Jet Pack Runs For Hours On Water

Ponca City, We love you writes "Jet packs have been around for half a century, but there's always been one problem: they run out of fuel in around 30 seconds. Now a German company has taken the standard jet pack design, run a fat yellow hose out the back, and connected it to a small unmanned boat that houses an engine, pump, and fuel tank and sends pressurized water up the hose, where it's shot out by two nozzles just behind the wearer's shoulders. Called the JetLev-Flyer, the design purportedly can reach a height of 15 meters, a speed of 72 kph, and a range of 300 kilometers based on four hours of flying time. A digital fly-by-wire system is used to control the throttle. Future designs may achieve higher altitudes, higher top speeds, and extended range, and even travel below the water's surface. The American manufacturers claim it is 'amazingly easy to learn and operate' and they're taking orders now at $130,000 each."

are you crazy?

[Dunbal]

and a range of 300 kilometers based on four hours of flying time.

      But based on the actual length of the hose, the range is more like 100 feet.

Re:are you crazy?

[GreenTech11]

The boat is towed along behind the jetpack, so the range is correct, if you are only flying above water :)Which limits the practicality in my mind. If however they can engineer them to work underwater, with a longer hose like those used on old diving suits, then I can see this having a purpose, i.e faster descent times and time spent examining shipwrecks etc.

A range of 300 km?

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

I assume this is dragging the boat after you.

What exactly are the advantages over just simply using a boat?

Missing the point of a jet pack.

[Ihlosi]

... that is, not to have any wires or hoses connecting it to something else on the ground or in the air. Duh.

Seriously, these guys take some sort of high-output water pump and call it a jet pack?

Military and coastguard applications

[Kupfernigk]

One of the earliest uses for balloons and large kites was to tow an elevated observer behind a ship. I guess navies will be extremely interested in this. It's much less visible than a helicopter, cheaper, and safer, yet it permits over-the-horizon observation. Think of pirates off Somalia. Currently they can easily see and avoid ships, but fast patrol boats can't see them beyond a few miles. With one of these a small intercept craft can see the pirates, while remaining almost invisible themselves. Think of it as a floating artillery OP and the uses are obvious.

YouTube Video

[Maddog Batty]

YouTube video [youtube.com]

Most people are missing the point of this. It isn't a sensible solution, it is a FUN solution. I would love to have a go.

Re:This is a joke, right?

[MichaelSmith]

So... what's it going to be used for? Rescuing cats from trees along the river?

Basically the same use case as a parasail towed behind a ski boat. They are a lot of fun, actually.

Re:Disappointing.

[Shrike82]

Same for flying cars. Just look at the number of *regular* car accidents. Adding an extra degree of freedom will not exactly lower down that number.

It looked fine in Back to the Future Part 2. How hard could it be? They had floating lane dividers and everything. The only problem I can see is that it will add a whole new dimension to being "double-parked".

Re:Military and coastguard applications

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes no sense at all. Modern military operations would use any number of UAV systems, or aero-foil balloons (which are in fact a type of UAV). All of which are infinitely more practical than this jet pack.

Hell, I've got an RC turbine plane with a 2 megapixel camera in it. It would be easy to launch from a boat, and several orders of magnitude more appropriate for forward observation use. It's faster, flies higher and infinitely more disposable than the jet pack, and human pilot. It's range is largely limited by the radio gear, which can be mitigate a lot with military grade gear.

In short, for less than 2000$ I built a better artillery OP than anything this jetpack can offer.

The only use this jetpack has is Xsports and toys for rich people that like thrill seeking.

Re:A range of 300 km?

[nmg196]

Same goes for water skiing and parascending... The point is, its fun!

Firetruck?

[Tim12s]

Is this going to replace/augment the firetruck with a more flexible and maneuverable rescue platform?

Who says that it needs to be connected to a boat.

Re:YouTube Video

[cdrudge]

I can think of many more ways that would be quite a bit more fun then spending $130k on this. But hey, if you have the money to blow on it, more power to ya.

but...

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least it is compatible with over 70% of the earth's surface

Re:are you crazy?

[ericspinder]

It reminds me of the electric car I invented - the one with the really really long extension cord.

So, you invented the Trolley [wikipedia.org]? Wow, nice to meet you.

Re:are you crazy?

[__aamnbm3774]

yea, because it's safe to skyrocket beneath the waters surface and rise back up. (The Bends) [wikipedia.org]

Re:are you crazy?

[ArcherB]

This seems more of a limit on a jetpack than I'd be willing to accept. I mean, cruising along 100 feet over the ground (Well, the water) is fine until you hit a dock, or accidentally go over land. Then you've got 100 feet of free-fall.

As a bonus, you're almost guaranteed for this thing to ONLY fail when you're NOT over water, eliminating the only chance you have of surviving that big of a fall.

Right! Just like a jet-ski, boat or any other water craft tends to fail when pulled out of the water. Well, except on a jet-ski, you impact the pier at 50 mph whereas with this thing, you your jets fail and you fall on to the pier or bank. There is no mention of how this thing operates when it's pulled out of the water. The jets may die all at once, causing you to free-fall, or the pressure may drop over a few seconds, giving you are much softer landing.

Re:So it doesn't run on water at all?

[Rogerborg]

Yeah, typical kdawson headline: so misleading that you have to read the article to figure out what they're talking about, and 90% of the discussion is focused on either annoyance about or misapprehension of the false kdawson headline. There's a kdawson story below that has a kdawson headline about the odds of finding an Earth-like planet within a few dozen lightyears of Earth, but I'm pretty sure the actual kdawson story is about a new way to bake pastry. With a kdawson headline, why would anyone assume otherwise?

There, fixed that for you.

Re:are you crazy?

[Goaway]

As a bonus, you're almost guaranteed for this thing to ONLY fail when you're NOT over water, eliminating the only chance you have of surviving that big of a fall.

You could just, you know, not try to fly over land.

Since it doesn't work.

Clap on - Clap off

[XB-70]

Clap on: Amazing device that is completely useless.

Clap off: Recession (and reality) checks in. End of extremely useless device.

Re:are you crazy?

[SnarfQuest]

What's the advantage to this, over just riding on a boat? You can get the same results by towing a balloon with a camera attached to it, without risking someones life. The only use I can see for it is for entertainment, like those parachute rides at the beach.

Prior Art

[kidphoton]

So basically you're at the end of an uncontrolled firehose tethered to a boat? Didn't Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin do this?

Re:are you crazy?

[rohan972]

The reality is this 'er' jet pack has no real practical application at all.

The ability to significantly extend visibility on boats too small to have a mast. This can have significant impact on search and rescue operations. It gives some of the visibility without a helicopter or large craft with the rescue potentially being much simpler by pulling someone into a boat.

It doesn't lack utility, it's just that your imagination must be busy doing something else.