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."
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
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:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
It brings to mind the Ogden Nash rhyme:
A child does not have to be very clever
to realise that "soon" means "never".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! It's "not" amusing to make "fun" of quotation marks. They even have their own "blog [blogspot.com]!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
I'd feel sufficiently menaced by villains flying in on those things as to call them "practical" in the super-villainy market.
Of course they'd have to come in black... and a laser beam would be a nice option.
Not shark (Score:3, Funny)
He's from NZ after all.
Anyway it doesn't look very practical at all - the two guys hardly ever let go of the thing.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
IMHO it's "very practical", in the sense that how practical can strapping your ass to a 200-hp gas engine with two washing machine-sized rotors really be?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HY7V7UPdfjQ [youtube.com]
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
They get around the whole 'jet' naming problem by saying that 'This thing flies on a jet of air'. Yep, and I love my home latpop computer, it's so super... so it's a supercomputer.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Never gonna mod you up, never gonna mod you down, never gonna spurn your posts or
Jet Packs Are Still Hype! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
There's a BIG difference bwteen holding it a few inches off the ground as a demonstration, and not being able to go a few inches off the ground.
Wait, are you the the old guy from the muppet show balcony?
Re:Jet Packs Are Still Hype! (Score:5, Informative)
It barely gets off the ground too though
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but on this thread I get to say, Oshkosh? B'Gosh !!
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.
Not necessarily (Score:3, Informative)
The old style peroxide jetpacks don't require fly by wire control because just like this one they have the centre of gravity BELOW the exhausts so the pilot is effectively dangling down beneath. All that would happen if he let go of the controls is that it would probably weave around a bit at random but its unlikely to go upside down or completely out of control.
Coolest Desire left to mankind? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ride a bike from the tip of france to the most eastern point of russia.
Any reason you want to start in France and not Spain or Portugal? If you're going that far you may as well do it properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, something for my Flying Car (Score:5, Funny)
Excellent, now my mechanic will be available to get to my flying car (which is also coming "soon") no matter where it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, a real superhero emerges (Score:2)
You hear a voice resounding off the local buildings
" Here I come to save the day!! "
(of course it would require modulating the sound produced by the rotors to act as a giant megaphone to be heard anywhere near this thing)
I for one... (Score:4, Funny)
... welcome our hearing-impaired jetpack flying overlords.
My news is far more important! (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, so it's not so much an android as a small two foot tall robot.
And by 'robot'.. I mean a cat wearing a cardboard box.
------------------ See! I can make my inventions sound grandiose by making things up, too!
Re: (Score:2)
Ok that's funny, but it got me to thinking. Why bother with artificial intelligence when we can just wire cat brains into machinery? I mean, cats are free, right? Seems like it'd save a lot of time and expense.
I'm sure they'll figure out how to prevent sapient assault droids from climbing the drapes.
Re: (Score:2)
It chases the cleaning crew?
Wow...
Why hasn't someone made a movie about this??
Re:My news is far more important! (Score:4, Funny)
We kan haz pitchers, or DO NOT BELEEV!
Didn't the myth busters try to make one and failed (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't the myth busters try to make one and failed at it?
Re:Didn't the myth busters try to make one and fai (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, the mythbusters fail to reproduce a lot of things, even when they know before hand it's not really a myth but actual fact.
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:Didn't the myth busters try to make one and fai (Score:2, Informative)
Yes. Couldn't lift itself off the ground, let along a 180lb pilot.
That said, they also added a lot of structural integrity (mass) before the first flight, that they possibly could have done after first flight to check the limits.
Protection from Pedantry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: We've submitted this to Slashdot, and wish to head off the Legion of Pedantry and the Battalion of Righteous Verbiage before they cause the discussion to degenerate into useless babble that doesn't help us get VC funding.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually looks more like the old Cobra "Trouble Bubble" from the mid80's than a proper jet pack.
I Read TFA ... And Lawled (Score:5, Funny)
In June 1997, seven weeks after the birth of his second child, Mr. Martin figured his prototype was now powerful enough to lift its first flier, so long as that person weighed less than 130 pounds. So he turned to his wife. "I said, 'Hey, Vanessa, what are you doing tonight?"
Mrs. Martin agreed to be her husband's levitating guinea pig.
She said she felt, in a way, that she had conquered it - "the taming of it, that's so exciting." It was, she said, "probably the best experience of my life."
Doesn't say a lot about being married to Mr. Martin or Mr. Martin's prowess in the sack, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
It does say a lot for wanting Mr. Martin to sell these.
Re:I Read TFA ... And Lawled (Score:5, Funny)
Never know, she could have joined the 3-feet high club with Mr. Martin ....
Re:I Read TFA ... And Lawled (Score:5, Funny)
Never know, she could have joined the 3-feet high club with Mr. Martin ....
What you mean one jetpack each? I am not sure they are designed for...in flight refueling.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The following would have been better:
In June 1997, seven weeks after the birth of his second child, Mr. Martin figured his prototype was now powerful enough to lift its first flier, so long as that person weighed less than 13 pounds. So he turned to his wife. "I said, 'Hey, Vanessa, where's baby?"
The now ex Mrs. Martin said, "No. I don't think so."
Re: (Score:2)
Pilots' wives think that their husbands treat flying as a sort of substitute for sex.
The big secret, what we really don't want our wives to know, is that sex is really just a substitute for flying.
I don't think it says anything particularly bad about her husband.
Pedantry (Score:4, Funny)
"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.
Certainly one is permitted a bit of license in terminology. In fact, if you really get down to it, Jet Li is not actually a jet either.
Re:Pedantry (Score:4, Funny)
The New York Jets, Joan Jett, Jet The Band, and Jet's Pizza are also not jets. Jet Blue and The Jetsons are under review. Jet Clampett is a misspelling, and Jethro Tull doesn't understand the question.
Are we finished here?
Jet Packs & You (Score:5, Insightful)
The concept of a personal flying machine (e.g. Cars, Bikes, Jet Packs) is two fold at the moment.
1) Energy / Power (inc. Storage & Delivery)
2) Safety
Now I'm going to assume for the sake of this post that we could solve the second one if it was viable to do anyway.
The real kicker is really energy. We need a very rich energy source that is cheap, light, small in volume, and safe.
We can often tick two or three of those boxes but no energy source comes remotely close to hitting all four. Hydrogen for example is light, small in volume, but there are questions over safety and cost.
If we invented some kind of completely safe energy source that had the energy output approaching a nuclear reactor and weighted very little we could be in flying cars within a few years.
But frankly such dreams are far off.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear powered electric rotors!
"But frankly such dreams are far off."
You don't say~
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say such dreams are actually behind us. We've reached the peak of our cheap portable energy. From here it all gets more expensive and more bulky.
Re:Jet Packs & You (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if we coupled the hydrogen with some carbon atoms, made chains that were eight carbons long with a bunch of hydrogens hanging off the carbons. Maybe throw in a bunch of three or four carbon chains with hydrogens hanging off them and mix it all up, come up with a liquid that has a very low boiling point, is easily vaporized or converted into a mist to increase its surface area, with a propensity to combine with the oxygen in the air in that form if ignited by spark (in a highly reactive manner giving
Re:Jet Packs & You (Score:4, Insightful)
"Hydrogen for example is light, small in volume..."
No, actually, that's exactly wrong. Being light by definition means it is NOT "small in volume". It takes a huge volume of H2 in room temperature gas form to store a similar amount of energy to a heavier molecule. The volume problem is why it's a pain to store unless you go to cryogenics, hydrides, or other complicated systems.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why, again, does this need to be something you carry on your back instead of something you step into?
Gyrocopters can be made very small, they can land almost vertically (and in a controlled manner with the engine out), the ones with pre-rotators and collective controls can take off near vertically (the ones that can only do the former need only a few
Re:Jet Packs & You (Score:5, Insightful)
Hydrogen for example is light, small in volume, but there are questions over safety and cost.
Actually, Hydrogen is light, huge in volume, very safe, and inexpensive. There's a reason it was used to fly blimps, you know.
And before someone goes around throwing the hindenburg in everyone's faces, keep in mind that it was painted with rocket fuel, and that more than half the people on board survived the crash. The same cannot be said for your average airplane.
What gets me though, is that in the face of a personal flying machine that flies around in a video, and is capable of doing so for half an hour, you go on about how personal flying machines aren't possible. Flying cars are known as Helicopters, and your average person could likely afford a hot air balloon. Personal flying machines are everywhere - from cessna's to hang gliders. They're just not as ubiquitous as automobiles, nor as practical for getting around.
Re: (Score:2)
With regard to point 2, the presented jetpack is interesting, becuase it's safer the lower you fly - directly opposite to airplanes and helicopters. It may actually have a niche market after all.
Re: (Score:2)
$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:$100k? (Score:4, Funny)
Are you kidding?
First, I'd love to ahve one of these, assuming it worked as promised.
Second,... ah crap, I don't know, I just want one.
Re:$100k? (Score:5, Insightful)
Someobody that is going to buy this isn't to buy it in place of a cessna.... it's an expensive toy, albit a very expensive one.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you misunderstood: You use this thing to get to and from your Cessna. The question is, can your Cessna hold an additional 250 lbs that bulky?
In that case, I'll take two!
Yeah, I think a 172 could carry 250 pounds okay, though it would be noticeably slower. I have to wonder: if you're going to fly your jetpack to the airport, what's the point of having a short-range, slow aircraft? :).
I guess it's kind of like that car that turns into a boat [thedailyshow.com]. It's all for the girlfriends.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to talk impractical, look at the Segway. The thing costs over $5000 (USD), and for what, cause you're too lazy to walk somewhere, or too uncoordinated to ride a bicycle? Why not buy a moped for a hell of a lot cheaper?
This will fall into the same niche market as the Segway.
Re:$100k? (Score:4, Informative)
Unless your driveway is in the sticks, you'll only be able to take off and land this thing there once. After that, the neighbors will have taken out restraining orders preventing you from operating it near them.
There's also this to consider... (Score:2)
You know what else you didnt think of? Considering the cost of a honda civic, and gas mileage, not to mention it has room for 4 comfortably, a great track record of fuel efficiency and reliability, we are forgetting the realization that you are seemingly pretty damn boring as a human.
Re:$100k? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (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 a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent (Score:2)
These will be perfect for my sharks.
Murderer (Score:5, Funny)
My neighbors can't even handle driving SUVs, but the roads are full of them (and the hell they've made of driving among them).
Turning these people into missiles with jetpacks is a great argument for prioritizing personal force field research.
Re:Murderer (Score:4, Funny)
They will only be a problem for a little while. Mistake will weed them out very quickly.
In the mean time, stay indoors.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's a great argument for making these things even more dangerous, and letting natural selection take its course!
Re: (Score:2)
You know what's even more dangerous? Airplanes!
Imagine if these things ever were allowed off the ground. People would be flying into houses all of the time. Time to work on that force field!
</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
If airplanes were as available as these jet packs would be, in expense and licensing, then I'd be saying exactly what you're saying. If I survived long enough to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, I'm sure it will be regulated soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Turning these people into missiles with jetpacks is a great argument for prioritizing personal force field research.
You need a reason to prioritize personal force field research other than personal force fields?!
Jetpack?!? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless I'm mistaken, ground effect would not apply to lift via vectored thrust, as this thingy uses, only to aerodynamic lift via wings. It's essentially the same principle a VTOL jet uses, only on a different scale.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ground effect applies to airplanes, helicopters and of course hovercraft.
I would expect the effect would be much less on this craft given that it has much less surface area than a hovercraft or helicopter.
So yeah, get at least 7 times your width up before you claim free flight (which earlier poster said there are videos of).
Re: (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.
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:Jetpack?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Gasoline?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean... (Score:4, Funny)
Truer words were never spoken (Score:2)
That sentence of the last paragraph sums it up nicely. Technical detail was mostly absent, however, we are informed directly from the horse's mouth that "it simply flies". Thanks for clearing that one up. Not even a video for the visually fixated. Is there no better article on this?
How about (Score:2)
just calling it a microcopter or something and be done with it. It seems to be neither jet nor a pack in any sense of the word(s) :(
It does have landing gear and props pointed up...we used to call those things helicopters....
I suppose the real question is how do you license it/you for use ? I didn't see anything about how one would actually use it other than a toy in your own yard. Oh well 30 minutes flight time still isn't worth dragging it out to get there unless it was straight up anyway.
That's no jetpack... (Score:3, Informative)
Although, having read the article, that may be much more simple than an actual jet-engined jetpack for the time being.
-Aly.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VZ-1_Pawnee [wikipedia.org]
MythBusters (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is... (Score:2)
If the engine dies, so do you.
Nope, there's a backup (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Personal helicopter easier? (Score:2)
Why not just go for the strap-on helicopter [acecraftusa.com] instead of bothering with the ducted fans?
Re: (Score:2)
27 Years VS About a week.
You do the math.