Author Topic: Personal Aircraft (Read 1523 times)

SOB · « **Reply #15 on:** January 02, 2003, 02:17:48 PM »

The Air Scooter actually looked pretty cool. Saw a write-up on it in Popular Science. They saw it do a test flight, tho it had problems with the engine the guy was using at the time. He is having a light custom 4-stroke engine built for it. As I recall the foot pedals are NOT a control mechanism, and all control is done through the handles. Also, the projected price wasn't unreasonable at $35k. Of course, that's the projected price.

I'll see if I can find the article...

SOB

-edit- Heh, I guess the article is linked from their site:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,319699,00.html

SOB · « **Reply #16 on:** January 02, 2003, 02:27:03 PM »

Just breezing over the article, looks like the price was $25k-$50k.

SOB

whgates3 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 02, 2003, 03:56:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
...Take a look at the pics of the Air Car if you want to get slightly confused. I wonder if its done much more than launch and land. Those engines don't appear to be rotatable... and there isn't really any forward lifting structure....

check out their web site http://www.moller.com … if the thing works nearly how they say it will (computer piloted, 300 MPH, 20 MPG on regular gasoline, soft touchdown in any level 25' diameter circle), its a big deal, but they've be progressing very slowly since i 1st heard about the thing in '97...might be an investment scam

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #18 on:** January 02, 2003, 04:24:29 PM »

So the do rely on the engines as the sole forward lift provider. I still would not in any way shape or form trust that. No way.

As for the gyrocopter... SOB... it still looks like it relies on forward motion... just with the rudders in the tail. You'd still need to have some kind of aproach/forward motion landing for it.

AKDejaVu

Dux · « **Reply #19 on:** January 02, 2003, 04:25:21 PM »

Sandman, Deja... the Kamov helis (Hormone, Helix, etc) control yaw by tilting those big slab-like vertical stabilizers side-to-side in the downwash of the main blades. Not as much positive control as a tail rotor, but still effective... less to go wrong also.

I can only imagine this godawful thing controls yaw the same way.

Collective could be controlled by a twist-grip, perhaps.

I'd love to have a gyro, but only if it were a Wallis.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #20 on:** January 02, 2003, 04:30:27 PM »

Well that makes sense... though you'd be torquing the hell out of the tail section to do it.

Still to verticle with too many moving parts overhead with no protection. A big no thanks on that one.

AKDejaVu

Pongo · « **Reply #21 on:** January 02, 2003, 05:56:03 PM »

-ammo- · « **Reply #22 on:** January 02, 2003, 05:59:48 PM »

Is that the new T-6 Texan II?

Pongo · « **Reply #23 on:** January 02, 2003, 07:00:19 PM »

No the Texan II is based on an uprated PC9, with the same engine as this one I think though..
Its probably real close. I think the Texan II doenst have the swept wing and some of the training specific avionics of this one.
Thats a PC21.

-ammo- · « **Reply #24 on:** January 02, 2003, 08:00:58 PM »

CC, I see now. heres the texan II

SOB · « **Reply #25 on:** January 02, 2003, 08:18:07 PM »

Yeah, like Dux said...the article indicated that it directed the downward airflow with the rudder. Hopefully it gets built and people buy it, that way we can look at the results of other peoples' trials!

SOB

Airhead · « **Reply #26 on:** January 02, 2003, 09:06:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
Yeah, like Dux said...the article indicated that it directed the downward airflow with the rudder. Hopefully it gets built and people buy it, that way we can look at the results of other peoples' trials!

SOB

Yeah, or read their obituaries

Thorns · « **Reply #27 on:** January 02, 2003, 09:23:21 PM »

Eagler,

Those parachute thingys are pretty safe, and I would suggest the trike gear. However, as my 650+ hours in ultralights recall, you will get bored within 2 months of not having the ability of to go anywhere, as they are slow. Find an old Eipper MXL(or a new one if you can afford it) with a Rotax engine, give the plane an extensive inspection with someone who knows ultralights, then the sky's the limit. A couple of my friends from Illinois flew them to Lakeland(EAA) and back to Illinois with no problems. The Eipper MXL has a double-surfaced wing with ailerons, and rudder pedals, and can be flown in very high winds, and is fast for an ultralight. I suggest a recreational pilots license or extensive training before flight as you will need to know the FAR's to be safe(r). The most fun I have ever had flying aircraft on a budget, was an ultralight, except for aerobatics, and that cost was just too high(Citabria and Decathalon). Of course flying is like drugs, and at the time, I was hooked. I can show you my divorce papers...yes my name is Thorns, I am an ex-airplane addict

Thorns

Kieran · « **Reply #28 on:** January 02, 2003, 11:11:29 PM »

I hear your pain. My wife made me stop as well. Something about "not wanting to raise our kids alone"...

I flew the MX, MXL and a hybrid the owner made. I agree, get the double-surface, fully symetrical wing. It has true three axis control, and was very tolerant of crosswind. It'll also do about any light aerobatics you have the nerve to try. On a 45hp Rotac it was a sweet little bird.