$100.000 I would buy a roterway helicopter before I would buy this thing. you can get a great 2 seat roterway for $35.000 to $60.000 EVEN A JET EXEC FOR ABOUT $75.000 I would run for my life from this death trap
@lucianrus18 The motor they use is actually custom made, it's a V4 2Ltr that makes around 200HP. This is plenty of power! Many small helicopters don't have this much power. Problem with turbochargers is the boost, you need a very smooth powerband for this type of flight/machine, turbo is not smooth. This is an early test, it flies without people holding on for support. Watch some vids on their youtube channel MartinJetPack and that is only an indoor flight.
Question: why dont they make one with jet engines?like helycopters,it will be more powerfull and those are made for this job,small and creates big thrust.or at least put some turbocharger on this,it would give more power and not to much extra weight. i dont understand,maybe i'm wrong
@lucianrus18 Jet power burns fuel too quickly, a British man tried to make an actual 'Jet Pack' and the absolute longest he could fly was 22 seconds, with such a small vehicle like this, I dont think speed is essential, It will be quicker at getting to places then any car would anyway
@ryan1111111555555555 the jet engine is much smaller than this 2 stroke one,so they could make a bigger fuel tank instead of a big metal engine. it burns fuel even faster than this 2 stroke engine? think that in this engine are lots of moving parts,in jet ones is only a propeller,and it could be use any fuel. if the jet engine is not reliable,why helicopters use them? why dont helicopter use 2 stroke engine? i;m maby wrong...but that;s why i'm asking
@lucianrus18 yes the speed at which a Jet engine spins makes it burn fuel faster, and you have to use Jet A or Jet A-1 fuel to run a jet engine, which is dearer than normal gasoline, I never said Jet engines where un-reliable, aircraft use them because the thrust off a jet engine is a lot more then a normal gasoline engine, however for a jetpack its a greater advantage to have a slower burning engine, rather than a quick speedy jet engine.
theres a better one just like that only much smaller and CRAZY range I saw it in popular science the guy was actually building and testing it it wasnt some stupid concept drawing or anything
Roughly 100,000k once the laws get set in place and commercial designs are sold, I'd guess within 5-10 years depending on congress. There are multiple videos showing unassisted outdoor flights, hell the guys on this weren't even touching it most of the time.
this reminds me of when personal computers were the size of a large room. Maybe someday they will be smaller and more effeciant and the people of the future will look back at this video and laugh like we do when we see old footage of the beginnings of an invention.
I refuse to believe this thing can hit 8k feet in the air. Maintenance will be hell. If you decide to work on the thing yourself then you're gonna piss your pants during each flight afterwards. Just not a good investment IMO.From weather to wind to birds, will all be an issue with this. What if you run out of gas?I know its stupid. But face it, it happens to everyone at some point in their lives.Ever see 300lbs drop from 8k feet? Better pull the parachute chord QUICK. What if it fail...
This monster is NOT A JET PACK because it's not a "pack". It weighs 300 pounds. There's no way you could walk around with it strapped to your back. It's essentially a helicopter without the canopy.
When you get the weight down to 40 pounds, then you can call it a "pack".
You'll need to be the size of Bill Shoemaker to get off the ground...Unless they find a better power plant, like a turbine...No, to thirsty...Even a small one, three times the size of a engine used in a model planes...Probably won't work.
HAS ANYONE EVER SEEN THIS MECHANICAL NIGHTMARE FLY HIGHER THAN 4-5 feet? or in a mild 15-20mph crosswind? They eagerly tout an 8000 ft. ceiling YEAH RIGHT!. That makes good press and sounds impressive BUT just once, I would like to see it fly out of ground effect! COME ON MATES! SHOW EVERYONE I'M WRONG! Hook up a retractable safety tether and take it up on a sunny day to 25 - 30 meters....Remember, the US had Moller's Skycar, now it looks like NZ has the Martin Jetpack! SAME DREAM DIFFERENT ERA
@airwalker13 Hallelujah! been searching for any videos that show more than 3-4 ft lift! 8000 ft ?? Feel bad for the crowd - dunno what they are cheering for 1:28 ?
This Martin FANPACK will go the way of the Moller SKYCAR soon unless some big corporation pumps tens of millions fo dollars into the stalled project. If you want to see a REAL 1 MAN FLYING MACHINE check out the WASP by copying and pasting this search on youtube, Now that baby could REALLY FLY! Re: Flying Platform - Personal UFO
@danielmy08 You're in luck; recently this very jetpack was improved to the point that it could fly 5,000 feet above sea level and land safely in an emergency.
Thanks for sharing news. We also host a show every Friday called: Aviation News Today. Provides the latest on the aviation, airport, and airline industry. Click on my name to check it out!
This would turn my 5 minute work trip into less than 45 seconds assuming I could fly in a straight line over buildings. Not that I'm really complaining about my trip time or anything because 5 minutes goes by pretty quickly.
I'm not impressed. I remember the flying pulpit being a better performer in both mileage and hp performance. would not have used a normally aspirated engine either.turbines have a much higher weight to performance ratio.
are you jealous for reason that you have no idea what's going on here?? that was a little childish. the purpose of here is to encourage discussion and make improvements through creative criticism. you are making no input to the discussion so if you don't like what's posted in intelligent manner then follow your own advice. thank you very much.;-)
If you're looking for an update, please check AVweb's web site. You'll find podcasts from AirVenture Oshkosh 2009, and a seven minute interview with Greg Martin, there.
