Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Personal Jet Pack for X-mas! 165

Posted by michael from the darwin-awards dept.
teamhasnoi writes "This guy has spent mucho time and money building a ducted fan 'jet pack'. No faking for this guy, it looks like there is some real technology there. Now he just needs a sponsor."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Personal Jet Pack for X-mas! More

Personal Jet Pack for X-mas!

Comments Filter:
  • Last time I heard of an attempt to build a real jet pack, it could only lift I think about 100 punds two feet off the ground. I hope this is more successful!

    • Re:Cool (Score:3, Funny)

      by mkweise ( 629582 )
      could only lift I think about 100 punds two feet off the ground

      Hell, that much jet propulsion can be achieved with the help of nothing but a generous portion of one of the less digestible varieties of beans. (Better hurry, thought, before they pass a law against personal greenhouse gas emissions.)

  • Oh great.... (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Stonent1 ( 594886 )
    And I only have -1 hours to buy it to make it on time for Christmas this year....

  • What's that noise? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @03:03AM (#4956104)
    Oh, it's just the Darwin Awards guys inscribing his name on the plaque
  • ... a little late, don'tcha think? Oh well.

  • new at walmart! (Score:5, Funny)

    by boog3r ( 62427 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @03:04AM (#4956106)
    Your very own jetpack/leafblower combo!


    Blow leaves, snow, sand, water and even unwanted neighbors all the way out of the neighborhood!


    Great gift idea for all the suburbanites in your family!

  • Here's the Google cache link [216.239.51.100] in case this gets /.'ed.

  • Faking It (Score:3, Funny)

    by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @03:07AM (#4956114) Homepage
    Checking out the "faking it" site, we find [dreamality...logies.com]:

    http://www.dreamalitytechnologies.com/ultralight.h tm

    ...are those wings really necessary? =)

    • ...are those wings really necessary?


      Supposedly, the simulator lets you experience what it's like to be in a real ultralight. If this is true, yes, you'd want to have mockups of the tail and wings, so you could look out and see the pieces performing as they would in real life.

      However, from the illustration, the device looks nothing like a real ultralight, or at least no design I've ever seen - real ultralights have the seat mounted below the wings and tail and engine, to start with. If I'm correct, since the design already fails to be realistic at such a rudimentary level, the wings and tail are totally unnecessary, and in fact do more harm than good for anyone attempting to train with it.
  • Didn't we just do this with somebody elses rig? Didn't we already decide we didn't want these people falling out of the sky all over us? [slashdot.org]

    Did I miss something somewhere along the (very short) line?

    Neat looking rig though.
  • ....but santa tested it and had an accident. Christmas will be laster west of Jefferon City' TN. I suppose killing my karma will make up for me killing Santa.

    disclaimer:Santa isn't real! GASP

  • Please, Stop Working On It Today... (Score:5, Funny)

    by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @03:14AM (#4956130) Homepage
    He should probably leave this thing on the rack today.

    "MOM! MOM!! I just saw Stanta fly by!!"
    *THUD!
    [child sobbing]

  • This is why I buy german cars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @03:21AM (#4956142) Journal
    he had it tested at MTU (Motoren und Turbinen Union) to be sure it will stand the design speed of his engine (65krpm) and has got a sufficient safety margin. This wheel had been accelerated 2000 times up to 75krpm and will still have to be tested a few hundered times at 82krpm.

    Now... why I get a feeling that Ford does not put this much into their quality assurance? maybe because the windshield wiper burns and explodes if it's set on high for more than 30 seconds (as *one* example)

    • I can say that even German cars have problems. For example, Porsche has had many problems with their Boxster line of cars, anywhere from leaking rear main seals to blown engines. Their other lines haven't gotten off the hook, either (it'll be interesting to see if response to problems with the upcoming Cayenne cause Porsche to change their ways -- sports car buyers are a completely different breed of person, willing to put up with a lot of problems that your average soccer mom SUV driver will not). BMW, Audi, Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, etc have all had problems as well. Not that I'm complaining. My German-made car is still running just as well as the day it rolled off the factory line, but I don't have any illusions that having a German badge on it will keep it from having problems down the line.


      Personally, I'd kill for a car of Italian design, German engineering, and Japanese manufacturing. Assuming they could all work well together, playing on their strengths to cover each other's weaknesses, that'd be a true super car. (With VAG/PAG owning Lamborghini, maybe we'll see at least two out of the three ...)


      And to stay on topic ... damn. Them's some high RPMs!

      • My original point was more like this, actually:

        "quality" is a difficult-to-define thing (to avoid calling it "a difficult to define quality"). However, A lot of times you can tell by:

        1) holding the thing in your hands / trying it out (as, say a Made-in-Japan CD player vs. a Made-in-China CD player), or

        2) notice the kind of quality the people have that makes the stuff.

        I trust german engineering not because they have better schools, or smarter people - but that it always seemed to me that they are often meticulous to the point of being excessive (in a complementable way, in this respect anyhow), and this guy and his margin tests goes to show that.

        I mean, 2000 repeated tests (and counting) at ~20% margin (75k), and more tests at >30% margin. That is impressively dedicated - especially since it's done out of his own little workshop!

        Granted though - I am sure someone will point out "it's his life on the line here" - true: but nontheless: 2000 times! in his own workshop with no sponsors! one test each day means five. and. half. years...

        So, indeed - german badge does not guarantee against future failures, but I bet on average these failures (or even minor annoyances) comes much later than a widget made by people who are not as excessive about the engineering.
      • My German-made car
        [...]
        Internet Explorer

        ERROR 853: Consumer preference mismatch. Stack dump follows.
        • Why? Both of them "just work", and provide a combination of performance and reliability that many others can't, all GPL-vs-proprietary religious fanaticism notwithstanding.

          • My German-made car [...] Internet Explorer

            Why? Both of them "just work", and provide a combination of performance and reliability that many others can't, all GPL-vs-proprietary religious fanaticism notwithstanding.

            And I suppose you don't mind what this German companies did during the '30s and '40s? My mother, when she was a 11 to 14 years old girl, was working as a slave in VW factories (BMW and Mercedes-Benz wasn't any different), while her best friend from school was murdered in a gas chamber in Treblinka. Guess who built those gas chambers and giant ovens? I suppose you are OK with that, because thanks to slave workers and those death facories built for nazis, those companies could grow and as a result they can now make so great cars? Just like the USA and Nigerian slaves were OK, because without the slavery USA would not be so successful, right?

            I will tell you something: The worst things Microsoft has ever done is nothing compared to your German car companies. I would rather buy million copies of Microsoft Windows than one smallest part manufactured by one of those German companies, or IBM for that matter, who sold machines to Hitler, thanks to which nazis could find Jewish ancestors of any given citizen up to five generations in the past and send this person to death camps, because having Jew as a great-great-great-grandfather was enough to send someone to death! Maybe you think that only Hitler was evil and every other German was good? I remind you that Hitler was chosen in a democratic election! If you compare Microsoft to BMW, Mercedes-Benz, VW or IBM than you simply don't know what you are saying.

            And please don't tell me that there was no holocaust! My mother who is now 72 years old got money from Germans because she could prove to them that she was working as a slave when she was still a child. Do you know how much money has she got? 2000 DEM, which was about 1000 USD! Yes, a 1000 fucking bucks for four years working as a slave being a child without any contact with parents and sister! And she thanks God every day that she was not murdered by nazis, like many of her friends, when they were still children! So please, for the love of God, don't tell me that we can compare VW, Mercedes-Benz or BMW to Microsoft!

      • sports car buyers are a completely different breed of person, willing to put up with a lot of problems that your average soccer mom SUV driver will not

        Perhaps, but the Cayenne is hardly your average soccer mom SUV - able to tackle the Rubicon, 0-60 in 5ish seconds, and over 70 large. On the other hand, its sister vehicle the VW Touareg is looking like a slam-dunk for the "normal" SUV market...

    • Um, what? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by autopr0n ( 534291 )
      All he's doing is testing the engine, if I were building something pretty much unprecedented, and place my own life in it's hands, I'd make damn sure it was safe. I think almost anyone would, German or not.

      That said, I'm sure ford does spend lots of time on safety features, although the engines they use aren't spinning nearly as fast (like 8-11krmp max) and are based on tried and true designs.
    • I don't know why you're picking on Ford. I drive a 1992 Escort and have lived in Seattle for about 8 years, so the wipers have gotten LOTS of hours on them, and no failure yet!

      The only German car I've ever owned was a VW Rabbit, and I paid more in repairs for the car than I did for the car! And the morons are *still* using that idiotic seat-tilt knob instead of a lever like everyone else has figured out decades ago. Ugh.

