Talk:Personal air vehicle

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Personal air vehicle

While 211.28.188.202’s contributions are interesting, I disagree with their applicability to this article and would like to discuss removing them and instead just adding a sailplane link to the current technology list.

The additions seem to suggest two alternatives in overcoming the technological barriers of the NASA PAV vision. Unfortunately, all they mention is that ATOL can be a quiet and ‘cheap’ launching/landing system and that there are quiet planes in existence already. These facts are not successfully culled together to address how they would lend themselves toward accomplishing the PAV vision.

I could not find any photographs of the Brodie System mentioned, but from what I’ve read, it was only used for launching Piper Cubs in WWII, and I could find no substantive statements on it’s cost relative to a regular air field. But any ATOL system requires some kind of launch area (air field) to be used safely. And the building of this site in a residential area is the very argument being made against it in the existing article. Whether you need 100ft or 1000ft to get off the ground, these launch sites still don’t exist right now, and no one is currently planning on paying for them to be built. I agree the technology is a small step in the right direction if you’re single concern is noise abatement. But as far as saving money and time in the march toward a true PAV, I don’t see how they’re any better than a regular small airfield.

The silent Schweitzer aircraft mentioned also seems out of place. Yes they exist, but they achieve their reduced noise levels by operating at very low speed and at respectable altitudes. If one were taking off in your backyard, you’d certainly notice. Since their top speed is a far cry from the 200mph goal, it seems to reason that their silence is a moot point. If you were to introduce the powerplant required to reach those higher speeds, your “silent” mode would quickly disappear.

Your contributions seem to focus on sailplane-centric aircraft characteristics, so I’d like to add sailplanes to the list of types of aircraft quasi-meeting PAV goals, and remove the other text, or at least start a new section titled "Partially Successful PAV Technologies" or the like. But I feel those factoids are really better suited for other articles. Danny 01:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Brodie system was a cable run between two posts with a hook on the aircraft and was cheaper than the aircraft that used it - and could be run in most residential areas without much trouble. It hasn't seen much use, possibly because a high level of pilot skill is necessary.

Aerial traffic jams would occur and droves of light aircraft would fall from the sky. Allowing many aircraft into the air with such a system would be catastrophic unless people are isolated from their own ingenuity and any decision making. Additionly, aircraft can't stop so must be widely spaced so any increase in traffic density is illusionary.

Certainly for the idea to function, a quiet aircraft (low speed ducted prop and adequate exhaust muffling) capable of low speeds (without the span of a sailplane or the complexity and limitations of an autogyro) would be required, but so too would the technology to fully automate flight and air traffic control functions. In addition, because aircraft are hypersensitive to weight, duplicating a car would require a lot of power and an abundant source of very cheap energy. Major improvements in structural materials wouldn't hurt.

It looks great in fiction but requires too many advances to be practical. Still it would be cool to have one.NiD.29 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most efficient designs

Can the most efficient designs be added (or atleast pictures). I suggest the Moller Skycar, the strap-on helicopter (said as best options in James May Big Ideas docu), and DM AeroSafe Group Eagle Aero-Cart and AeroVironment SkyTote (the latter being automated, similar to driverless cars).

UPDATE --> Besides the Aero-Cart, the AESIR HODER also seems to be a very efficient design, as unlike the aerosafe vehicle, only a single propeller is used, and also only 1 engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.178.184.81 (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend adding a section on this automation (as too James May has done in his docu). Link to driverless car and fly-by-wire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.191.32 (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Push-pull airplanes and TUD Ornithopter

Perhaps the Ornithopter and the Push-pull_configuration aircraft, could have intresting benefits to implement in certain PAV designs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.182.116 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Darpa's flying car project, the Terrafugia Transition, Pal-V gyrocopter and the Urban Aeronautics X-Hawk are other prominent candidates according to the Wired article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.188.21 (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move reverted

I've reverted the undiscussed move to Personal aerial vehicle as Personal Air Vehicle is the term actually used in the sources. While I believe the move was made in good faith, we can't just change names/titles because we think the existing term is not understandable. If anyone disagrees with with me, you;re welome to try to gain a consesnus for the move here. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move was suggested as I believe that a personal air vehicle is actually a personal aerial vehicle with added restrictions by NASA. a personal aerial vehicle is thus wider and includes more vehicles

Parachute vs glider

does a glider provide less lift than a parachute (or parachute+motor) ? Intresting for a potential comparisation of personal aerial vehicles article The removed pav's here below should be included in this article:

Darpa's flying car project
Terrafugia Transition
Pal-V gyrocopter
Samson Motorworks Skybike/Switchblade ^[1]
Urban Aeronautics X-Hawk ^[2]
Gress Aerospace PAV ^[3]
Carter Aviation 2+2 PAV ^[4]
Moller Skycar
Entecho Hoverpod ^[5]
Parajet Skycar
Jetpack International water-propelled jetpack
Martin Aircraft Company Martin Jetpack
Mosquito Ultralight helicopter XE and XEL
Aeris Naviter AeroQuad ^[6]
The butterfly LLC Super Sky Cycle
strap-on helicopter ^[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.14.197 (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Samson Motorworks Switchblade and Skybike
^ Wired magazines' PAV's
^ Gress aerospace PAV
^ Carter Aviation 2+2PAV
^ Entecho hoverpod
^ Gizmag's personal air vehicles
^ James May describing moller skycar and strap-on helicopter in PAV documentary

April Fools Joke

Please remove the Damninteresting.com article from your sources (5 on the list of sources). It was posted on april 1st 2006. You can remove this section after editing. Thank you. Jostiel (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German article

I'd love to create a German article on this topic. Any idea for a proper term? The direct translation would be "Personenluftfahrzeug" (short PLF), abbreviated from "Personenkraftwagen" (PKW) for cars. Sounds sort of funny. ;) Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsourced "benefits" section

I've removed this unsourced section after failing to find supporting citations, and finding a citation with conflicting information to what's claimed. The most similar source I could find was [1] which, summing over annual fuel wasted in 2020 reports only 1.596 billion gallons wasted, and 3.186 billion gallons in 2019. For comparison, the section claimed "6.7 billion US gallons (25,000,000 m3) of gasoline are wasted in traffic jams each year" without specifying the year, and the consumption has only gone up. I could not find a source reporting on both this statistic and PAVs. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Samson Motorworks Switchblade and Skybike

[2] Wired magazines' PAV's

[3] Gress aerospace PAV

[4] Carter Aviation 2+2PAV

[5] Entecho hoverpod

[6] Gizmag's personal air vehicles

[7] James May describing moller skycar and strap-on helicopter in PAV documentary

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]