In the 1970's DOD already had much more compact personal flying packs, which were shown on anti-Soviet propaganda films at the time, but they tended to blow up. I wonder what further research DOD has done since then?
30 minutes flying time is damn impressive. at 61 miles per hour. If they changed the fact that if you had a hard landing you'd break your legs, id buy one just to be awesome.
Yup, this is a stupid design and makes the mistake of having the pilot hang from it rather than stand on it.
Both the hillier flying platform and williams wasp/x-jet were extremely easy to fly and far more practical and would mean the pilot could wear a small base jumping paracute in case of engine failure at high altitude
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
thats the worst gadget ever, it costs 100k $ and it only lifts you about 1 meter above the ground and its impossible to control it without somebody else holding it
Hey everyone! After viewing the video, Elcheato3 has been able to radically improve on the jetpack concept! Why didn't Martin think of that 27 years ago!? Thank you Elcheato3 for your wonderful insight and engineering and hippie know-how. God Bless.
For me it looks like something primitive, too much power and fuel consumption for too few weight rising up against the gravity. This is a primitive technology. People, wakeup and invent new things with much more power, less more energy consumption, and why not noiseless. For me this invention looks primitive for 2000's years.
Dude I just read an article describing the work put into this craft and it is far from primitive. There is tons of new technology stuffed into this machine and it took this man over 27 years to acchive this "primitive" pinnacle of his achievement. If you think about it, this is the first "jet" pack that can stay in the air longer than 33 seconds and it might stay up as long as 30 minutes. Now that sounds fun to me and if I had 100,100 I would want one and If you weren't a pansy you might too.
if this is so amazing for you, what about the one used by Michael Jackson at one of concert for leaving the scene, right above the people? Anyway, blowing the air with power to lift 100kg it's a shit of new technology by me knowledge, the helicopters are for a long long time doing the same thing. For this years we have to use something else for fly not a "primitive" blowing air. I used again the word primitive, sorry but this is the reality, It is primitive.
its not that fact it blows air its that fact it can direct it and turn thats the hard part.All other "primitive" versions can not turn.Thats the revolution that no other could solve
Do a YT search for "JetPack Micro Turbine Project" and look at a practical *true* JetPack. It uses mircoturbine jet engines to provide thrust. And it should be able to do much better than this thing due to a much more efficient air mover. Fuel provides thrust as well as engine power.
Stephan - I've read all your posts and I honestly think you don't know what you are talking about, well maybe a little, but just enough to get yourself into trouble. All I can say is that it's too bad the Martin's invested all this time and money into designing a flying machine when they could have called you and found out it is impossible... Why don't you call Bell, Agusta and Eurocopter and tell them they need to put you on the payroll as an engineer... Obviously you are that knowledgeable.
The Hiller Flying Platform, stable as a rock, has the CG clearly above the center of thrust.
No fancy flight control system; just two counter rotating props independently driven to control net rotation. If flies hands off long enough to fire a rifle (see 2:54 in the video). It corrects itself when tipped as I explained earlier.
What else is there to say???
PS: I do consult for those guys you mentioned. Just not in aerodynamics.
We were there at this demonstration. I found it dissappointing when it started-up and sounded like an overgrown leaf-blower. We were really hoping to hear a turbine spin-up. Completely immpractical.
wow it sure looks stable, does it come with those two guys holding on? no but seriously its pretty neat a little premature with the unveiling perhaps, or maybe it just needs a safety bar at the front so theres no risk of it falling forward and crushing the guy, I assume that what the two guys holding on are there for..
its because the FAA required it as it was a prototype not a production model BUT its not stable at the best .... they dont show you the near misses they have had its very unstable in its current config and a long way off from a true flying production model.Good luck to anyone who wants to fly this more than 6 feet of the ground and good luck to martin on keeeping his team ARE THEY TALKING TO YOU!!
IVE GONE HIGHER IN THE AIR ON MY PUSH BIKE.Can you read its not stable in its current config.A few days before it went to the USA they had near miss, it yawed badly almost crashing and they have no idea Y!! Thats at 10 FEET off the ground let alone 8000ft.
This machine is inherently unstable. The center of thrust appears to be above the center of gravity (CG). Any disturbance that puts it off of vertical produces a horizontal acceleration force vector on the CG that exceeds the horizontal component due to gravity that tends to right it. The result is a constant tendency to try to get upside down. Hence, some sort of fast computer aided flight control system will be required for stable flight. Or the two guys on the ground can do it.
Helicopters are inherently unstable, produce lift above the CG and do not need any computer assistance to fly. Why would this be any different? Going by the last part in the video, it looked controllable with enough practice.
The difference is that helicopters have long booms and large main rotors that produce long enough time constants for a human to keep up with. This thing will flip fast and nobody can follow it with computer assist. Put the fans down at foot level and it might work then.
You have to be kidding. The fans up high are what keep it stable. The real weight is in the engine and structure, which is below the fans that create lift. The vehicle naturally seeks hovering upright. Putting the lift below the center of gravity works for rockets, not human vehicles hovering at near ground level. With respect, you don't really know anything about aerodynamics.
I have spent about 30 years now building free flight rotary models. All I can say to you I guess is "try it". If there is enough thrust to lift it up, the horizontal acceleration vector that arises upon "tipping" will act on the CG in a manner that tends to push it further over and will exceed the correcting gravity vector that you seem so focused on. You're right about one thing. I am not an expert nor claim to be. Please think about it. I thought it was as you say too until I tried it.
You're thinking about rockets, where the center of pressure needs to be behind the center of gravity. That's the phenomenon you're talking about, and it applies to rockets and not to helicopters (which is essentially what this vehicle is). Why do you think every helicopter you've ever seen has the rotor blade on top of the vehicle, rather than balancing the vehicle on top of the thrust? When you hang from your source of lift, you are inherently stable. When you stand on it, inherently unstab
Two things: All helicopters are unstable. Ask any helicopter pilot. Second, look at the video. This thing is trying to turn over. If it weren't for the two guys on the ground it would. Finally, it may fly eventually but not without an F/A-18 style computer assisted flight control system to keep up with the instability. I have a flying model that illustrates this very well. If this persists, I'll make a video of it. I am only trying to help. If they want to find out the hard way, OK.
Let me address just one of your points specifically: They are not preventing it from tipping over, they are stabilizing a prototype vehicle in the testing stage in the event of emergency. It naturally flies upright. The combined weight with pilot is over six hundred pounds--I doubt two men could keep something 'trying to turn over' that weighs that much from doing so, let alone make it look so easy. They're walking with it, not shoving.
Do you work for Martin Jet Pack? If so, I may go to the trouble of doing this. Otherwise, not. I have already provided them with the details of my small model as well as references to two other full size machines dating back to the late 1940's that fly on the principle I indicated. For example, google the "Hiller Flying Platfrom" and you will see something that flew over 50 years ago based upon this principle.
Finally, why is a rocket any different than a helicopter? They both make thrust sufficient to overcome gravity. Helicopters have the rotors on top only because if were underneath it is hard to land and take off that way. (It's also very difficult to board and skip that fast.) Years ago there was a model called a "ceiling walker" by the AJ Walker company. It worked on exactly this principle. Stable climb with the prop below everything.
Speaking as someone who FLIES helicopters for fun and profit, I can tell you that that is NOT why helicopters have the rotor on top. You are speaking in half-truths--it's great that you've researched all these half ideas but I am dismayed you do not follow through on them. With only five hundred characters I can only say that you are indeed an amateur. Fuel your interest in aviation! But please, please stop commenting on processes that you clearly do not yet understand. (If you think rocke
I love iot when self proclaimed experts get it ass backwards. Having center of lift / thrust ABOVE the CG is known as the Parasol effect and help ADD stability, assisting it in going upright. Putting lift below the Cg is what would make it want to flip upside down
With all due respect, you are completely wrong. The "parasol effect" applies to hot air balloons only. The lift vector is always pure vertical for hot air ballonons, while in this case the thrust vector rotates as the device goes off vertical creating a horizontal acceleration thrust vector to tip it over that exceeds the "parasol vector". Try firing a rocket (thrust at the bottom) at 45 degrees off vertical. It will seek vertical w/o any additional assistance. Think about it. It helps.
As a follow up, you could also make a model rocket with the thrust vented out the top instead of the bottom (like the Martin Jet Pack), and launch it vertically. It will go upside down almost immediately and drive into the ground at full power (not a pretty sight). I have done this with model rotary aircraft and it happens. With the thrust below the CG it seeks the vertical and climbs straight up. I learned the hard way in other words.
you guys sound like guys that sit on there asses drinking beer and have a go at every pioneer there is. Enjoy it for what it is, a good start and better than what you have come up with!
What a let down. What about the true jetpack that that guy flew successfully many years ago? I recall him doing so at stadiums and events, then it suddenly disappeared. A show I saw found remaining unit and it still worked.
How about a 95,000 dollar Bonanza P-model instead. Ok this might be the first for some, and for that I understand all that enthusiasm but, uh, remember the Skycar. One could by a fucking G-4 for less. If the creator wanted us to go vertical "he" (or in this case,"she") would have invented the helicopter......
Physics fool, If it can get off the ground that means it can over come gravity, thus can attain any altitude where the density of the air is the same so lets say 1000ft atleast?! And even at that altitude it will as you put it "be using the ground as lift" thats how a helicopter works... newton "action and reaction" blades push air air pushes ground.
and I like the idea of making it fixed wing capable too!
Not quite. In aerodynamics, there is a phenomenon known as Ground Effect. It is basically a cushion of air built up under a propeller or fixed wing, air forced downwards and reflected off of the ground. This jetpack dosn't seem to move above that limit.
Ground effect relates directly to the amount of thrust being produced, I.E. the collum of air being projected at the ground. The Harrier and F35 can experience ground effect as high as 500 ft.
Go back to school kid, your making yourself look like an idiot.
I was over simplyfing perhaps but in laymans tarms the net effect is the same, But yes MZlak00 also I hear the guy wants to test it at 500ft or something like that and this is well over 3ft off the ground (fan to ground not bast of pack) and so will be well above the radius of the blade I should think
but I dont think it can go any higher....I bet its using the ground as lift....and its reached its max height with max power...all video clips show it flying at relativity the same height.
Now all it needs are swing wings where the safety bars are for fixed wing flight at low altitudes, would save fuel if you had a support system like wings rather than relying soley on the power of the engine.
Doesn't look very useful. I can only think of a very limited market where this kind of equipment would come in handy. In addition the weight and size of this are not great selling points either.
I totally agree with the GYRO. Without a gyro this is not going to ever be a viable product.
