Goddamn cheap Japanese flying packs!
I can't be the only one thinking of Woody Allen in Sleeper, can I?
Kiwi jetpack gets all-clear for manned tests
A decade of testing is close to paying off for New Zealand company Martin Aircraft Company, which has announced that it has received certification to conduct manned test flights for its Martin Jetpack. The New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority has given the outfit the go-ahead to conduct manned flights of its twelfth prototype …
-
-
Monday 19th August 2013 12:21 GMT Jerren
Re: Top speed?
Per the companies website the max range is about 30KM which is about 18 miles, I'm afraid you'd have to stop for gas a few times. They have some not-so commuter friendly restrictions on it too: It's only useable during daylight, you cannot fly over urban centers, line of site only, and requires you to basically dress like a Indy driver in a fireproof flight suit, horse-collar and helmet.
Not to mention that parachute won't help much at low level flight, and well nothing will help if you run into power lines or a building etc. (Of course if your in an urban setting flying into the building is misuse per the restrictions so forget the insurance payments and lawsuits against the manufacturer...)
File under expensive toy but not bloody practical for those of us waiting for the flying car that folds into a brief case and rocket belts we were promised would be around by now when we were kids....
-
Monday 19th August 2013 12:58 GMT rh587
Re: Top speed?
Define "low level". A BRS can deploy in as little as 260ft. Unless you go belly up during landing or takeoff (the most dangerous stage of any flight, whether you're flying fixed wing, rotary or "other"), then this should be relatively safe given most of your flight would surely be at 1000ft, but most likely making partial use of it's 8000ft ceiling.
Flying into buildings or pylons is a hazard in any light aircraft, helicopter, ultralight or other aircraft that isn't following a monitored and defined route from ATC up to 30,000ft.
And yeah. 45 litres for 30km is an expensive way to travel.
I had thought it might have a niche application for those first responders who tool around single-crewed assisting ambulance crews and dealing with bits and pieces that perhaps don't need a full ambulance + crew. However, as the maximum payload (with full fuel) is 100kg including pilot and gear, you're going to need a skinny pilot and (s)he'll barely have enough spare capacity to carry a triangular bandage with them. They're going to need to work on the range/payload profile a bit.
That said, it's an early product. Just as the Model T was. They will sell a few, because there are enough people out there with £130k to drop on a toy (which is pretty much what early motor cars were, barely a match for a horse and carriage beyond novelty value), and various militaries will have a few just to play with, even if they don't end up actually using them for anything.
Ultimately one would hope they'll develop from there into something moderately useful.
One has to congratulate them on bringing a vaguely saleable product to market in a mere decade compared to Paul Moller who has essentially nothing to show for 50 years of work beyond some pretty models and a collection of prototypes that can only fly with the assistance of a crane. Start small, get something to market and develop your product range once you've actually generated an income stream and have a working product to show prospective buyers and investors...
-
-
Monday 19th August 2013 08:23 GMT Thomas 4
There's potential
I think the problem with jetpacks is that people immediately try to see them as a replacement for a plane or a car, rather than on their own merits.Just imagine if you had a few of these placed in mountainous areas or along cliff walk areas. You'd be able to reach someone more quickly than with a helicopter or plane.
-
Monday 19th August 2013 09:00 GMT Fibbles
Re: There's potential
I thinks there's very little, if anything, that these jetpacks could reach that a helicopter with a winch could not. The helicopter also has the added bonus of being able to carry any kit you need and still have room to evacuate the injured/stranded in mountain rescue situations.
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 19th August 2013 15:31 GMT stu 4
Re: Paramotor safer
yeh - lets call it short take off and landing.
I don't think VTOL is the only thing this is selling as is it ? it's the 'personal transport' angle they are going for.
And a paramotor is, I would argue, as practical (i.e. not at all), and a damn site safer and cheaper.
I can't see any applications where VTOL is really required outside of military. As a flying toy which is surely what it is - I don't really get it.
It would also not be legal to fly in the UK as not foot launch-able - unless you are superman.
-
-
-
-
Monday 19th August 2013 10:14 GMT dorsetknob
Yeh Exploding petrol (gasoline for US readers) Stations
"Quote"
And with conventional petrol (gasoline for US readers) powering the engine, CEO Peter Coker says users could drop into an ordinary service station for a top-up.""
"Unquote"
expect this to happen BIG BANG
You can always smell a Petrol station because of the (explosive ) fumes in the air and are you willing to land a jet Pack in your petrol station with its very hot naked flame exhaust belching inches away from your Darwin sacks.
Buy a Jet pack and immediately Qualify for a Darwin Award First Class
-
-
Monday 19th August 2013 10:23 GMT James Hughes 1
Re: Yeh Exploding petrol (gasoline for US readers) Stations
And yet the number of exploding petrol stations is, well, pretty small, when you consider the huge variety of different vehicles that fill up there - cars (Very very hot catalytic converters) - bikes - very hot two strokes. People with cigarettes on the go (yes, it does happen) etc. Number of exploding petrol stations. Zero.
If you are going to disparage something, please pick an area that can actually be disparaged.
-
-
Monday 19th August 2013 12:39 GMT Eradicate all BB entrants
Re: Yeh Exploding petrol (gasoline for US readers) Stations
But it is still quite disconcerting when you pull into a French petrol station where it seems smoking while filling is mandatory (I know the cigarette won't light it, but the constant attempts at getting his zippo to light wont help, also in times of protest an old winebox/plastic milk bottle is an acceptable container for fuel .... in a car boot ..... in 30c heat)
-
Monday 19th August 2013 13:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Yeh Exploding petrol (gasoline for US readers) Stations
If you accidentally put an angle grinder through a petrol tank it also doesn't explode. There's a youtube vid of a guy mig welding a fuel tank without draining it first.
