New PAL-V gyroplane Fly/Drive youtube video

I should get in this game and do a VTOL version of Pal-V that actually flies but I am not that good at marketing to investors like these guys are .. any volunteers :)
 
Chuck:

Of course that picture is of the pressurized PAL-V descending from FL 300 into the cloud deck on a precision instrument approach. The flight path is downward (following the electronic glideslope) so the rotor has a positive AOA no doubt. Well, maybe a little doubt...

Seriously, digital scamming of all sorts has become so effective that our education system is badly outdistanced. We're dangerously naive and trusting. All schools, junior high through senior high, need full year courses each year, entitled "Crap Detection 101, 102" and so on. Free markets don't work if the buyer can't tell fantasy from fact.
 
Chuck:

Of course that picture is of the pressurized PAL-V descending from FL 300 into the cloud deck on a precision instrument approach. The flight path is downward (following the electronic glideslope) so the rotor has a positive AOA no doubt. Well, maybe a little doubt...

Seriously, digital scamming of all sorts has become so effective that our education system is badly outdistanced. We're dangerously naive and trusting. All schools, junior high through senior high, need full year courses each year, entitled "Crap Detection 101, 102" and so on. Free markets don't work if the buyer can't tell fantasy from fact.
Doug, you have recited nearly verbatim what I've been bullhorning on Twitter about... Critical Thinking Skills need to be a required academic course. Lest we leave our kids (and ourselves) defenseless against the charlatans. Carl Sagan did a nice checklist called the Baloney Detection Kit. Has come in very handy this past year.
 
In a time where it is important to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information it is important to be skeptical, but also to keep searching. Here is a piece of information that seems to indicate that the PAL-V team is pressing ahead to get their aircraft to market:

https://www.suasnews.com/2021/02/fl...ld-to-finalize-certification-basis-with-easa/

I keep my fingers crossed that they don't run out of steam, the aircraft is just too cool.
 
In a time where it is important to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information it is important to be skeptical, but also to keep searching. Here is a piece of information that seems to indicate that the PAL-V team is pressing ahead to get their aircraft to market:

https://www.suasnews.com/2021/02/fl...ld-to-finalize-certification-basis-with-easa/

I keep my fingers crossed that they don't run out of steam, the aircraft is just too cool.
Man I would love to be wrong on this. But per your link comes the following line:
“Getting a flying car to the market is hard. It takes at least 10 years,”
Based on what other examples? Have I missed the video of an early prototype flying? If so then please disregard this post. But before getting distracted by how pretty the racing stripes are, a flying example will be needed to convince, for the same reason I'd be a Bigfoot believer if we simply had a testable type specimen.
 
That 122 page document is actually pretty amusing to read. Now the company knows exactly how the goverment wants them to build their aircraft! Sort of...
Some examples:
Cockpit controls must be designed so that they operate as follows:
Controls Motion and effect
Roll: Right (clockwise) for “right wing” down
Pitch: Rearward for nose up
Yaw: Right pedal forward for nose right
Trim: Corresponding to sense of motion and axis of the controls
Throttle: Forward, or clockwise, to increase power (See AMC T 779.)
Prop. pitch: Forward to decrease pitch and/or increase rpm
Mixture: Forward, or up, for rich
Switches: Down for off

I especially like this spec:
(a) The never-exceed speed, VNE, must be established so that it is:
(1) Not less than 74 km/h (40 knots) (CAS)

OK, the number itself seems ridiculous, but why would anyone care about a minimum maximum speed??
 
Last edited:
That 122 page document is actually pretty amusing to read. Now the company knows exactly how the goverment wants them to build their aircraft! Sort of...
Some examples:
Cockpit controls must be designed so that they operate as follows:
Controls Motion and effect
Roll: Right (clockwise) for “right wing” down
Pitch: Rearward for nose up
Yaw: Right pedal forward for nose right
Trim: Corresponding to sense of motion and axis of the controls
Throttle: Forward, or clockwise, to increase power (See AMC T 779.)
Prop. pitch: Forward to decrease pitch and/or increase rpm
Mixture: Forward, or up, for rich
Switches: Down for off

I especially like this spec:
(a) The never-exceed speed, VNE, must be established so that it is:
(1) Not less than 74 km/h (40 knots) (CAS)

OK, the number itself seems ridiculous, but why would anyone care about a minimum top speed??

It's almost like A.I.-generated filler with an airplane theme. Makes a thicker impressive-looking book though.
 
I don't know in what language it may have originally been written (maybe several), but the english is pretty awkward and stilted in many places.
In any case, it doesn't get PAL-V any closer to actually flying the thing, it just means they now know exactly what the government expects of their design.
 
Man I would love to be wrong on this. But per your link comes the following line:
“Getting a flying car to the market is hard. It takes at least 10 years,”
Based on what other examples? Have I missed the video of an early prototype flying? If so then please disregard this post. But before getting distracted by how pretty the racing stripes are, a flying example will be needed to convince, for the same reason I'd be a Bigfoot believer if we simply had a testable type specimen.

