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

[Dave Doe]

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

[GillesK]

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]

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/2008/07/29/america/jetpack.php

[muff528]

"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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"GillesK" > wrote
>
> To keep you waiting :
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/29/america/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[_2_]]

"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

[Dave Doe]

In article >, says...
>
> "GillesK" > wrote
> >
> > To keep you waiting :
> > http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/29/america/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

[george]

On Jul 31, 1:26 am, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "GillesK" > wrote
>
> > > To keep you waiting :
> > >http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/29/america/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.
>

Well if you consider the hours that the Harrier spent in tethered
flight before it was let loose this machine is doing well.
However, I wouldn't like to be the test pilot.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> It still only flew a few feet off the ground, with a couple people holding
> onto the skids for stabilization.
>
I saw the video on network TV, and I didn't notice anything that I would call
"flight". It looked like the thrust from the ducted fans was carrying much of
the weight, and some big guys were doing the rest.

I don't want to minimize anything that this fellow has accomplished so far,
but I found myself wondering where the news story was.

Vaughn

[Lou]

On Jul 30, 6:10 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>
> ...> It still only flew a few feet off the ground, with a couple people holding
> > onto the skids for stabilization.
>
> I saw the video on network TV, and I didn't notice anything that I would call
> "flight". It looked like the thrust from the ducted fans was carrying much of
> the weight, and some big guys were doing the rest.
>
>
Did the tv show the amount of people that booo'ed him?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Lou" > wrote

> Did the tv show the amount of people that booo'ed him?

No! Did people really booo at him?
--
Jim in NC

[Lou]

On Jul 31, 9:03 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Lou" > wrote
>
> > Did the tv show the amount of people that booo'ed him?
>
> No! Did people really booo at him?
> --
> Jim in NC


Oh yea.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Lou" > wrote in message
...
> On Jul 31, 9:03 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Lou" > wrote
>>
>> > Did the tv show the amount of people that booo'ed him?
>>
>> No! Did people really booo at him?
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
>
> Oh yea.

Wow, that must have been hard for his ego (and wallet) to take.

What do you suppose the percentage of the crowd was booing, and what was
their demographics, if it could be placed on one group or age?

I have to admit, that while I do think they are being overly cautious, I am
surprised at that reaction from the crowd.

I think I read somewhere that they would not be taking flights of
significant altitude until they had something like 600 hours without
trouble. That seems extreme, if that was accurate.
--
Jim in NC

[Lou]

On Aug 1, 7:32 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Lou" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Jul 31, 9:03 am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> >> "Lou" > wrote
>
> >> > Did the tv show the amount of people that booo'ed him?
>
> >> No! Did people really booo at him?
> >> --
> >> Jim in NC
>
> > Oh yea.
>
> Wow, that must have been hard for his ego (and wallet) to take.
>
> What do you suppose the percentage of the crowd was booing, and what was
> their demographics, if it could be placed on one group or age?
>
> I have to admit, that while I do think they are being overly cautious, I am
> surprised at that reaction from the crowd.
>
> I think I read somewhere that they would not be taking flights of
> significant altitude until they had something like 600 hours without
> trouble. That seems extreme, if that was accurate.
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim, I couldn't tell you the demographics, but I'd have to say in
the neighborhood of 10-12%. I was disappointed, but until I have
a successful jet pack, I'm not booing anyone.
Lou

[george]

On Aug 2, 7:46 am, Lou > wrote:

> Jim, I couldn't tell you the demographics, but I'd have to say in
> the neighborhood of 10-12%. I was disappointed, but until I have
> a successful jet pack, I'm not booing anyone.

We just had an hour long TV program about the 'pack' and its designer/
builder/family/hangerson.
Do you remember all those fantastic machines proposed in magazines
during the 60's ?
A plane in every garage, aerocars that flew themselves with all the
blurb showing hubby flying off to work.
I am forced to the conclusion that the 'jet pack' is a scam.
At Oshkosh as I understand it the 'pilot' wasn't up to 'flying' the
pack so the designers son 'demonstrated it with the hangers on hanging
on
And from what I saw in the film there seems to be a stability problem

[john smith]

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.

[Dave Doe]

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

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 3, 1:43 pm, george > wrote:
> On Aug 2, 7:46 am, Lou > wrote:
>
> > Jim, I couldn't tell you the demographics, but I'd have to say in
> > the neighborhood of 10-12%. I was disappointed, but until I have
> > a successful jet pack, I'm not booing anyone.
>
> We just had an hour long TV program about the 'pack' and its designer/
> builder/family/hangerson.
> Do you remember all those fantastic machines proposed in magazines
> during the 60's ?
> A plane in every garage, aerocars that flew themselves with all the
> blurb showing hubby flying off to work.