I hear the modus operandi of thieving youngsters disposing of the evidence of their vehicular activities is to light a disposable barbeque under the tank to reliably get it going.
-
-
-
-
Monday 19th August 2013 10:24 GMT Dixie Nourmous
If the engines stop and you have to deploy a parachute,isnt it going to ba a rather hard landing with all that kit attached to your back, as I thought in a normal (without a jet pack attached) landing you took some of the speed out by collaping to the floor as you touched earth, surely you wont be able to do this .. or am I completely wrong ?
-
Monday 19th August 2013 12:27 GMT monkeyfish
The manned test flights will first be conducted indoors, the company says.
And with conventional petrol (gasoline for US readers) powering the engine, CEO Peter Coker says users could drop into an ordinary service station for a top-up.
I can see nothing going wrong with either of these statements.
-
Monday 19th August 2013 14:32 GMT ElReg!comments!Pierre
First responders, heh?
"Martin Aircraft Company hopes to launch its first commercial units in 2014, aiming the technology at first responders "
Haha. Is that earthy notes of utter bullshit mixed with a fragrance of complete bollocks that I smell? If you need speed and an aerial view, you have a copter. If you need fast access to ground (in a very dense jam) you have medic bikes. For everything else, ambulances are pretty good. This thing? Can't go very far, can't take much equipment aboard, can't get to ground in a busy place, can't carry an injured person to safety. It's probably pretty fun to operate, but not something a first responder would find particularly useful (well, until you fit it with a grenade launcher and a LASER and wait for the zombie outbreak)
-
Monday 19th August 2013 21:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: First responders, heh? - A Motorcycle Responder (Ambulance) responds...
I'm under 80Kg (dressed, but I only mention that as it's relevant). I'm only allowed (not that we fully adhere to this) to carry 10Kg in each pannier, generally enough to deal with most situations until a truck can arrive.
Now I can see quite a few issues with the use of these particular devices, but the principle is very sound.
There are potential uses where we might stick one or two of these, perhaps to cover a reasonable length of beach/coastline and related inland areas during peak holiday season, acting as the arial equivalent of motorcycle response to the helcopter's equivalence to a conventional ambulance, get there quickly, stabilise the casualty until more help can arrive.
Leaving operationsl costs out of it, a decent chopper is well over a million pounds. A couple of these could, where terrain dictates (and allows) act as a "force multiplier" in the same way that motorcycles do (and I remember the opposition to them when they first came out, some similar to those being suggested now). Depending on solving issues with navigation, landing (and security of the craft whilst then being possibly a little way from it and otherwise occupied) and a few other things, I can see places in the UK where these could have a use. For other countries the case might be more compelling. I suppose the main factor really is effective speed.
The vtol bit could also be realy helpful. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere like NZ or Aus where people tend to be more "how can we make this work" wouldn't deploy these to an area where after a job there was a small bit of tarmac in each fuel station where one could land to refuel and return to a fully ready operational status, perhaps with a small secure locker to re-equip with meds. Simple, public spirited and community minded, alas often lacking here (or regulated out of existence).
I'd give one a go.
-
Tuesday 20th August 2013 08:49 GMT ElReg!comments!Pierre
Re: First responders, heh? - A Motorcycle Responder (Ambulance) responds...
"perhaps to cover a reasonable length of beach/coastline and related inland areas during peak holiday season, acting as the arial equivalent of motorcycle response to the helcopter's equivalence to a conventional ambulance, get there quickly, stabilise the casualty until more help can arrive."
That's the idea they base the bullshit on... but , from the company website:
Range 30km
Endurance (Flight time) 30 minutes.
Maximum airspeed 40kts (74 km/h) = FP2
Cruise speed 30kts (56km/h)
That was my point, it rules out most real-world uses. Basically you have to get there first (say, on a truck). With a realistic air time of 20 minutes (to allow for a safety margin) all you can do is take a peak and get back down. It's not the equivalent of a motorcycle or a helicopter, it's at most a scouting device for the support truck that gets it on site and refuel it every half hour. Better take a small, cheap unmanned drone.
Unless what you're doing is looking for a missing person, in which case I suppose the truck+hover pack is a cheaper alternative to a helicopter. Considerably slower, though, and you can't lift...
Maintenance is required every 100 hrs too, I don't see this being cheap to operate.
-
-
-
Monday 19th August 2013 19:03 GMT Arthur 1
Fuel Economy
That "backpack" is huge, and I suspect the bulk of it is gas tank. Can't be very economical.
Of course that makes sense, getting enough lift to keep a person plus itself at 8k feet for half an hour takes a ludicrous amount of energy. But that also relegates it to being little more than a toy, a very expensive to operate one at that. And the fuel limitation is fairly fundamental of a thing to work around, gravitational potential doesn't magically change, nor does fuel's energy density.
Still, very impressive engineering. Back in the day people believed the fuel limitation would prevent these things from running more than a few minutes. I guess by scaling it up and making the parts more efficient they've made something at least usable for blowing off some steam in spectacular fashion. And that's pretty damn cool.
-
Tuesday 20th August 2013 13:43 GMT Chris Sake
Naysayers
Yes, it is a prototype and pre-production...
But:
- shark spotting at beaches
- fire locating in forests
- herd location in outback stations or farms
- traffic/crowd observation
come to mind, with a quicker response time and at a lower cost than an aircraft or a helicopter. Though a paramotor could be utilised instead for some of these.
Don't forget that the Martin Jetpack comes from a country that reputedly can fix anything with a fence post and a length of number 8 wire. Also, 31 March 1903 anyone?
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
