Talk:Personal Air Vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

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)