# Is aviation today boring?



## Lucky13 (Oct 9, 2011)

Maybe an odd question and in the wrong place, but, nonetheless, is aviation today boring?
I don't mean technically, electronically etc., just the....what's the word I'm looking for....the diversity?
I know that costs and many other factors rules in todays air forces and navies, when it comes to 
anything that flies, jet or prop....
How many here can put their hand on their heart and say that they don't miss those days with a specific
aircraft for a specific job?
Soon enough, it'll be just one aircraft around for the navy and the air force....


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 10, 2011)

Yeah I miss the 50s. Seems like everywhere you looked there was different plane.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 10, 2011)

On the spot, Lucky.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 10, 2011)

Agreed...plus with CAD and related technology, you don't see the unique test-bed aircraft pop every-so often, in the course of testing a theory.

That's probably another reason why I like the A-10 so much, it defies the modern "look" of a jet warplane


----------



## A4K (Oct 10, 2011)

Also agree. Conglomeration and monopolisation in the aviation industry is definitely killing the creativity and diversity of types... so boring when the only difference between the airforces are the markings...


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 10, 2011)

Big commercial aviation may be boring, let's face it, if you can fall asleep on a airplane, it's boring.

But adventure is still alive in private aviation.
As for the aircraft , the ideal aerodynamic form for any particular speed, or purpose, can only take so many shapes.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Oct 10, 2011)

I can understand Commercial Aviation being boring, though I've had this dream of flying in a DC-10, or a Lockheed Tristar, hell even a 747, just to see what it's like. As for the rest, I can see how earlier decades were more exciting, with the piorneering of aircraft and what they could do.


----------



## Trebor (Oct 10, 2011)

don't forget about the B-52, KC-135, and C-130 those suckers have been used since the '50s


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 11, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> Agreed...plus with CAD and related technology, you don't see the unique test-bed aircraft pop every-so often, in the course of testing a theory.
> 
> That's probably another reason why I like the A-10 so much, it defies the modern "look" of a jet warplane




Totally agree... Sadly when they took the props off the military aircraft, I pretty much lost interest. Stove-pipes are boring. 

On a side note I'm having an on going debate with my 4 year old son as to why I think his favorite plane, the Mig 15, is boring and crude when compared to the elegance of the F-86 sabre. I think I'm raising a Communist because he keeps insisting the Mig is friendly and the Sabre is the enemy when he plays with his!


----------



## A4K (Oct 11, 2011)

Call it a truce... both were developments of German designs


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 11, 2011)

I think also the days of somebody building an innovative aircraft in their back yard has pretty much gone to the wayside. I know it's a lot practicle, but you no longer have to actually build an aircraft to test it, you can just create a computer model and do the preliminary testing that way.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 11, 2011)

Personally I like boring aviation. I really, REALLY don't want ever to experience an "exciting" airline flight.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 11, 2011)

Hmm, that actually is a good point!


----------



## A4K (Oct 11, 2011)




----------



## BombTaxi (Oct 15, 2011)

In some ways, it is 'boring', especially in the commercial sector, where everyone flies a Scarebus A3xx. I think there is still some variety in the military sector though. I've become an avid reader of Air Forces Monthly over the last few months, and maybe it's the novelty, but I find the military scene very varied, especially with current ops in the Middle East and Asia


----------



## Park (Oct 15, 2011)

I prefer "steam gages" any day over CRT's, but I'll take a good GPS tucked away in the corner of the panel


----------



## A4K (Oct 15, 2011)

Really? Don't read up regularly myself, but have mostly only heard of weapon system and avionics upgrades...not much action in the new aircraft design region.

(Clashed posts!)


----------



## BombTaxi (Oct 15, 2011)

The new Sukhoi PAK-FA seems to be the biggest noise in fighter design at the moment, and the F-35 saga rumbles on (they're flying again now). I think new design is fairly rare, but with most multi-role aircraft having a life span of 30 years+, I suppose there isn't so much call for it. I don't believe it will ever come to each nation operating a single front-line aircraft though. Politicians may think it a good idea, but the guys doing the flying know that a certain degree of mission specialisation is required - that's why the A-10 and Su-25 are still around.


----------



## ivanotter (Oct 16, 2011)

Is it paradigm shift?