I don't yet agree with the electric motors tho'. I have a lot of experience with LiPo and LiMn batteries and it would take a LOT of juice to produce the same amount of power as a 2 stroke 2L engine. That is a LOT of power (twice as many power strokes as a 4 stroke 2L).
Electric motors as long as you don't mind an extension cord or 5 minute runtime vs 1/2 an hour.
You sure about that?? Tesla Motors has the fastest electric car, so strong enough electric motors doesn't seem like the problem. Energy power sources [reasonably priced alternatives] is an issue for the entire transportation industry. So any future for this machine would depend on looking in that direction now. Even hybrid tech or something makes sense to me.If you build a 5-10 minute electric model, i would think people would rush at the opportunity to make the flight longer.
True but a Tesla vehicle can be designed to distribute the weight where they want it. Rare earth magnets are powerful, but combine them with batteries and the propulsion system will be very heavy. I think an electric version of this would bust the 254 lbs ultra-light weight restriction. As far as a two-stroke engine (previous post), wouldn't you have to have a computer controlling the carb jetting as the altitude changes?
True on the Tesla, the latter is over my head. I would think a computer would be necessary for a gyro so i would imagine it would be needed for the pressure changes.. but i honestly have no idea. i just don't want to give up on alternatives.. you do know that exxon posted something like 11.68 billion dollar profits in one quarter [3mo]which is something like $1500 a second!!! [or a minute i cant remember but either way thats completely a piss in our face]
stupid invention are in the year 2012
lrmdclr 4 months ago
to fly him to take Wed I'll have two people on the side? useless invention, we have something better and much cheaper here in Brazil
lrmdclr 4 months ago
Brazilian Santos Dumond could fly to 100 years back that much more thing
lrmdclr 4 months ago
pathetic
tannersamp911 7 months ago
Who said Kiwis can't fly !?
SkillD1J 8 months ago 3
i cam out here all this way for that?????
asedcopf 9 months ago
i would buy the shit out of that
Jordan327E 10 months ago
@007bond66 go all carbon fiber, and lose like 100 lbs.
jukio02 10 months ago
its prety cool. but there are no uses for it. but hell, if you got the money and ballz to jump on that thing, hell, WHY NOT!
jukio02 10 months ago
2000cc 2Stroke!!!
den2003 10 months ago
As soon as I have the money and I'm old enough this will be mine
fsxpilot01 11 months ago
$100.000 I would buy a roterway helicopter before I would buy this thing. you can get a great 2 seat roterway for $35.000 to $60.000 EVEN A JET EXEC FOR ABOUT $75.000 I would run for my life from this death trap
serger2010 1 year ago
@lucianrus18 The motor they use is actually custom made, it's a V4 2Ltr that makes around 200HP. This is plenty of power! Many small helicopters don't have this much power. Problem with turbochargers is the boost, you need a very smooth powerband for this type of flight/machine, turbo is not smooth. This is an early test, it flies without people holding on for support. Watch some vids on their youtube channel MartinJetPack and that is only an indoor flight.
Designandrew 1 year ago
Question: why dont they make one with jet engines?like helycopters,it will be more powerfull and those are made for this job,small and creates big thrust.or at least put some turbocharger on this,it would give more power and not to much extra weight. i dont understand,maybe i'm wrong
lucianrus18 1 year ago
@lucianrus18 Jet power burns fuel too quickly, a British man tried to make an actual 'Jet Pack' and the absolute longest he could fly was 22 seconds, with such a small vehicle like this, I dont think speed is essential, It will be quicker at getting to places then any car would anyway
ryan1111111555555555 11 months ago
@ryan1111111555555555 the jet engine is much smaller than this 2 stroke one,so they could make a bigger fuel tank instead of a big metal engine. it burns fuel even faster than this 2 stroke engine? think that in this engine are lots of moving parts,in jet ones is only a propeller,and it could be use any fuel. if the jet engine is not reliable,why helicopters use them? why dont helicopter use 2 stroke engine? i;m maby wrong...but that;s why i'm asking
lucianrus18 11 months ago
@lucianrus18 yes the speed at which a Jet engine spins makes it burn fuel faster, and you have to use Jet A or Jet A-1 fuel to run a jet engine, which is dearer than normal gasoline, I never said Jet engines where un-reliable, aircraft use them because the thrust off a jet engine is a lot more then a normal gasoline engine, however for a jetpack its a greater advantage to have a slower burning engine, rather than a quick speedy jet engine.
ryan1111111555555555 11 months ago
not impressive, sorry. and makes absolutely no sense. autogyros & motaryzed deltaplanes make better personal flight anyway
MsIndent 1 year ago
@MsIndent i agree, theres no point, but its still cool
jukio02 10 months ago
Looks like raw horsepower flying. Try coanda effect backpack?
oneredball 1 year ago
Hahahah!!
I live across the street from the EAA.
It's funny how I never see these things anyway.
cowgoesmoo2 1 year ago
fly it better you damn prick
HH9508 1 year ago
id like to see one of these running on helium 3 with a fusion reactor, it would fly for so long and fast.
Come on people we need to mine the moon. It is actually profitable. search it on youtube
Georgeqaws 1 year ago
And it comes with two guys, for that price. I would invest in the Japanese helicopter version that this piece of shit.
