Flying Jet-Powered Hoverboard Now a Reality (theverge.com)

Zapata Racing has begun testing prototypes of a new jet-powered hoverboard called the "Flyboard Air". The Verge published a new interview with the company's CEO, who confirms that a backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel powers the flying hoverboard's four 250-horsepower turboengines, with two more engines used for stabilizaton. Capable of flying up to 100 miles per hour, the jet-powered hoverboard uses an internal algorithm to adjust the thrust and angle of each turboengine, so "It's like we have six systems working together plus my brain and my legs." The company hopes to ultimately interest the military and security sectors in the technology, but they're also working on a smaller version that could be piloted while sitting, which the CEO describes as "extremely small, extremely stable, and something that you can take to go and buy your bread in the morning."

Comments

Still no antigravity hoverboard

[ickleberry]

As showcased in BTTF. 2016 tech disappoints.

Economics 101

[AchilleTalon]

"...something that you can take to go and buy your bread in the morning."

That makes plenty of sense to burn 10 gallons of kerosene to get a loaf of bread.

Re: Economics 101

[WarJolt]

For the adrenaline junkies out there that's not the point. There are folks that would commit suicide if they can't get their next fix. It's hard for the more rationally minded /. audience to understand.

Re:Economics 101

[rgbatduke]

No, no, no. You can use it to buy bread in the morning, but you can toast it on the way home!

Actual URL

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.theverge.com/2016/4...

URL in posted item has too many hyphens between hoverboard and interview

Only 45 years late

[OzPeter]

Williams did this with the WASP in the 1970's. No fancy electronics needed either.

They also tried to sell it to the military, but the military decided that choppers were the go instead.

Re:Only 45 years late

[alvinrod]

Copters were a better choice for a variety of reasons, among them that you can carry a lot of reasonably heavy ordinance as well as several passengers who can focus on firing weapons while someone else handles the flying. These are the kind of thing that looks cool on paper or sounds like it might be a good idea, but just don't work out in the real world for a variety of reasons.

Roman candle

[PopeRatzo]

a backpack full of kerosene-grade fuel powers the flying hoverboard's four 250-horsepower turboengines

Fuck yeah!

Far superior to quadrocopters

[Zibodiz]

Okay, call me crazy, but I imagine that you could build a vehicle body similar to George Jetson's car, and mount it onto a board just slightly larger than that board. The fuel tank could be much larger, and the vehicle would be substantially less 'X-Games', opening it up to a significantly larger potential market. Such a vehicle would blow electric quadrocopter-based personal transport out of the proverbial water.

Re:Far superior to quadrocopters

[SuricouRaven]

You could, yes. But there's still a fundamental problem. Flying demands a great deal of power, which is why drones have such short battery life and why this thing is going to guzzle fuel. It might have a niche as a recreational vehicle for the suitably rich, but the running cost means flight is not a viable means of personal transport. If it were, we'd all be commuting in helicopters - they are already mass-produced, but the running cost is just too high for you to built a helepad on your driveway and avoid the traffic jams.

Of course, you could go buy bread on this thing...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

...The only caveat is, no one else should be out at that time, or come closer than 150 feet to you. Jet exhaust of 1000 HP, and a couple of stability thrusters so close to ground will kick up so much of small debris, anything down stream of the jet wash is going to suffer greatly. Foreign object reingestion, got to hand it to the military to come up with three word terms, is a major problem in the Harrier jump jets. Harrier also has a few thrust nozzles for stabilization at low air speeds. Harrier landing has to be excruciatingly precise, and zones cleared of small debris.

Problems

[currently_awake]

If you hit a micro-burst (sudden change in air speed) you will get blown off and fall to your death. Having a drone deliver your bread would be more convenient. Flying into a house at a hundred miles per hour would hurt. A bird strike would hurt. You think you'll see power lines at that speed? Ensure you have a backup fuel gauge.

Re: Welcome to the future of America

[Type44Q]

The store-bought bread also has all the HFCS and chemical additives you need.

I can't believe you left out the best part!

Re:Link 404's

[Foresto]

Doesn't look like a hoax.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

1,000 Horsepower?

[Bartles]

I think something is wrong here. It would take nowhere near 1,000 horsepower plus two more engines of unknown output for stabilization to fly a human being. A PT6A turbine engine with 1000,hp output burns .69lb of fuel per horsepower per hour. And it is far more efficient than 6 small turbines. If he was flying on a single 1000hp turbine, he would have burned 50 lbs of fuel in that 4 minute flight. Something doesn't make sense.

Zowie!

[Opyros]

This may revolutionize everyday life as much as the Segway did!! Uh, wait a minute—

FYI Redundant Systems Design

[Press2ToContinue]

From TFA:

"the whole system should be able to land if you have one turboreactor fail. So I’m able to stabilize it even if I lost one engine and we had enough thrust to get down and land. If one turboreactor fails it’s fine, because we have four turboreactors, and we can fly with three. And inside the remote we have three different Wi-Fi channels, plus we have three sensors. Everything is threefold, and they speak together, so in case one fails, the two also know which one failed."