That is great for growing general aviation, IMHO. A surprising number of Cirrus owners have gone through 3 or more aircraft to follow the upgrade path. However, my ancient seatbelt design was upgraded in my G1 to avoid the problems found with the takeup reels that could contribute to injuries, largely because it didn’t rely upon any other components than the seats.Īnd one reason that I support this engineering philosophy is the economic benefit of growing the market by upgrading airplanes. For instance, my G1 is stuck with an ancient bulkhead design that will force another chutectomy in 9 years. Using advanced materials and technologies, Cirrus created an aircraft that was safer, faster, and more comfortable than any personal aircraft had ever been. Hence, retrofitting to an older aircraft without those integrated features becomes impractical. Retrofitting to achieve similar trade-offs is tough engineering, given the pace and scope of design changes that Cirrus has made in 12 years. That process seems to integrate a bunch of new features in a way that makes different trade-offs. If you meant Cirrus, then I believe that Cirrus has not retrofitted most new features for older aircraft.Īs I understand the Cirrus engineering process, I actually support this always-moving-forward approach for almost all features expect significant safety issues. Did you mean “they” to refer to Cirrus? Or to general aviation manufacturers in general? This conundrum frames the challenge that a new company called Next Dimension Aircraft will face in introducing whats one of the most ambitious mod projects weve. Generally, they engineer a retrofit of any new feature for older aircraft.ĭaniel, don’t know how to parse your first two sentences. Cirrus hasn’t really acted like that way as a rule.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |