Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swiss Man Flies With Jet Powered Wing

Posted by timothy on from the no-passenger-airbags-no-hybrid-engine dept.

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."

247 comments

  1. OFN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:OFN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I was going to put up a list of the 3 other times this story has been on Slashdot's front page, the 8 times it's been on digg, and the 14 times it's been on reddit. But, eh, what's the point?

    2. Re:OFN? by vtscott · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.
    3. Re:OFN? by iamhigh · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Who the fuck keeps modding up these moronic "This is old news!!!" posts from AC's. As was proven by an actual member, the news is relatively new, and was in timing with the public demonstration. So please, STFU and quit modding this crap up.

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    4. Re:OFN? by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:OFN? by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    6. Re:OFN? by nbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
      --
      I don't read replies by ACs.
    7. Re:OFN? by IAmCthulhu · · Score: 1

      Old news is old.

    8. Re:OFN? by at_slashdot · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    9. Re:OFN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't give a fuck how old this story is, for those of us who are not continuously glued to /. , this is the coolest fucking story in about forever.

    10. Re:OFN? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    11. Re:OFN? by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Funny

      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".

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    12. Re:OFN? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re:OFN? by MrMr · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

      or a bowl of petunias.

    14. Re:OFN? by rtyhurst · · Score: 1

      Non \.ed video on BBC:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7402016.stm/

    15. Re:OFN? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      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. Hey, I've just realised that this strategy would be the US Zerg Rushing China or North Korea. Oh the irony.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    16. Re:OFN? by stoofa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Swiss Man Flies With Jet Powered Wing?

      Swiss Man Flies WITHOUT Jet Powered Wing.

      Now THAT is a story.

    17. Re:OFN? by ArAgost · · Score: 1

      IIRC, that was a "Batman outfit" with some kind of rocket.

    18. Re:OFN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Palestinians have proven that even under economic sanctions, small rockets capable of killing can be made and launched for cheaper than distributing fuel or food to civilians.

    19. Re:OFN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.
      Each function has its domain, and each idea has its limitations. Smaller fliers are also more fragile. They are small targets but if they are hit, they don't "survive". If you fill the skies with them, then no sophisticated air defense is needed, you use shotgun (fireworks?) approach to make a killing. If they fly low, even infantry weapons can shoot them down. Besides, British WWII idea of anchored balloons keeping vertical nets in place could be used.
    20. Re:OFN? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but those are unguided ones that can't penetrate armour and are not militarily effective. Every so often they get lucky and destroy someone's house. But they are as unviable as a weapons systems as they are immoral.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks
      From 2001 until May 2008, there have been over 3,050 Qassam rockets fired at Israeli targets,[1] mainly against Sderot and the Western Negev. Twenty-two Israeli's have been killed[verification needed] and over 433 injured, along with significant property damage.

      So apart from killing 22 civillians they haven't achieved anything. 3000 weapons of the sort of got in mind would pack a lot more punch than this.

      Incidentally is it any wonder Israel holds onto occupied land when most attacks against their civillians are launched from Gaza, which they pulled out of?

      I'm thinking of guided weapons that kill tanks and destroy bunkers - hardened military targets. They'll be cheaper than Tomahawks but they'll be hundred or a thousand times as expensive as Qassams, but a) America can afford it and b) American public opinion is more sensitive to enemy collateral damage than Palestinian public opinion.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    21. Re:OFN? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Besides, British WWII idea of anchored balloons keeping vertical nets in place could be used. No, these things are not V1s. They'd be remotely piloted or able to fly themselves. Or even some combination of the two, like swarms that follow a remore piloted vehicle and target things that the human remote pilot wanted destroyed. Unlike V1s you'd keep track of what happened to them. If someone anchored a net between balloons you'd destroy it first. If infantry managed to shoot them you'd bomb them with antipersonnel weapons.

      It'd be like a video game - skilled pilots would learn how to get the swarms through ever improving enemy counter measures and tell their colleagues

      Actually there was a game where you lead swarms of creatures called Overlord.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlord_(2007_video_game)

      What I have is that there'd be a human piloted swarm leader and a lot of drones that are quite autonomous - enough to fly over to a target, kill it and fly back to the swarm. Or even fly back to an aircraft carrier or unmanned arsenal ship, land on it and pick up the right weapons for the mission. But this sort of thing wouldn't replace F22s and Tomahawks, they'd be part of a wider swarm intelligence that encompassed all the humans and machines in the carrier battlegroup. The point about this is that you can have lots of these swarm UCVs for the cost of an F22 and it really doesn't matter how many get destroyed.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    22. Re:OFN? by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:OFN? by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    24. Re:OFN? by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      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.

      I saw a story about it on the Discovery Channel a few months ago and at that time I believe it was a repeat. I'm thinking that would be considered relatively public.
      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    25. Re:OFN? by alex4u2nv · · Score: 1

      Even older: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus

      --
      -Alex. http://bit.ly/1iVPtfA
    26. Re:OFN? by rarel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh no, not again...

    27. Re:OFN? by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    28. Re:OFN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the article today was supposed to be "Swiss man crashes into the Matterhorn with Jet Powered Wing".

    29. Re:OFN? by Dancindan84 · · Score: 1

      This also looks similar to this special forces stealth wing glider that I heard about recently. The obvious difference is the jets.

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    30. Re:OFN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly the wings can hold like 200 lbs worth of gear in addition to the "pilot."

      Or, alternatively, just a typical Slashdot reader as the pilot with no extra gear.

    31. Re:OFN? by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    32. Re:OFN? by DeeQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    33. Re:OFN? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      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.

      But the plane would have to have an infinite improbability drive, or it wouldn't happen.

    34. Re:OFN? by jaguth · · Score: 0

      None of that is necessary for strategic superiority against an enemy. To recall from WWII, as long as we have a devastating weapon to deter the enemy from ever wanting to attack, then we are safe. All we need is one Tom Cruise missile; nobody would want to go against that kind of litigation power!

    35. Re:OFN? by cparker15 · · Score: 1

      Of course SBDs cost less than JDAMs... I've never had to pay for one. The best part is, they can be produced by just about anybody and, judging by their name, they're both stealthy and lethal. They're the ultimate weapon.

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    36. Re:OFN? by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      Seems like a light weight, semi disposable way to drop bombs on people would be cheap and would avoid hostage situations with POWs. True, but this jet-powered wing isn't the solution. A 10-minute endurance is useless in military terms, and a significant fraction of its 100 kg payload would have to be devoted to the flight control system, sensors, radio links and targeting equipment. The smallest practical UAV in use today is the Predator. It weighs up to 1000 kg, 200 kg of which is payload. It can carry up to 2 Hellfire missiles.
  2. Well... by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    Cheers!

    Strat

    FP?

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:Well... by phyruxus · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
      "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was because they feared the company wouldn't go bankrupt and put thousands of people out of work.

    3. Re:Well... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:Well... by ozbird · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    5. Re:Well... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Well... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Since it's a jet, there must not have been (Lucas) electrical stuff. Am I just propagating a meme?

    7. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes - but you forgot the "Prince of Darkness" tag.

    8. Re:Well... by frisket · · Score: 1

      Would be more watchable if it wasn't for the intrusive Hublot wristwatch-porn advertainment.

    9. Re:Well... by ozbird · · Score: 1

      The M25. (Apparently - I'm not British.)

  3. Obligatory by Will+the+Chill · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I, for one, welcome our new flying humanoid overlords!

    -WtC

    'sig': command not found

    --
    Creator of RPerl, Scouter, Juggler, Mormon, Perl Monger, Serial Entrepreneur, Aspiring Astrophysicist, Community Organiz
    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But where's my flying car?

    2. Re:Obligatory by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 did.

    3. Re:Obligatory by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, jet-powered flies wing you!

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    4. Re:Obligatory by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    5. Re:Obligatory by W8TVI · · Score: 1

      But the jet-powered wing IS flying him!

  4. Just don't get too close to the sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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 ...

    1. Re:Just don't get too close to the sun by Thiez · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, he got a satalite named after him in some James Bond movie. I don't see how that is a problem? :P

    2. Re:Just don't get too close to the sun by denzacar · · Score: 1

      He/she got a really good tan?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    3. Re:Just don't get too close to the sun by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      Not if he went at night.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    4. Re:Just don't get too close to the sun by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      He got a video video games and appears in a great fighting game.

      Okay, I know that is "Pit" and not "Icarus", but it's a joke so who cares.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  5. It is pretty old by ady1 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Regardless, I've seen and read about it a number of times and while it is entertaining, the guy almost died doing it.

    Also it serves little in terms of providing a method for transportation.

    1. Re:It is pretty old by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who cares about transportation? It would be FUN!!

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    2. Re:It is pretty old by jd · · Score: 2, Informative
      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!

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:It is pretty old by BigJClark · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      Wow, talk out of your arse much? Parachutes and paragliders are exceptionally safe, exceptionally predictable and operate expectedly at all altitudes.

      I can tell you've never had to land either, but I would imagine trying to land a fixed or rigid wing to be much more difficult, and as I doubt you can even comprehend, difficult = injuries.

      You'd better stick to digg or wikipedia before tossing your uneducated opinions around /.

      --

      Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
    4. Re:It is pretty old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.
    5. Re:It is pretty old by binarybum · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      ôó
    6. Re:It is pretty old by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 of what you could escape from. All mention of escape methods specifically stated that the speed the shuttle was traveling at were far too fast to use any of the methods available. This is not because supersonic ejection technology did not exist at the time (they did), or that supersonic parachutes were new (they'd been around a few decades by then), but because even the most cynical of commentators accepted that that was just too damn hairy to be remotely viable.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:It is pretty old by jd · · Score: 1, Redundant
      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 simple has a vastly greater mechanical failure rate than far more complex machines that are far newer (and therefore have had far less development time).

