On Jun 21, 7:58*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in ...

Part of the problem with PAV is not that people do not want it, but no
one has made anything practical yet.

If someone were to make a PAV that satisfied the criteria outlined by
NASA/CAFE/PAV, there would be tremenous consumer response.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Not from me; and from what I have read on this thread, the possible market
in this newsgroup can be counted on the fingers of one hand. *Of that small
number, you would be the only one willing to spend money--presuming that you
are willing to do so.

Which is why I said what I said in my OP.

Looking at all the links on the web, there is an enormous interest in
PAV's, and a lot of the interest comes from researchers at respected
universities, industry, EAA, DARPA, FAA, DOT, NASA, government-funded
think-tanks, and especially the general public. If a PAV were created
that met the objectives outlined by CAFE, and were low-cost,
automobile, many would buy one.

Many of these interested parties are experienced pilots themselves,
and some of them are highly-respected aeronautical designers who
understand many of the technical problems presented in this thread,
yet they still persist.

Why then, in this group, is there such a resistance to a PAV?

[Also, if anyone knows, is the overall sentiment in r.a.p. toward
PAV's representative of GA pilots as a whole?]

-Le Chaud Lapin-