      Now, if you want to use Dodge as your crappy American car company example, I'll support you all the way. :)

      • Now, if you want to use Dodge as your crappy American car company example, I'll support you all the way. :)

        Ah, but Dodge is now too close to a German car, being a Daimler-Chrysler brand.

      • The only German car I've ever owned was a VW Rabbit, and I paid more in repairs for the car than I did for the car!

        Um, American car companies aren't the only ones who've improved their quality since the '80s. (And as much as the Big Three have improved, they've still got some catching up to do.) Besides which, if your Rabbit was an '80s model, there's a good chance it was built in the United States, not in Germany.

        And the morons are *still* using that idiotic seat-tilt knob instead of a lever like everyone else has figured out decades ago. Ugh.

        That "idiotic" knob gives much finer control over seatback position than the stupid lever does, and allows the seat to be released forward in 2-door cars without messing up the seatback position. And why does it seem that only German manufacturers (and Saturn) have figured out how to provide manual seat height adjustment?
    • Oh man do you have it wrong. I am no fan of fords, but I would much rather get behind the wheel of a focus than strap that bad boy onto my back.
      • The Ford Focus has been recalled to fix problems by Ford 11 times since it's introduction in America 3 years ago, and yet it still makes "10 Best" lists. I'd have to attribute that to car magazines not keeping the cars very long. That being said, I agree with you about rather driving a Focus than using a jetpack.
  • Any guesses? I'm thinking somewhere in the high six figures. That's a *lot* of work on that inlet/fan. It's a pity the exhaust eyelets are such Rube Goldberg contraptions. I'd be willing to bet that there's another seven figure to be spent before the first loon would be willing to take a ride in it. Depending on how well that money was spent, it could be me... :) Regards, Ross
  • You have no idea what you're getting yourself into! [slashdot.org]

  • Hmmm (Score:1)

    by Jacer ( 574383 )
    And the one mobile cart thing was supposed to revolutinize the way we "walk" as it put it... that thing couldn't go up stairs, and it was dorkey, jet packs are cool, didn't you see the roceketeer? yeah, i thought you did, take that nazi-germany, we'll see if you ever take over the world...SUCKERS
  • Why the hell am I reading slashdot at 11pm on christmas eve? because I'm sick, that's why...

    Anyways, as interesting as it is to see this being developed (as an expensive stupid toy I'll never own), this thing is huge, even without the engine attached. I read through/skimmed fairly quickly and saw no reference to a weight. It must be pretty heavy (top-heavy at that) - will the pilot be able to stand independently before/after flight, and how would landings be handled? Also, what about the heat? It looks like the exhaust ports are close to the pilot. Would an insulated suit be required? Then there's vibration; will the vibration be tolerable? Will the vibration be enjoyable?

    so I'm curious about:

    weight

    heat

    vibration

    Perhaps I missed something in the article, but I did look (quickly) for this info. Hypothesizing, conjecture, guesstimating, half-assed jokes and outright lying are welcomed and appreciated.

    • Weight - they mentioned that it would be around 120 kg with everything attached (next to the 2nd picture). That would be around 275 lbs!!! They said it would probably need some sort of base wheels to deal with this (basically, something to support the whole device while you wear it, but aren't flying).

      Vibration - not something I had considered, but it should be. I wonder what the engine he has would cause, especially combined with the carbon fiber of the housing.

      Heat - this is something I was wondering about. I mean, you accelerate heat to the speed needed for a project like that, and you usually get a bunch of heat. That could be a bad thing. Just looking at how it is setup, I see leg burns just from the air exhaust, not to mention how hot the device itself would get, which would be right next to your head, face arms and torso.

      I wish this guy luck, but all things considered, I don't know if he has totally put thought into the external effects of the device.

      RonB
      • First, it HAS been done before so its lame to say "I don't know if he has totally put thought into the external effects of the device.". So the idea CAN work, the question is whether or not the man will get the funding to finish it.

        Second, the only real jetpack requires a special suit to protect your legs from this heat, and is just as noisy, so neither claim you made is correct.
        • I never claimed that it would or would not work. Overall, the design looks very feasable.

          This all being said, it is radically different than the design of the working "Jet Pack" that is out there. I mean, he has 4 lower exhaust ports, that is where I point out that heat is an issue. Sure, wear a fire suit - no problem, maybe, but then again maybe not. The Bell Rocket Belt had jets far outside of the device, away from the pilot's body (not to mention they were small). This thing has the exhausts vents right on top of you. And they are huge.