In their defense they did have a flying prototype back in 2014-15 I believe. It was a tandem 2 seater trike configuration using Carver patented leaning technology for road driving. I am not sure why they did not move forward into first model production with that one and instead went back to the drawing board for a side by side version.
Its true that EASA nor FAA have/had any certification basis for a gyroplane. Part 27 in both EASA as well as FAA is specific for helicopters that do not have to demonstrate positive stability always to get certified and have hovering requirements. To develop certification basis where none exists with agencies like FAA or EASA does take a long time indeed.
The minimum VNe speed is probably a left over from helicopter. They probably don't want a helicopter that can't even get close to 40 knots.
 
It doesn't seem like the current model leans... or flies.
 
It doesn't seem like the current model leans... or flies.
Yeah some bean counter decided that rich people want side by side. We all know tandem is superior in the air. Its too bad because it was a cool flying and driving contraption

 
What the bean counters ought to be figuring out is, how many will they really be able to sell at their asking price? (assuming it ever flies)
It seems to me that, for that price, you can buy and operate an ordinary aircraft and still have a LOT of money left over to pay for chauffered limos to and from every airport you might want to fly to.
 
As a side story, my old CFI once told me how he flew to an airport where he (unexpectedly) could not get any fuel... so he "drove" his gyro down the shoulder of the road to the nearest gas station. He said he got more than a few odd looks. ☺️
 
In a time where it is important to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information it is important to be skeptical, but also to keep searching. Here is a piece of information that seems to indicate that the PAL-V team is pressing ahead to get their aircraft to market:

https://www.suasnews.com/2021/02/fl...ld-to-finalize-certification-basis-with-easa/

I keep my fingers crossed that they don't run out of steam, the aircraft is just too cool.

(quote from the article)
“Getting a flying car to the market is hard. It takes at least 10 years,” said Robert Dingemanse, PAL-V’s CEO: “

Let me fix that for you
The 10 year "claim" is a "cover story" to justify why they have not demonstrated an actual unfolding and fly-away of their snazzy motorcycle. The snazzy prototypes serve the purpose of keeping investor interest for 10 years.

I dont think they are pulling a scam per say ... I think it is more a case of them being millennial dreamers with fancy designer computers in an art studio. And they are very good at it . Everyone loves "the looks" . So do I.

Snazzy 3 wheel motorcycles already exist ... plenty of modern gyroplanes already exist .. ... for PAL-V to do a "proof of concept" would be easy and take one year ... mount a gyro mast and controls on an existing trike and demonstrate it.

If it works , then incorporate the complicated fold-up mechanisms in a vehicle of their own design. However they did it backwards ... they built the snazzy prototype and for 10 years have been working backwards trying to get it to fly.

Eventually they will calculate the large amount of horsepower required and large rotor system required .... and say .... whoa !!! .... this is not as easy as we thought.

But hey ... it is sure beautiful.
And beauty is a good salesman
Always been that way
 
Yeah some bean counter decided that rich people want side by side. We all know tandem is superior in the air. Its too bad because it was a cool flying and driving contraption


The sad thing that somebody pointed out is that the flying and driving models seem like 2 different vehicles - at least the flying model didn't have the drive chain(s?) of the driving model :(
 
The sad thing that somebody pointed out is that the flying and driving models seem like 2 different vehicles - at least the flying model didn't have the drive chain(s?) of the driving model :(
And that's the only video they've released, and it's from 2012.
..

That would have been me ... different thread somewhere else.

The (impressive) road model is shown in high definition excellent video on a bright sunny day .... but instead of unfolding and flying away they switch to a hazy video on a misty day with overcast sky , and video taken from 1/4 mile away.

Why is that ???? ... my guess is that the "flying model" is either a different machine .... or the same machine with all the heavy motorcycle components removed in order to get it off the ground.

I suspect they ran into a brick wall with that one ... so to "keep interest up" they now present an even snazzier side-by-side prototype.

I am not anti PAL-V , or anti flying car , .... I simply spot when somebody is selling sizzle to hungry folks .... but the actual steak does not exist.

If I am wrong ... I will eat my words ... be forever humbled .... and send $10,000 to the PAL-V investor syndicate.

Look for tiny clues .... one machine has the obvious drive train (chain) for a motorcycle ... the misty foggy flying version does not.
 

Attachments

  • palv chain drive.JPG
    palv chain drive.JPG
    34.3 KB · Views: 11
  • palv no chain.JPG
    palv no chain.JPG
    11 KB · Views: 11
What the bean counters ought to be figuring out is, how many will they really be able to sell at their asking price? (assuming it ever flies)
It seems to me that, for that price, you can buy and operate an ordinary aircraft and still have a LOT of money left over to pay for chauffered limos to and from every airport you might want to fly to.

But that's not cool enough
 
And that's the only video they've released, and it's from 2012.

Yes but it both drove and flew. Yes you had to get out and do 10 to 15 minutes of assembly for the rotor blades but that isn't too bad for a roadable aircraft IMHO. They proposed this flying/driving model at $300k back in 2013. I would have seriously considered it at $250k.

They gave up on the demonstrator and went blank slate. Not wise. It always takes a lot longer and more money than we think and if anyone needs proof of that look at Icon
 
Top