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.

Comments

That's fine but...

[Wizard Drongo]

Where's my god damned flying car?!!

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

Re:That's fine but...

[icebike]

Exactly.

This is one of those things that is seemingly announced annually, and never seems to get any closer than a few prototypes.

Flying is dangerous. A sky full of unregulated idiots is even more scary. Luckily the price tag is high, probably to fund the lawyers they will need.

Re:That's fine but...

[neight108]

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

Cup holders

Re:That's fine but...

[Darkness404]

Flying is dangerous. A sky full of unregulated idiots is even more scary. Luckily the price tag is high, probably to fund the lawyers they will need.

Not really. Flying, when done properly will be -a lot- more safe than driving. With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down. Mix this with the fact that there are no roads (meaning to get to the same place two people can easily take routes miles apart) and you have the ability to reduce, eliminate traffic problems that exist in traditional traffic.

Also, never underestimate the fact of self-preservation, when encountered in a life threatening situation, people tend to do the right thing and move away from danger. People are self-regulating when it comes to life and death.

Re:That's fine but...

[HBoar]

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

Re:That's fine but...

[Av8rjoker]

"when done properly" is the key phrase there. Flying is HIGHLY regulated by the government. For one, you need a medical certificate to fly which needs to be updated every few years (depending on what class it is). Also, you need a certified AP mechanic to sign off on your aircraft. With a car, your drunk neighbor can basically build a car for you, and as long as you acquired a driver's license.... even 50 years ago.... you can drive it. As long as you are 18 (in Wisconsin at least), you don't even need a driver's education course. All you need to do is pass the test, which is ridiculously easy, and you get a license for the rest of your life. Now, I have flown in a few aircraft that were slightly "questionable", but they were definitely airworthy. It is a bit scary pulling out the throttle and having the knob immediately pop off hehe. Also going into the clouds for the first time and having your VOR about 15 degrees off (I think I got a few more gray hairs on that one). My point is that the reason why flying is so safe is because it is extremely regulated. If everyone's car went through the same maintenance procedure as a Cessna 150 built in the mid 50s, then we would have almost no broken down cars on the highway. If the drivers were put through the same sort of training as pilots, we would have far fewer accidents.

TBO 100 hours

[RichMan]

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

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

Re:TBO 100 hours

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Depends on comfort and how it handles. Have you ever BEEN in an ultralight? Or skydiving/parachuting? (I don't mean to closely associate those two, generally you do one or the other, not both at the same time, ho ho he he.)

Actually flying, and looking down on the world below you, and knowing that it really is the ground, and not some sort of BS simulation, is a heck of a thing. The world below that was once almost entirely hidden by facades is all laid out bare before you; you don't see storefronts, you see the entire complex, including the service entrances. You don't see the eight cars directly around you, you see a hundred in a line, some merging in and out of traffic, some carrying onwards. You don't see houses with their trimmed lawns, trying to make themselves look like DISTINGUISHED suburbanites, you just see another prefab lot out of thousands.

With airplanes, if only as a matter of control (and law), you can never drop below several hundred feet. But if, with a jetpack, you could... you could be in both worlds at once--seeing the land below, as you did from the ground, and then the roofs and patterns and skies from above.

If you get caught up in something like that... thirty minutes is nothing. You could spend that thirty minutes just noticing things you'd never seen before in your favorite places--and not just the first time out, but the tenth or more. And then, since you spent thirty minutes flying instead of fifteen out and fifteen back, you'll run out of fuel...

nah

[JackSpratts]

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

Re:All I could think of

[RobinEggs]

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

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

[frakir]

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/

Not a proper jetpack!

[Dun Malg]

This design does not meet the basic definition of a proper science fiction jetpack. Specifically, you cannot walk around with it on your back, then decide "you know, I think I'll fly over that wall" and then WHOOOOOOSH! over the wall you go. This thing is obviously too big and heavy to tote around on your back. Heck, I don't even really see the point of harnessing to it with straps--- you'd be better off with a seat, maybe with and instrument panel, and perhaps a windscreen, because if you can't carry the thing on your back, what does it matter?

How loud is it?

[Mr_Blank]

Having my head 1 meter from a 100+ decibel turbo props for 30 minutes at a time does not sound like a good idea. Crashing in the equivalent of a flying motorcycle (human body moving fast on a structure required to hold a combustion engine) does not sound good for my health either.

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

[Opportunist]

Actually in the US I'm pretty sure they got it finished a few years ago, they just can't figure out where to put the "WARNING! Objects below you may appear more stable than they are!" sticker, the "WARNING! Do not let anyone under the age of 12 ride underneath the rotor blades" sticker and similar important safety informations.

Engine failure is the problem

[Goonie]

This device uses a two-stroke engine as its powerplant. Two-stroke engines are notoriously unreliable. You will get engine failures on these every couple of hundred hours of flying time, and most likely it'll occur when the engine is under load in initial takeoff or landing.

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

If the engine dies, this thing will, pretty much instantly, drop like a rock. Assuming a little bit of aerodynamic drag, it would take around 1.8 seconds and terminal velocity would be around 35 mph. In other words, you would splatter yourself over the tarmac like jelly. Ballistic recovery chutes work faster than conventional chutes, but it's still going to take virtually all of those 1.8 seconds even to deploy the chute, let alone achieve significant retardation. The only solution would be something like emergency rockets to lift the pack (and user) to sufficient altitude to deploy the recovery chute safely.

Would you fly something that will need you to use the last-ditch "ejector seat" system every couple of hundred flying hours?

Re:Engine failure is the problem

[im_thatoneguy]

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.