          Again, we are talking a radically different design from the BRB, I don't think comparisons to it are applicable. I stand by what I have said. Vibration (possibly) and heat are problems that could arise from this design.

          RonB
      • It seemed like from the design that the heat goes out the back, not down. The turbine is used to drive a fan. The turbine will fire out around the bottom perimeter of the fan, and the fan blows just air downward.
    • Weight = did you see the size of that thing?
      Heat = no more than a rocket pack would produce
      Vibration = Very little (due to rotational operation of jet engines as opposed to reciprocating engines)
      Feasability = none (There is a reason "rocket" propelled packs were used in the "jet" age.
  • At 120 kg (264lbs) you'll not be walking around with one of these. But I still would love one to drop waterballoons from.

  • Gas Attack (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm pretty sure it would still be unsafe.
    1 good fart and your still going to explode!
  • ... for the first bird that'll get sucked into that contraption by accident... ... but it won't keep me from laughing my ass off!
  • The only use I could really see for this is something in the military. Even then half of its affect would be psychological. Imagine you are holed in somewhere you think is safe from attack (for example, unapproachable by tank) and you hear the roar of 24 of these about a minute before 24 troups fly over the edge of the cliff about 20 yards away, the only angle you thought you would be totally safe from attack?
    • I would yell, SKEET!!

      As the machine gun fire hit them they would relize James Bond is not at all realistic.
    • If you a whole minute to get ready, I don't think you'd really need to worry about it to much. Since the angle would go from the one you didn't think you could be attacked from to the one you know you're going to be attacked from.

      And as another poster mentioned, you'd make a really easy target.
  • I thought the whole point of the rocketeer was to keep the Jetpacks away from the Germans... Just Kidding :)
  • What else is there to say!?

    And it's so compact, compared to the stand-up unit that was going to be produced by the company that whent up in smoke a few weeks ago (what was the name?)

    By the way, anyone here any fluid-dynamics understanding, whats the reason for the strange, non-uniform shape of the compressor blade thing? I was looking at designs for automotive turbos, and I noticed the same thing (thoughs smaller, of course) and notice the same thing. Whats the deal with that?

    By the way, how eficent are turbo engines? According to Airbus, their new super-sized plane is more fuel efficent then most cars. I was thinking it would be cool to build a sort of turbo-hybrid car. A large turbo engine that charges batteries, which run motors for the wheels. It could certanly be a lot more mechanicaly simple then an auto engine, I would think.
    • It's pretty easy; it's just a compressor pump. Most pump work by 'top loading' it (ie the material comes in paralel to the axis) and it's ejected radially, as it's spinning. The entry at the top axis is smaller than the bottom, as by the time the medium reches the bottom, it gets 'flung away' in a radial direction; the top scoops it in (also creating a vacuum effect, dragging more stuff in), while the stuff get's ejected through a hole in the side at the bottom.

      Ugh, I shouldn't be explaining this kind of thing after xmas eve...the alcohol in my system is garbling the explanations my neurons are trying to get out.

    • Re:WOW! (Score:2, Informative)

      by Captain Nitpick ( 16515 )
      According to Airbus, their new super-sized plane is more fuel efficent then most cars.

      Note that this is on a passenger-mile basis. The plane itself is obviously not getting 40 mpg.

    • Re:WOW! (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The funny curve at the inlet of the compressor means that it is a hybrid between an axial and a centifugal compressor. Centrifugal compressors work better for low flow rates and can operate with a zero flow rate (that is with the inlet blocked) without a huge increase in the amount of torque required to drive it. Axial flow compressors can handle higher flow rates (like the turbofans on airliners) but are susceptible to compressor surge (try google) where the blades of the compressor stall at the wrong combination of flow rate and rpm.

      Maybe a simpler way of explaining is to compare the compressor vanes to the leading edge of an airplane wing. The blades are cambered so that the leading edges are aligned with the oncoming air at the flow rates and rotor rpm that the engineers designed the compressor for. This will minimise separation on the thin compressor blades to keep the efficiency of the compressor as high as possible.

      As for your hybrid car, the generator on your turbine might have (for the sake of argument), say, 80% efficiency, and the electric motors will convert electric power to mechanical power at about the same efficiency. This gives you about 64% of the power at the road that you would get from a direct driveshaft. That's why you don't see that arrangement too often.

