Flying Car Makes Successful Maiden Flight 249
MistrX writes "The Dutch company PAL-V completed its first series of test flights with its flying car, the PAL-V One, successfully. The PAL-V One flies like a gyrocopter, with a minimal runway length of 165 meters, and drives around like a trike on the road. Furthermore it offers 2 passengers a maximum speed of 180km/h both on land and in the air. The company aims with the PAL-V One at usage within the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Germany and France, because private flying is more commonplace."
Not a flying car (Score:5, Insightful)
A roadable aircraft. A flying car needs VTOL capability.
And until it's legal to take off and land anywhere, even a true flying car could still only be used like a roadable aircraft.
Re:Not a flying car (Score:5, Funny)
If it's a roadable aircraft, does that mean that the cop will have to accept my excuse of "I'm flying low" when he clocks me at 110mph on the freeway?
Re:Not a flying car (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, there's an interesting question. How long before the first car chase where one of these guys flips on his takeoff mode....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not a flying car (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that the police do not have jurisdiction to shoot down aircraft.
Re:Not a flying car (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Because if an aircraft needs shooting down, it's the Air Force who comes to play.
The police don't even have the equipment (good thing) to do the job.
Re:Not a flying car (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Because if an aircraft needs shooting down, it's the Air Force who comes to play.
The police don't even have the equipment (good thing) to do the job.
Think again. The NYPD commissioner bragged on 60 minutes last year that New York's Finest have the ability to shoot down aircraft. NYC Mayor Bloomberg later confirmed the remarks. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nypd-shoot-planes-weapon/story?id=14608555 [go.com]
Nobody will say how they would do it, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yet :)
Re: (Score:2)
That car chase might end up quite different than the perp had in mind
Re: (Score:2)
All my research in police buddy comedy movies and CSI derivatives, this is remarkably common, happening once or twice a week. And when put in order of frequency of police events, it falls between hanging out of a broken window of a skyscraper and chasing a bad guy(s) in a swampboat.
Re: (Score:3)
And operating any kind of outdoor stand or kiosk capable of producing cinematically pleasing debris when a car crashes through it is a very frustrating occupation.
Re: (Score:2)
I never saw a police helicopter with rocket launchers. The worst they can do it put holes in the plane in hopes of killing the pilot.
That is the last thing they want to do.
No quick getaways (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure about this particular vehicle, but if this is anything like the Terrafugia Transition [terrafugia.com] you have to come to a complete stop before you can deploy the wings, and they take a couple of minutes to deploy.
Re: (Score:3)
no wings.
but the rotor blades automatically fold back.
http://pal-v.com/the-pal-v-one/transformation/ [pal-v.com]
Converting the PAL-V ONE from airplane to automobile is a very easy process which takes about 10 minutes. Once the engine stops, the propeller folds itself automatically into the driving position. Pushing a button then lowers the rotor mast into the horizontal position. The same motion lowers the tail. The outer blades are folded over the inner blades via hinge mechanisms. The last steps in the process are to
Um, subby.... (Score:5, Informative)
How about a link to their website instead of a dumbass yahoo article without even a photo of the thing?
http://pal-v.com/ [pal-v.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know if you made it that far (or even scrolled down) but there's a link to that very site at the bottom of the "dumbass yahoo article"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... it's there. After you wade through what is very clearly marketing BS. Most of the article is straight off of the PR on the company's website and is very clearly just a fishing expedition for investors.
I think it's a cool vehicle... wouldn't mind owning one BUT it. is. not. a. flying. car.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd rather deal with an FAA violation than a speeding ticket? Really?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It all folds neatly onto the back of the vehicle when driving.
Re: (Score:2)
but it's safer. helicopters can auto-rotate and [crash] land safely (more or less).. certainly better than gliding into a house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation_(helicopter) [wikipedia.org]
The most common reason for an autorotation is an engine malfunction or failure, but autorotations can also be performed in the event of a complete tail rotor failure or following loss of tail-rotor effectiveness[6], since there is virtually no torque produced in an autorotation. In some extreme situations, autorotations may also
Re: (Score:2)
SOME Helicopters can autorotate. SOME of the time.
