A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

jet pack



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 31st 08, 02:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default jet pack

Sounds like it's actually motor driven.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/0....ap/index.html
Karl
  #2  
Old July 31st 08, 03:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Anthony W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default jet pack

wrote:
Sounds like it's actually motor driven.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/0....ap/index.html
Karl


It's nothing new, this has been around for a while but I don't see much
hope for it working as claimed.

Tony
  #3  
Old July 31st 08, 03:52 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Ted[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default jet pack

I totally agree with Tony...even in the company's demonstration video 2
people are always there "walking" the flyer....sort-of reminds me just abit
of the Mollier Flying Car or whatever it's called. It DOES look like a lot
of FUN, though!!! I also hope the thing succeeds....30 minutes running on
this as they say is so much better than the 43 seconds that the "Go Fast
Sports" JetPack can fly. Ted
"Anthony W" wrote in message
news19kk.556$JH5.435@trnddc06...
wrote:
Sounds like it's actually motor driven.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/0....ap/index.html
Karl


It's nothing new, this has been around for a while but I don't see much
hope for it working as claimed.

Tony



  #4  
Old July 31st 08, 07:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Anthony W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default jet pack

Ted wrote:
I totally agree with Tony...even in the company's demonstration video 2
people are always there "walking" the flyer....sort-of reminds me just abit
of the Mollier Flying Car or whatever it's called. It DOES look like a lot
of FUN, though!!! I also hope the thing succeeds....30 minutes running on
this as they say is so much better than the 43 seconds that the "Go Fast
Sports" JetPack can fly. Ted


I think this think is pretty much a Moller for one. If it ever gets
more than 5' off the ground it will be very unstable.

Tony
  #5  
Old July 31st 08, 09:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default jet pack

I was listening to the EAA webcast, and they said that the FAA required
them to hang on the the thing during that demo because of all the people
standing in the area. There's supposed to be a better demo during today
or tomorrow's airshow where it will lift off away from everyone. In any
case, it isn't a "Jet", but a ducted fan. Sounds like a big leaf blower.

Anthony W wrote:
Ted wrote:
I totally agree with Tony...even in the company's demonstration video
2 people are always there "walking" the flyer....sort-of reminds me
just abit of the Mollier Flying Car or whatever it's called. It DOES
look like a lot of FUN, though!!! I also hope the thing
succeeds....30 minutes running on this as they say is so much better
than the 43 seconds that the "Go Fast Sports" JetPack can fly. Ted


I think this think is pretty much a Moller for one. If it ever gets
more than 5' off the ground it will be very unstable.

Tony

  #6  
Old August 1st 08, 03:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default jet pack

I just heard from Martin (through EAA Radio) that they won't be flying
again this week. They say they've been overworked and tired, so they
don't want fatigue causing an accident. There was also talk about
insurance issues, but it seems like the pilot capability issue trumped that.

Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) wrote:
I was listening to the EAA webcast, and they said that the FAA required
them to hang on the the thing during that demo because of all the people
standing in the area. There's supposed to be a better demo during today
or tomorrow's airshow where it will lift off away from everyone. In any
case, it isn't a "Jet", but a ducted fan. Sounds like a big leaf blower.

Anthony W wrote:
Ted wrote:
I totally agree with Tony...even in the company's demonstration video
2 people are always there "walking" the flyer....sort-of reminds me
just abit of the Mollier Flying Car or whatever it's called. It DOES
look like a lot of FUN, though!!! I also hope the thing
succeeds....30 minutes running on this as they say is so much better
than the 43 seconds that the "Go Fast Sports" JetPack can fly. Ted


I think this think is pretty much a Moller for one. If it ever gets
more than 5' off the ground it will be very unstable.

Tony

  #7  
Old August 6th 08, 04:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
John[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default jet pack

Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) wrote:
I just heard from Martin (through EAA Radio) that they won't be flying
again this week. They say they've been overworked and tired, so they
don't want fatigue causing an accident. There was also talk about
insurance issues, but it seems like the pilot capability issue trumped
that.

Paul Dow (Remove CAPS in address) wrote:
I was listening to the EAA webcast, and they said that the FAA
required them to hang on the the thing during that demo because of all
the people standing in the area. There's supposed to be a better demo
during today or tomorrow's airshow where it will lift off away from
everyone. In any case, it isn't a "Jet", but a ducted fan. Sounds like
a big leaf blower.

