Flying Jet-Powered Hoverboard Now a Reality (theverge.com) 93
Zapata Racing has begun testing prototypes of a new jet-powered hoverboard called the "Flyboard Air". The Verge published a new interview with the company's CEO, who confirms that a backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel powers the flying hoverboard's four 250-horsepower turboengines, with two more engines used for stabilizaton. Capable of flying up to 100 miles per hour, the jet-powered hoverboard uses an internal algorithm to adjust the thrust and angle of each turboengine, so "It's like we have six systems working together plus my brain and my legs." The company hopes to ultimately interest the military and security sectors in the technology, but they're also working on a smaller version that could be piloted while sitting, which the CEO describes as "extremely small, extremely stable, and something that you can take to go and buy your bread in the morning."
Still no antigravity hoverboard (Score:4, Funny)
Economics 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
"...something that you can take to go and buy your bread in the morning."
That makes plenty of sense to burn 10 gallons of kerosene to get a loaf of bread.
Re: Economics 101 (Score:3)
For the adrenaline junkies out there that's not the point. There are folks that would commit suicide if they can't get their next fix. It's hard for the more rationally minded /. audience to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
For the adrenaline junkies out there that's not the point. There are folks that would commit suicide if they can't get their next fix. It's hard for the more rationally minded /. audience to understand.
It's ok. The rationally minded folks just need to get infected with the toxoplasmosis parasite from a house cat. Then they will become adrenaline junkies and cat lovers like the other 30% of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't make wingsuits "safe" either.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether this particular incident is a hoax, the goal is computer-controlled versions which can indeed act like Jetsons stuff, AKA jet-powered big drone type things you can ride.
Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Economics 101 (Score:1)
Re:Economics 101 (Score:4, Funny)
No, no, no. You can use it to buy bread in the morning, but you can toast it on the way home!
OK this did not start out as a pun, but... (Score:2)
That makes plenty of sense to burn 10 gallons of kerosene to get a loaf of bread.
OK this did not start out as a pun, but...
Do we really think that anyone who wants a "hoverboard" gives a flying F*ck about safety?
(The pun is in the "flying" part)
It's a trade-off, and some people: the trade is worth it.
"You can go live on Mars if you never plan on coming back; deeply troubling".
"Uh... yeah... when's boarding again?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't look like a hoax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It a fake, you can tell when some of the shots don't have water flying, and others that do, if not a fake explain why some of the shot have a mist below and others that don't?
Because his height above the water varies. Sometimes he's close enough to kick up mist, sometimes he isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
No, parent poster is right; it's fake. Just watch carefully. I did and noticed way too many incongruous or inconsistent moments. For example there's a moment when you see the hoverboard turn to the right with the pilot on top... the pilot literally doesn't move. It's quite obvious this is a jet-powered quad drone with a mannequin on top. At other times I suspect a crane, and the footage is very carefully cut and cropped to not show it.
Seriously, the video is crap. I am not a pro and I could probably put tog
Re: (Score:2)
Just watch carefully. I did and noticed way too many incongruous or inconsistent moments.
I just watched carefully and didn't notice anything incongruous.
For example there's a moment when you see the hoverboard turn to the right with the pilot on top... the pilot literally doesn't move.
At what timecode? I didn't see any shot were the pilot literally doesn't move. What would you like to do as he flies 20m in the air - wave his arms around, maybe dance a jig?
I'm not sure why everyone's screaming hoax so vociferously. We've had jetpacks since the 60s. This is just a jetpack stuck under someone's feet instead of attached to their back.
Here's another flight, single shot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And possibly the same fligh
Re: (Score:2)
Actual URL (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4... [theverge.com]
URL in posted item has too many hyphens between hoverboard and interview
Only 45 years late (Score:3)
Williams did this with the WASP [youtube.com] in the 1970's. No fancy electronics needed either.
They also tried to sell it to the military, but the military decided that choppers were the go instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Was also going to mention the wasp. The flying pulpit. They have on display at the Boeing museum in Seattle. It amazes me, that the this almost 50 year old machine hasn't been replicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Only 45 years late (Score:2)
It's a death trap far more dangerous than helicopter. A helicopter doesn't drop like rock if engine fails
Re: (Score:2)
It's a potential death trap far more dangerous than helicopter.
FTFY
As far as I know, no-one every died from flying the WASP. And Williams has way more flight time than these people (who brag about flying 275 metres). But these jokers don't seem to know or admit their flying machine history and seem totally enamored with the quad-copter as a platform for personal use.
Likewise this device is also a potential death trap as well. Just flip it upside down and you are screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
and you're an idiot whose not getting any sex, therefore even worse off than a fucking idiot.
FYI Redundant Systems Design (Score:4, Informative)
From TFA:
"the whole system should be able to land if you have one turboreactor fail. So I’m able to stabilize it even if I lost one engine and we had enough thrust to get down and land. If one turboreactor fails it’s fine, because we have four turboreactors, and we can fly with three. And inside the remote we have three different Wi-Fi channels, plus we have three sensors. Everything is threefold, and they speak together, so in case one fails, the two also know which one failed."
Re: FYI Redundant Systems Design (Score:2)
Wi-Fi? They're controlling it via WiFi?
Re: (Score:2)
from your FQ from TFA
"should"
so you're the type to believe marketing spew...
Re: (Score:3)
Welcome to the future of America (Score:1)
If getting in the car to drive 3 minutes to McDonalds - as one does - is getting boring, then why not just fuel up the hoverboard and hover to the store to buy your bread. Forget about saving money by spending a few minutes now and then baking your own bread. The store-bought bread also has all the HFCS and chemical additives you need.
What's next, paying other people to actually bring your breakfast to the door for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you can use the hoverboard exhaust to bake your own bread.
Re: Welcome to the future of America (Score:3)
The store-bought bread also has all the HFCS and chemical additives you need.
I can't believe you left out the best part [naturalnews.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
> Most of the hair used to make L-cysteine is gathered from the floors of barbershops and hair salons in China, by the way.
Oh, bullshit!
You would have me believe that the L-cysteine market is served by sweeping up the cut hair off the floor of Chinese barbershops, rather than say...oohhh, I dunno...the trillions of feathers from the billions of chickens that the US goes through every year?
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, that's OK then.
Human hair, yuck!
Chicken feathers, yummy!
People are weird when you think about it...
Re: (Score:2)
If getting in the car to drive 3 minutes to McDonalds - as one does - is getting boring, then why not just fuel up the hoverboard and hover to the store to buy your bread. Forget about saving money by spending a few minutes now and then baking your own bread. The store-bought bread also has all the HFCS and chemical additives you need.
What's next, paying other people to actually bring your breakfast to the door for you?
next ? :) (But yeah, mostly only in the cities)
Been around for ages, mate
(I was going to provide a link, but realised that in the google app store in Australia alone there's over half a dozen different options)
(p.s. save me editing this later possibly: Am I just low on caffeine and anon above was just being sarcastic?)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.seamless.com/search?orderMethod=delivery&locationMode=DELIVERY&facetSet=umami&pageSize=20&hideHateos&queryText=oatmeal,coffee&latitude=40.71278381&longitude=-74.0059433&countOmittingTimes [seamless.com]
Roman candle (Score:3)
Fuck yeah!
Far superior to quadrocopters (Score:3)
Re:Far superior to quadrocopters (Score:4, Insightful)
You could, yes. But there's still a fundamental problem. Flying demands a great deal of power, which is why drones have such short battery life and why this thing is going to guzzle fuel. It might have a niche as a recreational vehicle for the suitably rich, but the running cost means flight is not a viable means of personal transport. If it were, we'd all be commuting in helicopters - they are already mass-produced, but the running cost is just too high for you to built a helepad on your driveway and avoid the traffic jams.
Re: Far superior to quadrocopters (Score:2)
No it is far inferior, failure means plummeting. Helicopter or quad copter engine failure at least leaves possible controlled descent as option, a chance to survive
Re: Far superior to quadrocopters (Score:2)
Having your center of mass above the lifting part makes for very interesting failure modes... just ask anyone who has tried to ride a unicycle. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Having the center of mass below the lifting part is just as interesting, ask anyone who has tried to make a rocket with the engine at the top [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
A jet-powered hoverboard != a true hoverboard. There, I said it.
How are most traditional "hovercraft" powered?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Why do jets void the description?
Re: (Score:2)
He said "Hoverboard" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] not "Hovercraft", they are not related devices.
Re: (Score:2)
He said "Hoverboard" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] not "Hovercraft", they are not related devices.
And how is a hoverboard not a hovercraft?
I think you'll find they're related quite a lot...
Regardless, hovering is hovering, and there're multiple ways to achieve it:) (Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org])
Of course, you could go buy bread on this thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Of course, you could go buy bread on this thin (Score:2)
The problem isn't the people on the ground. It's the vehicle itself ingesting its own jet wash.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention they'd make so much noise, they'd be banned, well, everywhere.
1,000 Horsepower? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think something is wrong here. It would take nowhere near 1,000 horsepower plus two more engines of unknown output for stabilization to fly a human being. A PT6A turbine engine with 1000,hp output burns .69lb of fuel per horsepower per hour. And it is far more efficient than 6 small turbines. If he was flying on a single 1000hp turbine, he would have burned 50 lbs of fuel in that 4 minute flight. Something doesn't make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed!
Re: (Score:2)
AS in the whole thing is BS and not actually real.
Yeah, it's been debunked on several sites, and one did an analysis of the video and concluded that he is on a wire from the motion profile.
Re: (Score:2)
50 lbs of fuel is ~7 gallons which is reasonable for a backpack fuel bladder.
What's not reasonable, besides the 1000HP, is fitting 4x 250HP turbines into that tiny platform of the claim that they splashing down only required replacing the electronics but not a full overhaul of the 6 turbines. Not to mention the lack of exhaust and the fact that his 'controller' looks an awful lot like a contactless thermometer.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that 7 gallons is semi-reasonable. But look at the video, does it look like he has the equivalent of one and a half 5 gallon buckets strapped to his back? Plus that assumes they are getting the same efficiency as a Pratt and Whitney PT6A-42 Turbine. Which I guarantee they aren't. So call it more like 10 gallons for that 4 minute flight.
Zowie! (Score:5, Insightful)
Still catching on fire due to China Batteries.... (Score:2)
They keep trying to sell those crappy "hoverboards" in the usa....
Im sure the military are looking.... (Score:1)
This is awesome - I hope it does not end up like the segway.
Im sure it can be made to be reliable for commercial / military purposes. This can allow soldiers to jump over any obstacle and attack from any angle- awesome -
What I mean is that, as expensive as it looks, if it can replace some chores currently needing a helicopter it could be competitive. Like electric tower / bridge inspections, rescue in difficult terrain and, of curse, military scouting and attacking.
It's legit, but... (Score:2)
I saw the video. It looks legit. But it eats fuel like campers eat marshmallows. Flight time is mere minutes.
new market for Camelbak (Score:2)
you had me at "backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel "
Not a backpack (Score:2)
Not being a backpack means:
1) You don't burn your legs.
2) It doesn't have to be light enough to carry.
3) You don't have to design so much for the human form.
-------
I do note they didn't tell us how long the flight lasts. The video shows him flying for only about 75 seconds. I bet that's about the maximum amount of time you can go without re-fueling.
internal algorithms! (Score:2)
When I read the headline, I was immediately concerned that they might be using an external algorithm! What a disaster that would be! I was relieved to see that the editor pointed out that they are using an internal algorithm. Whew!
My next worry was .... what if they only used one WiFi channel and one sensor!? That would be horrendous! But then I read TFA and saw a quote from CEO Franky Zapata saying "And inside the remote we have three different Wi-Fi channels, plus we have three sensors". Whew! Anoth
More Suitable for the Green Goblin (Score:2)
My bogosity meter has just pegged (Score:2)
How can the thing in the picture have *four* 250hp engines on it? Where, in a bag of holding?
And then there's how much fuel *four* 250hp engines would burn per minute.
Go 100mph? Have any of you ever stood up in a convertible going 60mph?
Finally, *why* would it need the four engines? I'd be less disbelieving if they said 25hp engines, and 25 mph; with their claims, he crashed because he was out of fuel in five minutes.
mark
Zapata. Really? (Score:1)
There's something odd about a "hoverboard" promotion where the promoter's last name translates to "shoe" in Spanish.
Shhhh. (Score:2)
And it's whisper quiet!
WHAT?
I said, it's whisper quiet!