Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The World's First Commercially Available Jetpack

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the quieter-in-version-2 dept.

Transportation 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.

cancel ×

303 comments

That's fine but... (4, Funny)

Wizard Drongo (712526) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421538)

Where's my god damned flying car?!!

/ Also Duke Nukem Forever. Still waiting here...

Re:That's fine but... (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421758)

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... (5, Funny)

neight108 (974915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422118)

If these things go fast enough, why would you actually need a flying car?

Cup holders

Re:That's fine but... (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421786)

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.

Re:That's fine but... (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422090)

A sky full of unregulated idiots is even more scary.

I wonder what those regulations would look like.

Re:That's fine but... (4, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422226)

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... (1)

edumacator (910819) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422078)

Where's my god damned flying car?!!

Please, we've had flying cars [wired.com] since the 1930s. Duke Nukem Forever, I can't help you with...

Re:That's fine but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422172)

Coming soon to MTV: "PIMP My Jetpack!"

Obligatory XKCD (2, Funny)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421542)

Re:Obligatory XKCD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421854)

You know that xkcd sucks, right?

Re:Obligatory XKCD (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421982)

Fuck does it ever.

Re:Obligatory XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422000)

best xkcd ever!!!

Jet refrigerator maybe? (3, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421556)

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? (3, Insightful)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421612)

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.

Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421770)

Also this jet pack apparently works with fans instead of jets. Which is probably good news for your front lawn and your calves.

And someones head when you land next to him.

Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421662)

Yeah, in the movies. In real life, they'd probably be used to replace cherry pickers for certain applications.

Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422012)

or in porn.

Re:Jet refrigerator maybe? (1)

Black Sabbath (118110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421912)

> This thing looks more like a Jet Refrigerator or a Jet Stove that you attach to it.

First thoughts? Wile.E.Coyote and the wonderful products from ACME.

TBO 100 hours (5, Informative)

RichMan (8097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421582)

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:TBO 100 hours (1)

cloakedpegasus (1761746) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421708)

I wouldn't expect it to be good for distance. Who would want to fly 2 hours in that thing? As of now I'm sure the majority of people consider it a luxury toy.

Re:TBO 100 hours (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421802)

Oh, but the web page says its easy to maintain, so no doubt that overhall is all done with just a screw driver, right?

Redundant systems too it says.
Two fans. I bet it doesn't fly worth didly squat when one gives out.

Re:TBO 100 hours (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421884)

Redundant systems too it says.
Two fans. I bet it doesn't fly worth didly squat when one gives out.

It doesn't have to fly well with just one... it just has to have enough power/control to let you land safely.

Re:TBO 100 hours (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421944)

Assuming of course you have enough of what passes for rudder to control the asymmetric thrust.

Re:TBO 100 hours (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422024)

Incorrect, it doesn't even need that.

A parachute would be the likely "redundant" option here, like with some ultra-light aircraft.

Re:TBO 100 hours (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421904)

probably tied together. one won't fail(other than blade damage) without the other one failing at the same time.

Re:TBO 100 hours (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421930)

Oh, thanks, I feel much better now.

Re:TBO 100 hours (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422054)

a ballistic parachute [...] which will allow the pilot and jetpack to descend together. It also has an impact-absorbing carriage,

My guess is that the parachute won't work below 30 metres and the landing gear won't help you above ~5 metres. I don't think this is very safe at low altitude. Article also says it has one engine driving both fans. I doubt that autorotation would help at all.

It's in New Zealand and not in the USA (3, Insightful)

cytoman (792326) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421590)

The summary doesn't mention the location...it's in New Zealand. What about US companies developing this kind of stuff? Not happening here?

Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421616)

In the US, they're still liking being the only ones with jet packs. (http://xkcd.com/678/)

Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421670)

Well, you saw how big the jetpack had to be in order to fly a typically slim New Zealander around. Imagine what would be required to heft your typical 200 kg American behemoth into the air. Plus, flying lard just isn't a pretty sight.

