> We need new engines. My 1966 Cessna 172 required leaded AV gas, which is as rare Frankly, not an arena where NASA is needed. In Europe turbo-diesels are po

> We need new engines. My 1966 Cessna 172 required leaded AV gas, which is as rare Frankly, not an arena where NASA is needed. In Europe turbo-diesels are popular for retrofit because they happily consume Avtur ( kerosene ) which is cheap and plentiful. I've seen a few 172s with Thielert TD engines. There was also a project to install a TP100 turboprop but I'm not sure how that's progressing. The fact that Cessna is still hawking a derivative of a 1947 airframe with an engine that isn't much fresher is more indicative of their attitude than any lack of advances in low-end aerodynamics. Look at the Stallion to see what they could be delivering, instead: http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/specifications.html http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/specifications.html 200 kts for 2,200 nm, seating for four people. At the small-end we need disruption of the big-three ( Cessna, Piper, Beech ) manufacturers, with technology that exists but they don't bring to market. Projects such as the 177 and Starship show that they had the technology, they just didn't have the incentive to change.