Martin Jetpack Makes Flying Possible for $86,000

[shin0bi272]

not knocking it or anything cause its cool and all but it does seem kind of expensive for a couple of large fans and a rotary motor and some controls (and maybe a seat belt and helmet). I mean look at the advancements that paul moller made in rotary engine technology. The rotary engine (think evenrude outboard motor engine) is the only real cost effective engine that has the power to weight ratio to enable this kind of machine. If the motor for this was provided by freedom motors that's moller's sister company. On the positive side though if it doesnt go above 10ft in the air you dont need a pilots license to fly it but then what would be the point in it...

 

[shin0bi272]

I guess the mythbusters were wrong again...

 

[adbat]

30 minutes is a huge limitation. Wankel engine would give it better fuel economy + less weight - what a lost opportunity that was

 

[adbat]

30 minutes is a huge limitation. Wankel engine would give it more fuel economy + lest weight = more time/more range - what a wasted opportunity that is.

 

[bogcotton]

I find it odd that even the company calls it a jetpack.

It's not a jet pack, because there aren't any jets.

But it looks a lot more practical than a jet pack could ever conceivably be, looking forward to version 5+ !

 

[slaphappy]

[citation][nom]Shin0bi272[/nom]not knocking it or anything cause its cool and all but it does seem kind of expensive for a couple of large fans and a rotary motor and some controls (and maybe a seat belt and helmet). I mean look at the advancements that paul moller made in rotary engine technology. The rotary engine (think evenrude outboard motor engine) is the only real cost effective engine that has the power to weight ratio to enable this kind of machine. If the motor for this was provided by freedom motors that's moller's sister company. On the positive side though if it doesnt go above 10ft in the air you dont need a pilots license to fly it but then what would be the point in it...[/citation]

Kinda expensive for a couple of fans and a seatbelt? If it was so damn easy to develop then we would have seen one by now, and you could pick this thing up at your local wal-mart. The controls, stabilization, thrust to weight ratio, and R&D that went into this thing are the reason behind the cost. Im sorry that *you* think any high schooler could design this, but this is pretty advanced stuff buddy.

 

[alfaalex101]

GDI Jump Jet Trooper!

 

[alfaalex101]

GDI Jump Jet Trooper!

 

[princeofdreams]

All I can say is... Fuck I want one lol damn I mean I really want one Could never afford it but that would be so much fun on a sunny Sunday afternoon.

Expensive yes, but they are breaking new ground here, from this point the size will get smaller and the range will get longer, wont be long before the put 4 to 8 fans on a carbon shell and two people can fly around in a hover car.

Truly amazing work by the company, I hope they have a massive success, innovative technology and design like this needs to be nurtured and supported, just surprised (and pleased) the military haven't got involved in it

 

[10tacle]

For the non-pilots out there: you do not need a private (or recreational more so here) pilot's license to fly this. What you would need to do is stay out of certain classes of airspace at certain altitudes, where transponders and radio communication are necessary and you have to be licensed to use them (you are automatically granted a radio operator's license by the FAA when you get your pilot's license).

@ RicardoK: a parachute works great thousands of feet up, but good luck getting one to open fully from just a couple hundred feet buzzing around above the trees (as I referenced) if the engine craps out!

Does anyone thing a lot of those ultralights flying around are piloted by licensed pilots in radio contact with controllers and other aircraft?

 

[qball1]

It doesn't require a pilot's license yet, but rest assured once the FAA hears about this they'll add the requirement, assuming they allow this at all. Beyond that it's very cool, but also very beyond my reach.

 

[Pailin]

Awsome - talk about a way to beat the traffic LMAO

Even better than my Yamaha R1 and that is Damn Fun ^^

I want one!!!

 

[aneasytarget]

The real problem is how much are you going to get blown around at altitude. The neighbors won't appreciate the really loud noise of your taking off and landing either.

 

[ouch1]

That is great that someone came out with one that works better than the old NASA steam/jet packs. If they were to add a BRS parachute system ( http/www.brsparachutes.com/brs_aviation_home.aspx ) to this it would be much safer. Even at fairly low (between 50 to 100ft) altitude it would work.

 

[Guest]

Another video of this jetpack: http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtI1GP147Cs&feature=player_embedded

 

[akhodjaev]

Also,
it would be good to have as a safety feature resistance to EMP (Electro-magnetic Pulse)
we do not want to fall down from 8000ft

 

[jednx01]

I want this to come down in price... In 50 years we might all have one of these. lol (or maybe not)

 

[azcoyote]

Wow. 90K and no place to put your feet while in flight? LOL

 

[lashton]

im from NZ and this guy puts me to shame, its NOT a f**ken jet pack, its a car engine pack, its heavy and practically useless, and our govt. gave him a million dollars to develop this FFS what is the world coming too

 

[Guest]

Can we drop the jetpack debate already?

From the site:


What Is A Jetpack?
There is some confusion over what a jetpack is/ was/should be.

Basically it comes down to a disconnect between what is science, what is engineering and what is ‘common usage’.
1. Science
Science says that a Jet is a ‘coherent stream of particles moving in a parallel direction’.

This is why we talk about the ‘jet stream’ in the upper atmosphere. This is why a jet ski is called a jet ski. This is why a jet boat is called a jet boat. This is why the Coast Guard call their water jet powered craft ‘jet propelled’.

This is why our device is a jetpack. There is a coherent stream, all the engineering calculations, control calculations etc. are based on the fact that there is a jet of air exiting the fanjets.

AND

So why call our device a ‘Jetpack’?
Well, by both common usage and science it is a jet. We already have jet ski and jet boat. I do not believe that an aviation engineer will be able to convince all those owners to start calling their devices a ‘water pump propelled boats’.

In the end we found that 95% plus of people call it a jetpack when they see it, so why fight that ?

If you have a very narrow view of what a ‘true jetpack’ is (i.e. that it is a pure jet) then none have ever been built. The closest would have been the Bell jet belt, but again this was not a ‘true jet’, it was bypass ratio gas turbine powered. In fact I cannot think of any ‘true jets’ in the GA industry, most are Fanjets.

Perhaps now you see that the ‘correct answer’ is far more complicated and debatable, so much so that normally it is not worth even starting the discussion, because the ‘correct’ answer relates to opinion not fact.