[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Gansan

Two doubts. The gyrocopter may not be susceptible to stall like other aircraft as you say but still it requires a particular forward speed to sustain flight. Which means it can't hover. When that speed falls it will come down and has to be put down somewhere?

Yes, it does require forward speed, or rather air to move across the rotor, so a head wind helps! But like any aircraft, or helicopter, once the engines fail, you have to put it down. If the engine(s) on a helicopter fail, the helicopter can’t hover either. On most helicopter the rotor will be disengaged from the drive shaft so it can spin freely. The pilot will perform a power off descent, so he/she pushes the collective down, dips the nose and the helicopter will start to descent rapidly. As the rotor is free-spinning (as opposed to being driven by the engine(s) there is virtuallly no counter forces required. Once close to the ground the pilot hauls backs on the collective, which means the rotor starts producing some lift and lands the aircraft. It is quite a complex manoeuvre and it can be quite violent. If well executed there should be little forward motion.

When an airplane, e.g. one of my single engine plane, looses its engine you basically are left with an aircraft with pretty poor gliding characteristics. You need to push the nose down to maintain air stream over the wings and create sufficient lift. You will need to locate the best possible landing zone and manoeuvre the plane, dealing with constant descent and adjust speed to execute a perfect landing as you will only get once chance.

On the gyrocopter the rotor is always free spinning, if the engine(s) cut out, it will start to descent but at a much slower descent rate than either the plane or the helicopter without engine. It requires much less forward speed to maintain sufficient control than a plane and it can be much better controlled than the helicopter. Like a plane you do need to find an appropriate landing zone, but it will be much shorter and as the landing speeds is much lower too, it can be a pretty rough patch of land.

Make no mistake, an engine out on a plane/helicopter/gyrocopter is a very serious situation. We all see the occasional Youtube of someone landing his Cessna on a motorway. Those are the exceptions. Actually, engine out landing for small plane often end up in disaster. Because it all depends on finding a suitabable stretch of landing zone. From a few hundred feet up it is already impossible to judge what the ground looks like. Is it rough, muddy etc. Once, you have chosen your landing zone, you are committed and you have to put the plane down. Very often the gear breaks, or worse the plane summersaults on rough terrain.

So in all, the gyrocopter is much easier to land in engine out scenario. Because you more time to respond, it is going relatively slow and you only need a very short landing zone.

Originally Posted by Gansan

By very inexperienced pilot/driver?

Part of obtaining your PPL (Private Pilot License) is being trained in doing emergency landings. In fact during your check and proficiency rides you will need to demonstrate your ability to deal with these emergencies.

At some point during your check ride the examiner will suddenly close the throttle and call “Engine Failure”. The engine will be left to idle. But you must demonstrate following the correct procedures, being able to bring the plane close to a suitable landing zone, at an appropriate altitude and speed. From there on, you push the throttle back in and ascend. Also, you will need to demonstrate the correct radio procedure.

So if you have a PPL you are considered to be proficient in doing emergency landings. (And you will need to demonstrate so, during your regular proficiency checks.

Originally Posted by Gansan

That rear propeller seems very exposed when it operates as a road car. I mean totally open on one side. How dangerous will it be to a car rear ending it?

I don’t know, but the PAL-V was certified for road use in Europe some time ago already, so I assume its not a factor at all.

Jeroen

[carthick1000]

Congratulations on your registration at the FlyDrive program!. Does that mean you are going to replace your Cirrus with a PAL-V? Or just hold both of them?

What an interesting and informative read! Never knew about the working of gyrocopters before. The closest I came across autorotation is from a friend who works in Indian Air Force as a squardon leader (Flies heavy trasport, light utilities and sometimes VIP transport helicopters). The magni orion 24 is an eye-opener for someone eyeing to make aviation a hobby when time and budget permits. Just like your bicycles thread, this is quite enchanting to read. Covers the basics for beginners to a bit more interesting snippets of Aviation in general.

Note: I have nowhere been near a private single engine aircraft fixed wing before. Where do you normally store your Cirrus and how often do you fly it? The background of the question is: I would be glad to hop on a ride with you in your cirrus someday, if that is okay with you Driel is not far from Gorinchem.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by carthick1000

Congratulations on your registration at the FlyDrive program!. Does that mean you are going to replace your Cirrus with a PAL-V? Or just hold both of them?

I wish! "My Cirrus" is a figure of speech. I don’t own one. When we lived in the USA I was a member of a small flying club and as a member you would “own” part of the club planes. Amongst others we have a Cirrus.

These sort of arrangements are very popular, at least in the USA. Owning a private plane, certainly a Cirrus is still an expensive hobby. So there are many who opt for fractional ownership (e.g. 2-4 guys owning one plane), or clubs such as ours. It brings the hourly rate down considerably. The fixed annual cost on a plane is considerable, e.g. hangar, insurance, certification etc. The downside is you need to share the plane. In practice that was hardly ever a problem. We had a very simple but efficient online reservation system. Only if you wanted to take out the plane for more than one day, where you requested to check with the other members at least 2-3 weeks in advance, if that was ok.