Bristow42 1 year ago
theres a better one just like that only much smaller and CRAZY range I saw it in popular science the guy was actually building and testing it it wasnt some stupid concept drawing or anything
NebunLaCap 1 year ago
Roughly 100,000k once the laws get set in place and commercial designs are sold, I'd guess within 5-10 years depending on congress. There are multiple videos showing unassisted outdoor flights, hell the guys on this weren't even touching it most of the time.
I don't care what it takes...I'm getting one :D
Seldomane 1 year ago
its a pissed off lawnmower! D:
Syraxpvp 1 year ago
....unimpressive...
wilatemodel 1 year ago
Why isn't the guy who made this flying around in this thing all the time? Wuss...
lfatty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
heres how you can get a jetpack :L1, L2, R1, R2, up, down, left, right, L1, L2, R1, R2, up, down, left, righ
MarcoMaroon 1 year ago
Wow. Two men carrying around a guy hovering 2 feet off the ground. Incredibly underwhelming, to say the least.. what a horrible demonstration.
Chubzdoomer 1 year ago
this reminds me of when personal computers were the size of a large room. Maybe someday they will be smaller and more effeciant and the people of the future will look back at this video and laugh like we do when we see old footage of the beginnings of an invention.
jedivolks 1 year ago
When this comes out just wait for the UFO sightings to come in.
jxsilicon9 1 year ago
I DID IT!
hornedfrog1985 1 year ago
if i have to pull a string to get that shit started i dont want it
YoungCrs 1 year ago
Martin jetpacks comes with 2 muscular guys when you buy one.
dylandark05 1 year ago
I refuse to believe this thing can hit 8k feet in the air. Maintenance will be hell. If you decide to work on the thing yourself then you're gonna piss your pants during each flight afterwards. Just not a good investment IMO.From weather to wind to birds, will all be an issue with this. What if you run out of gas?I know its stupid. But face it, it happens to everyone at some point in their lives.Ever see 300lbs drop from 8k feet? Better pull the parachute chord QUICK. What if it fail...
NBAGOATS 1 year ago
its not a jet pack its a fanny pack lol
KEVINMITCHELSTEIN 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why are they clapping? that display was lame , the unit looks so unstable & unsafe
mrjakes12 1 year ago
We all want one buddy.
4andbelow 1 year ago
This monster is NOT A JET PACK because it's not a "pack". It weighs 300 pounds. There's no way you could walk around with it strapped to your back. It's essentially a helicopter without the canopy.
When you get the weight down to 40 pounds, then you can call it a "pack".
sbunny8 1 year ago
@sbunny8 Mate, very few people care about a damn name.
MrAnonUK 1 year ago
This is an exciting project one I'm sure will be used in films around the world.
bigmigaboo 1 year ago
You'll need to be the size of Bill Shoemaker to get off the ground...Unless they find a better power plant, like a turbine...No, to thirsty...Even a small one, three times the size of a engine used in a model planes...Probably won't work.
schicktd 1 year ago
It's a "Fanpack" LoL :D
zahremoor 1 year ago
needs foot rest
AriVex 1 year ago
they held it up what BS it dont work you can see this, and wow the maker is scared of it.
gah964 1 year ago
@gah964 There are other videos on youtube showing Martin Jetpack's flying "without being held up"..... It obviously works dude
mem0101 1 year ago
This would be awesome, but where I live, if I were heading to work or something assholes would shoot me down
Cooler5050 1 year ago
HAS ANYONE EVER SEEN THIS MECHANICAL NIGHTMARE FLY HIGHER THAN 4-5 feet? or in a mild 15-20mph crosswind? They eagerly tout an 8000 ft. ceiling YEAH RIGHT!. That makes good press and sounds impressive BUT just once, I would like to see it fly out of ground effect! COME ON MATES! SHOW EVERYONE I'M WRONG! Hook up a retractable safety tether and take it up on a sunny day to 25 - 30 meters....Remember, the US had Moller's Skycar, now it looks like NZ has the Martin Jetpack! SAME DREAM DIFFERENT ERA
airwalker13 1 year ago 2
@airwalker13 Hallelujah! been searching for any videos that show more than 3-4 ft lift! 8000 ft ?? Feel bad for the crowd - dunno what they are cheering for 1:28 ?
iamsri 1 year ago
Hmm, the end of the video answered this question 2:21. 8000 ft is theoretical - so there is a hope that Martin may get it up :-)
iamsri 1 year ago
lame
scatcatpdx 1 year ago
I want to see actually fly some distance unrestrained and at some altitude above the ground!
danielmy08 1 year ago 4
This Martin FANPACK will go the way of the Moller SKYCAR soon unless some big corporation pumps tens of millions fo dollars into the stalled project. If you want to see a REAL 1 MAN FLYING MACHINE check out the WASP by copying and pasting this search on youtube, Now that baby could REALLY FLY! Re: Flying Platform - Personal UFO
njrocketbelt 1 year ago
@njrocketbelt WHERE'S THE WASP?
guruofalltrades 1 year ago
YES!!!
hellzone100 1 year ago
@danielmy08 You're in luck; recently this very jetpack was improved to the point that it could fly 5,000 feet above sea level and land safely in an emergency.
swordhunter12 2 months ago in playlist News Stories
It looks more dangerous to have two guys hanging on to it.
OutbackBros 1 year ago 2
Get a jet pack part 1..they are alot smaller and faster! and of course much higher!! lol
PsCruk 1 year ago
they should have used an rx7/8 engine
dayoflords 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing news. We also host a show every Friday called: Aviation News Today. Provides the latest on the aviation, airport, and airline industry. Click on my name to check it out!
