Slashdot Mirror


Swiss Man Flies With Jet Powered Wing

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

72 of 247 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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?!
    3. 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...

    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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;
    7. 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!
    8. 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;
    9. 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.

    10. 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;
    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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!
    14. Re:OFN? by rarel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh no, not again...

    15. 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.....
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

  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 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.
    3. Re:Well... by ozbird · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  3. 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 ...

  4. 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.
  5. 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.....
  6. 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 speculatrix · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

      You work for the RIAA/MPAA, right?

    7. Re:Wait... what? by beav007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's either that or Excel 2007...

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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]
  10. 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

  11. 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)
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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 SpinyNorman · · Score: 2, Informative
    2. 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

    3. 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.

  16. 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 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!

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

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

    Well... very carefully of course.

  18. Re:Landing? by Deadstick · · Score: 2, Informative

    With a parachute.

    rj

  19. 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.

  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. Re:Landing? by rrohbeck · · Score: 4, Funny

    With a parachute. Even though you'd think a pair of rollerblades should be sufficient.
  23. 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
  24. 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)
  25. Re:Landing? by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

    Hobgoblin in 3... 2...

  27. 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!
  28. 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. Re:Landing? by grassy_knoll · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wiley Coyote, is that you?

  32. 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...
  33. 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
  34. 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?!?

  35. 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.

  36. 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.
  37. 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.