4 ms·

> Things break down and things eventually need to be replaced. This has been a fact of life since time immemorial. That sounds a bit broad. In the general avia

> Things break down and things eventually need to be replaced. This has been a fact of life since time immemorial. That sounds a bit broad. In the general aviation world, engine designs from the 60's are still in widespread use.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
> That sounds a bit broad. In the general aviation world, engine designs from the 60's are still in widespread use. As is leaded fuel, to the delight off everyone living within a few miles of airports. Old can be good, until it's not anymore. There's often survivorship bias involved as the worst--or unadaptable--designs have naturally fallen out of use or been supplanted.
gchamonlive 6y ago
He is talking about the second law of thermodynamics in realised designs. You can use designs from the 60s today and the result will be a brand new system that in time will rot away and need to be replaced by, possibly the same design. That doesn't invalidate what he is talking about. Even the pyramids of Giza will eventually rot away given time. The difference in software, in my opinion, is speed in which change occurs.
AdrianB1 6y ago
As a GA pilot I find that a counter-argument: the fact that these engine designs from the 60's are still in widespread use is showing how far behind GA is. These engines work, but they are less performant and economic than car engines of 2020, while costing a lot more (smaller market, regulations, certifications). The old, heavy, underpowered and ubiquitous Cessna 172s are the best example of what is wrong in GA.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  I should have better explained my point. Their fuel efficiency is atrocious, their power output is pitiful given the size and mass, and they require leaded fuel, as paulryanrogers mentioned. My point wasn't that they're ahead of their time. Engine technology has of course improved in the last 60 years. My point was that they've stuck around. Of course, there are examples of long-lived software, too.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

> That sounds a bit broad. In the general aviation world, engine designs from the 60's are still in widespread use. As is leaded fuel, to the delight off everyone living within a few miles of airports. Old can be good, until it's not anymore. There's often survivorship bias involved as the worst--or unadaptable--designs have naturally fallen out of use or been supplanted.

gchamonlive 6y ago

He is talking about the second law of thermodynamics in realised designs. You can use designs from the 60s today and the result will be a brand new system that in time will rot away and need to be replaced by, possibly the same design. That doesn't invalidate what he is talking about. Even the pyramids of Giza will eventually rot away given time. The difference in software, in my opinion, is speed in which change occurs.

AdrianB1 6y ago

As a GA pilot I find that a counter-argument: the fact that these engine designs from the 60's are still in widespread use is showing how far behind GA is. These engines work, but they are less performant and economic than car engines of 2020, while costing a lot more (smaller market, regulations, certifications). The old, heavy, underpowered and ubiquitous Cessna 172s are the best example of what is wrong in GA.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
I should have better explained my point. Their fuel efficiency is atrocious, their power output is pitiful given the size and mass, and they require leaded fuel, as paulryanrogers mentioned. My point wasn't that they're ahead of their time. Engine technology has of course improved in the last 60 years. My point was that they've stuck around. Of course, there are examples of long-lived software, too.