AviationNewsToday 1 year ago
This would turn my 5 minute work trip into less than 45 seconds assuming I could fly in a straight line over buildings. Not that I'm really complaining about my trip time or anything because 5 minutes goes by pretty quickly.
addiktion13 1 year ago
We want a REAL outdoor unassisted outdoor flight.
gpufreak 2 years ago 29
Then go make it! Fucking troll!
PureAwesome92 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dose it come with 2 china men to run along side of that POS
thomasuras 2 years ago
That would get me to work on time.
wildvector 2 years ago
if ur late like 15 times for school in a year , then this would be really helpfull xD (btw where should i land? xD)
crack1110 2 years ago
kiwi power yeah!
havak2tone 2 years ago
I'm gonna build one
spacemonkeys0681 2 years ago
I'm not impressed. I remember the flying pulpit being a better performer in both mileage and hp performance. would not have used a normally aspirated engine either.turbines have a much higher weight to performance ratio.
circusboy90210 2 years ago
yes that is true but turbines have much higher fuel consumption and you would not be able to fit much for fuel.
CobraRunescape 2 years ago 2
Dude just shut up :/
10blood 2 years ago
are you jealous for reason that you have no idea what's going on here?? that was a little childish. the purpose of here is to encourage discussion and make improvements through creative criticism. you are making no input to the discussion so if you don't like what's posted in intelligent manner then follow your own advice. thank you very much.;-)
circusboy90210 2 years ago
I will post the way I want to post. You can take that bloated ego of yours and stick it where the sun don't shine.
10blood 2 years ago
I defiantly would buy one, but if I did my math correctly it only gets 6 mpg.
476xx9 2 years ago
Rhys Darby invented this.
LeeVamessage 2 years ago
3 words.
I. WANT. ONE.
ChickenBot 2 years ago 14
Abuse of the word "literally".. Fuck you man, learn to use language properly!
fukutabe 2 years ago
If you're looking for an update, please check AVweb's web site. You'll find podcasts from AirVenture Oshkosh 2009, and a seven minute interview with Greg Martin, there.
AVweb 2 years ago
Comment removed
rayt20 2 years ago
In the 1970's DOD already had much more compact personal flying packs, which were shown on anti-Soviet propaganda films at the time, but they tended to blow up. I wonder what further research DOD has done since then?
akhla1 2 years ago
Neat, but still looks dangerous. Some kind of
crash cage would be less nerve wracking.
I wonder what keeps it from pitching forward?
How will handle in wind turbulence?
Paul186 2 years ago
30 minutes flying time is damn impressive. at 61 miles per hour. If they changed the fact that if you had a hard landing you'd break your legs, id buy one just to be awesome.
JetJockey87 2 years ago
Holy shit! i want those!
ayrahcavaruas 2 years ago
Yup, this is a stupid design and makes the mistake of having the pilot hang from it rather than stand on it.
Both the hillier flying platform and williams wasp/x-jet were extremely easy to fly and far more practical and would mean the pilot could wear a small base jumping paracute in case of engine failure at high altitude
watch?v=MwhBWxc0SSM
watch?v=yi5QDHKk9AY
Grommo 2 years ago
No bad, but too big you will
iejfnvzmakqo 2 years ago
death trap
zeropointprophet 2 years ago
thats what they said about cars and airplanes.
Brimley666 2 years ago 2
So myth buster are all getting busted
clnmyjts 2 years ago
they were testing the myth,as to whether you could build it off the internet from plans bought,they knew there were flying versions all ready
inagod 2 years ago
i was there its not a jet pack its a fricking fan pack
hoffer1990 2 years ago 4
kiwis!! awesome
TheKiwiSAS 2 years ago
this is a fucking waste man.
dostalova 3 years ago
needs to become much smaller before i see this becoming practical.
chillback00 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thats the worst gadget ever, it costs 100k $ and it only lifts you about 1 meter above the ground and its impossible to control it without somebody else holding it
AxelVenturiano 3 years ago
thats like expecting the wright bros to fly across the atlantic first try. wait a few years and theyll be flying 30 minutes at a time
funkyskunk2 3 years ago 3
yeah, until someone has an engine failure and proves that death is unavoidable and people go back to buying aircraft instead..
toranamunter 2 years ago
This thing is so amazing!
its incrediblely light weight becaus most of the components are made of
carbon fibre and kevlar.
LukeNikay 3 years ago
It should be electric, that would be WAY more efficient, you wouldn't have to pay for gasoline, quieter, and less polluting.
elcheato3 3 years ago
Hey everyone! After viewing the video, Elcheato3 has been able to radically improve on the jetpack concept! Why didn't Martin think of that 27 years ago!? Thank you Elcheato3 for your wonderful insight and engineering and hippie know-how. God Bless.
churchmany 3 years ago 4
That thing is a horrible accident, waiting to happen.
conoba 3 years ago
It is also awesome.
walkertron5000 3 years ago 2
raise your hand if youtube is the greatest site in the world.............. wait a minute that was pointless i cant see your hands.
i want a jet pack
bigrrt12 3 years ago
looks fun
theoriginalJASONXYZ 3 years ago
Holy Schnikey i want one of those damn things maybe i could save up over 100,000 dolllars
bigrrt12 3 years ago
Could you maybe fit primitive one more time in your comment?
