Slashdot Mirror


The World's First Commercially Available Jetpack

ElectricSteve writes "It's been a long time coming. While Arthur C. Clarke's geosync satellites have taken to space, and James Bond's futuristic mobile technology has become commonplace, still the dream of sustained personal flight has eluded us — until now. At $86,000, the Martin Aircraft jetpack costs about as much as a high-end car, achieves a 30-minute flight time, and is fueled by regular gasoline. A 10% deposit buys you a production slot for 12 months hence." Here's a video of some indoor test flights. This isn't Buck Rogers's jetpack — it's about 5 by 5 feet and weighs more than the average human. You won't be able to commute with it (the FAA has not certified this class of device) so it's recreational only for now.

13 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. TBO 100 hours by RichMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's 100 hours of motor operation before you have to overhaul the engine.
    At 30 minutes per flight that is 200 flights.

    Still not good for distance or anything more than short hops.

  2. Re:It's in New Zealand and not in the USA by frakir · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Hiller Flying Platform was designed in 1955. It was originally an ONR (Office of Naval Research) project to develop a platform capable of carrying one man for short hops.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi5QDHKk9AY
    ok, the video's choppy but we speak 1950's goddammit

    1997: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-4ygOrgJ4

    2005: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/11/anderson-based/

  3. Re:Mosquito is still a better idea by Cjstone · · Score: 2, Informative

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

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Re:All I could think of by TopSpin · · Score: 1, Informative

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

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

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  6. Re:That's fine but... by HBoar · · Score: 5, Informative

    The martin jetpack has a ballistic parachute system for such eventualities.

  7. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Unending · · Score: 2, Informative
  8. Re:better flight by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

    I assume you are unaware of the fact that both rocket fuel and jet fuel are essentially kerosene: not something gasoline engines run well on.

    Nitromethane, on the other hand, might be interesting. You can be the test pilot, though. I'll watch from the bunker.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  9. Re:Engine failure is the problem by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the website:

    Rollcage:
    Although it is not visually apparent the Martin Jetpack has an internal roll cage. The ducts currently have a carbon kevlar hoop. These are to protect the pilot from side impact. The control arms protect from the front and are designed to snap off in a hard impact, the ducts then further protect the pilot. The structure extends below the level of the spine to prevent injury from a hard landing. In effect the pilot is housed in a protective cocoon by the structure and engine. Further enhancements are planned for impact protection, the goal is to provide impact protection from 30 feet high.

    Minimal Avoidance Curve:
    Helicopters and other VTOL aircraft normally have an avoidance curve. This is
    the height where an impact is not survivable but below which other procedures like "autorotation" are not possible. Currently we think that with good design and correct flying procedures the avoidance curve can be eliminated. This is one of the reasons we feel that the Jetpack will be safer than current "light helicopters".

    My 2 cents:
    Most engine failures aren't instantaneous in my experience. If you're gaining altitude there is probably only 4 seconds during those hundreds of hours that you would feasibly be in the 'death zone'. I also reject your theory that most failures would take place during the initial climb. Considering the aircraft itself offers 0 lift climbing and hovering would probably be similar engine strain.

    Also keep in mind that's a 4 cylinder 2 stroke. I find it unlikely you would encounter an engine problem which would take out the entire engine in mid flight. If a spark plug somehow went out or a single valve failed you would still most likely have enough power to descend safely. If we're talking about something like the fuel pump then that's just as likely to go out while sitting on the tarmac as the first 3 seconds of flight.

  10. Re:Engine failure is the problem by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Let's assume that the engine stops at 50 feet.

    For what its worth, helicopters have these same types of failure concerns. Contrary to popular myth, beginning auto rotation generally requires time for the pilot to respond. Furthermore, most helicopters have a critical horizontal speed which must be obtained before enough energy can be maintained in the rotor system to safely auto rotate. As such, there is a critical failure window in all single engine helicopters, during take off, in which auto rotation is all but impossible. Multi-engine helicopters are generally not an issue as worst case they will generally have enough power to safely land in this critical window of time.

  11. Re:That's fine but... by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Flying is HIGHLY regulated by the government. For one, you need a medical certificate to fly which needs to be updated every few years

    Don't be so quick to generalize there sonny. Lst time I checked you do not need a license to fly an ultralight aircraft in the United States of America. You do not need a medical. You are not even required to undertake any training. You can perfectly legally purchase a Part 103 ultralight aircraft, jump in, and go fly.

    You'll probably kill yourself if you did do that, but at least you'd be doing so legally.

    --
    NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
  12. Re:Engine failure is the problem by e4g4 · · Score: 2, Informative

    They've already got impact protection from > 30 ft - a ballistic parachute.

    --
    The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein