Practical Jetpack Available "Soon"

Ifandbut was one of several readers to point out the arrival in Oshkosh of the first practical jetpack. It was invented by a New Zealander Glenn Martin, who has been working on the idea for 27 years. He plans to sell the gizmos for somewhere in the neighborhood of $100K. While previous attempts at jetpacks have flown for at most a couple of minutes, Mr. Martin's invention can stay aloft for half an hour. Both "practical" and "jetpack" may need quotation marks, however: The device is huge and it's incredibly noisy. And, "It is also not, to put it bluntly, a jet. 'If you're very pedantic,' Mr. Martin acknowledged, a gasoline-powered piston engine runs the large rotors. Jet Skis, he pointed out, are not jets, and the atmospheric jet stream is not created by engines. 'This thing flies on a jet of air,' he said. Or, more simply, it flies."

Comments

Jet Packs Are Still Hype!

[mattnyc99]

We've discussed this before! I mean have you watched that video? The thing barely gets off the ground!

Needs stability control

[eggfoolr]

Lucky the $100k includes a couple of guys to hold it for you!

I suspect he either needs a fly by wire computer that manages stability or a third fan. Either way I think we're a wee way off from a production model.

$100k?

[giminy]

Consider the total cost of a private pilot's license is about $10k, and the cost of a used Cessna 172 can be had for about $50k in great condition (which, keep in mind, can carry four people, or 2-3 people with some gear, pretty comfortably), I think that the jetpack would have a hard time selling.

I suppose that there could be some niche market for this sort of thing though...though even a well-equipped Harley costs significantly less than many cars still.

Re:$100k?

[chinakow]

Who are these mythical 4 people who fit in a 172? I guess if two of them are small children then yes, but no luggage! :-) A pilot and me in a 172 on a day that is over seventy degrees and the pilot starts thinking about how much fuel he can have and still get off the ground. Also that niche is called Genral Aviation or GA for short. You also didn't mention that a brand new 172 costs one hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000). Did I mention that air conditioning adds another $20,000? I went and looked at light sport aircraft a couple weekends ago. None of those where under $100K and LSA is supposed to be the category that gets the general public interested in aviation again. Raise you hand if $100 is less than your yearly income. $100k has been the line for upper class for a long time and here in fly-over country it certainly still seems like a good mark. So the price of this jet pack seems rather reasonable to me. If it is truly under 255 pounds and carries less than 5 gallons of fuel it would also qualify as an ultralight and not need to be certified which would make it more approachable because the pilot would not need to be licensed as a pilot either. I just looked at your link, none of those under $50k planes list engine time. Don't forget to factor another $20k for the engine rebuild as well. Notice that the new planes are listed at ~$200k. Good luck with your 172. I will spend my imaginary money on a jet pack! :-)

Re:$100k?

[giminy]

Who are these mythical 4 people who fit in a 172? I guess if two of them are small children then yes, but no luggage! :-)

Note that I said, "can carry four people, or 2-3 people with some gear" The jetpack can carry just one person with little to no gear.

A pilot and me in a 172 on a day that is over seventy degrees and the pilot starts thinking about how much fuel he can have and still get off the ground.

Interesting pilot. I used to fly with my housemate who belonged to an aero club. We took Cessna 150s and 152s out, which are a lot less powerful than the 172. He did say that I slowed his plane down a lot (I weighed 200 pounds then :_)), though it wasn't a big deal getting airborne or even that big a deal for pleasure flying, concerning fuel weight. We always topped off the tank before taking off...

I just looked at your link, none of those under $50k planes list engine time.

You should look again. Almost every plane lists engine time since major overhaul as well as total airframe time. Like this one, this one, this one. Only a small minority do not list time since overhaul...

Anyway I don't think I would ever buy a plane, unless I was starting an aero club or plane cooperative. Aero clubs aren't too expensive (a lot less than buying and maintaining my own aircraft, anyway :)).

Reid

Re:Huh?

[blind biker]

To be honest, I definitely would be interested in a story titled "Impractical Not-Really-A-Jetpack Maybe Available Sometime" - it's just too odd to pass up. Now be honest: who here wouldn't have thought "What the...?? Lemme see what's this all about."

BTW, I really like the word "pantaloons". But, I am easily amused - even "trousers" makes me smile.

Re:Jetpack?!?

[cervo]

From TFA: "Only 12 people have flown the jetpack, and no one has gained more than three hours of experience in the air. Mr. Martin plans to take it up to 500 feet within six months. This time, he said with a smile, he will be the first."

In the article it said that the height was limited to allow people to practice at lower altitude. And I think I recall the limit being at 6 feet so far. This statement appears to be about learning to control it at 3 feet before trying to take it 3000 or in the case of the test 500 feet.

There's a good chance soon we'll have a more sensational article about a 500 ft flight soon. Hopefully it won't be part of an obituary.

Re:Jet Packs & You

[Sockatume]

Hydrogen's not really all that small in volume, actually. Joule-for-joule it takes up much more space in gasoline, even when you start getting into bulky cryogenic compressed storage. Chemical or physical storage is getting there, of course, but isn't a serious option yet, and you run into the problem of gravimetric energy density. You don't want to weigh down your vehicle with fuel.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Didn't the myth busters try to make one and fai

[reverseengineer]

If I remember the episode correctly, the point of that particular myth wasn't so much whether they could build a working "jetpack," but specifically, if they could do so using some instructions they found on the internet which claimed a person could successfully do so with inexpensive, commonplace parts. What they found was that the instructions were too vague to serve as anything more than guidelines, and even after going over budget to get better quality parts, their machine still had an unacceptable thrust-to-weight ratio and so could not fly with a human passenger.

While they "busted" the feasibility of that particular set of plans, they didn't really attempt to rule out a jetpack altogether. With the resources for proper parts, and the time for proper testing, it's undoubtedly possible to build a working jetpack/rocketbelt/ducted fan harness thing. The issues with personal flight systems have not so much centered around possibility as practicality.

Re:Jetpack?!?

[MichaelSmith]

Ground effect applies to airplanes, helicopters and of course hovercraft.

Ands rockets. Lunar module pilots had to either cut their power or throttle right down to land on the moon. Ground effect was significant over the last couple of metres.