I am not active as a pilot anymore. My license and medical are expired. I have rented the occasional plane over the last couple of years. Just for fun, always with the help of a CFI (Certified Flight Instructor) of course. I always have been and still am an aviation enthusiast.

Renting a Cirrus inEurope is quite expensive.
See https://www.cirrusinstruction.eu/rental/

Depending on the model Euro 325-395 per hour! I have bought cars for less

Jeroen

[WD-42]

Thank you for your replies.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I still need my car to get to my Cirrus and I still need a car when I land my Cirrus.
Jeroen

Do FBOs in Europe have courtesy cars that you can borrow? I'm sure you've borrowed them while flying stateside. I never felt the need for a car at my destination thanks to those stateside.

I have a couple of friends in the U.S. who have Cirruses for their work. Fly out in the morning, borrow the courtesy car at the destination (nowadays they just get an Uber), do their day of work, fly back home in the evening.
One chap got a Mooney to get him a little farther in the same time.

You could do 150kts in an SR20, 180 in the 22 and 240 in the M20. You could go farther to get things done or get to your destination faster. All of which you could get good used examples for the same price as one of the new PALs. Your CAPEX would be similar.

Sure your OPEX would be higher with the Cirruses, Mooneys and Pipers, but the businessman/entreprenuers I know would all pick that tradeoff of time, when time = money for them, rather than a 100kt aircraft.

You would make up the 10-15 min you spend on the ground transitioning from your car to your aircraft in the air.

Moreover the PAL-V's t.o. distance over a 50ft obstacle is ~1000ft. Getting 1000ft empty space in a densly packed Asian or EU city is going to be a challenge.
If you are going to drive to the outskirts to get space to takeoff, might as well drive to an airport, in which case might as well use a Cirrus.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I would also think that in for instance Australia / New Zealand it could be really interesting for people living in the outback.
Jeroen

Bush aircraft are a whole different ball game.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Again, the long pole in the tent will be the certification. Even on an existing platform changing something essential as the power plant will require almost a complete new certification as lots of work will need to be redone.
Jeroen

Precisely why IMHO they should've gone electric straight away. If getting certified isn't for the faint hearted, getting STCs is for the brave. As my old Airworthiness & Certification professor used to say: "The paperwork required to certify (or STC) an aircraft = the MTOW of the aircraft".

Harbour Air has (undergoing STC) eBeavers with a 160km range. But that's on a DHC beaver. With a similar setup considering their lower payload they could've gotten a similar range with an all electric setup.

Why spend money again to get an STC, when you could've gotten it from the begining.

On a side note, I saw those eBeavers fly and they are eerily quiet, you would think they lost their engine and something was wrong if you didn't know it was electric.

Anyway I digress, I hope my message does not come off as shooting the messenger, which is most certainly not my intention, I really enjoy your detailed posts chock full of info for the rest of us to learn.
I'm just not convinced either at the business case or the technical case for this aircraft. I wish them the very best and hope to be proven wrong.
As someone who's passionate about aviation I have a more the merrier attitude towards the number of aicraft designs available.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by WD-42

Do FBOs in Europe have courtesy cars that you can borrow? I'm sure you've borrowed them while flying stateside. I never felt the need for a car at my destination thanks to those stateside.

In all honesty, I don’t know because I don’t get to fly in Europe really. I have never heard anybody talking about it.

Never needed a car in the USA either, always got one from the FBO. Mind you.some were pretty if not very crappy.

The other thing is landing fees. Even the smallest field here in Europe will charge you Euro 10-25 for each landing. I don’t think I ever paid landing fees in the USA. Even the fields that had landing fees, often waived them if you used the FBO services, e.g. filled up.

Kansas City International would not charge us landing fees as long as we did not stay over night. And even during our night flight into Chicago they waived the fees. Its not so much the cost, but the convenience factor. Because having to pay the fees in Europe usually means you need to go into the local office etc.

Another big difference between USA and Europe: In the USA many ATC guys are (hobby/GA) pilots themselves! The few flights I did in Europe I found the interaction with ATC to be different. In Europe I felt we would be considered to be a nuisance and please stay away from the the big airports (B-space). In the USA there was never anything like that. Even when VFR we would always call any airport which we came close too, to inform them of our intentions. In the USA the reply would be, thanks for letting us know (and maybe even some advice). In Europe I got the reply, “make sure you stay clear”. Also, I found European GA pilots did not like flying through B-space, because it meant talking to ATC and requesting clearance. The would prefer to make a detour and fly around it. In the USA, if we found -B-airspace on our VFR way, we would just ask for clearance. Sometimes you got it, or they would ask you to climb or divert a bit or tell you sorry, stay clear, but that was actually rare.