      In other words, you speak as someone who skydives rather than as someone who is emotionally detached, impartial and observant. Nobody, no matter what the subject, can be impartial when it comes to their own passionate interests. This is not a failing of a person, or a community. It is simply a product of being up close to that degree. If you like, the consequence of being able to see a tree is that you CANNOT see the woods for the trees. The converse is also true. Those distant enough to see the woods CANNOT see the trees. It's an "uncertainty principle" of the way observation works, if you like.

      Is landing difficult? Probably, but obviously not impossible - hang-glider enthusiasts land fixed-wing vehicles all the time. Is it more difficult than landing a parachute? Not the problem I'm concerned with, I'm concerned with the mechanical operation of the device, not the mechanical operation of the human, so frankly m'dear, I don't give a damn. Are hang-gliders dangerous? Well, yes, I probably wouldn't want to take off at an altitude so low or where conditions were otherwise so unfavourable that sufficient airspeed to achieve the required level of lift was simply not possible. Now, strap on an engine, so it becomes a microlight, then circumstances change. Microlights are still very dangerous, but not at low altitude. In fact, they'd be quite useless if they couldn't operate from the ground.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:It is pretty old by jd · · Score: 1
      Why did the surrealist cross the road?

      Orange paper plates.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:It is pretty old by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      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 do it for fun. And while rectilinear chutes certainly are more prone to tangling, they are still quite safe, and come with a backup chute - just in case.

      The whole thing hinges on how you define "safe". You seem to be taking the extreme case, so I assume that you spend most of your days in a padded cell, with it's own recirculated water supply and a heavy-duty air filtration system. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I see no other way to account for your paranoia. You're a dozen times more likely to die in a car accident than you are from a chute malfunction.
    10. Re:It is pretty old by IAmCthulhu · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's been a very slow news month! Yeah, what with all the earthquakes in China and all...
    11. Re:It is pretty old by kimvette · · Score: 1

      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! ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    12. Re:It is pretty old by fractoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    13. Re:It is pretty old by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "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 ;).

      --
    14. Re:It is pretty old by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Fortunately I have not, but have heard plenty of stories..... I think this device would not be generally accepted as normal transportation, but would be popular in the experimental ranks...

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    15. Re:It is pretty old by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      The video posted by CNN showed him going thru a very rocky shutdown after deploying his chute. The chute could have very easily fouled. He got thrown in a few directions before everything calmed down and he scrubbed off some speed...

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    16. Re:It is pretty old by dj245 · · Score: 1

      If you parachuted your way to and from work every morning,

      Where do I sign up?

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    17. Re:It is pretty old by pete_norm · · Score: 1

      You'd better stick to digg or wikipedia before tossing your uneducated opinions around /.


      Judging by his ID number and yours i would guess he has been around /. a bit longer than you have... Not that it makes his post any more educated but he's pretty far from a new user just coming from digg.
    18. Re:It is pretty old by jd · · Score: 1
      With most of the bigger news stories from the Land Formerly Known As Burma being journalists being kicked out, and some of the worst-hit regions in China yet to be reached by anyone other than troops in helicopters, we have exactly two news stories: "something really bad happened in one place, but we'll be shot if we tell you" and "something really bad happened in another place, but it's so bad that we can't get there to tell you". Even if Burma was directly hit by the second cyclone, if you add two complete unknowns together you still only end up with a complete unknown.

      Other news stories this month have included finding a statue of Julius Caesar having a midlife crisis, a discovery that pilot whales are bloody fast, and a discovery that the duck-billed platypus is actually an alien from the planet Zark. Oh, and that all of the presidential candidates are loonies, but it's unclear this really qualifies as news - for this or any other campaign.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    19. Re:It is pretty old by fractoid · · Score: 1

      If I knew that would I be sitting here POSTING ON SLASHDOT? Seriously... :P

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    20. Re:It is pretty old by jd · · Score: 1
      I think that kind-of goes along with what I was saying. Personally, I'd be skeptical of using a chute to scrub speed on such a device, unless it's kept in a way that is partially opened from the start, so that you could limit or avoid tangling problems. Most modern aircraft have ways of altering the shape of the airfoil to increase air resistance. Although flaps would be impractical on a home-made wing, the basic idea of deforming the wing to create drag is certainly possible. The underling problem is that the wing must increase the lift produced at the same time as slowing down, or you'll stall but at too great a forward velocity to safely crash. A parachute avoids that problem, which is actually quite a difficult one to solve, but creates its own engineering difficulties because you'll have hellish turbulence from the wing and jet(s) - even with the jet(s) switched off. (If the jets are on, the problems mostly centre around the cooking of organic fibres.)

      There are programs for evaluating airfoils and there are at least 1,500 published (I guess you could call them open source) airfoils with well-known and well-tested characteristics. It is entirely possible that there is a single wing that would meet all requirements, or that there are two wings where each independently meets the criteria for some part of such a system AND where you could realistically make one behave like, or perhaps be modified into, the other as needed. There are "obvious" one-shot ways of doing something like that. If you could make those cheap enough, that would be sufficient.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    21. Re:It is pretty old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "..which is why the Thrust-SSC car was able to use parachutes at speeds exceeding mach 1.."

      What planet are you from? Thrust-SSC could do Mach 1+ at it's maximum speed, and it didn't stream a braking chute then. The low-speed chutes typically came out at around 200 mph, and the emergency high-speed chutes (special RAF design) could be deployed at 600 mph. See http://www.thrustssc.com/thrustssc/contents_frames.html

    22. Re:It is pretty old by acrophobic · · Score: 1

      As a skydiver,I must say that the notion that skydiving is an almost certain death sentence is simply not true.Sure ,it is inherently dangerous but I would say safer than BMX riding and perhaps trick skateboarding.Straight up parachute malfunctions are exceedingly rare and human error is the cause of nearly all injuries and fatalities.AADs, recent advances in container design and chute design,better cable routing design(for cut-aways) and years of knowledge and live-and-learn have made it much safer.I believe that there were only 7 deaths attributable to skydiving(not plane malfunction with a load of skydivers)last year.That is the fewest since its conception.And skydivers these days regularly have upward of 20,000 skydives and people with even 100-200 jumps are still newbies.But this man,I'm sure, does this out of a need to break barriers and to simply say,"I did it!!!", and that should be enough.

    23. Re:It is pretty old by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your much-more-informed advice! I had no idea the pros did so many jumps these days (the 'couple of hundred jumps makes you a veteran' thing came from a skydiving school I was saving to attend at one point before I got distracted by other things :P )

      And don't take what I'm saying as "skydiving is very dangerous" - that was specifically in relation to base jumping, where you've got a very limited time to open your chute before it's floor-pie time. (Can you enlighten us further just how dangerous it is compared to normal high-altitude drops?) I'd love to try these strap-on wing thingies too, they look fantastic. :)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  6. Dupe lag is worsening... by heretic108 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/25/1254217

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
  7. Darwin awards by mamono · · Score: 0, Troll

    This guy could have been a contender for a Darwin award...

    1. Re:Darwin awards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Darwin awards by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      AFAIK he's still in the running!!1! The domain names darwinman and darwin-man both .com and .org are still available... ;)

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    3. Re:Darwin awards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except of course that he didn't die, and I believe he's too old anyway. You can only get a darwin award if stupidity stops you from having kids (dying before typical parenting age, or losing "abilities" before then).

    4. Re:Darwin awards by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Darwin awards by mikji · · Score: 0

      I do, and yes: permanently damaged.

    6. Re:Darwin awards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, okay, so I'm just kidding - I know not the actual condition of his balls. Neither do I, but as far as size goes, I'd guess they're bigger than average.

  8. Jetpack! by vecctor · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
    1. Re:Jetpack! by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:Jetpack! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1

      I did.

      I don't know what's sadder, the fact I submitted this on Xmas, or that I remember a /. story from 6 years ago. :P

  9. Already slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadface

  10. Wait... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "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?

    1. Re:Wait... what? by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Wait... what? by countSudoku() · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    3. Re:Wait... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    4. Re:Wait... what? by jshackney · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Wait... what? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Infuriate left and right
    6. Re:Wait... what? by speculatrix · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    7. Re:Wait... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Doesn't matter, it's NOT a website.

      It's a fucking lame full-page Flash crapshoot.

    8. Re:Wait... what? by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You work for the RIAA/MPAA, right?

    9. Re:Wait... what? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    10. Re:Wait... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "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? 200 pounds of thrust per engine?
    11. Re:Wait... what? by beav007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's either that or Excel 2007...

    12. Re:Wait... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, that is why he also needs a WING

    13. Re:Wait... what? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Most jet airplanes, and all piston-powered planes, have a thrust-to-weight ratio of less than one, yet they still manage to climb. It's called "aerodynamics". All it means is he can't point straight up and keep going.

    14. Re:Wait... what? by BigAssRat · · Score: 1

      No, he has 4 engines, probably 200lbs each. You do the math.

    15. Re:Wait... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Beechcraft has an 115 horsepower engine. The plane has a gross weight 1680 lbs yet the engine only produces a few hundred lbs of thrust.

      A typical airplane only has around ~1:5 thrust to weight ratio. His is closer to 1:2. (The best fighter planes in the world have a 1:1 ratio.)

      With his thrust to weight ratio, he should be able to do some fantastic flight routines, and yes, climb. As long as he has enough forward speed to produce lift, he should be able to maintain a great climb rate on just 200lbs of thrust.

      I also have a BD-5J, and at full thrust, my engine only produces 225lbs, with a gross weight of 880 lbs. Yet, in cruise, I can pull it back to idle and it will still cruise at 160kts. During landing, I have to divert some of the engine's exhaust with an "attenuator," which partly acts like a thrust reverser, to get the plane slow enough to land.

      Bill

  11. I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but... by StefanJ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  12. Re:That's all very interesting by mrbluze · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  13. Famous last words... by HydraSwitch · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Feh.

    Definitely famous last words.

    1. Re:Famous last words... by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      Full Potential == Darwin Award

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  14. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

    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 if these things have a throttle? If so is a landing possible without chute?

  15. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by Gabrill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  16. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    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."
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  17. misread it by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Funny

    I initially misread it as "Jet Powered Wang".

    1. Re:misread it by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll take two.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:misread it by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Don't get to excited, those things blow.

    3. Re:misread it by dreemernj · · Score: 1

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

      --
      1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
    4. Re:misread it by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'll take two.


      In one orifice?

      Definitely famous last words....
    5. Re:misread it by SterlingSylver · · Score: 1

      Mine goes to eleven...

    6. Re:misread it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I tried that, liked it and i'm still there. So what?

    7. Re:misread it by waferbuster · · Score: 1

      Double penetration? Kinky!

      --
      I'm an individual! Just like everyone else!
  18. Pffft by geekoid · · Score: 1

    That invention is full of holes.

    What?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. Landing? by gsfprez · · Score: 1

    how exactly does this guy land?

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
    1. Re:Landing? by Deadstick · · Score: 2, Informative

      With a parachute.

      rj

    2. Re:Landing? by TekPolitik · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Landing? by rrohbeck · · Score: 4, Funny

      With a parachute. Even though you'd think a pair of rollerblades should be sufficient.
      --
      thegodmovie.com - watch it
    4. Re:Landing? by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    5. Re:Landing? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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. No amount of plastic surgery is going to help you cope with THAT.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:Landing? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:Landing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One is all you need.

    8. Re:Landing? by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    9. Re:Landing? by grassy_knoll · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wiley Coyote, is that you?

      --
      A Human Right
    10. Re:Landing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, i can't imagine seeing a prototype and a lot of ground tests and bein like sure i'll jump out of a plane with it on my back and try to fly it around.

    11. Re:Landing? by speedingant · · Score: 1

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

    12. Re:Landing? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      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 :)
    13. Re:Landing? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      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.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    14. Re:Landing? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The bigger concern, I would think, would be avoiding the amorous attentions of Rodan. 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?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    15. Re:Landing? by speedingant · · Score: 1
      Fair enough. Nice bikes they are! Yank? No.. I'm from New Zealand. We have corners here, and money grabbing police to go with them.

      It's OK about the math, I use Google :)

    16. Re:Landing? by syntek · · Score: 1

      Or a frozen chicken

    17. Re:Landing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are too influenced by Hollywood. They see people hit by a tiny bullet fly across a room and start believing that.

    18. Re:Landing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you can't use the jetpack in the andes? Crap... Well now I don't want one anymore.

    19. Re:Landing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd hit a condor anytime

    20. Re:Landing? by amper · · Score: 1

      Modern motorcycle helmets are meant to protect the human head from impact with the ground. The approximate speed at which a human head will be travelling when dropped from the average motorcycling riding height is about 13 miles per hour. What this means is that the helmet must necessarily be designed to cope with relatively low impact forces in order to prevent brain injury. Motorcycles are most definitely not designed with "some heavy impact in mind".

      Your friend is very, very lucky to be alive. Granted, with proper protective gear (not what the vast majority of motorcyclists wear), motorcycles crashes are highly survivable even at racing speeds, so long as the crash happens in relatively controlled circumstances. That is to say, not on public streets, where you are likely to slide into all manner of obstacles which are not designed to absorb the impact of a human body. I hope your friend was performing this feat at a properly maintained race course, and not on public streets.

      That being said, when a human head travelling at 200+ mph on a motorbike comes into contact with a bird, the transfer of force involved is probably a lot less than one might initially imagine. The bird is a soft "target", and being likely airborne, would rebound easily.

  20. Re:Well... And, for the camera: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "CHEESE!"

    And, one burning questions:

    1. Was it difficult to yodel up there?

    2. If he intersected with a mountain, would he be Swiss Cheese, or some kind of tofu?

  21. Making Sense by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 5, Funny

    at up to 186 miles per hour.

    I gather that this number makes some sense in metric.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Making Sense by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      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!

    2. Re:Making Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      300 km/h = 186.4 m/h That help?

    3. Re:Making Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 mph = 0.447 m/s, roughly 0.45 which is 1/2 - 1/20.
      A quick approximation is x mph = (x/2 - x/20) m/s which means you are off by about 11%.

      186 mph is about 93-9.3 = 83.7 m/s (actual conversion yields 83.142 m/s)

    4. Re:Making Sense by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

    5. Re:Making Sense by rcw-home · · Score: 5, Informative

      I gather that this number makes some sense in metric.

      Good call - 300 kph = 186.411mph

    6. Re:Making Sense by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no such thing as a "kph". You don't get the metric system. A k is 1000. A "kph" would mean "1000 per hour", which doesn't look like a velocity to me.

      Accept it, what you meant is "km/h". That's the way it has been written for as long as velocities of that order of magnitude have been practical.

  22. The slashdot zeitgeist. by argent · · Score: 3, Funny

    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

    1. Re:The slashdot zeitgeist. by zobier · · Score: 1
      Rocket Bird is awesome!

      <span style="voice-accent: 'eastern european'"> I like flying<span>
      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    2. Re:The slashdot zeitgeist. by mcrbids · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    3. Re:The slashdot zeitgeist. by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      Man, you just don't get the slashdot zeitgeist. Beating the proverbial dead horse is an essential part of the whole experience!

    4. Re:The slashdot zeitgeist. by argent · · Score: 1

      "Slashdot: Equine sadonecrobestiality for the masses."

    5. Re:The slashdot zeitgeist. by argent · · Score: 2, Funny

      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!

    6. Re:The slashdot zeitgeist. by Missing_dc · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    7. Re:The slashdot zeitgeist. by argent · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

  23. How does he land? by Nick+Driver · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well... very carefully of course.

  24. That would be 300km/hr in real units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially relevant since the dude would use km/hr himself!

  25. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by blhack · · Score: 1

    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.
    --
    NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
  26. I cannot wait by loafula · · Score: 1

    To see the aftermath of this on Ogrish

    --
    FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
  27. "Hasn't reached full potential" by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    He won't until he kills himself.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  28. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by icegreentea · · Score: 1

    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.

  29. a nice start by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:a nice start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a video where he successfully landed on his feet via a severe stall at very low altitude and speed.

      He could also take off from a running jump, if it were off a cliff.

      You need to be more specific.

    2. Re:a nice start by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      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. Look at what's happened to me,
      I can't believe it myself.
      Suddenly I'm up on top of the world,
      It should've been somebody else.

      Believe it or not,
      I'm walking on air.
      I never thought I could feel so free eee eee.
      Flying away on a wing and a prayer.
      Who could it be?
      Believe it or not it's just me.

      It's like a light of a new day,
      It came from out of the blue.
      Breaking me out of the spell I was in,
      Making all of my wishes come true ue ue.

      Believe it or not,
      I'm walking on air.
      I never thought I could feel so free eee eee.
      Flying away on a wing and a prayer.
      Who could it be?
      Believe it or not it's just me.
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  30. Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't view youtube at work, so someone tell me, does the video begin with this Swiss man shouting...

    "And remember, I can only do this once!"

  31. Uh oh by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hobgoblin in 3... 2...

    --
    Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    1. Re:Uh oh by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Hobgoblin in 3... 2...

      That may be possible if one is up high enough to use a parachute if/when things go south.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  32. Acme Jet Powered Wings by schmoe.joey · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think this concept was proven fatally wrong by Mr. Wiley Coyote while hunting RoadRunners...

  33. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by DJNephilim · · Score: 1

    Ha! Always nice to come across another Buckaroo fan unexpectedly.

    --
    Enemy of the Sun
  34. Can the editors do math? $190,000 != $285,000 by phreakhead · · Score: 1

    The summary is wrong. From TFA: "So far Rossy and his sponsors, including the Swiss watch company Hublot, have poured more than $285,000 and countless hours of labor into building the device."

    1. Re:Can the editors do math? $190,000 != $285,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you read the entire effing article? A note at the bottom says the article originally said $190K but was later corrected to $285K.

    2. Re:Can the editors do math? $190,000 != $285,000 by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      It was $190,000 CDN. Slashdot is trying to become more cosmopolitan. Please keep up :-p

    3. Re:Can the editors do math? $190,000 != $285,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I guess that during those 'countless hours' the US $ has dropped in value against the Euro

    4. Re:Can the editors do math? $190,000 != $285,000 by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      It only takes a couple hours these days to notice some drop.

  35. Just like the flames shooting from his /.ed server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  36. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > 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

    --

    Operator, give me the number for 911!
  37. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But why? That's what cruise missiles are for.

  38. they cut off some of the article by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    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."

  39. nozzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    F16's are single-engined, thus only have one "nozzle".

  40. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    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.

  41. That is the coolest thing I've seen all year by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re:That is the coolest thing I've seen all year by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      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!!"

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:That is the coolest thing I've seen all year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

              AHAHAHHAHAHAAHAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!

      fucking classic..if i WAS A registered poster and had mod points, you'd have them all....along with my beer soaked monitor

    3. Re:That is the coolest thing I've seen all year by frisket · · Score: 1
      in a moment of stupidity and forgetfulness.

      The keys needed to type sudo rm -rf /* are right in front of you; you just need to avoid using them that way :-)

  42. Friggin Awesome by KaeloDest · · Score: 0

    Full on friggin Awesome.... I mean think about it for just a second. How much faith do you have in your tech. And his site is still standing. -=- Show Some Love. That looks mighty fun! but as a family man I would never do something that was so PATENTLY dangerous, but come on

    --
    --Shaddup and support your local PBS station Plan for it
  43. Swiss Man Dies With Jet Powered Wing by trouser · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if God had intended us to fly he'd have given us jet powered wings. Probably with with jets. Powered jets. attached to maybe some wings. Why do you think Swiss cheese is full of holes anyway? Frickin jet power, that's why. Jet powered cheese wings. It just ain't right. That's all I have to say.

    --
    Now wash your hands.
  44. ACME Jet Powered Wing Pack by catdevnull · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  45. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unless the jetpack pilot carries a sizable amount of bomb material that would detonate on impact.
    it gives new meaning to smartbombs.

  46. Cobra! by csoto · · Score: 2, Informative

    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).

