Swiss Man Flies With Jet Powered Wing

NotBornYesterday writes "After spending $190,000 and 'countless hours' building a set of jet-powered wings, a Swiss man has successfully demoed this ultimate mother-of-all-toys. After jumping from a plane like a skydiver, he then lit the four jet engines and proceeded to fly around a valley in the Alps at up to 186 miles per hour. His site is here, if you want to see shots of him in action. 'I still haven't used the full potential,' he said."

OFN?

[Anonymous Coward]

This news is AT LEAST several months old!

Here are some youtube clips of him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-66AcTo9TU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEXxkWXncuo

Re:OFN?

[vtscott]

To be fair, the yahoo article is dated today. I'm guessing that this is "new news" because it was the first public demonstration:

A Swiss pilot strapped on a jet-powered wing and leaped from a plane Wednesday for the first public demonstration of the homemade device, turning figure eights and soaring high above the Alps.

Those videos likely came from private practice runs. Now it seems they're confident enough with the device that they'll do live public demos.

The slashdot zeitgeist.

[argent]

Man, you just don't get the slashdot zeitgeist. Old news is an essential part of the whole experience.

PS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fLOgMQon7c [youtube.com]

Re:

[zobier]

Rocket Bird is awesome!

<span style="voice-accent: 'eastern european'"> I like flying<span>

Re:

[argent]

I liked his "fuel tanks", too. Puncture one of those in flight, have your jet fuel soaking down your leg from a bladder belted to your belly towards a running jet engine strapped to your foot... great balls of fire!

Re:

[Missing_dc]

I understand the sado and the necro bit, but why are you dragging bestiality into it?

Would not the correct term be "Equine Necrosadism"?

At no point in beating a dead horse should your zipper drop.

sicko.

Re:

[argent]

At no point in beating a dead horse should your zipper drop.

Slashdot would be a kinder and gentler place if more people kept that in mind.

Re:OFN?

[at_slashdot]

That's nothing, I'm pretty sure that I've seen Wile E. Coyote using such a product designed by Acme long time ago...

Re:

[DeeQ]

This news was about the successful use of the product. IIRC Wile E. Coyote was not very successful with many products.

Re:OFN?

[zippthorne]

This guy's been jumping out of planes with jet-powered wings for *years*.. to the point that the big story over a year ago was that the army was considering developing one to give air-dropped troops more flexibility. Supposedly the wings can hold like 200 lbs worth of gear in addition to the "pilot."

It'll be news again when he finally achieves his goal of taking off with just the wing. Not jumping out of a plane.

Re:OFN?

[Scrameustache]

This guy's been jumping out of planes with jet-powered wings for *years*.. to the point that the big story over a year ago was that the army was considering developing one to give air-dropped troops more flexibility. Supposedly the wings can hold like 200 lbs worth of gear in addition to the "pilot."

It'll be news again when he finally achieves his goal of taking off with just the wing. Not jumping out of a plane.

I'm thinking "SEAL-dropping UAVs", dropped from a bigger plane, flies a ways into enemy territory, drops the daring soldier, and flies back undetected (ideally).

Re:OFN?

[MrMr]

If I were considering dropping large mammals from a bigger plane I would not use a seal but I'd use a sperm whale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsK6aRuSBIc [youtube.com]

or a bowl of petunias.

Re:OFN?

[TapeCutter]

You would definitely need a plane since it's infinitely improbable a whale should just spontaneously appear several miles above the suface of the planet.

Re:OFN?

[rarel]

Oh no, not again...

Re:OFN?

[Hal_Porter]

You know, if you replaced the pilot with remote control system, it could carry GBU-39s. Or even something smaller, like the size of RPG warheads. The idea is that you launch loads of these things from B52s and they would swarm over a combat zone killing tanks and sending video feeds back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb [wikipedia.org]

Re:OFN?