I'll take wings over a Jesus nut [wikipedia.org] any day.
Re:Not a flying car (Score:5, Informative)
You are correct - and it's not a car. It's a two seater trike.
Re: (Score:3)
Like an Aptera, T-rex or Morgan 3-wheeler?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Airplanes have wheels; does that make them flying cars? This is basically just a gyrocopter with fold-up flight parts.
No, because you can't drive an airplane on land (i.e. on standard roads). This vehicle you can, and in fact that is it's primary mode of transport. That makes it a car. It can also fly. Therefore it is a flying car.
Re:Not a flying car (Score:5, Informative)
In all of science fiction flying cars have flown directly from the starting point to destination with no driving to or from airports in between (except some Asimov works where the world is apparently littered with runways). So to follow that definition, this is not a "flying car."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you call all birds that don't have VTOL capability non-flying birds?
Technically..... yes :)
Ostriches, Emus, Penguins, etc. fall into that category. Can you give an example of a bird without VTOL (Starts flying from a perched position) that can fly otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Really?
I could say the same to you about biology.
The hummingbird is true VTOL. Every other bird, unlike a plane, does not require 10+ times its length to take off for flight. I know this.... because.... I have been watching birds my whole life.
Last time I checked pigeons don't have runways. There are not other pigeons 10 feet away holding up lights like in Chicken Run helping other pigeons take off.
Perhaps extremely large birds might require some time to take off. Those are exceptions to the rule.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to drive to your nearest highway entrance too, and then follow the highway, take exits where they are built... you can't accelerate to 100 km/h from your driveway and go to your destination in a straight line either.
What's the problem driving to your airport, take off, fly to the next airport, land, and drive the last bit? It would be practically identical to the current highway system.
Also, this PAL-V seems quite capable of VTOL (vertical take off and landing), as it has no wings and therefore sho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on head or tail winds. At a real airport, no problemo. Along the interstate, well..
Re: (Score:2)
This is a gyrocopter not a helicopter. It handles much like a fixed-wing aircraft including the need for runways.
Nothing's wrong with using a roadable aircraft as intended but it's nothing like the sci-fi concept of a flying car.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
IT looks like it is at least STOL....
Of course, if you are saying VTOL is a must due to practical considerations, then at what point is it practical? A vehicle that VTOL might still be unable to lift itself out of a traffic jam because it would need more area around it clear to really get off the ground than the nearby cars would afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it is STOL. VTOL is practical for use in a "flying car" when it can take off with little more room than the vehicle's own footprint. The only reason a true flying car may not be able to take off from a traffic jam is exhaust heat. A series-hybrid electric system would take care of this, since exhaust heat could be concentrated and directed straight down from the center of the craft, or maybe even purely electric drive could be used near the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And until it's legal to take off and land anywhere, even a true flying car could still only be used like a roadable aircraft.
Not necessarily anywhere, it could be solved by building landing ports similar to a car park for flying cars, but there needs to be plenty of them. The problems are mostly legal, with friendly legislation flying cars would be a reality by now.
It's not so much the VTOL i'd be concerned with (Score:3)
But bump and runs can screw you over. Any aircraft that is in any kind of collision needs to be inspected for airworthiness, especially if it involves the engine or prop. You don't want to lose power at 1000m after all.
So the jerk who backs into you in the parking lot and drives away without a word could really screw you over. The article doesn't say much other than the rear prop folds up, so maybe it has a really good cage around that?
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a vehicular version of No True Scotsman to me.
It's a vehicle that is road-legal and can fly. That's basically a flying car (or flying three-wheeler, or whatever) to me. VTOL would make it a USEFUL flying car; but I'm not sure that that's relevant. A George Forman grill is more useful than some twigs piled in a heap, but they're still both cookers.
