richard_leeds wrote:So back to OP
It can't all be about least manufacturing cost for mass production, because manufacturers have introduced technologies that are harder to build such as fuel injection and variable valves. Otherwise people would still be making cars with low compression, push rods and carburettors.
.... hang on a second .... maybe someone should tell GM
Exactly. Auto manufacturers spend a lot of money on jigs and tools to construct components, and they seek to maximize the return. But pressures from competition and regulations push the companies into developing new technologies, and this requires spending money. Of course, GM was too slow in hanging on to long, and were late to the game in many important areas.
For instance, when the US EPA mandated engines required 100,000 miles without any major tuneup yet remain withing emissions standards, everyone had to go back to the drawing board. One example is that ring life is critical to maintain emission standards, and thus cylinder walls hade to be stiffer.
FYI autogyro, there's a 163 in the Canadian War Museum at Ottawa. And yes, as a point defence interceptor, it's tightly focused design was immaculate. And unlike the Hunter, both the Komet and Lightning were not capable of adaptation,and spent their lives only in this role. That's not a bad thing, because it shows that the design teams stuck to the original requirements and resisted any compromises.
I like your taste in aircraft, autogyro
Racing should be decided on the track, not the court room.
