On Jun 13, 1:20*pm, Michael wrote:
On Jun 13, 1:41*pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Some key features of PAVs a

150-200 mph car that flies above gridlock without traffic delays
Quiet, safe, comfortable and reliable
Simplified operation akin to driving a car
As affordable as travel by car or airliner
Near all-weather, on-demand travel enabled by synthetic vision
Highly fuel efficient and able to use alternative fuels
Up to 800 mile range
Short runway use--Walk to grandma's from small residential airfields

What would you call this?

A pipe dream.

You cavalierly dismiss the argument that the FAA is what keeps new
technology out of the skies and causes astronomical parts cost, and
that dismissal is unwarranted. *Never confuse the public relations
face of the FAA with the rank and file at the FSDO/MIDO. *Never forget
that regardless of what tests your design passed, it must still be
approved by an engineer who couldn't make it in industry and hasn't
learned anything new (technically) in decades. *Nothing the top level
people in the FAA do will change that.

I was just thinking...it is said that the airplane was invented in the
USA, but much of the terminlogy in aviation is French:

* ailerons
* empannage
* fuselage
* canard
* Pitot
* chandelle
* M'aidez!

I wonder, if a PAV were created, that satisified the criteria outlined
by CAFE:
http://www.cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_home.php

but done in another G8 country besides the USA, like, France.

Would the USA just sit back and watch?

I think all of the reasons presented so far why PAV attempts are
destined to fail would somehow resolve themselves, within each
respective country for which a reason is valid.

That leads to an interesting question:

Which is harder, technically, to design and build a PAV as outlined by
CAFE, or put a person on the moon?

-Le Chaud Lapin-