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  47. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by supernova_hq · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  48. At last, small jet engines by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. 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.

  49. Sell Out! by qkslvr · · Score: 1

    Yes kids, that is how you sell out.

    I have to give credit to the marketing team for Hublot - very nicely done.

    wow.

    And here I actually thought there might be new footage...

  50. Lame. by sudog · · Score: 1

    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 go check it out.

  51. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    Or UFO sightings.

  52. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

    Yeah. There's nothing like getting hit by a bag of flesh.

  53. The Finnish way is to strap them to your boots by MartijnL · · Score: 1

    These guys do it a little different. They were on Discovery Channel's "Stunt Junkies" show. Couldn't find video from that show but here's another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7zbta79vo

    --
    http://virtualize.wordpress.com/
  54. This is Fusion Man by AnonymousDot · · Score: 1
    This is his web site (english page full of flash).

    The news is that's for the first time he did a public demo with loops and other acrobatic stuff. This is quite a feat since he's using only his body to move. Not too bad for a 48-old!

    He was last year at the Geneva Invention Exhibition, I've found a video with him in the background where you can also see the 4 jets behind the wing. BTW, a typical Swiss: nice and humble.

  55. Video of the Flight by PhillC · · Score: 1

    Here's a video of the flight from the BBC:

    --
    Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
  56. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

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

    What's a 200 lb bomb when a fighter plane can drop a few 2,000 lbs bombs? Oh well if we're talking about terrorists sure, why not. I totally see terrorists using $190,000 rocket wings to drop an appropriately trained person flying with a 200 lb payload from an airplane to kill a few persons. You're better running a car full of explosives into some crowded place on Time Square.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  57. on second thought though... by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    25 hours, how many flights is that? How long is a flight, a few minutes till he's out of gas? Short in any case. And there's 4 engines. So he's at least , er, two times safer than er, you think he is.... I think.

  58. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  59. Thrust vs mass by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 2, Informative

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

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

    1. Re:Thrust vs mass by Laur · · Score: 1

      The parent said weight, not mass, which (since it is a force) is measured in Newtons, same as thrust. And yes, weight is the appropriate unit for what we are talking about.

      --
      When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
    2. Re:Thrust vs mass by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

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

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

      Hey, Captain Pedant of the U.S.S. Hypocrisy, there is no such proper word as "USians".

  60. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by hcdejong · · Score: 1

    The turbines are excellent radar reflectors, but may be too small to show up well.
    Air defence systems don't rely on radar alone, though. Short-range systems often have optical and/or IR tracking, and those would have no problem tracking this contraption. It's slow enough to be an easy target.

  61. Now imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now imagine a beowulf cluster of these....

    *shudder*

  62. I was impressed by Haoie · · Score: 1

    I saw this at work today, on a news website. I was very impressed. And surprised this hasn't happened earlier.

    --
    If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
  63. Whose flying there? by boombasticman · · Score: 1

    Count Orlok is that you or do i have to call the defence minister?

  64. And in Popular Mechanics, about 35 years ago by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    There was an article I remember reading, in roughly 1974, about a man building jet wings with VTOL capability from a pair of surplus Navy jet engines. It was the cover story. The device was heavy, but feasible for a single person to take out of a storage space and put on by themself, fly, and restore to storage without help. He was planning to switch to ducted fans due to the expense of the jet engines, and that seemed feasible. It had a cruising veolocity of about 110 MPH, and got something like 30 miles to the gallon with a 5 gallon tank, and it could lift about a 300 pound maximum load. He hoped to get the price down to $10,000 (in 1970's dollors!), and had pointed out that it would legally be an 'ultru-light' aircraft, which only required a driver's license to fly.

    So it's nice to see someone recapturing the technology, and it would be very exciting to see this attempt become more commercially available, but the idea is hardly new.

    1. Re:And in Popular Mechanics, about 35 years ago by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Ducted fans are death traps.

      If a helicopter's motor fails, the rotors will keep on spinning and slow the descent of the helicopter. If a ducted fan's motor fails, you drop faster than Kirstie Alley after 15 minutes on a stairmaster.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    2. Re:And in Popular Mechanics, about 35 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be stupid, what you have claimed is physically impossible. You sound like an American trying to claim that 'We did it first...'

    3. Re:And in Popular Mechanics, about 35 years ago by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I find your point confusing. This was not to replace a helicopter rotor, it was to replace a jet engine on a flying winged jetpack, for reasons of expense and safety from burning jet exhaust for the pilot. If a jet engine fails, you're equally doomed to fall.

  65. This reminds me of something... by Lemmons · · Score: 1

    Let's see: Swiss Alps, hang glider, four jet engines... Tony Stark built this in a cave!

  66. Re:OFN? Broadcasted yesterday in sf1 10vor10 by rapidmax · · Score: 1

    At least it was broadcasted yesterday in 10vor10 news:

    http://www.sf.tv/sf1/10vor10/index.php

  67. what a waste of fuel by Coop · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I can't believe a person would spend his life on a pursuit like this. He must not care one bit about humanity's problems. "Your actions are screaming so loud I can't hear a word you say."