If you really like to see the "spirit of the 50's", experimenting, designing, variety, mistakes, successes, the works, look at UAV design and variety. Everything from "handheld" things (looking liek something you buy in Spar for the kids for the summer holidays on the beach), to the big things. 

Maybe we just have to admit that manned flight is becoming less important compared to UAV's? 

Just a thought


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 16, 2011)

I think the focus has shifted. The 1930s-1950s saw a plethora of experimentation to determine stable airframe solutions that would fly faster and higher with, in many cases, manoeuverability being of secondary importance. The latter part of the period sees the dawn of integrated systems but it's not until the 1970s and 1980s that we see computing really becoming the primary issue in system delivery. We now don't need to worry about creating aerodynamically stable designs, indeed for many aircraft types instability is designed into the solution. The F-117 perhaps best illustrates the new generation of unstable designs that are entirely reliant on computing technology. 

Systems are now so complex that simply substituting a different engine can have major impacts on software components that have nothing to do with the engines. Historically, aircraft aerodynamic performance was the key challenge in getting an aircraft ready for operational service - the Mach 1.0 barrier was a real, tangible challenge. Today, it is primarily software complexity that defines the critical path in aircraft design and prototype construction. So much of this work is done not in wind tunnels or in exploration of flight characteristics, but in "boring" computer labs. It's a fact of life of current systems, I'm afraid.

Just my two penn'orth (and slightly more useful than my earlier post on this thread!).

Cheers,
B-N


----------



## vanir (Oct 24, 2011)

We do tend to lose perspective when we think of "now" as "cutting edge" because the truth is every moment is either cutting edge or compromise.
The suits in every tech age think they've suddenly revolutionised needing to have at least a clue about air combat before they tell pilots what they can and can't have to work with. Look at the F4 and guns. Every age has the same drips thinking they know best for everyone and hiding behind some new technology to say it. People never change. The new age is AI pilotless aircraft? What trash, they thought that in 1917 ffs. Every generation thinks that. The day of the fighter is over, bombers are in. In 1940 an Italian pilot is upset because monoplanes sacrifice pilot skill for speed. In 1950 fighters don't need to be flyable under Mach 1 anymore (shame about landing accidents). In 1960 aerial marksmanship is a thing of the past. In 1970 doing Mach 3 is beneficial. All of these examples are soap opera.

Consider the US introduced teen series composite fighters in the 70s and updated them in the 80s whilst the Soviets updated their 60s designs, the Soviets introduced new fighters in the 80s, so the US does another update on their 70s designs and starts projects on their replacements, on it goes. The same premises are brought up every new paradigm shift, because it isn't a paradigm shift it's a repetitive system, robots were going to take over the world in the 50s, the 70s, of course every time a wow sparkly new tech refinement is introduced those evil robots are going to take over again.

So this all makes the thread more about perspective than technology. Do you prefer the Block 30 Viper to the Block 50 for example, pilots remark the Block 30 as delivering the best control translation. But the Block 50 takes down contemporary enemy a/c easier. The 30 feels nicer but the 50 does move harder.

Still the USAF training centre (some docs at the F-16net site) remarks the Fulcrum actually has some advantages over Vipers because being inherently stable the pilot has the option to switch off the safety control system. It can beat Viper AoA limiters by doing this and come around on one for Archer snapshots at impossible moments. The Luftwaffe did this all the time in NATO training, Block 50 Vipers just plain couldn't beat them in BFM but the Vipers actually return much higher airframe performance figures like av-airspeed, etc. The Viper a higher performing plane like a Ferrari compared to a Ford.
Yet at the same time at least the Viper b.50 has distinct advantages over the Fulcrum in terms of outright performance and airframe strength. The b.30 is rated as equivalent to the Fulcrum on those points and combat successes would come down to pilot skill alone, but Fulcrum pilots on average must work harder to achieve the same BFM results (poor cockpit view, unreliable airframe strength, old school ergonomics and pilot equipment).

The Russians are like that, they prefer workmanlike to luxurious. Luxurious doesn't survive its first Russian winter.
Some people are like that, they prefer workmanlike to luxurious too.