[4D6963]

Oh that gives me an idea! What about we give bombs small wings and jet engines so they could reach from like 20 miles away a target much faster than a plane!? I propose we call these new type of jet-powered bombs "missiles".

Re:OFN?

[Hal_Porter]

A cruise missile costs $1m. JDAMs cost $40000. I don't know what SDBs cost, but it should be less than a JDAM.

The plane to drop them costs much more ($137m for an F-22) and if it gets shot down the pilot can be effectively held hostage to try to influence public opinion back in the US. Seems like a light weight, semi disposable way to drop bombs on people would be cheap and would avoid hostage situations with POWs.

In fact you could could lose a whole squadron for less than a cost of one F-22. They'd be quite stealthy due to their size and low altitude, but they don't need to be. Sheer numbers would overwhelm enemy air defenses.

Re:OFN?

[4D6963]

The plane to drop them costs much more ($137m for an F-22) and if it gets shot down

And when's the last time a F-22 got shot down? Matter of fact a F-22 is probably less visible on a radar than this jet-packish thing we're talking about. You know what's the difference between a missile and that thing? Missiles can be launched from an airplane from 25 miles away (I'm not even talking about ground-ground missiles which can have any range you may need), and they cruise at a speed usually between Mach 2 and 4 (iirc). That thing probably wouldn't reach 200 knots if it tried so you could shoot it down with any heat-seaking missile or even anti-aircraft gun.

There's a reason why missiles cost the price they cost. Same for pretty much anything in the Air Force.

Re:OFN?

[nbert]

Who the fuck keeps modding up these moronic "This is old news!!!" posts from AC's.

Yes, they are boring, but someone has to state the obvious and there's nothing wrong about imforming everyone about prior coverage in the media.

It might have been the first official flight, but I can recall at least 3 TV "infotainment" shows (non-US) covering this in recent years. Afterall it's just the economy of the mass media industry: Some major media agency publishes this and every news source copies it ad nauseam, because the journalists in charge haven't heard of it before or they simply are in need of content. Or they feel that not covering it will make their clientele think that they are not aware of an issue important to their particular target group*.

Two anecdotes: I know someone in the healthcare industry who hired a pr agency to promote his product. They scheduled a press conference in spring. Maybe 5 journalists of unimportant newspapers showed up. However, the press-kit they send to every major news source really paid off: In the silly season (over here that's around July) many newspapers wrote a feature about said product. Some even copied the euphemistic phrases of the press kit: "Breakthrough in hip surgery", "Uncle John can finally walk again" and so on.
On another occasion I wrote to a major energy supplier requesting material about their view on nuclear power. They send me many articles and 2 months later I read one of them again in my favorite newspaper word-by-word (it was about a new generation of nuclear plants somewhere in scandinavia). Both examples show that we have to pay attention to how we read news and who has interest in making it public. It also shows that journalists do not only cover interesting stories, but also copy material because of laziness or cost pressure.

For those reasons I like it when someone shouts "old news" in such discussions. It's a kind reminder that the news isn't newsworthy. And if I haven't heard about it before I can still read on, but I'll take it with a grain of salt.


*Not a problem as long as they mention that it has been covered before.

Re:

[bev_tech_rob]

CNN has posted the video as well on their homepage...

Re:

[mr_mischief]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7402016.stm [bbc.co.uk] (without the trailing slash) will work a little better.

Well...

[BlueStrat]

I for one welcome our new jet-winged Swiss overlord.

Cheers!

Strat

FP?

Re:Well...

[phyruxus]

I hear the Brits developed this technology in the mid-80's, but abandoned it when they could not find a way to make it leak oil.

With apologies to britons and MG lovers everywhere.

Re:Well...

[ozbird]

That's not an oil leak - it's rust-proofing.

Re:

[ColdWetDog]

That's not an oil leak - it's rust-proofing.

What kind of garage floors do you folks have, anyway?

Re:

[BlueStrat]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but c'mon mods! a "-1 Troll" mod?? It wasn't even anti-Swiss fer cryin' out loud!