    Too bad. He seems like a bright guy who could have contributed something.

    --
    "If you're not passionate about your operating system, you're married to the wrong one."
    1. Re:what a waste of fuel by MarkovianChained · · Score: 1

      Millions of people waste their lives away on TV, celebrity gossip, World of Warcraft, and all you can say is that a man who spend his life doing something intellectual and in advancement of engineering should be out solving world hunger and curing cancer?

    2. Re:what a waste of fuel by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      I can't believe a person would spend his life on a pursuit like this. He must not care one bit about humanity's problems. "Your actions are screaming so loud I can't hear a word you say." Too bad. He seems like a bright guy who could have contributed something.

      You mean, something like a jetpack? That would be awesome.

    3. Re:what a waste of fuel by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Well, this is certainly inspiring, what with all the achieving a millennia-old dream of mankind to strap on a wing and fly.

      If inspiration isn't enough for you, there's the chance this could be used to deliver rescue workers, supplies, and maybe even medical professionals to the scene of a disaster very quickly. If this is ever developed well enough to be a practical delivery system for a man and his gear, it could be used for all sorts of urgent peaceful missions.

      Then, of course, there's the military applications, but anything useful to civilians has some military equivalent.

  68. Mod +1, Pedantic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet somehow you still knew what he meant...

  69. None the less . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None the less, this is pretty fucking cool!!

    The only thing is, it doesn't look very safe. Actually, it doesn't look very comfortable, either. Maybe they could design an enclosure, with a seat for the pilot to be belted into. If that be the case, then, of course, I'll need some sort of landing gear, too. And maybe some guages and dials that could give me some vital info, you know, roll, pitch, altitude, just in case I'm flying in bad weather, or at night.

    Yeah, definitely count me in when they get to that point. Oh, boy, I can't wait to get me one of those!!

  70. Buzz Lightyear??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else think "To infinity and beyond!"

  71. The Feeling of Power! by Fysiks+Wurks · · Score: 1

    My first though when I saw this was an Azimov short "the Felling of Power":

    "[after the rediscovery the humans can do math in there heads]...And I see something even beyond this. It may be fantastic now, a mere dream, but in the future I see the manned missile!"

    There was an instant murmur from the audience.

    The general drove on. "At the present time, our chief bottleneck is the fact that missiles are limited in intelligence. The computer controlling them can only be so large, and for that reason they can meet the changing nature of antimissile defenses in a unsatisfactory way. Few missiles, if any, accomplish their goal, and missile warfare is coming to a dead end; for the enemy , fortunately as well as for ourselves.

    "On the other hand, a missile with a man or two within, controlling flight by graphitics, would be lighter, more mobile, more intelligent. It would give us a lead that might well mean the margin of victory. Besides which, gentlemen, the exigencies of war compel us to remember one thing. A man is much more dispensable than a computer. Manned missiles could be launched in numbers and under circumstances that no good general would care to undertake as far as computer-directed missiles are concerned-"

    --
    P226
    1. Re:The Feeling of Power! by Fysiks+Wurks · · Score: 1

      Wow...I need more coffee, now I see all my typographical errors after I posted...Does Azimov have any short stories on rediscovering the English language! Sheesh!

      --
      P226
  72. Nonsense... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    It is always sunny on the sun.

    That is why it is called that way.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  73. Historically speaking... by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    Like the Bell Labs jet pack, I fully expect to see this used at the beginning of the next James Bond movie.

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  74. *taps gently on shoulder* by Stanistani · · Score: 1

    Psst. Asimov.

    Not trying to make you feel worse, though.

    I advise you blame the keyboard. Get a new one. Something nice.

    --
    You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
  75. Yeah, I can fly. by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

    Aargh, my heart! Pepper, quick: take your clothes off to get my heart going again!

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  76. Re:That's all very interesting by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

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

    I swear, I thought Penguins could fly! (my apologies to WKRP)

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  77. Lol, another Starcrack addict with by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    nothing to do but post on /. 'till SCII comes out.

    Hi, HAL.

    We're addicts too

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  78. Thanks DICK by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    You owe me a new keyboard.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  79. that's nothing... by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

    I have achieved actual liftoff, just gulp down Red Bull and it gives you WIIIIINGSSSSS................

    --
    I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
  80. I haven't seen anything cooler..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I haven't seen this advertised anywhere in the US yet.

    Could this be because it's been an American dream since the first Superman comic book, and now a Swiss inventor has done what we couldn't...?

  81. Re:I hate to give the wrong people any ideas, but. by wsanders · · Score: 1

    Well, this looks like it takes a fair amount of skill, as opposed to just signing up at a flight school and asking how to fly a jetliner straight ahead, oh yes, no need to take off or land, just straight ahead, yes, thank you.

    I'm curious where he gets his tiny jet engines. I want one :-)

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  82. Engines: by wsanders · · Score: 1

    Not cheap

    http://www.sitewavesstores.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=JetCat&Category_Code=TURB

    But the fun to cost ratio probably makes them a great buy of you have the cash.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  83. He should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do a barrel ro....Oh wait, he did.