And all this avionics bizzo, in fighter pilot terms if you ask me, as a mere commentator but still, it's luxury. A fighter pilot will fire an air rifle from a Wright Flyer if he has to.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2011)

One thing to consider in all this, is that after 100 years of powered flight, just about all that can be explored, has been.

It's like the age of sail, but in a higher time compression. During the early years of flight, the boundaries were being tested to see what works and what doesn't and all of the various aircraft designs refelcted that search. WWII saw the turning point in powered flight, where the torch was passed between the piston and the compressor and the rest was history.

The modern jets all look the same because they are squeezed into that gap where supersonic performance has to exist and the designs can only deviate so far in order to stay in that performance zone...

Except for the A-10


----------



## vanir (Oct 25, 2011)

Nice characterisation GrauGeist, sailing ships. I agree completely in a subcultural way I mean too. That's the culture. Like the way a carrier battlegroup admiral probably owns a little sloop he holidays in. It's the culture that makes him the strategist and experten that he is. And it's the same in military air forces. I'm dead positive. Tell me any Hornet jock doesn't love a Tiger Moth.

Can modern next generation aviation be boring? Man give me wings and I'm in heaven.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 28, 2011)

I offer the introduction of avionics as a reason a lot of the 'fun' has been taken out of aircraft. Working in the industry it is easy to see how much of a benefit the little boxes that I don't fully understand actually make, but in the likes of an Airbus, the pilot 'monitors' the procedings, rather than taking an 'active' role in the flight. A little over simplification, I know, because when the chips are down, those guys in the cockpit really earn their wages.

If you examine the expenditure on avionics compared to airframe and powerplant in modern aircraft it leans heavily toward avionics in terms of research and development. I remember seeing a graph once, which showed the cost of each of the three items in aircraft development since just before WW2. The rise in the cost of avionic systems has increased dramatically over the last forty years in particular with fly-by-wire systems etc in both civil and military aircraft. Aircraft can literally think for themselves and tell us when they are playing up, with BITE (built in test equipment) and the like on most essential systems these days. The number of aircraft in our skies these days has also done a lot to increase the amount of avionic systems in aircraft; i.e. TCAS etc.

I also offer legistlation as a big reason why a bit of the fun is removed from aviation. In saying that, I guess it's there to prevent the idiots from taking over aviation to the same extent as they have our roads. Oh, wait, no, it hasn't! Oh no!!


----------



## BikerBabe (Oct 28, 2011)

Aviation is never boring, but I understand if it's perceived that way.
The way I look at it, it seems like a boring period of time in aviation history, simply because:

1. From the start until approx. the 1970's, there was a steep "learning" curve for aviation designers, pilots and all.
There was a lot to be learned, developed, invented, etc. 
Put short, it was a period in time, where a lot went on - and so it never really got "boring", because some new thing/problem/whatever always came up.

2. Today I think that there's just as much to be explored, but in different areas of the aviation industry:
Composite materials, new designs, fuel and whatever's going on in for example the space industry - and the grey area between aviaiton and space.
Basically it's the same development going on, only in other areas of the industry, which in my opinion is why it might look boring, simply because it isn't nearly as "action"-filled.

That's how I view it.


----------



## Glider (Oct 28, 2011)

I do believe that for most people flying has become a little boring and 'safe'. Few people really enjoy going on a commercial jet, the hastle factor is huge. Most private light aircraft are almost too easy to fly. The last time I tried, I hardly needed to use the rudder and am convinced that if you can drive a car you can fly a modern private light aircraft. Even navigation which was amost an art form with modern GPS and technology is much more accurate and 'safe'.

This in itself has increased the danger as people who do not learn *and practice *these skills, can and do get caught out, often putting themselves at risk, sometimes with tragic results.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Nov 2, 2011)

Yeah, it is a little boring. Nothing exciting has come out for a little while. To me, this reminds me of the cruise liners of today. When I was a kid, the first thing I wanted to be was a ship's officer. By that, I meant like the officer's on the steamship liners at the turn of the century. Any where between 1890-1950 would have been awesome. Ship's like the Titanic, Olympic, Lusitania, Mauritania, Aquatania, Amerika, Carpathia, etc. Today though, it has lost its appeal to me. I think it has something to do with the modern technology aboard today's ships. It makes traveling a lot safer, but it's not as exciting anymore, there's no challenge. Well, there's my two cents.


----------

