The World's First Commercially Available Jetpack 303
ElectricSteve writes "It's been a long time coming. While Arthur C. Clarke's geosync satellites have taken to space, and James Bond's futuristic mobile technology has become commonplace, still the dream of sustained personal flight has eluded us — until now. At $86,000, the Martin Aircraft jetpack costs about as much as a high-end car, achieves a 30-minute flight time, and is fueled by regular gasoline. A 10% deposit buys you a production slot for 12 months hence." Here's a video of some indoor test flights. This isn't Buck Rogers's jetpack — it's about 5 by 5 feet and weighs more than the average human. You won't be able to commute with it (the FAA has not certified this class of device) so it's recreational only for now.
Mosquito is still a better idea (Score:3, Interesting)
The Mosquito [mosquito.net.nz] still looks like a better idea. It's probably cheaper, and it will autorotate and thus be a lot more survivable if the engine goes out.
On the plus side, The jetpack does look like it would be marginally more easy to set down in say, a supermarket parking lot. It looks easier to fly. There are no rotors exposed which makes it safer in tightly constrained environments; but the other safety factors probably outweigh.
I don't see myself going up in either one; but if it were a choice, I'd go with the little chopper.
All I could think of (Score:4, Interesting)
Was not buck rogers, but the terminator H-K units. Someone is gonna realize, carrying a 200 pound human makes no sense...but strapping on a 100 pounds of .30 cal machine guns and thermal imaging units and a remote control system and youre there.
bulletproofing and some
nah (Score:5, Interesting)
better flight (Score:2, Interesting)
what can go possibly wrong with this
I know if someon decides to put rocke fuel instead of gasoline
jet fuel instead of gasoline
add nitro to increase preformance
this will be interesting how this plays out
Short Ranged (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a proper jetpack! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not a proper jetpack! (Score:3, Interesting)
you'd be better off with a seat, maybe with and instrument panel, and perhaps a windscreen,
A 20G crash cage wouldn't go astray either.
Re:Mosquito is still a better idea (Score:3, Interesting)
FAA Part 103 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.16&idno=14 [gpoaccess.gov] covers the flight privileges for this device.
Generally, don't cause trouble, and don't make a scene. ( Sec. 103.9 No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property.)
Specifically, not allowed to fly in most controlled airspace, not allowed to fly over congested areas (i.e. don't fly where people can see you), can't fly at night, can't fly in instrument conditions.
So, a great sport device, but not so great for commuting.
Re:That's fine but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Flying is dangerous. A sky full of unregulated idiots is even more scary. Luckily the price tag is high, probably to fund the lawyers they will need.
Not really. Flying, when done properly will be -a lot- more safe than driving. With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down. Mix this with the fact that there are no roads (meaning to get to the same place two people can easily take routes miles apart) and you have the ability to reduce, eliminate traffic problems that exist in traditional traffic.
Also, never underestimate the fact of self-preservation, when encountered in a life threatening situation, people tend to do the right thing and move away from danger. People are self-regulating when it comes to life and death.
Re:That's fine but... (Score:1, Interesting)
It's right here: http://terrafugia.com/ and you can make an escrow deposit on one now for delivery starting 2011.
Re:That's fine but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's fine but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bill
Engine failure is the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
This device uses a two-stroke engine as its powerplant. Two-stroke engines are notoriously unreliable. You will get engine failures on these every couple of hundred hours of flying time, and most likely it'll occur when the engine is under load in initial takeoff or landing.
Let's assume that the engine stops at 50 feet.
If the engine dies, this thing will, pretty much instantly, drop like a rock. Assuming a little bit of aerodynamic drag, it would take around 1.8 seconds and terminal velocity would be around 35 mph. In other words, you would splatter yourself over the tarmac like jelly. Ballistic recovery chutes work faster than conventional chutes, but it's still going to take virtually all of those 1.8 seconds even to deploy the chute, let alone achieve significant retardation. The only solution would be something like emergency rockets to lift the pack (and user) to sufficient altitude to deploy the recovery chute safely.
Would you fly something that will need you to use the last-ditch "ejector seat" system every couple of hundred flying hours?
This is nothing but a very early prototype. (Score:3, Interesting)
They are having surely huge issues with it's stability and control. I'm also sure it's not generating enough thrust. In all videos they show, two man are holding the device down, pretending that it's because of safety concerns. Bullshit. If they let it go, it'll go crazy and crash into the ground. There's only ONE video of the thing flying by itself, and it's INDOORS (Yeah, no wind at all), it doesn't go higher than half a meter off the ground, it doesn't move at all (It just floats there, and then it rotates on it's own axis), and the flight only lasts 30 seconds. The other video that shows the thing flying in outdoors (not fully outdoors, it's a backyard, well protected against wind), the camera is carefully positioned on the helmet, so that whatever is holding it still, can't be seen. There's no video from other points, only the on-helmet camera. And the video only lasts 10 seconds. And it's cut off mid-flight.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Re:Engine failure is the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Horse feathers. Two-stroke engines have few moving parts; no valves or oil pump. As a class, and other factors being equal, they are inherently much more reliable than 4-stroke engines. There have been many cheap 2-stroke engines with miserable reliability, but for $86,000 I will bet this one is flight rated, and a different story. Cargo ship builders and operators do not seem to think that 2-stroke diesels are unreliable. The preponderance of both bet their business on them.
This particular engine (FTFA) is rated at 100 hours TBO. As long as you overhaul it every 100 hours (that's around 200-600 flights), it is supposed to remain reliable.
An internal combustion engine is highly unlikely to lose most of its power within a couple of seconds with no advance warning. There is a finite chance it could throw a rod or something and jerk almost instantly to a stop, but it's quite a remote chance.