Sure, ye olde haptic feedback + inner ear + stall horn/shaker combo has always worked for me—but if you are a new or overwhelmed or complacent or unlucky pilot, having a big angry indicator sitting atop the glare shield furiously (visually & audibly) informing you of the approaching cross-control stall that is about to bury you in your base-to-final grave makes danger IMPOSSIBLE to miss.
The LEDs were bright enough to be clearly visible even under direct sun, but the Geiger-esque clicking and chattering increasing in urgency as I approached critical AoA made it for me. No need to put your head down or even alter your scan to include it: you can hear trouble coming!
Aviation could be cheaper, safer, and better in general if the FAA was not stuck in the 60s.
There are FAA regulations that are overly conservative IMO, but I think the FAA has a sensible stance on AoA indicators.
I also think that these old airplanes are really ships of theseus. Maybe there are some original stickers and seats, but that's about it. Safety and avionics upgrades on these old airframes are definitely in the financial reach of many readers of this forum, and I'm sure many people are flying "old" airplanes that have AoA sensors and IFR-certified glass panels and backups. Day to day they probably feel a lot like airline pilots.
Yes and no. They're out there, but they aren't as common as you'd think or hope. AoA in particular is rare. There's an awful lot of planes that are still running GNS430 or GNS530s (probably more than any other single setup), and more than a few with the original nav/comm equipment like the KX170B. A real glass panel (something like the G1000 or G3X) is really rare in an old plane. Maybe 5-10%?
Modern stuff, like you point out, is far more reliable, cheaper, lower power consumption, and more functional. That better reliability means less need for aircraft mechanics and avionics shops.
Nobody would want their discreet component transponder overhauled if it could be replaced with a cheaper unit that uses modern wizardry like logic chips or even (gasp) a microcontroller.
Ditto for leaded fuel air cooled piston engines with manual mixture controls that require teardowns all the time. That bullshit is only still around because Continental and Lycoming want it to.
It's really time for GA to get into this century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_102
https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accid...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_Flight_102
All aircraft equipped with a six pack, you have an artificial horizon indicator which can tell you what is your angle of attack. And Cessna's have them in all planes, even 50-60 years old ones.
Artificial horizon is not a reliable indicator of angle of attack.
Keyword being "reliable", but it is pretty close to it. That's how you get to fly safely through clouds using only an artificial horizon indicator.
But I like the imagery of a a little tea kettle on a hob under the panel.
Stalling one wing but not the other usually results in a spin, for which recovery requires both breaking the stall and stopping the rotation. The ailerons, located near the wingtips are not effective (or even counterproductive) during a spin because air is not flowing smoothly over the stalled wing; the rudder, located on the tail is used to stop the rotation. This usually requires more altitude for recovery.
If you stall one wing but not the other at an altitude of 15 meters (49 feet), it's very likely you're going to contact the surface in a manner you did not intend. Inappropriate control inputs, such as trying to correct the resulting bank using the ailerons guarantee it. It's still a good idea to attempt to recover rather than sit still and pray because a more controlled impact is usually more survivable.
Now I need an SME in linguistics to tell me if the usage as an acronym on that sentence is irony or not.