      One other thing, IIRC, Noel Penny Turbines, or someone associated with them, made some gas turbine powered cars, and I seem to remember something about Rover being involved too. As the saying goes, Google is your friend.
  • It [technologi...icklung.de] almost looks like the techno-trousers from The Wrong Trousers [amazon.com]. Now all I need is a red rubber glove for a disguise and I'm all set to steal some diamonds.

  • ...a rotor of a large KKK brand turbocharger. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Does it come with a hood?

  • Noise? (Score:2)

    by ttyp0 ( 33384 )
    You can't work outdoors in an airport without ear protection. I don't think ear plugs would even help with your head a foot away from a jet engine. Although I do think the power and speed of this thing would be impressive, even if its a disaster waiting to happen.
  • So he chose to use a rotor of a large KKK brand turbocharger. Sorry. I just find that funny.
  • What was that old jetpack, with all the white smoke, that used to get dragged out at Super Bowls? The one you kind of sat in, had the handle bars, and it could only keep you aloft for about a minute? I can completely picture it from an episode of The Fall Guy, but can't find it online.
  • now how do I *land*? The article mentions it's heavy enough and large enough that it would require some sort of support structure while it's on the ground. How do they intend to handle landings?

    Is the pilot supposed to expertly align the craft with the support structure while still airborne? Or is that just something they'll work out later? (What's this thing coming up to meet me very, very fast? ... Ground! ... I wonder if it'll be friends with me...)

  • Rocket packs can be hazardous to your health in more ways than the obvious.

    Read [fsnet.co.uk] on for a true story of kidnapping and murder all based around a rocket pack.
  • ...when you let mechanical engineers het bored! :)

  • reassured (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Being a mechanical engineer, I have to admit that this is some very impressive engineering. Knowing that there are people out there doing stuff like this on their spare time, makes me feel reassured that we will be ok after all.

    I will probably get mod. redundant for this one..
  • Somebody should tell this retard that there was a reason that the U.S. Military chose rocket propulsion over jet. (Look at the size of the damn thing, not to mention the problems caused by the intake/reduced thrust of a jet.)
    • Rocket propulsion has the fundamental disadvantage over all other means of propulsion in that it "throws away" mass - which requires a large starting mass if you want long operation times (you are limited by the rocket equation). Jet propulsion on the other hand just accelerates the surrounding air - you don't have to carry all the air with you, whereas you have to carry all rocket fuel with you (and in the beginning you have to lift all the rocket fuel that will be used at later time of the flight).
  • I mean, they might be interested in helping with and/or providing logic / software for control and stabilization based on attitude, in addition, possibly control based on shift of body attitude, like a hang-glider, but based on posi sensors or something. Possibly in return for sponsorship (big SegWay sticker on the back, or maybe DEKA gets first dibs on production or some such).

    I'd love to see the plans for this released on the 'net. I'm no machinist, but I know some guys who are pretty capable. I'm sure the four of us could team up to build one of these... as long as we could scrape up the cash. If it's possible, that'd be very cool, even if they had to be purchased (just make it reasonable!).

    I was thinking as well, the platform isn't very production-capable due to the suspension system. The person belts in like the Bell Rocket Belt did, suspended in a chest harness, and skydiving-style leg straps. That means, that controlling the machine relies on the ability of the user to keep himself on his elbows on the control bars, while the leg straps help suspend him. This isn't really a good way to make a widely-accessable vehicle. Besides the fact that the unavoidable high weight issues require some sort of feet, the system itself needs to carry the user, much as a car does. There should probably be a SMALL plate at the bottom, connected by a pair of rods (or a large single rear rod) to the chassis. This could also be the basis for the body-orientated direction control. I would think that in addition to this, the chest harness would be used, and in addition, making the joysticks adjustable for height and so on would be an option. Also, there could be a fold-down adjustable seat that the user could sit on as well. The feet could be deployable for landing, and there could be a collapsing-into-backpack capability (the footrest retracts, the seat/footrest folds backwards, the nozzles all fold in, the joysticks fold inwards and stow behind the user, and he walks around with a relatively heavy backpack (or possibly it could have wheels to roll around on).

    This is just an outpouring of my stoned mind, please forgive anything that doesn't make sense.

    Merry Christmas and all that jazz,
    -cheezus_maximus (new nick coming soon!!)
  • I would have definitely gone with rocket propulsion for its advantage in "thrust" to "I am going to die" ratio. Not that I have never wanted to strap a P&W Jet engine to my back; it just seems better left to ultraman.