You've just got it all wrong (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421956)

We don't want those jetpacks, we want all them snooty rich skinny furriners to have jetpacks, then come over here and start zipping around, laughing at us in their superiority. See, then we have some *outstanding* skeet practice. and after they fall out of the sky all sorts of shot fulla holes and stuff, we get to lift their wallets, take the cash and credit cards, snag the jewelry and head to the pawn shop,etc., and get stuff like new lift kits for our pickups.

You really need to get with the program better...

Re:You've just got it all wrong (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422044)

"... take their cash... "

Now I will admit that the $NZ has been doing well of late, but still, that;s kind of like stealing a kids monopoly money ;)

no problemos (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422116)

well, we figger they done perverted their cash over ta the border, and we find real muriken money. If not, still great sport, good targit shootin!

Not sure on the harvested meat, though, we don't want our hogs gittin sick nor chokin on any of them skinny bones...

Re:no problemos (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422234)

we figger they done perverted their cash over ta the border

You try any preversions in there, and I'll blow your head off!

Well, how would you know??? (1)

zogger (617870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422274)

I never seen you to any of da meetins! Not lately anyway and last time you needed to worsh your hood and robes cleaner. Git some bleach on dem things, get them bluhdstains out! Just tain't respeckable...

Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA (1)

refactored (260886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422110)

Plus, flying lard just isn't a pretty sight

Oh! But you should see it go *SPLAT*!

Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421780)

Our mad scientists are working on technologies with potential military applications.

Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA (1)

refactored (260886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422136)

Our mad scientists are working on technologies with potential military applications.

Our (NZ) [aardvark.co.nz] Mad Scientists are quite Busy [interestingprojects.com] in rather fascinating ways thanks.

Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422240)

Seriously, is that all you've got?

Go back to fucking sheep, you unbathed inbred kiwi.

Better yet, I'll just kick your sister in the jaw, thus severing your Vienna sausage-like pecker.

I always love it when NZ folks think they matter...especially now that they've given up their air force so that their island can now be used as a bombing range for the Aussies and Yanks.

Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA (5, Informative)

frakir (760204) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421810)

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]

Three words (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421592)

I NEED one!!!

Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack (3, Insightful)

thepainguy (1436453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421622)

I'm still waiting for my jet pack (and supersonic flight).

Re:Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack (3, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421676)

No, it's a very small helicopter. Which is still pretty cool.

Re:Technically Speaking it's a Ducted Fan Pack (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422102)

No, he had it right. You'd have to stretch the definition of "helicopter" quite a bit in order to have this qualify. So much, in fact, that under your new classification any aircraft with VTOL capability would also be a helicopter.

Finally--- (1)

citylife (202595) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421632)

This should make the band We Were Promised Jetpacks stop complaining.....

A deal with Paramount? (1)

cormander (1273812) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421654)

Or is it just a coincidence that this jet pack becomes available around the time of Iron Man 2 movie trailers hitting the internet?

Re:A deal with Paramount? (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422036)

you think they planned the movie around the jet pack?

Mosquito is still a better idea (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421658)

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:Mosquito is still a better idea (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422094)

The real question is, are you legally allowed to take off or land in either of these flying machines (the one in TFA or the Mosquito) from just anywhere? (such as your backyard, the parking lot at the shopping center, the flat space near your office building or whatever)

Re:Mosquito is still a better idea (2, Interesting)

FrankSchwab (675585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422186)

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.

/frank

Re:Mosquito is still a better idea (2, Informative)

Cjstone (1144829) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422198)

No. Both of these are registered as ultralight aircraft, which are prohibited from flying over populated areas. In other words, ultralight aircraft are the airborne equivalent of an ATV or a snowmobile, only really useful for recreational purposes.

wow, 6 feet off the ground (2, Insightful)

danlip (737336) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421668)

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 (3, Funny)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422056)

Probably takes all 30min of flight time to reach 8000ft, which is when you suddenly realise that redundant landing solutions are a great idea :)

Re:wow, 6 feet off the ground (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422214)

When your prototype fails its a lot safer at 6 feet than 8000.

All I could think of (3, Interesting)

voss (52565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421678)

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
bulletproofing and some .30 cal machine guns and thermal imaging units and a remote control system and youre there.

Re:All I could think of (4, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421792)

Um...compared to the stuff you're talking about a 200 lb human, even one carrying an M4 and covered in full body kevlar, is a downright bargain in the weight department. Armor, machine guns, imaging, and remote controls? How little do you think that stuff weighs?

