I like the article a lot, but the main point is tautology.
It's like the saying, "It's always in the last place you look". The reason they stop developing antiquated technology is because it has become outdated. And because people stop investing in improvements, the last of the generation is therefore the best of it.
Take the XC-99. It's beautiful, to be sure, but is it the best possible piston powered plane? Could better materials provide a different design, improved speed, more internal space and a higher carrying load? Could better engines provide a better gas mileage, higher power output, less noise, better performance at altitude? I think you can see that improvements could be made. They weren't because it didn't make sense to.
To say that the technology is best when it's ripe for replacement could just be flipped around. Technological advances happen when they happen and whatever gets replaced was the best we could do before then.
A bit of a tangent, but it reminds me of how Apple loves to say in their announcements that whatever product is "the best X we've ever done." Well of course it is, why would you make a new thing that's worse than last year's?
Well, yes. And that is due to the fact that jet engines don't scale down to personal aircraft of the size of the Super Tucano. Nor would it make sense to do that. I am sure there are plenty of people who enjoy flying their turbo props and would find a jet less enjoyable. But for the purposes of long distance travel, no one wants to sit in a plane for several more hours because they find flying in a piston powered plane charming. I want that Boom plane here now, in fact. The shorter the flight, the better.
I'm mildly confused by your comment. It seems that you're implying that the Super Tucano is a personal airplane.
Just checking to make sure that you know it's actually a warplane, and that countries are buying it because it's downright outstanding for ground support.
Sorry for the mis-wording. I understand it is a warplane; I read the articles in the past few weeks about the impending death of the A-10 Warthog and the use of the Super Tucano in private military fleets.
My point was that the segment of small turbo prop planes is alive and well and so innovation, of course, continues there, but that isn't the same segment of larger passenger or cargo planes that the article is speaking of.
I've always considered turboprops to be jet engines; any other definition of "jet" would likely leave high-bypass turbofans to also be not "jet" engines.
A thousand times this. The concepts in the article are great, and the examples helpful/interesting. But it seems foolish to use these principles to try and 'call the top' of some technology.
Technology improves over time. New technology obsoletes old technology. Once a technology is obsoleted, of course it's 'the best'.
It's like the saying, "It's always in the last place you look". The reason they stop developing antiquated technology is because it has become outdated. And because people stop investing in improvements, the last of the generation is therefore the best of it.
Take the XC-99. It's beautiful, to be sure, but is it the best possible piston powered plane? Could better materials provide a different design, improved speed, more internal space and a higher carrying load? Could better engines provide a better gas mileage, higher power output, less noise, better performance at altitude? I think you can see that improvements could be made. They weren't because it didn't make sense to.
To say that the technology is best when it's ripe for replacement could just be flipped around. Technological advances happen when they happen and whatever gets replaced was the best we could do before then.