  • Working jetpacks are out there... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Raetsel ( 34442 ) on Wednesday December 25, 2002 @06:22AM (#4956422)

    I visited the Smithsonian Air & Space museum about 2 years ago, and noticed a cool device that was, I believe, based on an engine built by the Williams [williams-int.com] company.

    (Williams makes some very small turbojet engines, famously for use in cruise missiles)

    If I remember correctly, the Jetpack was a very Buck Rogers-looking device, with considerably greater endurance than the Bell Rocketbelt. Unlike the Rocketbelt with its' flight time of ~30 seconds (depending on which model you get your hands on); the Jetpack had a flight time of about 7 minutes, and featured a helmet shaker that would get your attention when you were about to run out of fuel.

    (I want to say the Smithsonian display claimed a flight time of 30 minutes...)

    So there's the problem... we can easily build an engine -- turbofan or rocket -- that'll lift itself, some fuel, and a person -- it just can't lift very much fuel, and these engines (or rockets) are thirsty!!

    I can't seem to find much mention of the Jetpack on the Air & Space site, so here's what I can find:

    • www.flying-contraptions.com [flying-contraptions.com]

      • "The WASP (Williams Aerial Survey Platform) had a jet engine on the bottom; a single occupant essentially stood on the fuel tank. Williams International, in Walled Lake, Michigan, makes little fanjet engines for cruise missiles, which were ideal for one-man jet belts. Bell worked with them on a jet belt with 7-minute endurance, which first flew on 7 April 1969. Later Williams developed the WASP, later renamed the "X-JET", which looked like a pilot standing in a garbage can. The 600-pound turbofan was mounted in front of the pilot, and the WASP could stay airborne for 30 minutes, reach speeds of 60 mph, and land in a four-square-foot area. It is unknown where the project stands today. It was a contract with the Army Tank Automotive Command. "

    • Smithsonian Air & Space Museum page about the Bell Rocketbelt [si.edu]

      • "However, despite the belt's apparent popularity, it turned out to be a commercial failure, mainly due to its limited use because of its short duration use. The Army's higher priority of missile development also contributed toward the loss of Army interest. The Army, and also Marine Corps which had considered the belt, did not adopt it and Bell no longer became sought its further development. In January, 1970, a license to sell and manufacture the Bell Jet Belt was granted by Bell Aerospace Textron to Williams International (formerly Williams Research Corp.) of Walled Lake, Michigan. Williams went onto to develop an improved, longer-duration jet-powered version of the belt."

    • Page mostly about the Bell Rocketbelt, but attributes a turbojet-based belt to them as well [internetage.com.au]

    • This site [flatrock.org.nz] seems to confirm my "30 minute flight time" recollection -- but the quote is "...an endurance of up to 26 minutes was anticipated", which would seem to say it was never achieved.

    • Here's another (similar) picture [mikemossey.com], but the site it links to is a 404.

    All that said, this thing looks interesting. High-bypass turbofan, ducting similar to an AV-8(A|B) Harrier, carbon fiber for light weight... I want to see video of it flying!
    • Raetsel writes:
      "...and featured a helmet shaker that would get your attention when you were about to run out of fuel."

      Later models included a helmet puncher, throat throttler or nut twister as a standard option.
    • (Williams makes some very small turbojet engines, famously for use in cruise missiles)

      "...an endurance of up to 26 minutes was anticipated"

      This really makes me wonder. If you were building a device that was designed to fly really fast, for a really short time, at the end of which it would be blown into lots of very small pieces, how much time would you spend making it durable?

      Is the 26 minutes less related to the amount of fuel it carries than the amount of time it takes for the bearings and whatnot to wear out?

        • "This really makes me wonder. If you were building a device that was designed to fly really fast, for a really short time, at the end of which it would be blown into lots of very small pieces, how much time would you spend making it durable?"
        Quite a bit, actually.
        1. Cruise missiles don't fly for minutes, they fly for (potentially) hours.
        2. They get launched (none too gently!) from ships, submarines, bombers, and whatever else we manage to bolt them onto.
        3. Before they're launched, they sit around for ages with little or no maintenance.
        4. Cruise missile engines are started with a pyrotechnic cartridge (a small rocket motor starts things spinning), so they have to withstand that abuse.
        5. (And they get only one chance to start.)
        6. Our military is famous for demanding things be over-built; they're paranoid about failure, and take some extreme steps to prevent unexpected outcomes. (Spending a lot of money on engines is one approach, they don't care -- it's not their money.)
        The 26-minute figure is, in this case, absolutely related to fuel carrying capability, not engine reliability. Turbine engines are a rather nasty environment for moving parts -- hot particulate combustion products, lubrication problems, extreme rotational speeds -- as a result, engines really can't be built cheaply, and even the 'disposable' ones are going to last a lot longer than 26 minutes... or even an hour.