What you're after is a Blade Runner style flying car- but you're setting your stick too high for a new technology. You're thinking Star Trek rather tha
Video (Score:5, Informative)
As the linked article is basically a wall of text, here's the website which has a video of the maiden flight on the front page:
http://pal-v.com/
Re: (Score:2)
As the linked article is basically a wall of text, here's the website which has a video of the maiden flight on the front page:
http://pal-v.com/
They might have been able to make it uglier if they tried really, really hard. Looks like an overweight gyrocopter with really basic road-going abilities. Can't wait for Jeremy Clarkson to get hold of one (well, James May would be more likely I guess, what with his pilot's license and all) - looks tippy [youtube.com] ;)
MPG? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
MPG?
38 mpg on the road, 21 mpg in the air (calculated). I pulled stats from the chart here: googleusercontent.com [googleusercontent.com]
But, according to the newer page here: pal-v.com [pal-v.com], we have 28 mpg on the ground and about 12 mpg in the air (calculated).
Re: (Score:2)
Is it powered by useless apostrophes? (Score:4, Insightful)
In that case slashdotters could fuel it for a trip to Andromeda.
"completed it's first series of test flights with it's flying car"
"completed it is first series of test flights with it is flying car"
Really? WHERE did you learn that? STOP IT!
Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
MULTIVAC also would be an acceptable answer (Score:2)
Now all someone has to do is invent drivers who aren't complete morons and we'll be in business!
skynet, err, google is working on that
Who is going to afford (Score:3)
the mechanical inspections for this thing if they want this contraption to be commonplace. I can see industry using it but yah you really want to leave it parked on the side street, nothing could go wrong with that mid air.
Exactly (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, seriously, there is no such thing as perfect safety. What are you so worried about? A life without some risk is boring, forgettable, and pretty much not worth living in my book. Go to Peru for half a year, learn to snorkel on a coral reef, look over the edge of a 100 story building, go
About time! (Score:2)
I think I saw that somewhere else before.... (Score:2, Interesting)
... oh right! The gyrocaptain in Road Warrior. It's nothing more than a glorified autogyro that looks like an old helicopter and a road going trike mated and had offspring.
Furthermore judging by the lack of bumpers, the non-adjustable tail, and probably a few other things I'm missing, it would never qualify as a road going vehicle in the US, and probably most of Europe, and odds are the tail would be damaged in most urban settings, which, if sold to less than overqualified pilots, would probably result in s
Re: (Score:2)
Motorcycles don't have bumpers. Given that the ground form is a trike, it likely qualifies at least in Europe not as a car, and therefore doesn't need to comply with car regulations.
Gyrocopter (Score:5, Interesting)
From the fine website, I cut and paste this WTF moment "A PAL-V ONE flies exactly like a gyrocopter, which is the easiest and safest way of flying."
To be polite, I will just say that opinion is not shared by the majority of aeronautical engineers who are not being paid to say it who know about "old style" autogyros. I'm just mister groundschool with a lot of simulator time and only a couple hours PIC and even I LOLed at that quote. I think they hired that "Baghdad Bob" the former Iraqi information minister for that line.
Autogyros are cool until the rotor stalls and you die, or the rotor seemingly inevitably cuts your head off in a crash landing, or ground resonance sets in and there's nothing you can do about it but die, PIO due to PPO (and possibly PPO is due to PIO?) and you die... There have been some improvements in design which may or may not prevent those control-theory problems, but the "giant rotating wing" cannot be replaced while still calling it a autogyro. Its like saying you could make a motorcycle safe to ride by merely completely enclosing it with windshields and doors, adding conventional seats with seatbelts and airbags, and adding a couple more wheels for enhanced stability, and ta da, a safe "motorcycle", although it not appears to be a Fiat Punto (which is actually a pretty nice small car, I've driven one a couple hundred miles in IRL).
The main problem with a "car autogyro" is likely to be chopping up pedestrians and bikers. Which is traditionally seen as "OK" when done by drivers, so maybe its not going to be so bad after all.