It was funny *precisely* because everyone knows hows little the Swiss want to be "Overlords" of anything, except maybe neutrality! Oops, there I did it again!

*Sigh*

Oh well..I've got the karma...burn, baby, burn!

Cheers!

Strat

Just don't get too close to the sun

[Anonymous Coward]

This ought to be fun. Might even turn into a sport or extreme recreational activity. But just remember what happened to the last person who got too close the sun ...

Jetpack!

[vecctor]

This is the one time where people could legitimately use the term "jetpack" and then the submitter and TFA choose not to!

Looks very cool.

Re:

[NotBornYesterday]

Sorry, dude. I have no idea what I was thinking. Honestly.

Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The German-built model aircraft engines he currently uses already provide 200 pounds of thrust, enough to allow Rossy and his 120-pound flying suit to climb through the air."

So... he weighs less than 80 pounds?

Re:Wait... what?

[jd]

Well, that depends on the exchange rate at the time.

Re:

[countSudoku()]

It says he's using four engines there in the summary. That's 8,000,000,000lbs of thrust by my calculations! ;)

Re:Wait... what?

[speculatrix]

you really gotta stop using that old Intel Pentium for your math!

Re:

[beav007]

It's either that or Excel 2007...

Re:Wait... what?

[Yvan256]

You work for the RIAA/MPAA, right?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's essentially an airplane, not a rocket. It can climb with less thrust than weight. That's what the wings are for.

Re:Wait... what?

[jshackney]

The ability of an aerospace vehicle to climb is not purely a thrust-to-weight problem. An 18,300 pound Learjet climbs just dandy with a maximum combined thrust of 7,000 pounds.

This is the guy with the wing device and turbines, right? The site is fully slash'd.

Thrust vs mass

[Nicolas MONNET]

Mass is measured in kg
Thrust is measured in N (newtons)

There wouldn't be such confusion if you USians used proper units.

Re:

[A nonymous Coward]

You only need more thrust than weight to climb vertically. After all, a 747 has four engines totaling around 200K pounds of thrust, and a max takeoff weight of around 800K pounds.

On the other hand, if you were attempting some kind of esoteric lame joke, I guess it went whoosh right over me head.

Re:

[Red Flayer]

Let me introduce you to the concepts of aerodynamics, lift, wing shape, etc...
WHOA! What was that? I think that guy just flew right over my head... something did.

I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but...

[StefanJ]

I wonder if these things show up on radar. And how easy they'd be to shoot down. Because they'd make dandy kamikaze weapons.

Re:

[Usquebaugh]

Doubtful they'd show up.

Check out HALO jumps for the use of this thing. Basically, normal plane files up to restricted air space and does a hard turn. Crazy military types bail out and using the momentum from the turn are flung into restricted air space. They then free fall below terrain level before opening chute e.g. into a valley. This means they could probably get further from the departure point. Also they can avoid the sides of the valley which seems to be a problem currently.

What I'm wondering i

Re:

[blhack]

What I'm wondering if these things have a throttle? If so is a landing possible without chute?

I would imagine that without a landing gear of some sort (i don't there there are TOO many people that can run as fast as that thing needs to go to generate enough lift to stay airborne) it would be only slightly more difficult than landing an F-16 with its nose pointed to the sky and its thrust nozzles laying on the tarmac.

Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but.

[Gabrill]

Not really enough mass to do good damage. Bug splat kamikaze pilots don't really make the same statement as fighter jets, and even 747's plowing through the target.

Re:

[Strange Ranger]

> Not really enough mass to do good damage.
\\ > Supposedly the wings can hold like 200 lbs worth of gear in addition to the "pilot."

Tin foil hat or no, 200 pounds is a lot to work with.
http://www.google.com/search?q=smallest+nuclear+weapons&btnG=Search [google.com]

Re:

[supernova_hq]

Mass?!? Who need mass when you can carry a 200lb BOMB with you?!?

Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but.

[Scrameustache]

I wonder if these things show up on radar. And how easy they'd be to shoot down. Because they'd make dandy kamikaze weapons.

"He's fast, I'll give him that, but one heat seeking missile and he's history. [dvpalumbo.com]"

Re:

[icegreentea]

Depends what he made the wing out of. If it was fiberglass and/or composites, then probably not very well. If it was metal construction (I don't think it is), then it'll show up fine. It flies at like 200mph max I guess, so it reenters the realm of human aimed guns.

Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but.

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

A Cessna would be cheaper. Just take off from an unpopulated area and keep low. Range would also be better, more payload, too.

In other words, no need for the paranoid thoughts.

Famous last words...

[HydraSwitch]

'I still haven't used the full potential,' he said.

Feh.

Definitely famous last words.

they cut off some of the article

[commodoresloat]

The ending in the slashdot summary should read: 'I still haven't used the full potential,' he said, before crashing head first into a mountain."

Re:Famous last words...

[Tablizer]

'I still haven't used the full potential,' he said.

Full Potential == Darwin Award
         

misread it

[B3ryllium]

I initially misread it as "Jet Powered Wang".

Re:misread it

[geekoid]

I'll take two.

Re:

[c6gunner]

I'll take two.

In one orifice?

Definitely famous last words....

Re:

[moderatorrater]

Don't get to excited, those things blow.

Re:

[dreemernj]

Wait, wait...are you selling Penis Mightiers?

Pffft

[geekoid]

That invention is full of holes.

What?

Landing?

[gsfprez]

how exactly does this guy land?

How does he land?

[Nick Driver]

Well... very carefully of course.

Re:

[Deadstick]

With a parachute.

rj

Re:Landing?

[rrohbeck]

With a parachute.

Even though you'd think a pair of rollerblades should be sufficient.

Re:Landing?

[grassy_knoll]

Wiley Coyote [wikipedia.org], is that you?

Re:

[TekPolitik]

how exactly does this guy land?

He cuts the engines and opens a parachute. The more concerning issue is the major bane of jet powered flight - bird hits. At the speed they are talking about, a bird hitting this guy in the head, even with a helmet, stands a good chance of knocking him out. Then you're going to have a dead bird as well as a dead wing-rider.

Re:

[Red Flayer]

The more concerning issue is the major bane of jet powered flight - bird hits. At the speed they are talking about, a bird hitting this guy in the head, even with a helmet, stands a good chance of knocking him out. Then you're going to have a dead bird as well as a dead wing-rider.

Meh... hook up some monitoring systems and have the parachute autodeploy. So he has to get some reconcstructive surgery... big whoop.

The bigger concern, I would think, would be avoiding the amorous attentions of Rodan [wikia.com]. No amoun

Re:

[Scrameustache]

The bigger concern, I would think, would be avoiding the amorous attentions of Rodan [wikia.com]. No amount of plastic surgery is going to help you cope with THAT.

The trick is to get Mothra to keep Rodan in his place.

Speaking of which, have you seen miniature Japanese twin girls anywhere recently?

Re:Landing?

[c6gunner]

At the speed they are talking about, a bird hitting this guy in the head, even with a helmet, stands a good chance of knocking him out. Then you're going to have a dead bird as well as a dead wing-rider.

Naw. You've got the same problem with motorcycles - a buddy of mine had TWO birds hit him almost simultaneously, while he was doing 200+ mph. One nailed him in the head, cracking the face-shield, while the other one turned itself into jello inside the bike's headlight. Not only did it not knock him out, but he even managed to retain control of the bike.

Most birds don't have much weight, and modern helmets are built with some heavy-impact in mind (no pun intended). You'd have to hit a friggin condor to get knocked out.

Re:

[c6gunner]

200+ MPH? That's a quick bike.. Even my GSXR struggles to do this! What is is exactly?