        Another important point is the fact that missile engines are operating closer to the limits of their design (running hot and fast) versus the stresses the same engine would be subject to in a different situation (a jetpack, for instance).

        The gas-turbine-powered Indianapolis race car is an interesting example of bearing failure. It ran almost the entire race, only to fail about 3 laps from the finish due to a cheap bearing. They'd used a commercial engine (not cheap or designed for a short life by any stretch!), and it lasted almost the whole race -- but not quite.

        (It was Parnelli Jones driving a Granatelli/Pratt & Whitney car in the 1967 Indy 500, if you're interested.)

  • Being an Aerospace Engineer, I can't help but appreciate the efforts put forth by this brave individual. Having said that, I dare him to strap that thing on and spark it up. I would rather tie myself to the bottom of an F-18. Sure will be a great home video, though...
  • This thing needs a rollcage(bar) for the pilot's head. At 120KG (almost 300 lb), if that thing tilts over on landing, the pilot's going to get his neck snapped (paresuming that he doesn't lose his head completely)./

    It wouldnt' add much to the weight, but it would make a lot of difference to safety of that unit.

  • I would think that the exhaust off of that engine would be pretty damn hot! I don't see how it would even be bearable to ride on such a contraption!
  • Jeremy Cholfin and Chris Allen are retardely smart. Just ask them. IQ = Two million

  • I think he should get a webbie award for one of the most fundamentally flawed web sites I've ever seen!

    I started to read it but got motion sick from all the horizontal scrolling. If he wants a sponsor, or even hits, he should consider redesigning his web pages so they don't suck!

    Sorry to blow all my Karma Points on this one, but he won't get a sponsor if this is his presentation.

    • Horizontal scrolling? Sorry I didn't get any of that at all, I had a window at a decent size, 800 pixels or so and there was no horizontal scrollbar to be seen. What were you trying to view that page with? A PDA?
  • A gas turbine engine??
    Jeez, just what we need, more pollutant-spewing transportation devices.

    Why not modify the thing to use hydrogen fuel cells instead?
  • Heavens, what a monster! That's not a backpack device anymore! A custom turbine with such a diameter ought to have a considerable amount of weight, let alone combined with the engine.
    Since it will need supporting struts and something of a supportive landing gear (so the pilot doesn't break his legs) he might as well build a cabin-cockpit right away.
    Maybe something like a bubble to crouch in. Guess that would also make some room for airflow and control improvement and solve the safety problem.
    That aside, this shure is a cool gadget. Will my standard Euro-Drivers-License do? :-)

  • wow (Score:1)

    by Hanji ( 626246 )
    Personally, I'm more impressed that the server is still standing...
    Most projects like this that get posted, with lots of pictures, die within minutes.

  • Jetpack? (Score:2, Funny)

    by TREETOP ( 614689 )
    umm, I don't think so. I've seen one or two exotics at an unnamed Hamvention, so here is my own Rule #16: don't strap yourself to a hundred pounds of pre-shrapnel. Strap in someone else. Science hurts.
  • there are alternatives [goodbyemag.com]...
  • ...and quiet, no one will even notice you're wearing it!

    Seriously, it's cool, but you can tell the guy is German. Not a piece of duct tape in any of the photos.

  • Hmm, Mate a jet pack or this ducted fan with the gyro stabilizers from a Segway and then you have a stable platform that will move the direction you move avoiding all the problems from having to have a weighted bottom to keep it upright.

  • Look at where the pilot's torso is positioned... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The pilot's torso is directly in the path of the jet's output. Any solid objects sucked into the intake are likely to punch a hole through the output manifold and be blown through the pilot.

    I apologize profusely for observing that such an event during an inaugural test flight would be a tragic blow to this astounding engineering effort, but would also make for one of the most totally cool and awesome video clips ever produced anywhere.
  • for a personal turbo engine. Military is the most relevant, the ability to make precision low-altitude attacks could replace alot of heavy infantry, construction, and competition racing.

Slashdot Top Deals

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Close