Re: (Score:2)
I had to chortle at the "easiest and safest way" too. But gyroplanes aren't *that* bad, certainly no worse than a helicopter with a semi-rigid 2 blade design (think the Bell 206 Jetranger, or the Bell Huey, or the Bell 222 (aka Airwolf) or the Robinson R22/R44) and lack some failure modes that helicopters have. But ignorance can easily kill you in a gyroplane, too. Just like teetering head design helicopters, low-G manuevers can result in a very bad day. I'd say a typical 3 axis microlight is easier to fly
Re: (Score:2)
The advantage with the gyroplane for this trike is that the rotors are a lot easier to stow than the much larger wings of a fixed wing aircraft.
How about a traditional ultralight... constructed like a sailboat sail...break it down and stow the parts.
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem with a "car autogyro" is likely to be chopping up pedestrians and bikers. Which is traditionally seen as "OK" when done by drivers, so maybe its not going to be so bad after all.
You've brought up the first positive thing about this goofball contraption in the entire thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but you're relying on the bearings being low friction. Lose a bearing, stop rotating, drop straight down.
OK fine I'll defer to you that a high load bearing is just as reliable as the fixed wing equivalent of the bolts that attach the wings to the fuselage. Sounds unlikely but I'll give you that one. That leaves the rest of my trouble list.
Re: (Score:2)
In the context of aerodynamics, the term "stall" has nothing to do with the power plant or power train. Also, you are incorrect in your statement about auto-gyros never having power applied to their rotors. Many designs feature a way to transfer power to the rotor shaft to get the wing spinning, not nearly enough to facilitate take-off and hover, but enough to shorten the take-off roll dramatically.
To be fair, the GP's implicatio
Re: (Score:2)
LOL shows what you know. The rotor can stall in the same way that a wing can stall. Gyrocopters fly a lot like fixed-wing aircraft but there are some quirks you need to be aware of, probably the biggest one being the rotor speed/airspeed lag.
Re:Gyrocopter (Score:4, Insightful)
In fixed wing aircraft, the wing and the aircraft are moving through the air at the same speed. At lower speeds, the pilot has to increase the angle of attack to maintain lift. When the airspeed is too low or the angle of attack becomes to high, the wing stalls and the aircraft drops like a stone. With an autogyro, the wing (rotor) is moving through the air stream at a speed that is independent of the aircraft speed. As the angle of attack is increased, the rotor slows, but it does not suddenly stall and lose all lift like a fixed wing, rather the autogyro gradually loses lift and descends.
The instability in autogyros has to do with old designs and how a trained fixed wing pilot instinctively reacts to pitch instability. When a fixed wing aircraft starts to stall, the pilot puts the nose down and increases power (increases airspeed and lowers the angle of attack). However if you do this in an autogyro, it can cause the aircraft to pitch over and tumble. This is called Pilot Induced Oscillation (PIO) and can be significantly reduced with autogyro specific training for pilots and more stable designs with large aft mounted horizontal stabilizers. The other source of instability with autogyros is called Power Push Over (PPO) and is possible only in pusher prop designs when the center of gravity is below the line of thrust, the thrust of the engine can make the aircraft duck or push over. Both problems are solved by better designs and type specific training.
From the pictures of the PAL-V it appears to have a large horizontal stabilizer, however it is difficult to tell where the center or gravity in flight mode is.
Not another one!! (Score:2)
Not another one!
Browse this list before you get too excited about this development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_personal_aerial_vehicles [wikipedia.org]
Roll Hazard on the Road... (Score:3)
The problem is the design is a typical forward-trike. It may not be quite as bad as a Reliant Robin [youtube.com], but its going to be close to it on the road: When in doubt, it will roll, and roll easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn... (Score:2)
Flying Motorcycle actually (Score:2)
This is a three wheeled flying motorcycle or ATV. It would probably be street legal as it somewhere between a scooter and a motorcycle in size. The gyrocopter or autogyro concept is interesting. It should be pointed out that autogryos require expensive maintenance and inspection of the rotor blades and their linkages which are crucial for safe operation of the craft. The folding prop is also a potential source for expensive maintenance and inspection. An inflight failure of either of these systems woul
Maiden Flight? (Score:2, Funny)
For the US market (Score:4, Funny)
Not a flying car. (Score:2)
Not even by the most wildest dreams. It's a road able aircraft that will have an impossible time getting govt approval to drive on the road.