DierNagol 3 years ago
For me it looks like something primitive, too much power and fuel consumption for too few weight rising up against the gravity. This is a primitive technology. People, wakeup and invent new things with much more power, less more energy consumption, and why not noiseless. For me this invention looks primitive for 2000's years.
kondordv 3 years ago
Dude I just read an article describing the work put into this craft and it is far from primitive. There is tons of new technology stuffed into this machine and it took this man over 27 years to acchive this "primitive" pinnacle of his achievement. If you think about it, this is the first "jet" pack that can stay in the air longer than 33 seconds and it might stay up as long as 30 minutes. Now that sounds fun to me and if I had 100,100 I would want one and If you weren't a pansy you might too.
MountainDeW06 3 years ago
if this is so amazing for you, what about the one used by Michael Jackson at one of concert for leaving the scene, right above the people? Anyway, blowing the air with power to lift 100kg it's a shit of new technology by me knowledge, the helicopters are for a long long time doing the same thing. For this years we have to use something else for fly not a "primitive" blowing air. I used again the word primitive, sorry but this is the reality, It is primitive.
kondordv 3 years ago
its not that fact it blows air its that fact it can direct it and turn thats the hard part.All other "primitive" versions can not turn.Thats the revolution that no other could solve
roderm 3 years ago
What a sheet!doesn't fly
MARSICCHIA 3 years ago
Do a YT search for "JetPack Micro Turbine Project" and look at a practical *true* JetPack. It uses mircoturbine jet engines to provide thrust. And it should be able to do much better than this thing due to a much more efficient air mover. Fuel provides thrust as well as engine power.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
Stephen you know a lot less than you think.
vaalbank 3 years ago
Thanks for reminding me of that.
Did you look at the Hiller Flying Platform Video? I'd like to see these Martin guys take their hands of the controls and fire a rifle...
BTW, after 68 years, I learn every day how much there is yet to know.
I appreciate your observation(s) though.
Steve
Stephenca130 3 years ago
Search YouTube or Google for the "Hiller Flying Platform".
I rest my case.
Stephenca130 3 years ago 2
Stephan - I've read all your posts and I honestly think you don't know what you are talking about, well maybe a little, but just enough to get yourself into trouble. All I can say is that it's too bad the Martin's invested all this time and money into designing a flying machine when they could have called you and found out it is impossible... Why don't you call Bell, Agusta and Eurocopter and tell them they need to put you on the payroll as an engineer... Obviously you are that knowledgeable.
tmdpc 3 years ago
So . . . ?? Where are all you "experts" now?
The Hiller Flying Platform, stable as a rock, has the CG clearly above the center of thrust.
No fancy flight control system; just two counter rotating props independently driven to control net rotation. If flies hands off long enough to fire a rifle (see 2:54 in the video). It corrects itself when tipped as I explained earlier.
What else is there to say???
PS: I do consult for those guys you mentioned. Just not in aerodynamics.
Stephenca130 3 years ago
YEAH THAT DOES SUCK
TRANSFORMER2508 3 years ago
We were there at this demonstration. I found it dissappointing when it started-up and sounded like an overgrown leaf-blower. We were really hoping to hear a turbine spin-up. Completely immpractical.
bradj84 3 years ago
Hey we are advancing towards the tech used by strogg.
Brisbaneguy2100 3 years ago
It should really be renamed...there is no "JET" anywhere in this contraption.
PilotMerlin2 3 years ago
This is very cool.
fister10 3 years ago
all in all it should stay in the experimental stages till they get it to be stable and can with out a doubt be controllable soli by one person!!!!
mat.
mat852258 3 years ago
scarey shit
perabrown 3 years ago
wow it sure looks stable, does it come with those two guys holding on? no but seriously its pretty neat a little premature with the unveiling perhaps, or maybe it just needs a safety bar at the front so theres no risk of it falling forward and crushing the guy, I assume that what the two guys holding on are there for..
wolfincognito 3 years ago
its because the FAA required it as it was a prototype not a production model BUT its not stable at the best .... they dont show you the near misses they have had its very unstable in its current config and a long way off from a true flying production model.Good luck to anyone who wants to fly this more than 6 feet of the ground and good luck to martin on keeeping his team ARE THEY TALKING TO YOU!!
roderm 3 years ago
its higher than you'll every fly you talking jack in the box
camc030d 3 years ago
IVE GONE HIGHER IN THE AIR ON MY PUSH BIKE.Can you read its not stable in its current config.A few days before it went to the USA they had near miss, it yawed badly almost crashing and they have no idea Y!! Thats at 10 FEET off the ground let alone 8000ft.
roderm 3 years ago
This machine is inherently unstable. The center of thrust appears to be above the center of gravity (CG). Any disturbance that puts it off of vertical produces a horizontal acceleration force vector on the CG that exceeds the horizontal component due to gravity that tends to right it. The result is a constant tendency to try to get upside down. Hence, some sort of fast computer aided flight control system will be required for stable flight. Or the two guys on the ground can do it.
Stephenca130 3 years ago
Helicopters are inherently unstable, produce lift above the CG and do not need any computer assistance to fly. Why would this be any different? Going by the last part in the video, it looked controllable with enough practice.
miniregan 3 years ago
The difference is that helicopters have long booms and large main rotors that produce long enough time constants for a human to keep up with. This thing will flip fast and nobody can follow it with computer assist. Put the fans down at foot level and it might work then.
