That's not true.
Of the 15 most popular light aircraft models built in 2015, only one was introduced in the 1950s: the Cessna 172. And even that one underwent a pretty substantial overhaul in 1998. The most popular light plane sold in 2015 was the Cirrus SR22 with 270 units sold. The SR22 debuted in 2001.
It's disingenuous to say that and not talk about numbers. There were over 44 thousand of them built, and they are literally the most produced aircraft ever. Cirrus is a blip on the radar compared to Cessna.
At 300 planes/year they will not catch up with Cessna in a century even if Cessna ceased to exist today!
In fact, the top six most produced civilian aircraft ever that are still in production are[1]:
Cessna 172 (1950's)
Piper PA-28 (1960's)
Cessna 182 (1950's)
Cessna 152 (1950's)
Antonov AN-2 (1950's)
Beechcraft Bonanza (1950's)
Do you have the statistics on the market share of the "slide-rule" planes today? Not as a percentage of planes being built or sold, but of the ones in service. I'd bet on them being the majority.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft
Obviously if you look at production through all of aviation history you are going end up overweight in older models. But that is just a reflection of the fact that planes are generally designed and built to last. It has nothing to do with the current state of the art, which is what the OP was lamenting.
The point we were discussing is that excessive regulation on light aircraft prevents innovation by driving the cost prohibitively up and thus leading to a decrease in sales of new designs.
It is not clear to me that the argument that the industry overall is less safer is invalid if most of the planes flown are old, and if over-regulation of light aircraft is the cause of that.
We do need the statistics on the numbers of old-design planes in the air, together with the pricing data, statistics on sales which include old planes, etc.
Cessna 172 cost under $9000 in 1956 when it was introduced, which is about $80K today when accounted for inflation.
Do you know of any similar new aircraft in the same ballpark? Last time I checked, $50K still gets a Cessna 172 built in the 70's. A new Cessna 172 seems to be north of $250K, depending on configuration.
Cirrus SR22 is north of $550K.
Civil aviation has definitely become a richer man's game over the past 5 decades; the question is why this happened.
To be clear: a middle-class enthusiast really can't afford to buy the best-selling plane of the year new today, while that was a realistic option in the 1950's.
1. Do you not think this is bad?
2. What do you think are the causes of that?
As to your second question, liability concerns and government regulations certainly add a lot to the cost of an airplane. But the flip side of that is that modern airplanes tend to be pretty darn safe. As a pilot, I think that's a good thing too.
Meet the most popular aircraft in history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172
The only updates are new engines, the aircraft's control is not just analog, it's literally "planks moved by pulling on wires".
It seems to me that the problem here is that new airplanes are cost prohibitive. Your solution to light aircraft safety is to make the majority of light aviation illegal or too expensive to function, like solving the problem of unstylish watches by outlawing anything cheaper than a Rolex.
People seem to have the impression that GA has to be safer than driving, or safer than some other benchmark, before the safety level is acceptable. I am perfectly willing to accept some risk (the raw rate of fatality per ground mile is about 20x higher for GA vs. driving) even as a passenger, and I don't see why the FAA should be in the business of determining what risk is acceptable to passengers. I think the FAA's primary responsibility should be to the broader public, who experience the same risks on the ground regardless of how much or little GA they buy, rely on, or associate with.
Some of the FARs make a lot of sense in this regard, for example the rules for single-occupant ultralight aircraft (including powered paragliders), and ideally a similarly pragmatic approach can be applied to other questions in aviation regulation.
Oh wait ...
Anyone that's ever looked to buy private planes knows that, except very small instructional aircraft, most are 40+ years old. My father-in-law just put an offer on an 8-seater built in the 1960s. And that's pretty much just the way it is for buying airplanes. It requires old tech and frequent maintenance, but it's still cheaper than the alternative.
Genuine question: is the 172 really considered unsafe, googling "cessna 172 safety record" brings up a lot of articles suggesting it is as safe or safer than comparable aircraft - or are you saying that light private aircraft aren't very safe in general?
I assume you have nothing to do with aviation. The Cessna 172 is extremely safe. In fact I'd argue that they're safer than commercial flights, because accidents are much more survivable. Safety depends purely on the pilot and the extremely well-documented maintenance routines. All accidents I've ever heard of Cessnas are caused by pilot error with minor exceptions.
Uber clearly doesn't follow this trend. Neither does Volvo, apparently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_47utWAoupo
>Pipers have parachutes
Only because they're prone to a certain unrecoverable spin in some configurations. You can get a ballistic chute on a Cessna too if you like.
>The Cessna 172 is a very old design
That's because it's a great design, and one that has been tested for 50 years. I'd take it over modern ones.
>Surviving an accident due to going too slow to die isn't "safe".
It is if you don't die.
Is there any independent research that supports this? I've often heard the argument that regulations are too expensive as an excuse for lowering standards.