Re:All I could think of (1)

Conception (212279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422130)

190lbs. Clearly.

Re:All I could think of (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422178)

Hrmm, lets think, for a few hundred I can get a camera with rf transmitter that weighs about 100g (check out the ones approved for motor-sports), armour is a secondary issue if you can make it cheap enough (and a small self destruct charge for when it does take a hit in hostile areas, to prevent the enemy retrieving munitions).

For aiming, well the thing looks pretty damn stable, might have to work on some firmware mods to make it allow for weapon kick, leading targets, etc.

But throw in one of those metal-storm weapon systems (could double as self destruct, just fire off all rounds or charges simultaneously), and you would have one hell of a suppressing fire machine, could throw out 1 or 100,000 rounds in a matter of seconds, and could also make it rather modular so instead of the gun could mount a 40mm grenade launcher (no, don't bother with anti tank, a tank would drop the thing out of the air so fast your head would spin and predators do a damn good job with those already).

Re:All I could think of (1, Informative)

TopSpin (753) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422212)

A complete M134 system (a "30 cal" minigun that door gunners use to shred stuff) with 1500 rounds is about 191 lbs. Specs here [dillonaero.com] . Your 200 lbs figure is arbitrary; the pentagon could order up a design to handle 300-400 lbs to deal with the additional mass of telemetry, servos, sensors, etc.

No, the parent was correct; making a remote controlled "H-K" like unit from this ducted fan is entirely feasible, and probably inevitable. Flying a minigun across town or over the hill to zap a mortar team will occur to someone.

Re:All I could think of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421960)

£200 humans? I'll take two!

nah (5, Interesting)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421720)

that's not a rocket pack. this is a rocket pack. self-taught guy's been building them for years: http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/2/26/jetpacks-this-mexican-inventor-s-been-making-them-for-years--2 [motherboard.tv]

Re:nah (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421894)

Mexican inventor? "insert Mexican joke here"

Re:nah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421900)

TEQUILLA POWER!

- funny guy, his daughter has my utmost sympathy though - "I strapped her in, then invited the Press. She couldnt back out then.."

Still, as he states, hasnt killed anyone. Yet.

Re:nah (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422218)

Those hydrogen-peroxide packs are old news [wikipedia.org] ; the main problem is they can only fly for about 30 seconds.

Just like in Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421734)

a bunch of cock smoking fags like to use linux and take it up their ass.

Flight of the Conchords!!! (2, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421744)

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

The future is here! (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421754)

So, it's massive, ridiculously expensive, and useless?

Why, this thing could replace the Segway as the most popular mode of transportation!

better flight (2, Interesting)

gamecrusader (1684024) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421760)

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

Not a jetpack (1)

sneakyimp (1161443) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421768)

I belive driven not by jet engines, but by a ducted van. *not* a jetpack!

Re:Not a jetpack (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421878)

This.

Its name is misleading and could be taken as false advertising.

Re:Not a jetpack (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422074)

This.

Its name is misleading and could be taken as false advertising.

What type of engines do you think Jet Boats use?

Re:Not a jetpack (1)

Cjstone (1144829) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422248)

The "jet" in "jet-boat" comes from the fact that it is propelled by a pump-jet [wikipedia.org] , otherwise known as a water-jet, rather than a screw. Of course, the pump-jet is powered by a maritime gasoline engine in most cases, but that's irrelevant. On the other hand, the term "jet pack" is general parlance for any type of "wearable" aircraft. In fact, the most well known "jet pack," the bell rocket-belt is, as implied by the name, a rocket pack.

Re:Not a jetpack (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422260)

The "jet" in "jet-boat" comes from the fact that it is propelled by a pump-jet [wikipedia.org]

A ducted fan is really an air pump. Sounds consistent to me.

Re:Not a jetpack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422152)

A ducted van?!

There's some joke about /. car analogies to be made here, but I'm too busy wondering at the sheer awesomeness of the concept to think of them.

Repossession (2, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421808)

The payments on $86K are going to be a bitch. I can't wait for jetpacks to start appearing on Operation Repo.

Re:Repossession (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422160)

too bad that show's fake

Obligatory (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421814)

Will they use this song [wikipedia.org] for their TV ads?

Short Ranged (2, Interesting)

Game_Ender (815505) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421818)

It only has a 30 mile range and gets just 0.5 hours of flight time with its 5 gallons of fuel. Not exactly the best commute vehicle. Source: http://www.martinjetpack.com/technical-information.aspx [martinjetpack.com]

Re:Short Ranged (1)

Cjstone (1144829) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422266)

You couldn't commute with it, even if you were within range. This thing is an ultralight aircraft, and the FAA prohibits ultralights from overflying populated areas, or from operating between dusk and dawn. Ultralights are recreational vehicles, plain and simple.

hovercraft is better (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421842)

A motorcycle for flying (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421896)

It's the protective equivalent of a motorcycle.

I hope it has a big plastic bag in it to collect body parts.

Re:A motorcycle for flying (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421990)

But he is wearing a helmet ;)

Re:A motorcycle for flying (1)

timlash (1320631) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422138)

This would be a perfect application for an aircraft recovery parachute. http://www.brsparachutes.com/ [brsparachutes.com] Too bad Steve Fossett didn't have one.

**Shudders** (1)

wolf12886 (1206182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421910)

And to think, I've heard of people spending 100k on a nice kitchen or a sports car.

Turbines, not jets. (1)

celibate for life (1639541) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421916)

Should be called a "turbopack".

Not a turbine either (1)

evanh (627108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422066)

It's a four cylinder piston engine with two ducted fans attached. For that matter, the other "Jetpack" - http://www.jetpackinternational.com/ [jetpackinternational.com] is not a jet engine either, it's a rocket engine.

Question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421922)

In any 'jetpack' video--from any company--all we've seen so far is a guy no higher than 6' doing less than 10mph. This vehicle would be useless if that's all it could do. So, if these things can do 60mph+ and fly at an altitude of 8000ft+, where's the video? Wouldn't a potential customer be more willing to drop $60,000+ before the thing is even produced if we saw that?

'Jetpack' my patootie (3, Funny)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421932)

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.

whatcouldpossiblygowrong? (2, Funny)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421934)

Sign me up for one of these AFTER the deaths per hour rate has been well-established.

http://www.mychristianlouboutinshoes.com/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31421950)

it's seems a joke.!

Not a proper jetpack! (4, Interesting)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 4 years ago | (#31421988)

This design does not meet the basic definition of a proper science fiction jetpack. Specifically, you cannot walk around with it on your back, then decide "you know, I think I'll fly over that wall" and then WHOOOOOOSH! over the wall you go. This thing is obviously too big and heavy to tote around on your back. 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?

Re:Not a proper jetpack! (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422004)

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:Not a proper jetpack! (2, Funny)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422142)

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.....

Photoshopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422058)

Those outdoor pictures look strange. The skies are clear, but the pilot and jetpack don't look like they were photographed in direct sunlight. No apparent jet wash, either.

This Looks Shopped (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422190)

I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

How loud is it? (4, Insightful)

Mr_Blank (172031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422096)

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.

iJet (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422150)

Have wires, needs more space than a nomad. Lame.

avoid the "touring" package (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31422194)

This package adds $10K to the price, but only provides frilly extras such as a tape deck that plays "Meet the Jetsons" in a loop while the rider is airborne.

It's not a jet pack and it defeats the purpose (2, Informative)

DrBuzzo (913503) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422204)

You can't walk around with it. It has a dry weight of 250 lbs. In other words - it's not Man Portable. That's the critical thing about a proper jetpack. You can walk around with a jetpack. You can take off, fly to the store, walk into the store, buy something, then fly away, land somewhere else, talk to someone about how cool your jet pack is and then fly away again.

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.

power paragliding seems to beat this hands down (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31422268)

The gear costs less than the deposit on this thing, there is no waiting, and it is immense fun. Besides, for paragliding you don't need a license, so you can start trying to kill yourself right away. This says "ultralight", so probably needs a license. (Note: paragliding without license may be allowed, but doing so without adequate training is pretty lethal).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...