Maybe my European experience is not very relevant because I don’t have many hours in Europe.

Originally Posted by WD-42

All of which you could get good used examples for the same price as one of the new PALs. Your CAPEX would be similar.

You need to think European pricing here, not state side. A cirrus SR22 even the base model without the turbo will cost you over KEuro 800. Turbo versions are well over a million Euro’s.

Originally Posted by WD-42

Sure your OPEX would be higher with the Cirruses, Mooneys and Pipers, but the businessman/entreprenuers I know would all pick that tradeoff of time, when time = money for them, rather than a 100kt aircraft.

I have a number of friends in the USA that own various single and duel prop planes and use it to run their businesses. They are flying huge distances and clocking up significant hours. And they are also hard core pilots that just love to fly. I don’t see them trade for the PAL-V. Mind you, some I could see buying one, just for fun!

All of them are instrument rated too. Another huge advantage.

Originally Posted by WD-42

You would make up the 10-15 min you spend on the ground transitioning from your car to your aircraft in the air.

As I mentioned before, I think this whole idea of transitioning from car to gyrocopter or back again in a matter of minutes is just not on. Sure, the mechanical part might take minute. But you still need to do you walk around, usual flight prep. Putting together a flight plan and getting prepared here in Europe even for a VFR flight will take a considerable amount of time. Very busy airspace here.

Originally Posted by WD-42

Moreover the PAL-V's t.o. distance over a 50ft obstacle is ~1000ft. Getting 1000ft empty space in a densly packed Asian or EU city is going to be a challenge.
If you are going to drive to the outskirts to get space to takeoff, might as well drive to an airport, in which case might as well use a Cirrus.

I do agree. To be honest, there are plenty of cities around the world where I would never drive, not even take a taxi, but use public transportation to get into town. But I assume there are plenty of places where it would work, certainly around Europe and as long as you need to be on the outside of any major town. (Lots of business are on the outside/periphery of major town, that’s where all the industrial and office space tends to be.

Originally Posted by WD-42

Precisely why IMHO they should've gone electric straight away.

I don’t have the knowledge or the insights to make a real judgement call. But if I go with what I hear from all my (engineering, R&D) aviation friends, nobody is counting on going electric main stream any time soon. And when they do, it will be with very particular configurations and applications. Me being pretty much a layman, but I would think the PAL-V is not that suitable as a platform for an electrically powered version. Weight is a huge problem for them, because of the high centre of gravity. They told me, they don’t see the necessary E- (battery) technology available for the next five to seven years.

Can’t certify what is not available.

Originally Posted by WD-42

I'm just not convinced either at the business case or the technical case for this aircraft. I wish them the very best and hope to be proven wrong.

Neither am I. I do believe in their long term vision, they are very keen not to be positioned as a “toys for boys” company rather than a company that helps solve one of the worlds transportation problems. Which is ultimately more about fully automated (pilotless) drones etc.

I think at present it is going to be toys for boys, no matter what. (Probably the odd girl too).

As a pilot I don’t believe anybody should be promoting flying and driving in the same sentence. Getting and maintaining a pilot license and becoming really proficient and maintaining proficiency is totally different from getting your driving license and driving a car.

I can get into any of my six cars right now and set off for Rome 3500 kilometers south from here. Without a second preparation.

If I would want to take a short 15-30 minute hop (40-50 km distance) in a tiny two seater very simple Cessna 150, I would be behind my computer prepping for at least 45 minutes. Checking weather, looping at airport diagrams, alternatives, Weight and balance calculations. etc. I would need to prep the plane, do a walk around etc.

This is what bugs me about this PAL-V. They make it look very similar, but when done properly it is not. In all honesty. Yes I could just hop in my Cessna 150 for such a short trip without prepping much. But it would be pretty foolish and illegal. As long as you don’t get caught (which is very unlikely) I would be fine. But check out those accident statistics I shared earlier. Not to want to oversimplify it, but those are mostly pilots who think flying a plane is akin to driving a car. To little upfront preparation. Not sticking to rules, taking short cuts etc.

To some extend you see even companies like Cirrus making similar claims. It’s all about convenience and ease of use. Call me an old fashioned git, but being a pilot is not about convenience. The Cirrus is as single engine planes go, a complex plane. Most insurance companies will require at least 150-250 hours before they will insure you on it.

Originally Posted by WD-42

As someone who's passionate about aviation I have a more the merrier attitude towards the number of aicraft designs available.

True. And again, I think PAL-V is a remarkable initiative and you can’t fault them for perseverance. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Jeroen

[srini1785]

Technically brilliant. However, my first reaction was, eating and singing. Enjoyable activities when done alone, combine these two and well, some people can do it. Anyways, it was great knowing this.