PDA

View Full Version : Jetpacks to hit the open market. Yes.


Taco John
03-11-2010, 02:47 AM
<EMBED height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=425 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/WtI1GP147Cs&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 allowScriptAccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>

ZONA
03-11-2010, 02:52 AM
Probably a good idea to invest in some ear plugs, lol.

I can see this thing being in some futuristic movie in the near future. Pretty cool.

I wonder what happens though if you fly near some birds and one gets sucked down into the engine, kiss your arse goodbye, lol.

bpc
03-11-2010, 03:10 AM
Youtube is going to have a whole bunch more jackass videos.

tsiguy96
03-11-2010, 04:20 AM
you know the govt will never let it happen.

Paladin
03-11-2010, 04:35 AM
Someone will put that thing on upside down (don't ask; think Chokeland and KC people) and drive themselves into the ground. The Product Safety Board will get a couple of complaints that the thing isn't idiot proofed....

BroncsRule
03-11-2010, 06:20 AM
I didn't see it flying out of ground effect - that is to say, it probably doesn't have sufficient thrust to fly when it doesn't have the ground to push against.

There have been several ducted fan prototypes like this - but typically they can't go much over 10 feet off the ground.

I'll belive this guy has solved that when I see it.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-11-2010, 06:25 AM
Pro Tip: when the toy you are considering buying is on a wait-list with Leno and the founders of google, you probably can't afford it.

cmhargrove
03-11-2010, 06:59 AM
The dude still says he can put an extra 20 kilos on that thing.


I have an idea...

MileHighMagic
03-11-2010, 09:00 AM
Paintball wars while wearing jetpacks!!

Chris
03-11-2010, 09:26 AM
Synchronized Jetpack Ballet

Pony Boy
03-11-2010, 10:08 AM
I see the NFL camera man of the future.....

Dr. Broncenstein
03-11-2010, 10:11 AM
Jetpack bankrobbers

Requiem
03-11-2010, 10:20 AM
That rocks.

spdirty
03-11-2010, 10:30 AM
Man I cant wait 20-30 years from now getting my grandkids one of those for Christmas, and my kids giving me dirty looks.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-11-2010, 10:40 AM
I'm no rocket surgeon or anything, but I'm not that impressed with the idea of using an piston-driven internal combustion engine. Surely for all the R&D this group has put in, there has to be a better option. What about a small turbine? How about electric motors? Strapping on a car engine has to be about as inefficient as possible... with the least power / weight ratio.

Pony Boy
03-11-2010, 10:48 AM
I wonder what NFL player will be the first to get a DUI in a jetpack?

WolfpackGuy
03-11-2010, 11:16 AM
I read about this guys in Popular Science a couple years back.

The boomerang antenna on the back is a little weird, but it must serve some purpose.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-11-2010, 11:22 AM
I read about this guys in Popular Science a couple years back.

The boomerang antenna on the back is a little weird.

That's in case some bloke trys to run off after bashing your mate.

gunns
03-11-2010, 11:53 AM
Someone will put that thing on upside down (don't ask; think Chokeland and KC people) and drive themselves into the ground. The Product Safety Board will get a couple of complaints that the thing isn't idiot proofed....

OMG, the visual had me cracking up.

loborugger
03-11-2010, 11:55 AM
Jetpack bankrobbers

That is probably why TSI is correct about the govt never letting this happen. Imagine all the uncontrolled freedom's people would have with one of these things.

loborugger
03-11-2010, 11:58 AM
The problem that will arise with this... you need some kind of back up system, some kind of fail safe. For example, if your car breaks down, you coast to the edge of the road and stop. If this thing breaks down 20/30 feet in the air, what do you do?

Dr. Broncenstein
03-11-2010, 12:00 PM
The problem that will arise with this... you need some kind of back up system, some kind of fail safe. For example, if your car breaks down, you coast to the edge of the road and stop. If this thing breaks down 20/30 feet in the air, what do you do?

Pop quiz, hot shot: Your 30 feet in the air and your jetpack just died. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?

tsiguy96
03-11-2010, 12:01 PM
Pop quiz, hot shot: Your 30 feet in the air and your jetpack just died. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?

30 feet hmmmm

ejectable trampoline?

Dr. Broncenstein
03-11-2010, 12:03 PM
30 feet hmmmm

ejectable trampoline?

I have to admit, that has never crossed my mind. You might die on the return fall after bouncing off the trampoline, but what the hell.

OBF1
03-11-2010, 12:07 PM
The amount of people that will kill themselfs and others.... I will take the over.

SonOfLe-loLang
03-11-2010, 12:10 PM
What the hell is the purpose of this thing? its a floating segway

WolfpackGuy
03-11-2010, 12:19 PM
An inflatable bag, so you can bounce to safety.

LOL

Taco John
03-11-2010, 12:29 PM
Pop quiz, hot shot: Your 30 feet in the air and your jetpack just died. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?

Sweep the leg?

Pony Boy
03-11-2010, 01:05 PM
Pop quiz, hot shot: Your 30 feet in the air and your jetpack just died. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?

