Practical Jetpack Available "Soon" 237
Ifandbut was one of several readers to point out the arrival in Oshkosh of the first practical jetpack. It was invented by a New Zealander Glenn Martin, who has been working on the idea for 27 years. He plans to sell the gizmos for somewhere in the neighborhood of $100K. While previous attempts at jetpacks have flown for at most a couple of minutes, Mr. Martin's invention can stay aloft for half an hour. Both "practical" and "jetpack" may need quotation marks, however: The device is huge and it's incredibly noisy. And, "It is also not, to put it bluntly, a jet. 'If you're very pedantic,' Mr. Martin acknowledged, a gasoline-powered piston engine runs the large rotors. Jet Skis, he pointed out, are not jets, and the atmospheric jet stream is not created by engines. 'This thing flies on a jet of air,' he said. Or, more simply, it flies."
Jet Packs Are Still Hype! (Score:2, Interesting)
Needs stability control (Score:5, Interesting)
Lucky the $100k includes a couple of guys to hold it for you!
I suspect he either needs a fly by wire computer that manages stability or a third fan. Either way I think we're a wee way off from a production model.
$100k? (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider the total cost of a private pilot's license is about $10k, and the cost of a used Cessna 172 can be had for about $50k [aso.com] in great condition (which, keep in mind, can carry four people, or 2-3 people with some gear, pretty comfortably), I think that the jetpack would have a hard time selling.
I suppose that there could be some niche market for this sort of thing though...though even a well-equipped Harley costs significantly less than many cars still.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
To be honest, I definitely would be interested in a story titled "Impractical Not-Really-A-Jetpack Maybe Available Sometime" - it's just too odd to pass up. Now be honest: who here wouldn't have thought "What the...?? Lemme see what's this all about."
BTW, I really like the word "pantaloons". But, I am easily amused - even "trousers" makes me smile.
Re:Jetpack?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
In the article it said that the height was limited to allow people to practice at lower altitude. And I think I recall the limit being at 6 feet so far. This statement appears to be about learning to control it at 3 feet before trying to take it 3000 or in the case of the test 500 feet.
There's a good chance soon we'll have a more sensational article about a 500 ft flight soon. Hopefully it won't be part of an obituary.
Re:Jet Packs & You (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:$100k? (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:$100k? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who are these mythical 4 people who fit in a 172? I guess if two of them are small children then yes, but no luggage! :-)
Note that I said, "can carry four people, or 2-3 people with some gear" The jetpack can carry just one person with little to no gear.
A pilot and me in a 172 on a day that is over seventy degrees and the pilot starts thinking about how much fuel he can have and still get off the ground.
Interesting pilot. I used to fly with my housemate who belonged to an aero club. We took Cessna 150s and 152s out, which are a lot less powerful than the 172. He did say that I slowed his plane down a lot (I weighed 200 pounds then :_)), though it wasn't a big deal getting airborne or even that big a deal for pleasure flying, concerning fuel weight. We always topped off the tank before taking off...
I just looked at your link, none of those under $50k planes list engine time.
You should look again. Almost every plane lists engine time since major overhaul as well as total airframe time. Like this one [aso.com], this one [aso.com], this one [aso.com]. Only a small minority do not list time since overhaul...
Anyway I don't think I would ever buy a plane, unless I was starting an aero club or plane cooperative. Aero clubs aren't too expensive (a lot less than buying and maintaining my own aircraft, anyway :)).
Reid
Re:Didn't the myth busters try to make one and fai (Score:5, Interesting)
If I remember the episode correctly, the point of that particular myth wasn't so much whether they could build a working "jetpack," but specifically, if they could do so using some instructions they found on the internet which claimed a person could successfully do so with inexpensive, commonplace parts. What they found was that the instructions were too vague to serve as anything more than guidelines, and even after going over budget to get better quality parts, their machine still had an unacceptable thrust-to-weight ratio and so could not fly with a human passenger.
While they "busted" the feasibility of that particular set of plans, they didn't really attempt to rule out a jetpack altogether. With the resources for proper parts, and the time for proper testing, it's undoubtedly possible to build a working jetpack/rocketbelt/ducted fan harness thing. The issues with personal flight systems have not so much centered around possibility as practicality.
Re:Jetpack?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ground effect applies to airplanes, helicopters and of course hovercraft.
Ands rockets. Lunar module pilots had to either cut their power or throttle right down to land on the moon. Ground effect was significant over the last couple of metres.