Anthony W wrote:
Ted wrote:
I totally agree with Tony...even in the company's demonstration
video 2 people are always there "walking" the flyer....sort-of
reminds me just abit of the Mollier Flying Car or whatever it's
called. It DOES look like a lot of FUN, though!!! I also hope the
thing succeeds....30 minutes running on this as they say is so much
better than the 43 seconds that the "Go Fast Sports" JetPack can
fly. Ted

I think this think is pretty much a Moller for one. If it ever gets
more than 5' off the ground it will be very unstable.

Tony


It's supposed to be fairly stable because the thrust reaction point is
well above the CG, so there is a strong pendulum effect. They claim
it's better than a helicopter.

I spoke with one of the promoters at the convention and asked about the
engine failure issue. The engine is a liquid cooled V4 which I assumed
was a marine engine. Like Moller they will be relying on one of those
"zero-zero" (almost) ballistic parachutes that use an explosive device
to spread the canopy when there is line stretch so that in theory it is
already inflated before you've moved down more than 10 or 20 feet or
something like that. Below the parachute safety altitude, they are
relying on a kind of shock strut that sticks down between your legs to
absorb the fall and save your back, which is supposed to be effective to
about 10 feet.

It's the middle zone between the parachute minimum altitude and the
shock strut that they don't account for, and they haven't tested a
parachute yet to see just what the "dead man's" altitude range is. In
any event, anybody flying the thing will be working to spend as little
time as possible between 5-10 feet and the altitude that the parachute
is effective. You sure wouldn't get me in the damn thing.

They sold one of them by Thursday. 100 grand. Crazy.

John
  #8  
Old August 8th 08, 12:29 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default jet pack

"John" wrote in message
...
...
It's supposed to be fairly stable because the thrust reaction point is
well above the CG, so there is a strong pendulum effect. They claim it's
better than a helicopter.


An often made, completely wrong assumption - "pendulm effect" - ain't no
such thing for an object in free flight.

Early rocket experimenters often attempted use "tractor" engines assuming
that it would provide stability - Dr. Robert Goddard's first liquid rocket
is an example. It didn't take them long to figure out that they were wrong.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

  #9  
Old August 8th 08, 05:08 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
John[_17_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default jet pack

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
...
It's supposed to be fairly stable because the thrust reaction point is
well above the CG, so there is a strong pendulum effect. They claim
it's better than a helicopter.


An often made, completely wrong assumption - "pendulm effect" - ain't no
such thing for an object in free flight.

Early rocket experimenters often attempted use "tractor" engines
assuming that it would provide stability - Dr. Robert Goddard's first
liquid rocket is an example. It didn't take them long to figure out that
they were wrong.


So much for the roll stability advantage of high wing aircraft...

Perhaps the word should be controllability, not stability. Are you
saying the thing would have the same controllability with the thrust at
the top or bottom?
  #10  
Old August 8th 08, 11:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default jet pack

"John" wrote in message
...
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
...
It's supposed to be fairly stable because the thrust reaction point is
well above the CG, so there is a strong pendulum effect. They claim
it's better than a helicopter.


An often made, completely wrong assumption - "pendulm effect" - ain't no
such thing for an object in free flight.

Early rocket experimenters often attempted use "tractor" engines
assuming that it would provide stability - Dr. Robert Goddard's first
liquid rocket is an example. It didn't take them long to figure out that
they were wrong.


So much for the roll stability advantage of high wing aircraft...

Perhaps the word should be controllability, not stability. Are you
saying the thing would have the same controllability with the thrust at
the top or bottom?


You betcha. Ain't no difference at all. Well, not exactly, there can be
differences due to the abilitly to align the thrust axis with the CG, or
the location of any control surfaces and their relation to the CG, or the
location of the CG... But pendulum's have nothing to do with it.

Take the wife's heirloom grandfather clock and throw it off the roof - you
will observe that the "heavy end" of the pendulm doesn't "hang down" or
fall any faster than the rest of the clock once you have let go of it.

Any difference between tractor and pusher aircraft controllability that
can't be explained by the change in airflow over the control surfaces?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
P-61 belly gun pack Dave Kearton Aviation Photos 0 March 2nd 07 10:19 AM
Power pack for camping? LincTex General Aviation 2 June 26th 06 12:40 PM
Jet pack Bob C Soaring 14 January 12th 06 08:11 PM
Jet pack Bob C Soaring 0 January 10th 06 08:21 AM
Pack guns in your little airplane Rich S. Home Built 17 July 13th 03 05:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.