I don't even know if they would ship to Germany, where I live, and I honestly don't care, as I likely wouldn't order it anyway. But I have to say your sponsor segments are so hilarious that I never skip them (which I usually do on other channels). Especially when Robert talks to Bob about the product until they realize that they are in a video, I even go back and watch it again. 😂
@@Oddman1980 Doug may be a nice person, which I can't judge as I don't know him personally. But I just can't watch Doug, the way he acts in his videos grates my nerves after the first 10 seconds. On the other hand, I am binge watching this channel here... 🤣
As one of the people who worked on this project: we chose the 924 because it has its gearbox in the back, it meant we had a lot of space in the engine bay to add the beltdrive and other bits. It was also relatively cheap.
Do you know why a 5 speed sequential was selected instead of a CVT? It seems like a well matched CVT would permit the engine to operate mostly in the RPM range it was designed for.
@@FirstNameLastName-tp5bu Perhaps because one was easily available for the Porsche. In Europe, you have emissions standards that get stricter for newer vehicles, and it's not just getting lower emissions, but getting them type-certified, and that costs a lot of money.
@@jammi__ Also, European road safety certification bodies can be really strict about such extensive modifications. I don't know about the Netherlands but here in Germany engine swaps are basically not a thing. Maybe that also had something to do with it.
@@RoonMian Safety and emissions are from the year the car was first registered, so if it's a 1970s car, there are no emission standards to match. Cars from the 2000s or newer are almost unmodifiable, but then again cars from the early 1900s can be modified in almost any way, but they're very rare and more valuable when as original as possible. The remaining 1970s cars are kind of a sweet spot in that regard, and 1980s and 1990s car to a lesser extent. Cars after 1996 need the original OBD-II system in place, so any possible engine replacements are to EV or a original parallel model with a different engine, along with its OBD-II ECU.
I was just thinking that this is the gyrocopter that you don't need a trailer (or keep in storage at the airport) to own. You can drive it to fly and then drive home and put in the garage. That sounds actually kind-of-handy if that 300-400K euro price tag isn't 3x or 4x a normal gyro.
Seconding this, as the term "flying car" gives the wrong impression. The whole point of this vehicle is a light aircraft that can be driven on public roads and stored in your garage, avoiding hangar fees, allowing the vehicle to be operated on conventional pump gas and as a result significantly reducing aircraft ownership costs. But when people think of a "flying car" they typically think of a VTOL aircraft that can be used in the same ways as a car, and either romanticize the idea or immediately start listing the impracticalities and safety concerns of such a vehicle.
@@daszieher I mean, for it to actually be convenient for the owner, you'd at least want the car side of things to be decently drivable. Also, when it comes to weight reduction and aerodynamics, a decent amount of that overlaps.
Another interesting note about the engine: despite being an aviation engine, where the default gasoline is 100LL low-lead (!) avgas (was already mentioned once in the Robinson R44 video), it is designed to run on automotive gasoline, making it even more appropriate for this application. It would be pretty inconvenient to drive to the airport every time you want to refuel! Also, using leaded fuel seems like an auto-fail on any automotive emissions test xD
Funny enough, that display actually *is* for attitude, not altitude. It's an artificial horizon, and it shows you whether you're pitched up or down, whether your wings are level or banked, etc. It often does include an altimeter, but it primarily is for attitude.
I don't know why they didn't just cut out the back and put the engine there, as that's where it is and probably will Always be in the final car. Or even better, just get a rear engine car.
Flying cars expressly work in those incredibly weird "airport towns" where the main road is a landing strip, and everyone's garage is a personal hangar.
Yet another person missing the point of this type of vehicle. Maybe if TH-camrs would stop calling them "flying cars" and start calling them "roadable aircraft", those misconceptions will go away. This was never intended to be a flying replacement to a car, it's meant to be a more affordable (in terms of yearly costs) alternative to a conventional light aircraft. And whether you're joking or not, the whole "flying car" thing is still a massive misconception.
@@VestedUTuber Well it's a misconception based on like...60 years of people wanting flying cars? The reason I say that the airport towns are where this makes the most sense, is because that's true. It literally serves all the necessary purposes for people living in neighborhoods like that. If you don't live there, why have a bad car that's a bad plane when you can have a good car and a good plane? Also the main reason flying cars will never happen is because drunk and distracted drivers exist. Imagine 4,000 9/11s every day lmao.
@@FearlessLeader2001 "If you don't live there, why have a bad car that's a bad plane when you can have a good car and a good plane?" Because 1. said "bad plane" is still functional as a plane and 2. for some people it's the only way they can afford a plane in the long run. Hangar and fuel costs are expensive. Ultralights are another alternative but the problem with them is that you basically need to be in a rural area to use them, due to FAA restrictions on airspace usage.
@@VestedUTuber Yeah, so you're still talking about a ridiculously niche buyer base, even more niche than what I specified. Especially since it's not a good car in the slightest, so anyone who couldn't afford a plane and hangar fees would STILL need a 2nd car. It's not a particularly diverse market of people that appeals to.
Not that it matters, but that's not a compass, it's a horizontal situation indicator. The difference is that a compass is magnetic, while an HSI is driven by a gyro.
This is a dream car/plane for me. I love flying, and fly airliners for a living, and small aircraft for fun. The main downside of small aircraft is that, when you land at your destination, you still need a car. Some places you can get away with walking, but airports are usually a good bit away from where you actually want to go. Renting a car or using uber adds another expense on an already expensive hobby, and really adds a lot of associated "work". Another advantage is the lack of hangar requirements. Hangars are hard to find, expensive, and often you can't rent one at the nearest airport to you. $600/month adds up quickly, and this plane could be parked in your garage. Over 10 years, that really could offset the cost between this and a traditional gyroplane. So what's the use case? It's always a toy, but it's an exceptionally usable toy. An example is A 208 mile drive, 3.3 hours with some regular traffic can be cut down to a 130 nautical mile straight line distance at 85 knots (published cruise speed), completed in 1.5 hours. With only a short process to get the plane in the air from an airport, any drive longer than an hour can be shortened by this plane, while still having a car at your destination. I estimate about 10 minutes at the airport on either end of your flight for pre/post flight duties and inspections. The benefits are huge when looking at coastal areas. Hopping islands in this would be an incredible experience, or flying somewhere where no good interstates exist, or over mountains. Going between places like CT/NJ is a hassle due to the city, but flying between the two cuts the travel time by 2/3rds (and no traffic). I am obviously very fortunate to even consider something like this attainable, but as you said the aviation world defines expensive very differently. For a few thousand of us, this is a true dream
This is the thing, It's an Ultralight + that takes itself to the airfield. It's use case is mostly just going to be "Go up and fly". and unlike an Icon A5, you don't need to tow it.
great that you're the ideal customer but you're a bit of a unicorn - you benefit from the unique advantages (hangar in your home garage, acts as car after landing) and not the disadvantages (must be an accomplished and current pilot to operate a compromised ultralight design safely, cost vs regular ultralight/gyro)
@@mzaite Yep! quick hour flight to another town for dinner, or hop across to a small island and enjoy the beaches for a day, with a car on either side!
If this is successful I'd be tempted to actually follow through on getting my civil aviation license and start looking for a house in an airpark. I installed drapes in a home like that and the ability to roll out of the garage right onto the runway was very appealing. The downside would it being harder to share with another pilot since it could conceivably be an every-day car.
@@RoamingAdhocrat The point of stuff like this is the Ideal customer. As he said in the video, there’s 7 Billion people in the world so it’s just about finding the thousand or so who specifically want this thing.
So glad to see a 924 on your channel. The whole entire reason I know you is because you used to have your moms old 944, and I used to see you post in the 944 Facebook forums all the time. It’s amazing how far your channel has come.
The carbon/carbon brakes (rotor and pads are the same material) have been standard on F1 cars for a long time. They are VERY expensive, but handle extreme heat better than pretty much anything else.
Before Saturn was making production cars, they were sticking the new Saturn engines in various competitors cars to give their engines some road time without alerting the world to them being out on the road. I remember seeing about six of them in a small area in Powertrain where they were parked.
maturing is realising flying cars are incredibly dangerous and incredibly impractical. thank god im still so immature lets freaking goooo this looks so cool. the engineering behind it must truly have been a marvel
I wonder if it is because it is a transaxle equipped car, its easier to adapt instead of designing an adapter plate to mount it to a car with a normal transmission. I doubt that particular rotax engine was designed to be mounted to any sort transmission.
I took some flying lessons in 1984-1985, using Piper Cherokees. Their engines (Lycoming O-320) run at low RPM; the highest speed you’d ever use was only in the mid to upper 2000’s. The Rotax 912 includes a reduction gearbox for normal fixed-wing aircraft use, thus its higher RPM. I have no idea if they keep that gearbox in the PAL-V, but I’d guess not.
I took some flying lessons in 1984-1985, using Piper Cherokees. Their engines (Lycoming O-320) run at low RPM; the highest speed you’d ever use was only in the mid to upper 2000’s. Running at high RPM is not an intrinsic feature of aircraft engines. It depends on the specific design you’re using.
An earlier commenter remarked that that these Rotax engines are run through a gearbox to the prop on aircraft that use them. I imagine that you could pick whatever ratio you needed for the prop's output RPM?
@@stephen1r2 I think I was that commenter, or at least i said the same thing in another thread. As to being able to pick the ratio for a specific aircraft, I have no idea; you’d need to ask Rotax, or at least do a deep dive into their website. I found out that they use a gearbox on the 912 by looking on Wikipedia.
Belt drive! That's ... probably okay with 100-ish horsepower. On higher HP applications, V drives (from boats) are another way to turn rotational power 180 degrees, and kind of a "solved problem" engineering wise - you can buy off-the-shelf units for many different power levels. The Rotax powered Porsche is still pretty cool. As for the gyrocopter ... I'll hold off on commenting until it's for sale in the US. :)
It's €300 in The Netherlands. After shipping it to a country that uses dollars, you can easily add 10% or so to that price, for shipping, import cost, taxes, maybe recertification, registration, and the international version might be more expensive outright.
That’s about the same price as the cheapest new fixed-wing aircraft today. If you really want the added ability to drive on roads, it’s kind of a bargain.
Aging Wheels videos are simply the best! Robert finds the quirkiest things and shows them off while explaining how they work. What more could you ask from a channel that features weird old vehicles (usually 2-stroke or battery powered) and acts like they are just average ordinary transportation?
A flying car is cool in theory, but in practice I don't see a use for it, because it doesn't replace a car or a plane, and it's not like you can turn your car into a gyrocoptor and fly away if you encounter traffic on the road. So this is at most a quirky toy for a millionaire.
I can see it working if you need to travel to another nearby city and want to have a car to get around at your destination. Why you couldn't get a rental car? I don't know
@@josh9673 The advantage is the convenience. That advantage disappears when you have 400k to drop on a vehicle. Because then you also have 400k to drop on flights and personal drivers, and those are way more convenient.
You're looking at it wrong. Say you had a gyrocopter. Can it drive itself to an airfield or from it? No, it can not, you'd need a truck. Can you take a gyrocopter to get you somewhere within the city? No, you can not, but this will take you where you need it. it will go to any destination without the need to be chased by a ground crew on a truck. Also a trickle of military background semi-interest with evaluation orders without any intention of making it an actual deployed equipment can sustain a small company.
Or, one of those projects that got pitched to some investors fully knowing it's a money pit and a way for someone to make money off of after the project gets cancelled. Or something like that, same thing with solar roadways that always seem to pop up around the world. It always feels like a scam.
If you think this is bizarre you should look into the Moller Skycar Volantor saga. It was (supposed to be) a road-legal wingless flying car powered by four ducted fans driven by Rotapower rotary engines. Basically a drone, except before drones were a thing. It went through several conceptual iterations and mockups, including one flying saucer, before collapsing in a pile of vapourware.
I think the reason they got the Porsche 924 was probably because its actually one of the cheaper cars in Europe that is RWD and has a big enough engine bay for that kind of swap. right now, on the Europe-wide second hand market I can see there is a roadworthy Porsche 924 with 130,000km selling for 2k euros, so for a Porsche with 350,000km I'm gonna assume they got it at scrapyard prices lol
i grew up around the 2 stroke Rotax family when i was a kid (250, 377, 503) in the Ski-Doo line, from the legendary 12 Elan to the 500 Skandik Wide Trak my father owned and i would borrow. They are all now 4 strokes, and my father still buys Skandiks to this day. De Havilland Canada is a division of Bombardier, who s a canadian company (yes, they made these engines in Austria, but they're owned by Bombardier Recreational Products or BRP, started by Joseph Armand Bombardier as many canadian kids learned of in the 90s on TV. PS the BMW F800 motorcycle runs a Rotax powerplant from the Austria factory. Also i know that Bombardier Aerospace is separate, they also owned de Havilland here after Boeing gave it a try after the UK parent folded.
It's cool they added a Doc Brown DeLorean date picker in there, so when you get your hands on some Plutonium, you can also time travel with the thing 😉
Regarding RPM, the Rotax is untypical. Your regular airplane engine of the dinosaur (dinosoar??) type has direct drive and needs to put out its power below 2400 RPM, depending on propeller diameter. This requires huge amounts of displacement. The newer designs like the Rotax do away with this and have a reduction gear.
I think why they chose a Porsche is because of the low and sloping front and hood, ideal for testing out how to cram all those parts in. The end product could also be similar styled.
To me, the benefit of a vehicle like this is you can store it at home and drive it directly to the airport, keeping you from having to rent a hangar for a small plane or helicopter. You're paying the R&D tax for a 1st-gen product but maybe over time they'll become more affordable and actually make personal air travel more achievable for non-multimillionaires.
There have been a *ton* of attempts to convert car engines to airplane service and a handful have even been somewhat successful, but I'm pretty sure that I've never seen an airplane engine converted to car service; this is the first Rotax-powered ground vehicle that I'm aware of, though I'm not (quite) all-knowing. For those that might be interested, airplane engines are most similar to a car racing engine that stays at redline almost its entire lifetime; they are often not impressive from a power-density metric, but they are surprisingly high-performance engines due to their need for absolute reliability while running at or near maximum RPM full-time. Some engines even have short-term, "take-off" RPM limits that must be reduced below a long-term speed limit after getting airborne or after some number of minutes.
There have been a couple cars with aircraft engines- there was a car called Brutus that has a BMW aircraft engine in it, and one of the many cars called The Beast has a Merlin in it. You're right that this is probably the first Rotax-powered ground vehicle, and as far as I can tell it's the first aircraft-engine-powered car that's intended for (eventual) mass production- both Brutus and The Beast were one-off projects done by engineers for fun.
it has been done but usually with either massive engines or turbines for show car and land speed record purposes, aircraft piston engines are designed for leaded gas so its an unnecessary pain in the ass if you're not specifically trying to put something the size of a merlin into a car
Cool! I saw the two prototypes of the PAL-V at the Aurora concours classic/exotic car show in Båstad, here in Sweden, just a few weeks ago. Great to get an in-depth video about it! That was awesome!
They should've used a 912 instead of a 924. The 912 would have been an upgrade in power, and anyone questioning it would be so confused: "Yeah, so we swapped the original 912 engine for a 912 engine. It's an air-cooled flat 4, like the 912 engine, which was an air-cooled flat 4"
Fun fact: this video features a Porsche with an aircraft engine; around the same time that Porsche was selling the 924, there were aircraft being built with Porsche engines!
Oh, a 924. Fun fact: Eusébio, the famous Portuguese football (soccer) player from the 60s and 70s had one, brown. It's now on the collection of a friend of mine. It still has some old photos signed by him on the glove box!
Using an old Porsche for a mule for an air cooled, output shaft forward flat engine makes a ton of sense. Using a water cooled, front engined Porsche seems crazy
So glad to see the PAL-V still progressing. We used the same Rotax 912IS when developing the Terrafugia Transition, and we had similar thinking about road loads...a pothole could possibly destroy it. The first prototype had (long) belt-driven wheels from the Rotax. But that's why we made a whole tri-motor EV powertrain with small battery, so the rotax could run at a constant speed or slowly change to charge the system with a generator bolted between it and the prop. Two motors drove the rear drive wheels. I will forever be upset China killed it just as we were about to merge the powertrains. I really need to post a lot of interesting prototype testing videos....
It seems to me like electric hub-motor wheels would simplify the mechanics quite a bit, though you would then probably need some batteries between the engine(s) and wheels, which might be heavier than the weight saved from the simpler mechanics.
You wouldn't need much battery if you didn't care about hybrid range, might use supercaps for weight savings as a KERS. Then one or two generators for the rotax motors to produce power for the wheel units?
they probably thought of that but the weight of the 2+ electric motors needed (one as a generator on an engine and one to power the wheels, plus wiring) without removing the need to transfer power between the prop and wheels which needs at least some of the transmission components, probably ended up heavier than just letting it mechanically drive the wheels, esp when conversion loss is factored in.
Years ago i drove a Lincoln Town Car that had an altimeter, and depending on where you live it can be useful. In some mountainous places the weather forecast might be for rain until you get above 5,000 feet (or whatever). With an altimeter you know if you are getting close to the snow line. For this vehicle, if they get it into production (and I hope they have great success with it!), for HVAC they could use an electric heat pump like Tesla uses.
It was nice having you here. Thanks again for showing up (good thing I am not socially awkward ey) ;) Very nice to see the end result of your hard work!
When I drive past PAL-V on the A27 highway I always wonder how these things actually work.. And then all of the sudden there is an Aging Wheels video about exactly this! We live in a small world after all..
@@jishcatg Same, but the normal response for super cars is that when someone is willing to pay >$200k for a car, they don't care about the cost of fuel.
@@barongerhardtexcept in this case it's not so much about "how much do I spend on gas?" and more about "can I make it to the next airport for gas without crashing and dying?"
flight range is wildly dependant on payload and wind, but nominal it's about 400km, with the required half an hour reserve. Driving range is stupid high because of the 100l fuel tank, something like 1500-1700km. fuel use while driving therefore is 15km/l in practice, bit more in the cycle.
@@timplett1 As a pilot, that isn't something we worry about. I don't think I have flown anywhere that there wasn't an airport within 40 a normal aircraft has a range of 500-1000 miles. Most of the time I fly half tanks unless the plan needs more. Just like a long road trip, it is nice to stop every few hours for waste disposal and might as well top off if needed. There is no fear of running out. From their site: 1315 km (817 mi) Range 160 km/h (100 mp/h) Max speed
I stayed about 25 minutes drive from there about 12 years ago for a few months, that's an absolutely beautiful part of NL! Really neat to see something interesting like this coming from that area.
I don´t really know why some people think flying car´s are a good idea.. i mean the car itself is not even a good idea to begin with. Anyways great video ! love this Channel !
That would fit in really nicely in his collection. somewhere between the Reliant ant the Trabant. Though it may be a bit to much of an practical car, like the Lada not flawed enough for Robert.
The reason for the 924 is obvious - the transaxle. They dont need to put a gearbox up the front (space wise) so its easier to couple, and it obviously has to be at the back in the PAL-V
it's interesting they went with a gyrocopter design. btw for anyone curious the term Rotorcraft is the broad term including gyrocopters, helicopters, etc
Wicked cool! As a student pilot this type of thing really excites me. The value in my opinion would be in having an aircraft that is able to drive on the road, not so much a car that can fly. When you fly somewhere, unless the airport offers a courtesy car, it's hard to get anywhere but businesses on the airport without having to rent a car. If your plane could drive on the road, that'd make things a whole lot easier.
Are used to live on one side of a river with various whiny roads out. I always thought if I could just get across to the other side I could cut down on some of the roads I have to travel. Almost seems like it would be a good idea for that although just having two vehicles in the boat might not be that bad. But either totally out of my price range anyway. Definitely a fun visit.
For someone that only knows car engines, you are excused. But you did ignore THE MOST GLARING issue with their dual engine design. Aircraft engines have a relatively short Time Between Overhaul (TBO) timeframe. For Rotax 912iS, it is 2000 hours. That means you are legally required to completely tear apart the engine, replace a whole bunch of things and rebuild it, every 2000 hours of run time. (That's on top of regular maintenance. And that's also why they tested the engine for road use for up to 1900 hours). And that makes using only 1 engine for road driving very annoying decision. It wears out the engines unevenly. But also it does save you from "unnecessary" run time and thus the overhaul bill, which is $10-12k. Though to be fair, it's better than aircraft diesel engines, which has Time Between Replacement of about 2000 hours 🤣🤣
Good point, although for part 91 (in the US) TBO maintenance intervals are a manufacturer's recommendation and not a legal requirement. Although I am curious if you could get a multi engine rating waiver for this uh..plane. Overall it seems like a single more powerful engine (maybe the 916?) would have made sense.
2000 hours is not too bad for a specialty vehicle. Let's say you average 50km/h, then you get 100.000km between overhauls excluding your flight hours. Plenty of 300.000 euro cars will never even make it to such odometer readings.
I think most rotax engines are getting way past 2000 hours before overhaul. Obviously inspections are critical, but I can't imagine this being too big of a cost. even if the road engine runs double the hours.
@@mfbfreak except you can't exclude the flight hours... But yeah, if it's treated as a novelty toy instead of a daily commuter, it should last you quite a while.
An aircraft engine in a car it has been done for a long time but this Porche 924 is a test bed for the aircraft they are building it does make perfect sense
(at 14:07) Glad that wasn't just me - "Why would they use a rotary if it's shrouded anyway and doesn't get any airflow? And it doesn't look like any rotary of appreciable size would fit in there, anyway?" I suppose "Mazda" should've been a hint xD
While these are fascinating conceptually, I always remember the _Adam Something_ video about flying cars. People can't drive ordinary cars properly. They already crash into homes and people at just 40kph. I don't want to give them a Z-axis and have them fly over houses at 400kph... Plus if I need to get to another city, I'll just take the train, thanks.
But you, like Adam, are missing the point. This has always been a niche product aimed exclusively at private pilots as a potentially cheaper and more convenient way to enjoy their hobby. They were never intended to be mass market machines.
@@LordSandwichII And also, it's a flying car. Sure, the hobby pilot market is small, but making a viable flying car would sell incredibly well within it. Because flying car.
And you're not the market, and neither is the buzzkill you're paraphrasing. It's a flying car. It's objectively cool. It's not meant to be the next Toyota Corolla. It's meant to be the first viable realization of the dreams of multiple generations of children.
Oof. I'm so embarrassed by the replies on this comment. Perhaps watch Adam's video first before replying with incorrect statements? You guys are so _weird._
Regarding the words used to describe this type of aircraft: *_"Autogyro"_* is a 'standard' name for the type. *_"Gyrocopter"_* is a brand-specific name that was coined by {or at least used by} Russian-American designer Igor Bensen for his homebuilt autogyro designs he sold plans for over the span of a few decades. *_"Gyroplane"_* is a more 'official' term used by the Federal Aviation Administration in the USA. {It might be used as an official designation by other countries as well, I do not know.}
I love the way you do your sponsorships. Absolutely hilarious! Same with the rest of the video. Informative too! Interesting too! Keep up the great work!
My jaw has hit the floor and the only question I have is: "Is it possible for BOTH engines to drive the rear wheels?" Thank you again Mr.Dunn for the fabulously cozy video!
It could be possible but that would add a lot of extra weight and complexity. Also this vehicle is more of a "gyro you can drive" and not a "car you can fly". So we don't really see a need for this
Use code AGINGWHEELS50 to get 50% OFF your first Factor box plus 20% off your next month of orders at bit.ly/3V1yeVj
I happened across a salvage yard with several Autozam AZ-1s.
Factor is ridiculously overpriced and not all that good. You can cook a much better meal for 1/2 the price.
Factor is for people who are fat and cant cook. if you require food, and a good amount every day, avoid factor.
Bro why are you trying to sell us frozen microwave dinner. There must be better sponsors.
I don't even know if they would ship to Germany, where I live, and I honestly don't care, as I likely wouldn't order it anyway.
But I have to say your sponsor segments are so hilarious that I never skip them (which I usually do on other channels).
Especially when Robert talks to Bob about the product until they realize that they are in a video, I even go back and watch it again. 😂
Robert is slowly turning into an automotive Tom Scott. I approve. Keep those quirky cars coming.
What a perfect description. I love it!
You're insulting Robert IMHO 😅
@@_rlb tom scott is amazing, how on earth is that an insult?
automotive tom scott... actually a really good description..
Yeah, that makes sense! That's why I love this channel even though I don't give a shit about cars :D
Doug DeMuro: I don't travel to Europe to review cars
Robert Dunn:
He went to Europe to review a Caricopter
Doug would spend 30 minutes caterwauling and crying about the visible screw heads in this car. 🤣
@@Oddman1980 Doug may be a nice person, which I can't judge as I don't know him personally. But I just can't watch Doug, the way he acts in his videos grates my nerves after the first 10 seconds. On the other hand, I am binge watching this channel here... 🤣
Dunn gets it uh done?
@@Oddman1980 And he'd mention the prototype being *a flying caahr* literally every sentence he says
As one of the people who worked on this project: we chose the 924 because it has its gearbox in the back, it meant we had a lot of space in the engine bay to add the beltdrive and other bits. It was also relatively cheap.
Do you know why a 5 speed sequential was selected instead of a CVT? It seems like a well matched CVT would permit the engine to operate mostly in the RPM range it was designed for.
@@FirstNameLastName-tp5bu Perhaps because one was easily available for the Porsche. In Europe, you have emissions standards that get stricter for newer vehicles, and it's not just getting lower emissions, but getting them type-certified, and that costs a lot of money.
@@jammi__ Also, European road safety certification bodies can be really strict about such extensive modifications. I don't know about the Netherlands but here in Germany engine swaps are basically not a thing. Maybe that also had something to do with it.
@@RoonMian Safety and emissions are from the year the car was first registered, so if it's a 1970s car, there are no emission standards to match. Cars from the 2000s or newer are almost unmodifiable, but then again cars from the early 1900s can be modified in almost any way, but they're very rare and more valuable when as original as possible. The remaining 1970s cars are kind of a sweet spot in that regard, and 1980s and 1990s car to a lesser extent. Cars after 1996 need the original OBD-II system in place, so any possible engine replacements are to EV or a original parallel model with a different engine, along with its OBD-II ECU.
@@FirstNameLastName-tp5bu didn't he say they just used the original transaxle?
I would humbly submit that is not a _flying car,_ but rather a _roadable aircraft._
Great video, Robert...👍
I was just thinking that this is the gyrocopter that you don't need a trailer (or keep in storage at the airport) to own. You can drive it to fly and then drive home and put in the garage. That sounds actually kind-of-handy if that 300-400K euro price tag isn't 3x or 4x a normal gyro.
I'd go so far as to say that it is both: it is fully road legal and achieves highway speeds.
Seconding this, as the term "flying car" gives the wrong impression. The whole point of this vehicle is a light aircraft that can be driven on public roads and stored in your garage, avoiding hangar fees, allowing the vehicle to be operated on conventional pump gas and as a result significantly reducing aircraft ownership costs. But when people think of a "flying car" they typically think of a VTOL aircraft that can be used in the same ways as a car, and either romanticize the idea or immediately start listing the impracticalities and safety concerns of such a vehicle.
@@VestedUTuber it is more than a roadable aircraft. The "car" bit shows quite some engineering.
@@daszieher
I mean, for it to actually be convenient for the owner, you'd at least want the car side of things to be decently drivable. Also, when it comes to weight reduction and aerodynamics, a decent amount of that overlaps.
Another interesting note about the engine: despite being an aviation engine, where the default gasoline is 100LL low-lead (!) avgas (was already mentioned once in the Robinson R44 video), it is designed to run on automotive gasoline, making it even more appropriate for this application. It would be pretty inconvenient to drive to the airport every time you want to refuel! Also, using leaded fuel seems like an auto-fail on any automotive emissions test xD
Yep! As you said the rotax can just use normal mogas, pretty awesome perk.
G100UL ( unleaded av gas ) has been approved by most engine manufactures for use in general aviation piston engines.
Driving to the airport sucks, but actually you could fly to the airport so
Isn't it legal pretty much everywhere to even drive a car running on leaded gasoline?
@@jwalster9412legal to drive, possibly. Will it make it through an annual inspection without failing on emissions because of it? Probably not.
Ah yes, the attitude gauge, for when you need to tell how sassy the car is getting with you.
If you think about it, it's the same thing. It's all about which way the nose is pointing, whether it's up or down.
Audi and BMW drivers need a gauge like that, but for knowing how sassy they themselves are getting with other drivers.
sometimes it's called an Angle of Attack sensor, which helps you determine which direction the car is attacking from
@@thany3 What's the point of the gauge that will be maxed out all the time?
Funny enough, that display actually *is* for attitude, not altitude. It's an artificial horizon, and it shows you whether you're pitched up or down, whether your wings are level or banked, etc.
It often does include an altimeter, but it primarily is for attitude.
That Porsche makes sense because the transmission is in the back, makes the reverse mounting of the engine work as well.
And Alfa transaxle cars probably wouldn't fit the ROTAX. Among other reasons relating to reliability and rust, probably. :)
I don't know why they didn't just cut out the back and put the engine there, as that's where it is and probably will Always be in the final car.
Or even better, just get a rear engine car.
@@jwalster9412 they probably had their reasons and tons of prototypes they tried out before landing on that Porsche
@@AtomSquirrel or it was cheap and available and would work, why not ? it's a fun car
@@MarkTinbergthat's how it went. We got a good deal on the car and being transaxle helped a lot
"Let's do a rev match downshift in front of this huge line of traffic" One car passes. 😂
Slight issue, that IS a huge line of traffic where that is.
Sir, whether you know it or not, you put out some of the most charming, entertaining, pleasing content on TH-cam. Thank you very much for all you do.
Neat. A quick google told me that non-car gyrocopters cost between $50k and $100k USD.
Thanks! You saved thousands of people countless minutes looking that up themselves!
When I saw all the carbon I was like "Yep, that's at least 150k"
@@CaptHoborg Who pissed in your cheerios?
@@WowCreativeUsernameamazing, your reddit rotted brain doesn't recognize sincerity anymore
If you put the effort in you can build one for this less.
I'm so glad Robert is starting to travel to Europe. There are so many hidden gems of weird, whacky, goofy cars out there.
It should be eastern Europe though. That's where you find the best weird.
@@tarstarkuszJust like their hi-fi.
He should drive The Beast, a 27 litre V12 Spitfire Engine powered car. He'd be so out of his element. 🤣
@@jameslaidler2152 I don't know about hi-fi, but their radios, boom boxes and TVs are awesome.
@@AxeGaijin the Beast is cool but to tame, he should ask the Sinsheim Museums Guys if he can Drive Brutus, which has a 47L Engine
5:15 to quote Doc Brown: "The way I see it, if you're going to build a time machine into a car, why not do it with some style?"
I'm almost dissapointed you didn't title this "I got to drive a prototype for a flying car!!!" (including the excessive exclamations)
It was considered, but that would be suuuch clickbait
@@agingwheelsRespect
how are your comments from a day ago
@@dumbhumor Early access with patreon
@@gannas42ohh thanks
Flying cars expressly work in those incredibly weird "airport towns" where the main road is a landing strip, and everyone's garage is a personal hangar.
Ya. I used to have a customer that lived in one near Aurora, Or. Such a cool community.
Yet another person missing the point of this type of vehicle. Maybe if TH-camrs would stop calling them "flying cars" and start calling them "roadable aircraft", those misconceptions will go away.
This was never intended to be a flying replacement to a car, it's meant to be a more affordable (in terms of yearly costs) alternative to a conventional light aircraft.
And whether you're joking or not, the whole "flying car" thing is still a massive misconception.
@@VestedUTuber Well it's a misconception based on like...60 years of people wanting flying cars? The reason I say that the airport towns are where this makes the most sense, is because that's true. It literally serves all the necessary purposes for people living in neighborhoods like that. If you don't live there, why have a bad car that's a bad plane when you can have a good car and a good plane?
Also the main reason flying cars will never happen is because drunk and distracted drivers exist. Imagine 4,000 9/11s every day lmao.
@@FearlessLeader2001
"If you don't live there, why have a bad car that's a bad plane when you can have a good car and a good plane?"
Because 1. said "bad plane" is still functional as a plane and 2. for some people it's the only way they can afford a plane in the long run. Hangar and fuel costs are expensive. Ultralights are another alternative but the problem with them is that you basically need to be in a rural area to use them, due to FAA restrictions on airspace usage.
@@VestedUTuber Yeah, so you're still talking about a ridiculously niche buyer base, even more niche than what I specified. Especially since it's not a good car in the slightest, so anyone who couldn't afford a plane and hangar fees would STILL need a 2nd car. It's not a particularly diverse market of people that appeals to.
My dad once almost bought a used Rotax aircraft engine to swap into our Trabant. That would've been fun I imagine
Not that it matters, but that's not a compass, it's a horizontal situation indicator. The difference is that a compass is magnetic, while an HSI is driven by a gyro.
Normally I'd be inclined to correct the video somehow upon finding out I said something wrong, but this time being wrong is funnier
*zips up anorak*
@@agingwheels not that it matters but some of the modern gyros are electromagnetic, no moving parts :)
"Achkrually!"
I love how interesting I find this little piece of pedantry. I'm glad you commented!
This is a dream car/plane for me. I love flying, and fly airliners for a living, and small aircraft for fun. The main downside of small aircraft is that, when you land at your destination, you still need a car. Some places you can get away with walking, but airports are usually a good bit away from where you actually want to go. Renting a car or using uber adds another expense on an already expensive hobby, and really adds a lot of associated "work".
Another advantage is the lack of hangar requirements. Hangars are hard to find, expensive, and often you can't rent one at the nearest airport to you. $600/month adds up quickly, and this plane could be parked in your garage. Over 10 years, that really could offset the cost between this and a traditional gyroplane.
So what's the use case? It's always a toy, but it's an exceptionally usable toy. An example is A 208 mile drive, 3.3 hours with some regular traffic can be cut down to a 130 nautical mile straight line distance at 85 knots (published cruise speed), completed in 1.5 hours. With only a short process to get the plane in the air from an airport, any drive longer than an hour can be shortened by this plane, while still having a car at your destination. I estimate about 10 minutes at the airport on either end of your flight for pre/post flight duties and inspections.
The benefits are huge when looking at coastal areas. Hopping islands in this would be an incredible experience, or flying somewhere where no good interstates exist, or over mountains. Going between places like CT/NJ is a hassle due to the city, but flying between the two cuts the travel time by 2/3rds (and no traffic).
I am obviously very fortunate to even consider something like this attainable, but as you said the aviation world defines expensive very differently. For a few thousand of us, this is a true dream
This is the thing, It's an Ultralight + that takes itself to the airfield. It's use case is mostly just going to be "Go up and fly". and unlike an Icon A5, you don't need to tow it.
great that you're the ideal customer but you're a bit of a unicorn - you benefit from the unique advantages (hangar in your home garage, acts as car after landing) and not the disadvantages (must be an accomplished and current pilot to operate a compromised ultralight design safely, cost vs regular ultralight/gyro)
@@mzaite Yep! quick hour flight to another town for dinner, or hop across to a small island and enjoy the beaches for a day, with a car on either side!
If this is successful I'd be tempted to actually follow through on getting my civil aviation license and start looking for a house in an airpark. I installed drapes in a home like that and the ability to roll out of the garage right onto the runway was very appealing. The downside would it being harder to share with another pilot since it could conceivably be an every-day car.
@@RoamingAdhocrat The point of stuff like this is the Ideal customer. As he said in the video, there’s 7 Billion people in the world so it’s just about finding the thousand or so who specifically want this thing.
So glad to see a 924 on your channel. The whole entire reason I know you is because you used to have your moms old 944, and I used to see you post in the 944 Facebook forums all the time.
It’s amazing how far your channel has come.
If there was ever a use for a CVT transmission, this is it.
or a Generator->motor setup; aka sequential hybrid. That way the engine can stay loaded mostly at a single RPM
The carbon/carbon brakes (rotor and pads are the same material) have been standard on F1 cars for a long time. They are VERY expensive, but handle extreme heat better than pretty much anything else.
While I will never be a customer of this company, I love that stuff like this exists. And I love the video you made about it. Thank you!
Cool to see you visit the Netherlands. Hope you enjoyed your time in our little country.
5:11 Love the censorship with the floor mat there.
Before Saturn was making production cars, they were sticking the new Saturn engines in various competitors cars to give their engines some road time without alerting the world to them being out on the road. I remember seeing about six of them in a small area in Powertrain where they were parked.
maturing is realising flying cars are incredibly dangerous and incredibly impractical. thank god im still so immature lets freaking goooo this looks so cool. the engineering behind it must truly have been a marvel
I wonder if it is because it is a transaxle equipped car, its easier to adapt instead of designing an adapter plate to mount it to a car with a normal transmission. I doubt that particular rotax engine was designed to be mounted to any sort transmission.
Came to comment the same. The torque tube is probably easier to mate to than a conventional bell housing.
I took some flying lessons in 1984-1985, using Piper Cherokees. Their engines (Lycoming O-320) run at low RPM; the highest speed you’d ever use was only in the mid to upper 2000’s. The Rotax 912 includes a reduction gearbox for normal fixed-wing aircraft use, thus its higher RPM. I have no idea if they keep that gearbox in the PAL-V, but I’d guess not.
Why not electric? Ha ha😊
That's exactly why we chose a 924. It also had the advantage of having a very roomy engine bay and was pretty cheap to buy.
I took some flying lessons in 1984-1985, using Piper Cherokees. Their engines (Lycoming O-320) run at low RPM; the highest speed you’d ever use was only in the mid to upper 2000’s. Running at high RPM is not an intrinsic feature of aircraft engines. It depends on the specific design you’re using.
An earlier commenter remarked that that these Rotax engines are run through a gearbox to the prop on aircraft that use them. I imagine that you could pick whatever ratio you needed for the prop's output RPM?
@@stephen1r2 I think I was that commenter, or at least i said the same thing in another thread. As to being able to pick the ratio for a specific aircraft, I have no idea; you’d need to ask Rotax, or at least do a deep dive into their website. I found out that they use a gearbox on the 912 by looking on Wikipedia.
Belt drive! That's ... probably okay with 100-ish horsepower. On higher HP applications, V drives (from boats) are another way to turn rotational power 180 degrees, and kind of a "solved problem" engineering wise - you can buy off-the-shelf units for many different power levels. The Rotax powered Porsche is still pretty cool.
As for the gyrocopter ... I'll hold off on commenting until it's for sale in the US. :)
$300k for such a crazy esoteric vehicle doesnt even sound THAT BAD
Hell, you can hardly get a house in the slums for less than that these days.
It's €300 in The Netherlands. After shipping it to a country that uses dollars, you can easily add 10% or so to that price, for shipping, import cost, taxes, maybe recertification, registration, and the international version might be more expensive outright.
@@thany3 if you're spending $300k on something like this, you really don't care
That’s about the same price as the cheapest new fixed-wing aircraft today. If you really want the added ability to drive on roads, it’s kind of a bargain.
latest price i have seen for these is $600k so idk how they expect to hit that target.
Aging Wheels videos are simply the best! Robert finds the quirkiest things and shows them off while explaining how they work. What more could you ask from a channel that features weird old vehicles (usually 2-stroke or battery powered) and acts like they are just average ordinary transportation?
A flying car is cool in theory, but in practice I don't see a use for it, because it doesn't replace a car or a plane, and it's not like you can turn your car into a gyrocoptor and fly away if you encounter traffic on the road. So this is at most a quirky toy for a millionaire.
I can see it working if you need to travel to another nearby city and want to have a car to get around at your destination. Why you couldn't get a rental car? I don't know
@@josh9673 The advantage is the convenience. That advantage disappears when you have 400k to drop on a vehicle. Because then you also have 400k to drop on flights and personal drivers, and those are way more convenient.
LA traffic, there's your use
You're looking at it wrong. Say you had a gyrocopter. Can it drive itself to an airfield or from it? No, it can not, you'd need a truck. Can you take a gyrocopter to get you somewhere within the city? No, you can not, but this will take you where you need it. it will go to any destination without the need to be chased by a ground crew on a truck.
Also a trickle of military background semi-interest with evaluation orders without any intention of making it an actual deployed equipment can sustain a small company.
Or, one of those projects that got pitched to some investors fully knowing it's a money pit and a way for someone to make money off of after the project gets cancelled. Or something like that, same thing with solar roadways that always seem to pop up around the world. It always feels like a scam.
If you think this is bizarre you should look into the Moller Skycar Volantor saga. It was (supposed to be) a road-legal wingless flying car powered by four ducted fans driven by Rotapower rotary engines. Basically a drone, except before drones were a thing. It went through several conceptual iterations and mockups, including one flying saucer, before collapsing in a pile of vapourware.
I think the reason they got the Porsche 924 was probably because its actually one of the cheaper cars in Europe that is RWD and has a big enough engine bay for that kind of swap. right now, on the Europe-wide second hand market I can see there is a roadworthy Porsche 924 with 130,000km selling for 2k euros, so for a Porsche with 350,000km I'm gonna assume they got it at scrapyard prices lol
9:07 Well, that is certainly not a helicopter, so you weren't wrong there
Stuff like this is absolutely absurd, and I love it.
i grew up around the 2 stroke Rotax family when i was a kid (250, 377, 503) in the Ski-Doo line, from the legendary 12 Elan to the 500 Skandik Wide Trak my father owned and i would borrow. They are all now 4 strokes, and my father still buys Skandiks to this day. De Havilland Canada is a division of Bombardier, who s a canadian company (yes, they made these engines in Austria, but they're owned by Bombardier Recreational Products or BRP, started by Joseph Armand Bombardier as many canadian kids learned of in the 90s on TV.
PS the BMW F800 motorcycle runs a Rotax powerplant from the Austria factory. Also i know that Bombardier Aerospace is separate, they also owned de Havilland here after Boeing gave it a try after the UK parent folded.
It's cool they added a Doc Brown DeLorean date picker in there, so when you get your hands on some Plutonium, you can also time travel with the thing 😉
Regarding RPM, the Rotax is untypical. Your regular airplane engine of the dinosaur (dinosoar??) type has direct drive and needs to put out its power below 2400 RPM, depending on propeller diameter. This requires huge amounts of displacement. The newer designs like the Rotax do away with this and have a reduction gear.
I started watching this channel when a trabant engine was rebuilt and now I'm watching a globe trotter review future tech. Love it.
0:01: Yes there are plenty of rural roads like that in Europe. 😬
Perfect for a rally course
I think why they chose a Porsche is because of the low and sloping front and hood, ideal for testing out how to cram all those parts in. The end product could also be similar styled.
To me, the benefit of a vehicle like this is you can store it at home and drive it directly to the airport, keeping you from having to rent a hangar for a small plane or helicopter. You're paying the R&D tax for a 1st-gen product but maybe over time they'll become more affordable and actually make personal air travel more achievable for non-multimillionaires.
Or at the least make Sport Pilot a bit more manageable than needing a tow rig or a Hangar.
If you can afford this thing, does the cost of a hanger space matter to you?
@@JorenMathews which is why I specifically mentioned over time they’ll maybe become more affordable then it’ll matter. Maybe read first.
@@JorenMathews It's not necessarily the cost of hanger space, it's being able to get any. A lot of airports have multi-year waiting lists for space.
@@JorenMathews Yes, because cost is only half the battle. Availability is the bigger issue, and why the hangars are so overpriced.
Always fun to see youtubers I like visiting the postage stamp sized country I call home.
There have been a *ton* of attempts to convert car engines to airplane service and a handful have even been somewhat successful, but I'm pretty sure that I've never seen an airplane engine converted to car service; this is the first Rotax-powered ground vehicle that I'm aware of, though I'm not (quite) all-knowing.
For those that might be interested, airplane engines are most similar to a car racing engine that stays at redline almost its entire lifetime; they are often not impressive from a power-density metric, but they are surprisingly high-performance engines due to their need for absolute reliability while running at or near maximum RPM full-time. Some engines even have short-term, "take-off" RPM limits that must be reduced below a long-term speed limit after getting airborne or after some number of minutes.
Rotax makes a bunch of engines for Side by sides, motorbikes, and jetskis. Basically rotax makes engines for fun stuff.
Every single F1 driver at the moment started their career in a Rotax powered kart.
There have been a couple cars with aircraft engines- there was a car called Brutus that has a BMW aircraft engine in it, and one of the many cars called The Beast has a Merlin in it. You're right that this is probably the first Rotax-powered ground vehicle, and as far as I can tell it's the first aircraft-engine-powered car that's intended for (eventual) mass production- both Brutus and The Beast were one-off projects done by engineers for fun.
it has been done but usually with either massive engines or turbines for show car and land speed record purposes, aircraft piston engines are designed for leaded gas so its an unnecessary pain in the ass if you're not specifically trying to put something the size of a merlin into a car
Cam am Cycles use Rotax engines
Cool! I saw the two prototypes of the PAL-V at the Aurora concours classic/exotic car show in Båstad, here in Sweden, just a few weeks ago. Great to get an in-depth video about it! That was awesome!
They should've used a 912 instead of a 924. The 912 would have been an upgrade in power, and anyone questioning it would be so confused: "Yeah, so we swapped the original 912 engine for a 912 engine. It's an air-cooled flat 4, like the 912 engine, which was an air-cooled flat 4"
my uncle owns a 924. they have a special place in my heart. i grew up seeing one all the time
Fun fact: this video features a Porsche with an aircraft engine; around the same time that Porsche was selling the 924, there were aircraft being built with Porsche engines!
Oh I knew there was some aircraft connection back then. Thanks for reminding me!
This gives a new meaning to a car that wants to fly off of the road
Output shaft towards the front, and they make aircraft? NOBODY TELL SAAB!
That indicator stalk is used in the w202 and w210, straight wires coming out of it and very easy to mount
Oh, a 924. Fun fact: Eusébio, the famous Portuguese football (soccer) player from the 60s and 70s had one, brown. It's now on the collection of a friend of mine. It still has some old photos signed by him on the glove box!
Using an old Porsche for a mule for an air cooled, output shaft forward flat engine makes a ton of sense. Using a water cooled, front engined Porsche seems crazy
As someone who watched M.A.S.K. growing up, I am all for this!
So glad to see the PAL-V still progressing. We used the same Rotax 912IS when developing the Terrafugia Transition, and we had similar thinking about road loads...a pothole could possibly destroy it. The first prototype had (long) belt-driven wheels from the Rotax. But that's why we made a whole tri-motor EV powertrain with small battery, so the rotax could run at a constant speed or slowly change to charge the system with a generator bolted between it and the prop. Two motors drove the rear drive wheels. I will forever be upset China killed it just as we were about to merge the powertrains. I really need to post a lot of interesting prototype testing videos....
Watch out Doug DeMuro! Vibes of "THIIIIS" in the video. The quirks and features on this puppy are also out of this world.
Imagine going all these years without understanding how a gyrocopter works. You explained it in like two sentences and my mind is blown. Thank you!
The factor ad was really funny. I watched it twice and laughed both times.
Was fun meeting you and having a chat. Great video 😁
It seems to me like electric hub-motor wheels would simplify the mechanics quite a bit, though you would then probably need some batteries between the engine(s) and wheels, which might be heavier than the weight saved from the simpler mechanics.
You wouldn't need much battery if you didn't care about hybrid range, might use supercaps for weight savings as a KERS. Then one or two generators for the rotax motors to produce power for the wheel units?
they probably thought of that but the weight of the 2+ electric motors needed (one as a generator on an engine and one to power the wheels, plus wiring) without removing the need to transfer power between the prop and wheels which needs at least some of the transmission components, probably ended up heavier than just letting it mechanically drive the wheels, esp when conversion loss is factored in.
Years ago i drove a Lincoln Town Car that had an altimeter, and depending on where you live it can be useful. In some mountainous places the weather forecast might be for rain until you get above 5,000 feet (or whatever). With an altimeter you know if you are getting close to the snow line.
For this vehicle, if they get it into production (and I hope they have great success with it!), for HVAC they could use an electric heat pump like Tesla uses.
It also helped to know when you needed to adjust the fuel mixture.
That's going to be an interesting object to insure....
It was nice having you here. Thanks again for showing up (good thing I am not socially awkward ey) ;) Very nice to see the end result of your hard work!
Whaaat you were in the Netherlands?!
When I drive past PAL-V on the A27 highway I always wonder how these things actually work.. And then all of the sudden there is an Aging Wheels video about exactly this! We live in a small world after all..
In my home town... and I didn't know it.. 😞
Your ad reads for Factor always crack me up. I talk to myself too, but sadly I don’t get paid to do so.
Wouldn't be my country if there wasn't a big traffic jam in the background. :) Really cool you're making a bit of a Europe tour! :)
And he has a Dutch name....
@@flexairz Yes, however, Dutch names are available around the world actually. :)
I kept thinking of Alaskan travel, where they need to fly into half of the places. Hopefully it's stable enough for this and has the range.
I’m curious about the flight range of flying cars. I can’t imagine it’d be that far
I want to know the range for flying and driving, as well as the MPG/KPL.
@@jishcatg Same, but the normal response for super cars is that when someone is willing to pay >$200k for a car, they don't care about the cost of fuel.
@@barongerhardtexcept in this case it's not so much about "how much do I spend on gas?" and more about "can I make it to the next airport for gas without crashing and dying?"
flight range is wildly dependant on payload and wind, but nominal it's about 400km, with the required half an hour reserve. Driving range is stupid high because of the 100l fuel tank, something like 1500-1700km. fuel use while driving therefore is 15km/l in practice, bit more in the cycle.
@@timplett1 As a pilot, that isn't something we worry about. I don't think I have flown anywhere that there wasn't an airport within 40 a normal aircraft has a range of 500-1000 miles. Most of the time I fly half tanks unless the plan needs more. Just like a long road trip, it is nice to stop every few hours for waste disposal and might as well top off if needed. There is no fear of running out.
From their site:
1315 km (817 mi) Range
160 km/h (100 mp/h) Max speed
I stayed about 25 minutes drive from there about 12 years ago for a few months, that's an absolutely beautiful part of NL! Really neat to see something interesting like this coming from that area.
I'm favoured, $50K every week! I can now give back to the locals in my communitv and also support God's work and the church.God bless
America
A lot of people still make massive profit from the crypto market, all you really need is a relevant information and some professional advice.
You trade also?, I
No I don't trade on my own anymore, I always required help and assistance
From my personal financial advisor
..
She interacts on whats- App
I don´t really know why some people think flying car´s are a good idea.. i mean the car itself is not even a good idea to begin with.
Anyways great video ! love this Channel !
Since you were in the Netherlands, did you finally pick up a Daf? 😊
That would fit in really nicely in his collection. somewhere between the Reliant ant the Trabant.
Though it may be a bit to much of an practical car, like the Lada not flawed enough for Robert.
The reason for the 924 is obvious - the transaxle. They dont need to put a gearbox up the front (space wise) so its easier to couple, and it obviously has to be at the back in the PAL-V
This looks like something out of Robot Cantina.
it's interesting they went with a gyrocopter design. btw for anyone curious the term Rotorcraft is the broad term including gyrocopters, helicopters, etc
Wicked cool! As a student pilot this type of thing really excites me. The value in my opinion would be in having an aircraft that is able to drive on the road, not so much a car that can fly. When you fly somewhere, unless the airport offers a courtesy car, it's hard to get anywhere but businesses on the airport without having to rent a car. If your plane could drive on the road, that'd make things a whole lot easier.
"By the way, I work for a flying car company" -- Way to bury the lede!
Welkom in ons kleine landje, Robbert.
Don't forget to visit the DAF museum in Eindhoven, lots of quirky cars. You'll love it.
This is why the M.A.S.K movie needs to come to fruition.
Flying cars cars are cool, but I'd settle for a T-Bob type robot companion I could ride like a scooter. Oh, and a spectrum helmet.
Are used to live on one side of a river with various whiny roads out. I always thought if I could just get across to the other side I could cut down on some of the roads I have to travel. Almost seems like it would be a good idea for that although just having two vehicles in the boat might not be that bad. But either totally out of my price range anyway. Definitely a fun visit.
better purchase than a CyberTruck
True, but so is buying reactor 4 of the Chernobyl power plant.
And it looks far more stylish.
Well, the Cybertruck can't fly.
Glad you enjoyed your visit to the Netherlands. I hope you will make more trips across the pond.
For someone that only knows car engines, you are excused. But you did ignore THE MOST GLARING issue with their dual engine design. Aircraft engines have a relatively short Time Between Overhaul (TBO) timeframe. For Rotax 912iS, it is 2000 hours. That means you are legally required to completely tear apart the engine, replace a whole bunch of things and rebuild it, every 2000 hours of run time. (That's on top of regular maintenance. And that's also why they tested the engine for road use for up to 1900 hours). And that makes using only 1 engine for road driving very annoying decision. It wears out the engines unevenly. But also it does save you from "unnecessary" run time and thus the overhaul bill, which is $10-12k. Though to be fair, it's better than aircraft diesel engines, which has Time Between Replacement of about 2000 hours 🤣🤣
Good point, although for part 91 (in the US) TBO maintenance intervals are a manufacturer's recommendation and not a legal requirement. Although I am curious if you could get a multi engine rating waiver for this uh..plane. Overall it seems like a single more powerful engine (maybe the 916?) would have made sense.
2000 hours is not too bad for a specialty vehicle. Let's say you average 50km/h, then you get 100.000km between overhauls excluding your flight hours. Plenty of 300.000 euro cars will never even make it to such odometer readings.
I think most rotax engines are getting way past 2000 hours before overhaul. Obviously inspections are critical, but I can't imagine this being too big of a cost. even if the road engine runs double the hours.
@@BrentLandrum Good point. I guess it's more strictly applied when in commercial use.
@@mfbfreak except you can't exclude the flight hours... But yeah, if it's treated as a novelty toy instead of a daily commuter, it should last you quite a while.
An aircraft engine in a car it has been done for a long time but this Porche 924 is a test bed for the aircraft they are building it does make perfect sense
Briefly got very confused when you said the first prototype had a rotary engine, as with aircraft that is a VERY different kind if engine
(at 14:07)
Glad that wasn't just me - "Why would they use a rotary if it's shrouded anyway and doesn't get any airflow? And it doesn't look like any rotary of appreciable size would fit in there, anyway?" I suppose "Mazda" should've been a hint xD
Your sponsor segments are genuinely hilarious and I never skip them, in fact I look forward to them
300-400k? At that point just buy a 250-350k airplane and a used s-class to drive to the airport with. Cool engineering though.
You need a second, third etc car at every destination airport though
8:24 "Lifts the suspension into flight mode" - I think you could also call that "putting the landing gear down".
While these are fascinating conceptually, I always remember the _Adam Something_ video about flying cars.
People can't drive ordinary cars properly. They already crash into homes and people at just 40kph. I don't want to give them a Z-axis and have them fly over houses at 400kph...
Plus if I need to get to another city, I'll just take the train, thanks.
17:09
But you, like Adam, are missing the point. This has always been a niche product aimed exclusively at private pilots as a potentially cheaper and more convenient way to enjoy their hobby. They were never intended to be mass market machines.
@@LordSandwichII And also, it's a flying car. Sure, the hobby pilot market is small, but making a viable flying car would sell incredibly well within it.
Because flying car.
And you're not the market, and neither is the buzzkill you're paraphrasing.
It's a flying car.
It's objectively cool.
It's not meant to be the next Toyota Corolla. It's meant to be the first viable realization of the dreams of multiple generations of children.
Oof. I'm so embarrassed by the replies on this comment. Perhaps watch Adam's video first before replying with incorrect statements? You guys are so _weird._
You always post interesting videos Robert. Thanks so much for what you do to entertain your viewers.
I think this aircraft much too complicated and expensive 🙄🙄
Air cooled boxer engines are best engines! Any old VW will tell you this!
Robert in holland?!?!?! shame you didnt do a meetup id love to say hi to you
Raamsdonkveer is in the Netherlands, but not in Holland.
@@FrietjeOorlog you must be fun at party's
@@TheUberdude14 Parties. Yeah I'm a hoot.
Regarding the words used to describe this type of aircraft:
*_"Autogyro"_* is a 'standard' name for the type.
*_"Gyrocopter"_* is a brand-specific name that was coined by {or at least used by} Russian-American designer Igor Bensen for his homebuilt autogyro designs he sold plans for over the span of a few decades.
*_"Gyroplane"_* is a more 'official' term used by the Federal Aviation Administration in the USA. {It might be used as an official designation by other countries as well, I do not know.}
I love the way you do your sponsorships. Absolutely hilarious! Same with the rest of the video. Informative too! Interesting too! Keep up the great work!
I NEVER watch the sponsor add - EXCEPT for your videos. So well done. I watch them.
My jaw has hit the floor and the only question I have is: "Is it possible for BOTH engines to drive the rear wheels?" Thank you again Mr.Dunn for the fabulously cozy video!
It could be possible but that would add a lot of extra weight and complexity. Also this vehicle is more of a "gyro you can drive" and not a "car you can fly". So we don't really see a need for this
That is really cool! I agree I wouldn't have a use case for it, but the engineering is super cool.
The Dutch are great people, I loved my time living there twice.
Awesome! I hope you had/have a good time in the Netherlands! If you have time, visit the DAF museum. I bet you would love those tiny cars!