A totally different aircraft: the recreational aviation of the future?

[RickH]

No aggression at all Nev I just like to know that the person I am discussing something with actually knows what they are talking about. When I start stating facts and figures I try to be to be very accurate and I like to make sure that the facts DO get in the way of my opinions, after all on the internet you can pretend to be anyone you want to be. I am at any time willing to bow to some one with greater knowledge than myself, but I do not suffer fools and if some one can show me that I am genuienly wrong I am more than happy to admit it. But being right for the sake of my ego I will not tolerate with myself and I will not tolerate from others and there are a lot of people who get on forums in general and spruke stuff that they are unqualified to discuss and that is why I am happy to post copies of my quals. Are you

 

 

[Riley]

RickH. By all means speak your piece, argue your point and dispell any misconceptions but at all times maintain a demeanour that graces both yourself and your rival. There are many effective ways of making your point without, at the same time, making yourself appear to be a '...........' Methinks you are over-stepping the bounds of normal public debate with the quality of your challenges. cheers Riley

 

 

[RickH]

RickH. By all means speak your piece, argue your point and dispell any misconceptions but at all times maintain a demeanour that graces both yourself and your rival. There are many effective ways of making your point without, at the same time, making yourself appear to be a '...........' Methinks you are over-stepping the bounds of normal public debate with the quality of your challenges. cheers Riley

Cheers Riley comments noted. Is it not the purpose of debate to establish as best we can the facts of the discussion? As far as "my challenges" are concerned I believe I have perhaps made two A. get your facts right B. Are you actually qualified to speak. I do not see this as overstepping any bounds. After all it maybe okay to BS your mates in the pub and lets face it we all probably do at times but this is a public forum which has the ability to and in fact does have a great influence on our sport and the regulations governing it.(Types of aircraft allowed to be flown etc.) And as such I feel that it absolutely important that all commentators adhere to both A & B above.

P.S.Given that I've not had the chance to do any inspections on the PAL-V I do have to admit that I am not qualified to attest to the airworthiness of the machine.

 

PPS I shall not comment further on the debate and will allow whoever to have the last say.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Rick,

 

I agree with getting your facts straight, that is always important and we should all strive for accuracy.

 

But I do take umbrage at "been qualified" to speak or discuss matters.

 

No one and I mean no one on this planet has qualifications to speak on any subject by your requirement- unless you are a proven qualified expert in that field. No one can possible be a expert in all matters.

 

I am not a lawyer- does that mean I should never discuss law?

 

We are a friendly website for people of similar interests ie aviation, and plenty of other excursions of a non aviation manner.

 

Our opinions will be diverse as they should be. Some will be better informed than others.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Can we get back to the point guys, referring to the PAL-V. In my opinion, this particular 3 wheeled vehicle is safer than a motor bike on the road. Unlike the old and dangerous types with one wheel at the front, this one leans into corners so is not so prone to rolling over. I doubt that anyone who can afford one, is going to be so stupid as to try racing it through the hills. As for crumple zones, not needed as it's 'experimental' and besides, if you can legally drive one of the Lotus 7 Clubman Sports, then your in the same class of vehicle(re safety)

 

As for Jesus Nuts etc, this is as safe as any rotary wing aircraft and probably more so than a helicopter. It's proven to fly safely and is still being evaluated and up-graded.

 

As for cost, yes, a rich mans 'toy' but I'd have no problem buying and flying one if I could afford to do so.

 

 

[Contact Flying]

Our Army was well financed. Ten hours of maintenance for each hour of flight on the Huey, a pretty simple helicopter. Certainly no tilt rotor.

 

 

[Kamloops]

I maybe in the minority here....but would be glad to have one if somebody gave it to me.

 

 

[planedriver]

The old saying "Simplicity (generally) = Reliability" springs to mind.

 

Whereas a lot of new stuff has been so exhaustively tested, there is minimal chance that anything can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong!