Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Idle

Flying Jet-Powered Hoverboard Now a Reality (theverge.com) 93

Posted by EditorDavid from the Green-Goblin-gliders dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flying Jet-Powered Hoverboard Now a Reality More

Flying Jet-Powered Hoverboard Now a Reality

Comments Filter:

  • Still no antigravity hoverboard (Score:4, Funny)

    by ickleberry ( 864871 ) <web@pineapple.vg> on Sunday April 17, 2016 @05:06PM (#51928047) Homepage
    As showcased in BTTF. 2016 tech disappoints.

  • Economics 101 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AchilleTalon ( 540925 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @05:11PM (#51928067) Homepage

    "...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.

    • Problems (Score:5, Insightful)

      by currently_awake ( 1248758 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @06:11PM (#51928293)
      If you hit a micro-burst (sudden change in air speed) you will get blown off and fall to your death. Having a drone deliver your bread would be more convenient. Flying into a house at a hundred miles per hour would hurt. A bird strike would hurt. You think you'll see power lines at that speed? Ensure you have a backup fuel gauge.
    • You can use it to buy bread in the morning, but they wouldn't recommend riding it anywhere near an open flame.

    • 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?"

  • Actual URL (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17, 2016 @05:21PM (#51928095)

    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)

    by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @05:24PM (#51928111)

    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.

    • 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]

      • It's a death trap far more dangerous than helicopter. A helicopter doesn't drop like rock if engine fails

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by OzPeter ( 195038 )

          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.

        • FYI Redundant Systems Design (Score:4, Informative)

          by Press2ToContinue ( 2424598 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @08:29PM (#51928797)

          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."

  • Welcome to the future of America (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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?

  • Roman candle (Score:3)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @05:29PM (#51928127) Journal

    a backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel powers the flying hoverboard's four 250-horsepower turboengines

    Fuck yeah!

  • Far superior to quadrocopters (Score:3)

    by Zibodiz ( 2160038 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @05:34PM (#51928149) Homepage
    Okay, call me crazy, but I imagine that you could build a vehicle body similar to George Jetson's car, and mount it onto a board just slightly larger than that board. The fuel tank could be much larger, and the vehicle would be substantially less 'X-Games', opening it up to a significantly larger potential market. Such a vehicle would blow electric quadrocopter-based personal transport out of the proverbial water.

  • Of course, you could go buy bread on this thing... (Score:5, Informative)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @06:04PM (#51928259) Journal
    ...The only caveat is, no one else should be out at that time, or come closer than 150 feet to you. Jet exhaust of 1000 HP, and a couple of stability thrusters so close to ground will kick up so much of small debris, anything down stream of the jet wash is going to suffer greatly. Foreign object reingestion, got to hand it to the military to come up with three word terms, is a major problem in the Harrier jump jets. Harrier also has a few thrust nozzles for stabilization at low air speeds. Harrier landing has to be excruciatingly precise, and zones cleared of small debris.

  • 1,000 Horsepower? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bartles ( 1198017 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @07:59PM (#51928703)

    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)

      by xQx ( 5744 )

      Agreed!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      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)

      by torkus ( 1133985 )

      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.

      • 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)

    by Opyros ( 1153335 ) on Sunday April 17, 2016 @08:27PM (#51928795) Journal
    This may revolutionize everyday life as much as the Segway did!! Uh, wait a minute—

  • They keep trying to sell those crappy "hoverboards" in the usa....

  • 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.

  • I saw the video. It looks legit. But it eats fuel like campers eat marshmallows. Flight time is mere minutes.

  • you had me at "backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel "

  • 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.

  • 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

  • That functions a lot less like a Back to the Future hoverboard (http://gph.is/14VEqAs) and more like the Green Goblin's glider (http://cdn.instructables.com/F36/11RQ/H994BU7B/F3611RQH994BU7B.LARGE.jpg)

  • 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

  • There's something odd about a "hoverboard" promotion where the promoter's last name translates to "shoe" in Spanish.

  • And it's whisper quiet!

    WHAT?

    I said, it's whisper quiet!

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close