball - it does what it was designed to do and there isn't a whole lot you can do to improve upon it. There are plenty of kit planes and experimental classifications for those who prefer to "roll their own" but aviation is an expensive hobby and flyers are a tight knit group. You might not hear about it at the local Waffle House but one visit to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, for the EAA airshow will give a bit of insight into the sport. I think everyone should go to Oshkosh at least once in their life just to experience it.

 

[wwillson]

I don’t know much about flying but i think pilots are trained to fly a certain aircraft and so it seems easier if the plane stays the same so they can be qualified to fly it instead of having to re train?

Most single engine piston airplane fly very similarly with only slight differences in handling. As a flight instructor I flew probably 20 different SEL (Single Engine Land) airplanes over the course of a year giving biannual flight reviews, instrument competence checks, familiarization rides, ferrying airplanes, etc. You still have to take the time to 'know' the specific airplane you are about to fly. I would always sit down with the owner and 'quiz' them on the POH (Pilot Operating Handbook), not because they didn't know the airplane, but because I didn't know the airplane. I would spend time talking about all systems of the airplane and how they work and what to expect. This got me up to speed (barley) so I would be familiar enough with the airplane to be safe. The only airplane I flew that I immediatly wish I hadn't agreed to give a biennial flight review was a Lancair IV-P. It's the most slippery, and at lower speeds, sloppy airplane I ever flew, it scared me and I never flew it again. The Piper Malibu is an example of a SEL airplane that you actually have to have to have a type rating before you can be insured. I did get a type rating and was able to fly the Malibu about 100 hours. If you want to experience very high workload, fly a Malibu with steam gauges doing single pilot IFR, you'll have a new appreciate for workload.

 

[Cujet]

On Thursday, I flew in an ancient Piper Comanche. The design originated 65 years ago! It had a 2550 RPM Lycoming O-540 engine w/carburetor. (that's lower than the typical 2700 RPM engines) About as low tech as one can get.

It was fast at 161kts, efficient, comfortable, handled perfectly and had a great ride. Could we do better today with computational fluid dynamics, modern engines and our great wealth of knowledge? Not by anywhere near as much as you might think. The Cirrus SR22, a wonderful modern plane is a 165kt aircraft, albeit with fixed gear and a slightly higher fuel burn. The latest attempt at a better personal plane might be the (quite tight inside) Pipistril Panthera. And despite the claims of 200Kts, it's just not that fast here in hot n sticky South Florida. 185kts might be more like it.



The Comanche I flew in looked much like this, pretty clean shape:

Pipistrel Panthera:

Clearly, it's not as big inside, and it's streamlined shape and smaller frontal area, cramped quarters and utter lack of baggage space leads to the additional speed. That extra speed is not free.

Mooney Ovation, another design that hails from 65 years ago. It's performance and fuel burn is nearly identical to the Panthera. This is due to low frontal area, retractable landing gear, a powerful engine and well refined aerodynamics.

Here is my 1971 Cessna 177RG. I don't make any fantastic claims of unreal performance. It's slow, and at 200HP, it is underpowered and quite frankly its lack of performance annoys me at times. However, it is really big and comfortable inside I can actually camp in it, and my choice, it will get 25MPG at 125mph, or 17mpg at 170mph. Could we do better today? Not by much. Takes power to generate a certain amount of lift and speed. AND, those "ancient" aircraft engines are very efficient. They match the Prius engines in BSFC.

Please remember, HP is used for generating lift and not just for overcoming fuselage (parasitic) drag. We can certainly optimize aircraft size and shape to increase speed by some small percentage. Reduce cooling drag and so on. However, the intersection of lift induced drag and parasitic drag will always occur. As always the thinner air of higher altitudes is a benefit for speed and efficiency.

 

[Cujet]

A tale of two Gulfstream Jets:

The G550 and G600. Both are identical in size. The G600 design is decades newer. Yet, the G550 is more efficient, burns and carries less fuel, and goes farther. The G600 is faster and carries 2500 pounds more fuel. Quite simply, the idea that modern technology improves aircraft performance is often incorrect. We are so used to constant improvements that we fail to realize that we've come close to what's possible.

