4 ms·
The competition referenced may be the Martin Jetpack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack It is listed on
by eadz 11y ago
The competition referenced may be the Martin Jetpack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack
It is listed on the ASX stock exchange, although hasn't released a product to market yet. However, I think they may be further down the line towards commercialisation.
The JB-9 looks more lightweight and fun, but the Martin has a parachute...
- nradov 11y agoA parachute doesn't really make it safe. There is still a large "dead zone" where it would be too high for the pilot to survive a crash but too low for the parachute to work. Unlike a helicopter, the propulsion system doesn't have enough inertia to perform a power-off autorotation. Some designs for larger powered lift vehicles have somewhat solved that problem by using multiple engines with cross-linked drive shafts. But that increases size, weight, and cost. These jet pack devices may find a very limited niche market. But they don't have much of a real use case beyond looking cool on video. Most potential buyers will still prefer small helicopters, or drones.
- retbull 11y agoI wonder if they could put in an electric hybrid system that could give a few seconds of propulsion to slow decent in the case of losing gas power. I have no idea though if that would even make sense because it seems like it would just increase the weight with no benefit.
- nradov 11y agoSure but it would require a complex, heavy, and expensive set of electric motors, transmissions, clutches, batteries, etc. At that point you might as well just use a helicopter.
- ChuckMcM 11y agoRocket chutes[1] help with the altitude problem but there are lots of "dead" zones. [1] https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/ps_3.html https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/ps_3.html