Oshkosh: Kiwi launches $130,000 jetpack: Up, up and away

Hi, I'm from Christchurch, and I'd like to know if any folk at Oshkosh
might be able to post some video or pics of this guy "doing his thing"
tomorrow.

Kiwi launches $130,000 jetpack: Up, up and away
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4635822a11.html

Kiwi inventor makes aviation history
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1316907/1952597

There is a wee video on the tvnz page to look at.

--
Duncan

Dave Doe wrote:

Hi, I'm from Christchurch, and I'd like to know if any folk at Oshkosh
might be able to post some video or pics of this guy "doing his thing"
tomorrow.

I bet he'll be relieved : "Mr Martin, 48, told the New York Times he had
spent 227 years developing [...]"
:-)

"GillesK" wrote in message
...
Dave Doe wrote:

Hi, I'm from Christchurch, and I'd like to know if any folk at Oshkosh
might be able to post some video or pics of this guy "doing his thing"
tomorrow.

I bet he'll be relieved : "Mr Martin, 48, told the New York Times he had
spent 227 years developing [...]"
:-)


Probably has something to do with the exchange rate between NZ years and US
years. ?!? Kinda like "dog-years", etc...
Maybe not. (shrug)

TP

I did not personally hear anyone booing, but I will tell you that it was
a very disappointing performance.
It was a very over hyped event. The name "jetpack" is a gross misnomer.
It is two ducted fans, similar to a project and device that flew in the
US several years ago. It was funded with DARPA money. The prototype was
offered for sale after the initial test flights. Wish I could recall the
name.
It reminds me of the old days of Oshkosh with its unproven performance
statistics, high price, and ambitious but speculative claims.

I am trying to understand how the engine they have developed will
produce the claimed 200 HP.

MythBusters built a similar device last year and failed to achieve the
lift necessary for flight with off the shelf components.

In article ,
says...
I did not personally hear anyone booing, but I will tell you that it was
a very disappointing performance.
It was a very over hyped event. The name "jetpack" is a gross misnomer.
It is two ducted fans, similar to a project and device that flew in the
US several years ago. It was funded with DARPA money. The prototype was
offered for sale after the initial test flights. Wish I could recall the
name.
It reminds me of the old days of Oshkosh with its unproven performance
statistics, high price, and ambitious but speculative claims.

I am trying to understand how the engine they have developed will
produce the claimed 200 HP.

MythBusters built a similar device last year and failed to achieve the
lift necessary for flight with off the shelf components.

Thanks for the feedback John.

--
Duncan

John Smith wrote:

I did not personally hear anyone booing, but I will tell you that it was
a very disappointing performance.
It was a very over hyped event. The name "jetpack" is a gross misnomer.
It is two ducted fans, similar to a project and device that flew in the
US several years ago. It was funded with DARPA money. The prototype was
offered for sale after the initial test flights. Wish I could recall the
name.
It reminds me of the old days of Oshkosh with its unproven performance
statistics, high price, and ambitious but speculative claims.

I am trying to understand how the engine they have developed will
produce the claimed 200 HP.

MythBusters built a similar device last year and failed to achieve the
lift necessary for flight with off the shelf components.

The machine(s) you're thinking of that DARPA funded were Trek Aerospace's
SoloTrek and Springtail. Those machines did fly (see video on their
website, www.trekaerospace.com), but funding dried up once they achieved
DARPA's goals.

The MythBusters machine was built loosely to plans purchased through Popular
Science or Mechanics Illustrated. Unfortunately, the seller of those plans
only ripped off Trek's concept and had not a clue to what was needed to
actually get airborn, let alone to achieve stability.

The stability issue will also plague Martin's Jetpack. All hovering
aircraft are unstable. The lower the moment of inertia (mass), the quicker
the machine can get into trouble. These personal hovercraft are very
light! And very unstable. The Hiller Flying Platform had mechanical gyros
to help stabilize it. The Trek machines had on onboard computer with
electronic gyros (a few steps up from that used on the Segway and RC
helicopters). If Martin's Jetpack doesn't have anything like that, it will
in the near future.

The deadman's zone will be a real problem. With no forward flight speed a
standard BRS parachute can save you from 75'. The chutes that "pop" open
should be ok from 40-50'. The aircraft structure should save you below
5-10'. Unfortunately, the deadman's zone, 10-40' high, is just where the
military wants to use these machines; and just where they'd be the most fun
to fly, darting between trees. Trek was looking at a twin-engined version.
With one engine out you couldn't maintain level flight, but you could
descend under control.

What Mr. Martin has achieved, on a shoestring budget, is very impressive.
He's still got a long way to go before he has anything practical. The fact
that he's taking deposits is the truely sad part.

Dave Doe wrote:

Hi, I'm from Christchurch, and I'd like to know if any folk at Oshkosh
might be able to post some video or pics of this guy "doing his thing"
tomorrow.

To keep you waiting :
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/...ca/jetpack.php

"GillesK" wrote

To keep you waiting :
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/...ca/jetpack.php

Believe it or not, ABC had a short story and video of it flying at Oshkosh.
They billed it as "an air show in Wisconsin" or was it "an air show in
Oshkosh, Wisconsin?" Nothing to say about how big of a deal Oshkosh is. :-(

It still only flew a few feet off the ground, with a couple people holding
onto the skids for stabilization.

I gotta ask, what is keeping them from having self stabilized flight? It
seems like a couple rate gyros and servos attached to some vanes would have
this thing flying truly solo. For heavens sakes, this is common technology
in the remote control helicopter world, and some other ducted fan RC flying
"thingies" I have seen flying.

I applaud the achievements of him and his machine, but have to wonder why he
has not taken the next step.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote

I applaud the achievements of him and his machine, but have to wonder why
he has not taken the next step.

After reading what I wrote, I fear it may come off as being insensitive.

I do understand the need to proceed carefully, as to keep from getting
someone killed, since a flying machine like this has a flight envelope that
would be very unforgiving of a mechanical failure at some points in
transition.

I was just voicing puzzlement, and wondering what the technical difficulties
are in achieving controlled hover, and when the time is right, transition to
flying at much higher altitudes and speeds.

Oh, and when the jetpack (bad name, IMHO) is fully functional, if someone
gives me the purchase price (like that's gonna happen ;-) ) put my name on
the waiting list to buy one! g
--
Jim in NC

In article , says...

"GillesK" wrote

To keep you waiting :
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/...ca/jetpack.php

Believe it or not, ABC had a short story and video of it flying at Oshkosh.
They billed it as "an air show in Wisconsin" or was it "an air show in
Oshkosh, Wisconsin?" Nothing to say about how big of a deal Oshkosh is. :-(

It still only flew a few feet off the ground, with a couple people holding
onto the skids for stabilization.

I gotta ask, what is keeping them from having self stabilized flight? It
seems like a couple rate gyros and servos attached to some vanes would have
this thing flying truly solo. For heavens sakes, this is common technology
in the remote control helicopter world, and some other ducted fan RC flying
"thingies" I have seen flying.

I applaud the achievements of him and his machine, but have to wonder why he
has not taken the next step.

Me too - they had another article on NZ news tonight - it didn't look
very impressive to me - hovering a few feet off the ground (is it only
capable of ground effect flight I wonder?), and with guys hanging onto
the landing bars. Hmmm... few more years needed there methinks.

--
Duncan