Here it is,
http://www.aa1car.com/blog/popular_mechanics_flying_car_cover.jpg
It's delayed until next year, one or two snags...
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:a2e21da1-1ee3-4ae8-
:

> On Aug 3, 1:43 pm, george > wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 7:46 am, Lou > wrote:
>>
>> > Jim, I couldn't tell you the demographics, but I'd have to say in
>> > the neighborhood of 10-12%. I was disappointed, but until I have
>> > a successful jet pack, I'm not booing anyone.
>>
>> We just had an hour long TV program about the 'pack' and its designer/
>> builder/family/hangerson.
>> Do you remember all those fantastic machines proposed in magazines
>> during the 60's ?
>> A plane in every garage, aerocars that flew themselves with all the
>> blurb showing hubby flying off to work.
>
> Here it is,
> http://www.aa1car.com/blog/popular_mechanics_flying_car_cover.jpg
> It's delayed until next year, one or two snags...
> Ken
>
Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwh!


Ken, you are irreplacable.

Bertie

[Lou]

howing hubby flying off to work.
>
> > Here it is,
> >http://www.aa1car.com/blog/popular_mechanics_flying_car_cover.jpg
> > It's delayed until next year, one or two snags...
> > Ken

Did you know that there was only one of these built and that it still
flies today?
Unfortunately no one has a picture of it but I understand that it is
responsible for
90% of the crop circles that happen to corn fields.
Lou

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Lou > wrote in news:f3780542-a339-4cb6-ad60-
:

> howing hubby flying off to work.
>>
>> > Here it is,
>> >http://www.aa1car.com/blog/popular_mechanics_flying_car_cover.jpg
>> > It's delayed until next year, one or two snags...
>> > Ken
>
> Did you know that there was only one of these built and that it still
> flies today?

There's been loads of attempts at this sort of thing, but th eMoller one is
the one that's going to be remembered as the biggest white elephant of this
period, i think.

> Unfortunately no one has a picture of it but I understand that it is
> responsible for
> 90% of the crop circles that happen to corn fields.

Could be!
The Taylor Aerocar, of course, was a success, and there is one still
flying. It's for sale on TAP at the moment. Asking 3.5 million!


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 5, 9:38 am, Lou > wrote:
> showing hubby flying off to work.

> > > Here it is,
> > >http://www.aa1car.com/blog/popular_mechanics_flying_car_cover.jpg
> > > It's delayed until next year, one or two snags...
> > > Ken

After reading that article I started saving up for a 1967
flying car. Well all I got to show for it is a fat bank
account and nothin' to spend it on.

> Did you know that there was only one of these built and that it still
> flies today?
> Unfortunately no one has a picture of it but I understand that it is
> responsible for
> 90% of the crop circles that happen to corn fields.
> Lou

It's a flying Segway, stand on it and lean...
http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/hiller_platform.php
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Aug 5, 2:15 pm, jeremy > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > After reading that article I started saving up for a 1967
> > flying car. Well all I got to show for it is a fat bank
> > account and nothin' to spend it on.
>
> I have a long list if you need one :-)
> JJ

If you talkin' this machine,
http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/hiller_platform.php
I'll become a stock holder+ help out with engineering!
Ken
PS: lets build a flying car!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:77bba8d4-003f-4f01-
:

> On Aug 5, 9:38 am, Lou > wrote:
>> showing hubby flying off to work.
>
>> > > Here it is,
>> > >http://www.aa1car.com/blog/popular_mechanics_flying_car_cover.jpg
>> > > It's delayed until next year, one or two snags...
>> > > Ken
>
> After reading that article I started saving up for a 1967
> flying car. Well all I got to show for it is a fat bank
> account and nothin' to spend it on.
>

Ah, that accounts for your life of luxury on a window washer's salary.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:87a8f015-2863-4408-
:

> On Aug 5, 2:15 pm, jeremy > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > After reading that article I started saving up for a 1967
>> > flying car. Well all I got to show for it is a fat bank
>> > account and nothin' to spend it on.
>>
>> I have a long list if you need one :-)
>> JJ
>
> If you talkin' this machine,

Wow, you even type hillbilly.


Bertie

[Rob Bulaga]

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.