10294292
story
Comments: 303 + - Technology: The World's First Commercially Available Jetpack on Tuesday March 09, @08:33PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictransportation.gif); width:75px; height:69px;
transportation
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.
Related Stories
Your lucky color has faded.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
That's fine but... (Score:5, Funny)
Where's my god damned flying car?!!
/ Also Duke Nukem Forever. Still waiting here...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If these things go fast enough, why would you actually need a flying car? Everyone could just move with jetpacks.
Re:That's fine but... (Score:5, Funny)
If these things go fast enough, why would you actually need a flying car?
Cup holders
Parent
Re:That's fine but... (Score:4, Funny)
But ... but that's like walking! How should I show off my wealth while walking? Sure, I could put on nice, expensive Italian slippers, but nobody would see that. That fat limo, OTOH...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, hang on...
Re:That's fine but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
This is one of those things that is seemingly announced annually, and never seems to get any closer than a few prototypes.
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's fine but... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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?
Parent
Re:Engine failure is the problem (Score:5, Informative)
From the website:
Rollcage:
Although it is not visually apparent the Martin Jetpack has an internal roll cage. The ducts currently have a carbon kevlar hoop. These are to protect the pilot from side impact. The control arms protect from the front and are designed to snap off in a hard impact, the ducts then further protect the pilot. The structure extends below the level of the spine to prevent injury from a hard landing. In effect the pilot is housed in a protective cocoon by the structure and engine. Further enhancements are planned for impact protection, the goal is to provide impact protection from 30 feet high.
Minimal Avoidance Curve:
Helicopters and other VTOL aircraft normally have an avoidance curve. This is
the height where an impact is not survivable but below which other procedures like "autorotation" are not possible. Currently we think that with good design and correct flying procedures the avoidance curve can be eliminated. This is one of the reasons we feel that the Jetpack will be safer than current "light helicopters".
My 2 cents:
Most engine failures aren't instantaneous in my experience. If you're gaining altitude there is probably only 4 seconds during those hundreds of hours that you would feasibly be in the 'death zone'. I also reject your theory that most failures would take place during the initial climb. Considering the aircraft itself offers 0 lift climbing and hovering would probably be similar engine strain.
Also keep in mind that's a 4 cylinder 2 stroke. I find it unlikely you would encounter an engine problem which would take out the entire engine in mid flight. If a spark plug somehow went out or a single valve failed you would still most likely have enough power to descend safely. If we're talking about something like the fuel pump then that's just as likely to go out while sitting on the tarmac as the first 3 seconds of flight.
Parent
Re: (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 (FTF
Re:Engine failure is the problem (Score:4, Informative)
Let's assume that the engine stops at 50 feet.
For what its worth, helicopters have these same types of failure concerns. Contrary to popular myth, beginning auto rotation generally requires time for the pilot to respond. Furthermore, most helicopters have a critical horizontal speed which must be obtained before enough energy can be maintained in the rotor system to safely auto rotate. As such, there is a critical failure window in all single engine helicopters, during take off, in which auto rotation is all but impossible. Multi-engine helicopters are generally not an issue as worst case they will generally have enough power to safely land in this critical window of time.
Parent
Re:That's fine but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:That's fine but... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't be so quick to generalize there sonny. Lst time I checked you do not need a license to fly an ultralight aircraft in the United States of America. You do not need a medical. You are not even required to undertake any training. You can perfectly legally purchase a Part 103 ultralight aircraft, jump in, and go fly.
You'll probably kill yourself if you did do that, but at least you'd be doing so legally.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On what _possible_ basis do you make this claim? With home jetpacks, (or more likely the jetwings at www.jet-man.com), you open the world to a lot of poorly maintained one-man craft that can drop out of the sky onto _anything_. And while there may be "no roads", there are a relatively limited set of common destinations.
Your belief that "people are self-regulationg when it comes to life and death" is also founded in, I'm sorry to say, complete fantasy. Take a good look at the number of people who smoke, over
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because people are more afraid of risks they can't control. They are *especially* afraid of risks that are in other people's hands.
Pilot error (or driver error if you are driving) wind gusts other drivers.
Everyone believes they are an above average driver.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's fine but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Bill
Parent
Obligatory XKCD (Score:3, Funny)
http://xkcd.com/678/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
related
http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time [valvesoftware.com]
Jet refrigerator maybe? (Score:3, Insightful)
This thing looks more like a Jet Refrigerator or a Jet Stove that you attach to it. The whole beauty of the Jet pack was that it was something you carried with you, perhaps even under your sport coat, then, suddenly, you throw your coat off, ignite your rocket, and you are saved, and probably with a hot chick in your arms.
Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole beauty of the Jet pack was that it was something you carried with you, perhaps even under your sport coat, then, suddenly, you throw your coat off, ignite your rocket, and you are saved, and probably with a hot chick in your arms.
(Hot chick sold separately)
Also this jet pack apparently works with fans instead of jets. Which is probably good news for your front lawn and your calves.
Parent
TBO 100 hours (Score:5, Informative)
That's 100 hours of motor operation before you have to overhaul the engine.