Second, very few people will buy it, One nimrod in the parking lot backing into it and it loses it's airworthy certification.
Re: (Score:2)
It's similar enough to a motorcycle or scooter to be road licensed as such, I wouldn't see any problem there. It should also meet all safety requirements for vehicles in these classes. The harder part would be to meet FAA requirements as a personal aircraft. It's probably too heavy to meet the ultralight class regs (thought I don't know if there IS an ultralight category for autogyros). It CAN be licensed under the experimental category, but this would require it to be sold in kit form and meet the 51%
Condor from MASK (Score:2)
I'm reminded of Condor, the motorcycle with fold out helicopter blades, from the MASK series.
180km/h on land with THAT wheelbase? (Score:2)
I Love Gyros! (Score:3)
They Rock!
But I'm really not a big fan of tzatziki sauce. What? It's a flying car? Not lunch? Well that's just stupid.
Gyrocycle way ahead (Score:4, Interesting)
The Molnari Gryocycle [molnari.com] street-legal gyrocopter motorcycle is way ahead!
One half the range of a Cessna 152 (Score:3)
but all the other specs are about the same: Cessna 152 specs [micheloud.com].
A 152 can take off in 500' and land in 100'. It's Vne is 110mph and it burns fuel at about the same rate.
As a driver or passenger in this Pal-V I would not want to be in a auto collision. They don't seem to offer much protection against hitting or being hit by other cars, and being as narrow and tall as it is I suspect that it would be vulnerable to tipping over due to later wind gusts.
I used a private pilot license as part of my consulting work. It is IMPERATIVE that one makes one hour of preparation for each hour of flight, in order to identify the height of every object along the intended flight path and all secondary paths, where the emergency landing airfields or other places are, and to compute flight envelope conditions as fuel weights change with distance for a given load. The pilot also has to determine the possible weather along his intended flight path as well. The FAA isn't very tolerant toward folks who get trapped into flying into sucker holes.
To not make these plans is to commit suicide. A pilot just doesn't hop into his plane and take off. There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are NO old, bold pilots.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like a pretty standard kit-gyro. I'd fly it, why not?
Re: (Score:2)
It has active carving suspension - it leans into the corners.
The main blade system isn't driven, it's a gyrocopter and suffers from all the inherent safety issues they have. I assume it has a parachute like most similarly-sized aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume it has a parachute like most similarly-sized aircraft.
I wouldn't assume that. Where would you put it? Below the blades? Oops. Look at that nice parachute floating in the sky - without the gyrocopter.
And it's not 'most similarly sized aircraft', it's one small manufacturer [wikipedia.org] (Cirrus). Gyrocopters are felt to be safer than helicopters or planes because they can autorotate down safely in the event of power loss. That gives it a slower sink rate than a typical small aircraft in glide mode and a much smaller sinkrate that a typical non powered helicopter crash
Re: (Score:2)
I know of tons of non-Cirrus aircraft with a parachute system, the Ikon A5 for example. A lot of tiny planes have them. It could go at the end of the tail boom to avoid the rotor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're officially in the future now.
Please, the fact that pretty much everyone have their personal portable communication device should be a pretty good indication that we have been in the future for a while now.
Yeah, and just look where it's got us....
Re: (Score:2)
All these new "flying cars" or "roadable aircraft" are utterly worthless until the day comes when one of them is fully capable of, at the push of a button, making the transition from car to aircraft and take off into the sky while actively driving down the highway.
You've just got to be an American with that mind set. I'm surprised you included the requirement to 'push the button'. Wouldn't mind control be less work?
Exercise! It's what's before dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Methinks if you find you need a replacement rotor, finding an Autozone will be the least of your problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if they are supplemented by a very good navigation system. It's kinda hard to run out of gas in mid-flight if the system forces you to land way before that happens.
I think this is possible if the "car" is completely automated. Which is not that far-fetched, considering the Google car and the fact that in mid-air there are much less obstacles, particularly peons.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably similar to the Citrabrea I used to fly.