He had a hayabusa ... but it turns out I had a brainfart and spit up some bad math. I was thinking "roughly 260 km/h", and did the conversion to miles all wrong. The corrected figure would be 160+ mph. I believe his bike was capable of doing 200mph (he said he got it up to 315 km/h), but he deffinitely wasn't maxed out when he hit the birds.

Which reminds me, you yanks really need to go metric :)

Re:

[Scrameustache]

The more concerning issue is the major bane of jet powered flight - bird hits. At the speed they are talking about, a bird hitting this guy in the head, even with a helmet, stands a good chance of knocking him out. Then you're going to have a dead bird as well as a dead wing-rider.

Speaking as a biker who recently saw a very bewildered pigeon zoom very close by, I'd say the bane is not restricted to jets.

Re:Landing?

[Yvan256]

I don't know how, but he only does it once.

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Well, they say that any landing you can walk away from is a good one. If you can re-use the aircraft, it's a great one.

Making Sense

[Nom du Keyboard]

at up to 186 miles per hour.

I gather that this number makes some sense in metric.

Re:

[speculatrix]

X mph is approximately X/2 m/s, so 186mph is approx 93m/s, which is pretty quick.

remember, it's not altitude and speed which kill, is the descending rapidly gaining speed and the sudden stop at the end which does!

Re:

[SpinyNorman]

Yep, and Google's your friend for conversions:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=186+miles+per+hour+in+km%2Fhr&btnG=Search [google.com]

Re:Making Sense

[rcw-home]

I gather that this number makes some sense in metric.

Good call - 300 kph = 186.411mph

a nice start

[jollyreaper]

I will not be fully impressed until he can land on his own two feet and take off with little more than a running jump.

Uh oh

[Ihmhi]

Hobgoblin in 3... 2...

That is the coolest thing I've seen all year

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I do have one concern, though: Those turbines don't appear to have any protection in from of them, and the inside ones look like they are in range of his hands (perhaps the photo is lying). I imagine an ex-fighter pilot has his wits about him, but if I was flying it, I'd be worried about losing my fingers in a moment of stupidity and forgetfulness.

My only other concern: When can I buy one?

Re:

[Tablizer]

Those turbines don't appear to have any protection in from of them, and the inside ones look like they are in range of his hands...I'd be worried about losing my fingers in a moment of stupidity and forgetfulness

"I'm the King of the Wor......AAaaaahhhhrrrrgggg!!"
         

ACME Jet Powered Wing Pack

[catdevnull]

Didn't I see Wyle E. Coyote with one of these?

If the Swiss man flew this into a mountain side with a tunnel painted on it, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Cobra!

[csoto]

Cobra Commander had one almost exactly like that. The dude needs a shiny metallic facemask! Cobra always was much cooler than G.I. Joe (except possibly Snake Eyes).

At last, small jet engines

[Animats]

Small jet engines have been an elusive goal for decades. They can be built, but the cost doesn't go down much below bizjet size. That's why general aviation is still piston-powered.

This guy is using four model aircraft jet engines. Probably ones like this. [jetcatusa.com] They're somewhat marginal devices, needing an overhaul every 25 hours. (For aviation jet engines, that number is usually at least 1000 hours.) Good thing he carries a parachute.

Lame.

[sudog]

A guy with a wingsuit strapped jet boots to his feet and flew with them first--without a huge clunky stupid-looking glider thing.

here [youtube.com] go check it out.

Re:It is pretty old

[bev_tech_rob]

Who cares about transportation? It would be FUN!!

Re:It is pretty old

[binarybum]

I do. Have you flown on commercial aircraft recently? I'd rather get tugged behind jet-man on a rope.

Re:

[jd]

Parachutes and paragliders tend to be unpredictable and are not particularly safe, doubly so at speeds exceeding sound or at very low altitudes. It's unclear the designs can be improved much beyond current levels. A more rigid wing might be a viable option under circumstances where parachutes either shouldn't be used or can't be used. As such, they may well be a viable option for emergency transport.