This is why I avoid helicopters .....

*WARHORSE*
03-11-2010, 01:10 PM
Pop quiz, hot shot: Your 30 feet in the air and your jetpack just died. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?

Pray.:thumbs:


And look for some water.:thanku:

Bronx33
03-11-2010, 01:17 PM
This could make getting to a tailgate a breeze!

Archer81
03-11-2010, 01:25 PM
This screams of very bad idea.

Also, what good does a jet pack do if it only gets you 4 feet off the ground? The future blows...

:Broncos:

Dr. Broncenstein
03-11-2010, 01:57 PM
Pray.:thumbs:


And look for some water.:thanku:

If you hit water, clench your butt.

Quoydogs
03-11-2010, 01:58 PM
Google says they are for sale for the low low price of 86k. Now that might seem like a lot but for what it is I think that is a real bargain.

Pony Boy
03-11-2010, 02:17 PM
Google says they are for sale for the low low price of 86k. Now that might seem like a lot but for what it is I think that is a real bargain.

It's the insurance that will kill ya....:rofl:

broncosteven
03-11-2010, 02:21 PM
The problem that will arise with this... you need some kind of back up system, some kind of fail safe. For example, if your car breaks down, you coast to the edge of the road and stop. If this thing breaks down 20/30 feet in the air, what do you do?

Parachute? Air foil?

I think if they have gyros to keep it from going parallel with sea level it would be Ok.

broncosteven
03-11-2010, 02:30 PM
I'm no rocket surgeon or anything, but I'm not that impressed with the idea of using an piston-driven internal combustion engine. Surely for all the R&D this group has put in, there has to be a better option. What about a small turbine? How about electric motors? Strapping on a car engine has to be about as inefficient as possible... with the least power / weight ratio.

A small turbine that close to a person would burn you up. Plus they don't make turbines that small that I know of.

I am no rocket scientist either, I just have a mancrush on one, but there is a reason piston engines are still used in planes. They are stable, reliable, efficent, and CHEAP as well as easily serviced.

Also I wonder if they considered a Rocket Assisted emergency landing setup. A couple properly placed soild rockets could be ignited to allow an air foil or Parachute to deploy long enough to land, or if they have the weight figured right enough to bring someone down at 1/2 the rate of their fall.

broncosteven
03-11-2010, 02:32 PM
BTW anyone remember Neil almost getting killed on his LRV or "Flying Bedstead" as Gene Called it:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6Qhcs6qiHLI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6Qhcs6qiHLI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Dr. Broncenstein
03-11-2010, 02:41 PM
A small turbine that close to a person would burn you up. Plus they don't make turbines that small that I know of.
I am no rocket scientist either, I just have a mancrush on one, but there is a reason piston engines are still used in planes. They are stable, reliable, efficent, and CHEAP as well as easily serviced.

Also I wonder if they considered a Rocket Assisted emergency landing setup. A couple properly placed soild rockets could be ignited to allow an air foil or Parachute to deploy long enough to land, or if they have the weight figured right enough to bring someone down at 1/2 the rate of their fall.

Im not talking about using a turbine powered jet. More like a gas turbine motor, which would be coupled to the fans -- a modified turboprop. You can't tell me that a piston motor is more reliable / stable / efficient / powerful than a turbine motor. Piston motors are cheaper.

Jay Leno has a motorcycle powered by a turbine. Cant get any closer than pressing-on-your-taint. He manages to not combust, in regulation street clothes no less. I could be done.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pTmgfF1zghg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pTmgfF1zghg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

WolfpackGuy
03-11-2010, 02:54 PM
Im not talking about using a turbine powered jet. More like a gas turbine motor, which would be coupled to the fans -- a modified turboprop. You can't tell me that a piston motor is more reliable / stable / efficient / powerful than a turbine motor. Piston motors are cheaper.


I think the problem with that would be the component weight.

You'd also have to carry a ****load of fuel which equals more weight.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-11-2010, 03:12 PM
I think the problem with that would be the component weight.

You'd also have to carry a ****load of fuel which equals more weight.

So you are saying that a four -cylnder internal combustion engine that makes 200 horsepower weighs less than 350 pounds? That's the weight of the turbine motor in the Y2K bike. It, BTW, makes twice the horsepower. Turbines have a much higher power to weight ratio compared to piston motors of similar size.

broncosteven
03-11-2010, 03:41 PM
Im not talking about using a turbine powered jet. More like a gas turbine motor, which would be coupled to the fans -- a modified turboprop. You can't tell me that a piston motor is more reliable / stable / efficient / powerful than a turbine motor. Piston motors are cheaper.

Jay Leno has a motorcycle powered by a turbine. Cant get any closer than pressing-on-your-taint. He manages to not combust, in regulation street clothes no less. I could be done.


There are a lot of different types of turbines I thought you were talking about Jet engine turbines which they tried to put into a car in the early 60's and it melted the pavement.

I don't know anything about Jay's turbine. I watch Powerblock on Spike TV and they installed a Supercharger that used a turbine, not sure if that is standard in Drag racing as that is not my gig I just like watching the gearhead porn.

Usually though a turbine is a part of engine used either to generate impulse or engaged by exhaust to increase the flow of gasses into the combustion chamber.

The Saturn V had Turbines that were engaged by the fuel passing through them then once started they pushed the fuel through the lines faster in order to get it to the chamber to be ignited. They relied on another force to start them.

With the piston setup you don't need another engine or force to provide the inital thrust. They could add a turbine using the exhaust if they lengthened the naucels(sp?) and use the exhaust to provide more power like turbo prop planes do. Is it worth it to launch a 200 lb man? Maybe, not my problem.

Think of it this way look what the Wrights did with what they had, their 4 cylinder engine pushed out 12 HP.

The problem really isn't weight of the person as much as it weight of the fuel, a Jet Engine Turbine would run through expensive jet fuel whereas a stock piston would require less fuel that you could get from the Mobil down the street.

broncosteven
03-11-2010, 03:46 PM
So you are saying that a four -cylnder internal combustion engine that makes 200 horsepower weighs less than 350 pounds? That's the weight of the turbine motor in the Y2K bike. It, BTW, makes twice the horsepower. Turbines have a much higher power to weight ratio compared to piston motors of similar size.

Your right about Jet Turbines being able to lift more than a piston engine. That is why lifting helicopters use jet engines but a personal flying pack may not need the lifting power of a jet driven turbine.

Maybe this dude moves to jet driven turbines with superchargers down the road but I could see why they would want to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) it to start.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-11-2010, 03:48 PM
There are a lot of different types of turbines I thought you were talking about Jet engine turbines which they tried to put into a car in the early 60's and it melted the pavement.

I don't know anything about Jay's turbine. I watch Powerblock on Spike TV and they installed a Supercharger that used a turbine, not sure if that is standard in Drag racing as that is not my gig I just like watching the gearhead porn.

Usually though a turbine is a part of engine used either to generate impulse or engaged by exhaust to increase the flow of gasses into the combustion chamber.

The Saturn V had Turbines that were engaged by the fuel passing through them then once started they pushed the fuel through the lines faster in order to get it to the chamber to be ignited. They relied on another force to start them.

With the piston setup you don't need another engine or force to provide the inital thrust. They could add a turbine using the exhaust if they lengthened the naucels(sp?) and use the exhaust to provide more power like turbo prop planes do. Is it worth it to launch a 200 lb man? Maybe, not my problem.

Think of it this way look what the Wrights did with what they had, their 4 cylinder engine pushed out 12 HP.

The problem really isn't weight of the person as much as it weight of the fuel, a Jet Engine Turbine would run through expensive jet fuel whereas a stock piston would require less fuel that you could get from the Mobil down the street.

Most turbines can burn just about anything you put in them. Gas, kerosene, propane, natural gas, diesel, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine

broncosteven
03-11-2010, 03:54 PM
Most turbines can burn just about anything you put in them. Gas, kerosene, propane, natural gas, diesel, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine

"Gas turbines offer a high-powered engine in a very small and light package. However, they are not as responsive and efficient as small piston engines over the wide range of RPMs and powers needed in vehicle applications. In series hybrid vehicles, as the driving electric motors are mechanically detached from the electricity generating engine, the responsiveness problem is eliminated when using a gas turbine to turn the generator as it is run at the optimum speed. The emergence of the continuously variable transmission may also alleviate the responsiveness problem.

Turbines have historically been more expensive to produce than piston engines, though this is partly because piston engines have been mass-produced in huge quantities for decades, while small gas turbine engines are rarities; however, turbines are mass produced in the closely-related form of the turbocharger."

ghwk
03-11-2010, 04:24 PM
Pray.:thumbs:


And look for some water.:thanku:

HA with that thing strapped to your back you will sink like a rock and die slowly.

ghwk
03-11-2010, 04:28 PM
Broncenstein and Broncosteven have just geeked up this thread. :thumbsup:

broncosteven
03-11-2010, 05:27 PM
Broncenstein and Broncosteven have just geeked up this thread. :thumbsup:

If this were a "It burns when I pee" thread I would defer to the good Dr but through Gene I have learned a lot about engine thingy's and stuff.

elsid13
03-11-2010, 05:58 PM
I'm no rocket surgeon or anything, but I'm not that impressed with the idea of using an piston-driven internal combustion engine. Surely for all the R&D this group has put in, there has to be a better option. What about a small turbine? How about electric motors? Strapping on a car engine has to be about as inefficient as possible... with the least power / weight ratio.

You are thinking about it the wrong way. The group wants to make the thing commercial viable, a piston engine is well understood technology that "easy" to manufacture and maintain. Will there might be more advance technology, you trade that off to keep production cost low. The device is cutting edge enough without adding additional complexity added to the manufacturing efforts

Bronx33
03-11-2010, 06:05 PM
I see a huge surge in jetpack related impacts into random objects.

http://www.gkko.com/videos/31176/Jet_pack_mayhem.htm