At 30 minutes per flight that is 200 flights.
Still not good for distance or anything more than short hops.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lighten up. If you're willing to pay ~$100k for a flying toy, I'm sure you can pay a mechanic to rebuild it if you can't cope with more than a screwdriver. The engine has been purpose built for the application, but it's nothing overly special, basically just a large-ish motorbike engine.
It has a ballistic parachute for when the shit hits the fan(s). Not much good at low altitude, so you woulnd't want to be hovering about the rooftops for too long, but no light aircraft is overly safe.... I'd imagine th
Re:TBO 100 hours (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on comfort and how it handles. Have you ever BEEN in an ultralight? Or skydiving/parachuting? (I don't mean to closely associate those two, generally you do one or the other, not both at the same time, ho ho he he.)
Actually flying, and looking down on the world below you, and knowing that it really is the ground, and not some sort of BS simulation, is a heck of a thing. The world below that was once almost entirely hidden by facades is all laid out bare before you; you don't see storefronts, you see the entire complex, including the service entrances. You don't see the eight cars directly around you, you see a hundred in a line, some merging in and out of traffic, some carrying onwards. You don't see houses with their trimmed lawns, trying to make themselves look like DISTINGUISHED suburbanites, you just see another prefab lot out of thousands.
With airplanes, if only as a matter of control (and law), you can never drop below several hundred feet. But if, with a jetpack, you could... you could be in both worlds at once--seeing the land below, as you did from the ground, and then the roofs and patterns and skies from above.
If you get caught up in something like that... thirty minutes is nothing. You could spend that thirty minutes just noticing things you'd never seen before in your favorite places--and not just the first time out, but the tenth or more. And then, since you spent thirty minutes flying instead of fifteen out and fifteen back, you'll run out of fuel...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
" You could spend that thirty minutes just noticing things you'd never seen before "
like power lines RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU *ZZERTAARGHH!*
I think there's a reason not to drop below several hundred feet and it'd be good to keep to it ;).
It's in New Zealand and not in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA (Score:5, Informative)
The Hiller Flying Platform was designed in 1955. It was originally an ONR (Office of Naval Research) project to develop a platform capable of carrying one man for short hops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi5QDHKk9AY [youtube.com]
ok, the video's choppy but we speak 1950's goddammit
1997: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-4ygOrgJ4 [youtube.com]
2005: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/11/anderson-based/ [wired.com]
Parent
Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA (Score:5, Funny)
Actually in the US I'm pretty sure they got it finished a few years ago, they just can't figure out where to put the "WARNING! Objects below you may appear more stable than they are!" sticker, the "WARNING! Do not let anyone under the age of 12 ride underneath the rotor blades" sticker and similar important safety informations.
Parent
Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's a very small helicopter. Which is still pretty cool.
Parent
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.
Re: (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 ni
wow, 6 feet off the ground (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it would be bit cooler if it got more than 6 feet off the ground.
TFA says "can reach 8000 ft (estimated)" but none of the picks or videos show that.
Re:wow, 6 feet off the ground (Score:4, Funny)
Probably takes all 30min of flight time to reach 8000ft, which is when you suddenly realise that redundant landing solutions are a great idea :)
Parent
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
Re:All I could think of (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
nah (Score:5, Interesting)
Flight of the Conchords!!! (Score:3, Funny)
They really do fly this time!!
Just listen to the sound track on the training video - even sounds like it was scripted by the show
Repossession (Score:3, Funny)
'Jetpack' my patootie (Score:4, Funny)
That's not a 'jetpack'... it's a VTOL without the jet. And just as noisy... it's a boom box car that breaks wind.
Not a proper jetpack! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
Heck, I don't even really see the point of harnessing to it with straps--- you'd be better off with a seat, maybe with and instrument panel, and perhaps a windscreen, because if you can't carry the thing on your back, what does it matter?
Might as well add wheels to move it about while on ground - and maybe a way to retract them; and then add a bit more fuel capacity for all of the trouble. At its heart is a V-4 engine - might as well upgrade that.
While we're at it, we could even toss on wings and a tail.....
How loud is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having my head 1 meter from a 100+ decibel turbo props for 30 minutes at a time does not sound like a good idea. Crashing in the equivalent of a flying motorcycle (human body moving fast on a structure required to hold a combustion engine) does not sound good for my health either.
It's not a jet pack and it defeats the purpose (Score:3, Informative)
If it's not man portable, it may still be cool, but it defeats the purpose of a jet pack. You may as well strap yourself to the side of a full sized helicopter and fly around like that. For that matter, why not just sit inside the helicopter.
Also it's not a jetpack. The bell jetbelt was a jetpack because it used a WR-19 turbine jet engine. This doesn't. It uses ducted fans which aren't even powered by a gas turbine. There's nothing jet about it.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
I assume you are unaware of the fact that both rocket fuel and jet fuel are essentially kerosene: not something gasoline engines run well on.
Nitromethane, on the other hand, might be interesting. You can be the test pilot, though. I'll watch from the bunker.
But?? (Score:3, Insightful)