Yes, it's an old story, but it has been a very slow news day. Actually, it's been a very slow news month!

Re:It is pretty old

[Anonymous Coward]

Parachutes and paragliders tend to be unpredictable and are not particularly safe, doubly so at speeds exceeding sound

Please mod up +1 informative. I had no idea that parachutes and paragliders were unsafe when flown at 770 mph.

Re:

[jd]

Oh, there are parachutes that can be used at those speeds - they have some method of allowing air to travel through them, albeit impeded, which is why the Thrust-SSC car was able to use parachutes at speeds exceeding mach 1, and why there is some value in having ejector seats capable of supporting supersonic airspeeds. You will have noticed, of course, that commentators on the Challenger disaster stuck to discussing subsonic parachutes only and essentially classed all supersonic flight as beyond the limits

Re:

[jd]

Ah! This must be why very low-level drops, as used by special forces, are considered bloody dangerous (the chute needs a non-zero time to open), why the rectilinear parachutes are considered more steerable but more prone to entanglement than classical parachutes (which, ergo, means that you can EITHER have predictable steering OR predictable opening, but not both), why the rate of parachute failures on the Thrust-SSC car was unexpectedly high, or why a device invented in 1595 and is intrinsically very simpl

Re:

[c6gunner]

This must be why very low-level drops, as used by special forces, are considered bloody dangerous (the chute needs a non-zero time to open), why the rectilinear parachutes are considered more steerable but more prone to entanglement than classical parachutes (which, ergo, means that you can EITHER have predictable steering OR predictable opening, but not both),

I agree with the parent, you ARE talking out of your arse. How do you define low-level? Base-jumpers regularly jump from office buildings, and they

Re:It is pretty old

[fractoid]

Um... yeah, and base jumping is widely acknowledged to be about the most dangerous thing you can do for fun, bar jumping off office buildings WITHOUT a parachute. Parachutes, rectilinear or otherwise, aren't "quite safe", they're "safer than not having one". There

Certainly, you're a dozen times more likely to die in a car accident than you are from a chute malfunction. That's because you travel in a car every single day whereas a couple of dozen jumps makes you a seasoned skydiver. If you parachuted your way to and from work every morning, I think you just might possibly find that parachuting is higher risk than driving.

Re:

[TheLink]

"You're a dozen times more likely to die in a car accident than you are from a chute malfunction."

I'd say a lot higher than that, since the most likely way he's going to die from a chute malfunction is if a skydiver crash lands on him ;).

Still, base jumpers have a pretty bad death/trip or death/hour rate compared to car travel.

Base jumping is a lot more dangerous than skydiving, which is more dangerous than driving a car.

BUT, skydiving is a lot more fun than being stuck in a traffic jam ;).

Re:

[jd]

Why did the surrealist cross the road?

Orange paper plates.

Re:

[kimvette]

Well, if you lived in your mom's basement and emerged only to get pizza and Mountain Dew, you'd be unaware of major world events too! ;)

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. These are the people who _should_ be reproducing -- the ones who have the balls to explore and take risks to further the ability of humans.

Re:Darwin awards

[somersault]

The problem being that the windchill permanently damaged his balls, so that scuppers that plan!

Okay, okay, so I'm just kidding - I know not the actual condition of his balls.

"Hasn't reached full potential"

[EmbeddedJanitor]

He won't until he kills himself.

Re:

[mrbluze]

but can he get a first post?

Well he would be getting frosty piss at that height.

But I want to know if he can run.. err.. fly.. Linux!

Re:

[Ethanol-fueled]

The guy was dropped from a plane. The car equivalent to that would be to be dropped from a plane to land on a runway as the Bell X-1 [wikipedia.org] did.

Re:

[UncleTogie]

The car equivalent to that would be to be dropped from a plane to land on a runway as the Bell X-1 [wikipedia.org] did.

...actually the car equivalent would be the intro to Heavy Metal... [imdb.com]