G550:

G600:

 

[Kestas]

In my microcosm with aviation I learned design changes come very slowly. Changes come carefully and deliberately.

This is unlike the automotive industry, which comes out with new designs and features to appeal to a fickle public without thoroughly testing their product. How many times have we witnessed defective designs on cars where the defects only show up a few years later?

 

[wpod]

The 747 has change quit a bit. It went from a 3 person cockpit crew to a two person cockpit crew. different wings steam gauges to a computer screen cockpit. Not that I know more than that, but those are the things I noticed because of work and the A&Ps I know we would coffee break in the 747 freighter cockpits.

 

[y_p_w]

I believe the Cessna 172 (Skyhawk) is the most produced aircraft in the history of aviation. There have been a ton of changes over the years, especially new ones with glass cockpits as well as glass cockpit retrofit kits. I believe those kits have to be certified by the FAA and other agencies.

Even so, I sat in the cockpit of a pretty new one with a glass cockpit. Even though the electronics were shiny and new, and it was in new condition, the rest of it still felt like I was stuck in a 60s era military vehicle where the seating had a lightweight frame and some rather cheap looking vinyl. I totally get that it was all designed around shaving as much weight as possible.

 

[RooflessVW]

Even so, I sat in the cockpit of a pretty new one with a glass cockpit. Even though the electronics were shiny and new, and it was in new condition, the rest of it still felt like I was stuck in a 60s era military vehicle where the seating had a lightweight frame and some rather cheap looking vinyl. I totally get that it was all designed around shaving as much weight as possible.

All down to what options and STCs the original owner wanted.

 

[Kjmack]

aerodynamics have not changed either. Neither has the powerplant & the propeller or the air molecules it moves.
so you won't see the 182 or the Caravan or the Beaver (last built 1967) change much, other than new pontoon floats or wing-end appendages. They would only change for actual performance improvement. And those improvements are few & far between.

I have flown in a Beaver many times on fly fishing trips into northern Canada , never a worry all water up there , lots of places to land in a emergency .

 

[y_p_w]

All down to what options and STCs the original owner wanted.

So there was probably an upgrade over cheesy looking. It was a Civil Patrol aircraft, so I guess the pilot didn't really have anything where she could choose what options.

 

[RooflessVW]

So there was probably an upgrade over cheesy looking. It was a Civil Patrol aircraft, so I guess the pilot didn't really have anything where she could choose what options.

You wouldn't believe the stuff that's out there, interior-wise, especially when you get into bizjets and helos.

 

[CharlesInCharge]

When I was young, I used to play Microsoft Flight Simulator. When Flight Simulator 98 came out, they added the Cessna Skylane 182. I figured the 182 was a new plane that came out in 1998.

Soo today I randomly googled the history of the Cessna Skylane and found out the 182 came out in 1952! And it seems that the most common private planes today actually came out before the 1960s.

So it got me thinking, Why don't plane manufactures refresh their models more often?

A Ford F150 from 1960 looks wayyyy different than an F150 today. But for planes, The 182 hasn't changed much on the outside. And the interior looks the same unless you have digital avionics.

I can understand a Boeing 747 staying the same since its a complex and expensive plane. But for small single engine planes, I figured they would change more over the years

Tried and trued is far superior in my mind, than "latest and greatest." Costs, reliability, aerodynamics, track record, etc. all favor "old" versus "newest...".

In fact, I would prefer if auto makers would STOP THE INSANITY with cosmetic updates b/c each "update" means higher costs, lack of parts interchangeability, more failures, more recalls, etc.

 

[billt460]

I'm surprised that no automaker hasn't tried that with a good selling model for 4 or 5 years straight. Just make a car like the Camry identical without a single change for 5 years and see what happens. They look identical as it is. Imagine how cheap and easy parts would get. A bit like they did with the Checker Marathon back in the 60's.

 

[y_p_w]

You wouldn't believe the stuff that's out there, interior-wise, especially when you get into bizjets and helos.

Oh yeah. I get how the Boeing Business Jet is really nice. Not sure about stripper poles though.