Stephenca130 3 years ago
You have to be kidding. The fans up high are what keep it stable. The real weight is in the engine and structure, which is below the fans that create lift. The vehicle naturally seeks hovering upright. Putting the lift below the center of gravity works for rockets, not human vehicles hovering at near ground level. With respect, you don't really know anything about aerodynamics.
collapsitar 3 years ago
I have spent about 30 years now building free flight rotary models. All I can say to you I guess is "try it". If there is enough thrust to lift it up, the horizontal acceleration vector that arises upon "tipping" will act on the CG in a manner that tends to push it further over and will exceed the correcting gravity vector that you seem so focused on. You're right about one thing. I am not an expert nor claim to be. Please think about it. I thought it was as you say too until I tried it.
Stephenca130 3 years ago
You're thinking about rockets, where the center of pressure needs to be behind the center of gravity. That's the phenomenon you're talking about, and it applies to rockets and not to helicopters (which is essentially what this vehicle is). Why do you think every helicopter you've ever seen has the rotor blade on top of the vehicle, rather than balancing the vehicle on top of the thrust? When you hang from your source of lift, you are inherently stable. When you stand on it, inherently unstab
collapsitar 3 years ago
Two things: All helicopters are unstable. Ask any helicopter pilot. Second, look at the video. This thing is trying to turn over. If it weren't for the two guys on the ground it would. Finally, it may fly eventually but not without an F/A-18 style computer assisted flight control system to keep up with the instability. I have a flying model that illustrates this very well. If this persists, I'll make a video of it. I am only trying to help. If they want to find out the hard way, OK.
Stephenca130 3 years ago
Let me address just one of your points specifically: They are not preventing it from tipping over, they are stabilizing a prototype vehicle in the testing stage in the event of emergency. It naturally flies upright. The combined weight with pilot is over six hundred pounds--I doubt two men could keep something 'trying to turn over' that weighs that much from doing so, let alone make it look so easy. They're walking with it, not shoving.
collapsitar 3 years ago
Post a video of your model if you can, thanks
rayt20 2 years ago
Do you work for Martin Jet Pack? If so, I may go to the trouble of doing this. Otherwise, not. I have already provided them with the details of my small model as well as references to two other full size machines dating back to the late 1940's that fly on the principle I indicated. For example, google the "Hiller Flying Platfrom" and you will see something that flew over 50 years ago based upon this principle.
Stephenca130 2 years ago
Finally, why is a rocket any different than a helicopter? They both make thrust sufficient to overcome gravity. Helicopters have the rotors on top only because if were underneath it is hard to land and take off that way. (It's also very difficult to board and skip that fast.) Years ago there was a model called a "ceiling walker" by the AJ Walker company. It worked on exactly this principle. Stable climb with the prop below everything.
Stephenca130 3 years ago
Speaking as someone who FLIES helicopters for fun and profit, I can tell you that that is NOT why helicopters have the rotor on top. You are speaking in half-truths--it's great that you've researched all these half ideas but I am dismayed you do not follow through on them. With only five hundred characters I can only say that you are indeed an amateur. Fuel your interest in aviation! But please, please stop commenting on processes that you clearly do not yet understand. (If you think rocke
collapsitar 3 years ago
Here is another guy that I guess doesn't know what he is doing... It looks pretty stable to me though..
YouTube:PAM GROUP flying platform Gizio design
Cheers, Steve
Stephenca130 3 years ago
I love iot when self proclaimed experts get it ass backwards. Having center of lift / thrust ABOVE the CG is known as the Parasol effect and help ADD stability, assisting it in going upright. Putting lift below the Cg is what would make it want to flip upside down
DrDirt55 3 years ago
With all due respect, you are completely wrong. The "parasol effect" applies to hot air balloons only. The lift vector is always pure vertical for hot air ballonons, while in this case the thrust vector rotates as the device goes off vertical creating a horizontal acceleration thrust vector to tip it over that exceeds the "parasol vector". Try firing a rocket (thrust at the bottom) at 45 degrees off vertical. It will seek vertical w/o any additional assistance. Think about it. It helps.
Stephenca130 3 years ago
As a follow up, you could also make a model rocket with the thrust vented out the top instead of the bottom (like the Martin Jet Pack), and launch it vertically. It will go upside down almost immediately and drive into the ground at full power (not a pretty sight). I have done this with model rotary aircraft and it happens. With the thrust below the CG it seeks the vertical and climbs straight up. I learned the hard way in other words.
Stephenca130 3 years ago
you guys sound like guys that sit on there asses drinking beer and have a go at every pioneer there is. Enjoy it for what it is, a good start and better than what you have come up with!
allanjfotos 3 years ago
What a let down. What about the true jetpack that that guy flew successfully many years ago? I recall him doing so at stadiums and events, then it suddenly disappeared. A show I saw found remaining unit and it still worked.
InsideDope 3 years ago
haha utter rubbish
ausdylan2005 3 years ago
100,000.00??, US??
How about a 95,000 dollar Bonanza P-model instead. Ok this might be the first for some, and for that I understand all that enthusiasm but, uh, remember the Skycar. One could by a fucking G-4 for less. If the creator wanted us to go vertical "he" (or in this case,"she") would have invented the helicopter......
wavefool 3 years ago
i would buy a tesla car, great fun, and it won't destroy the environment,
pizzagorgonzola 3 years ago
Which environment would that be, the democrat, republican, or idiot based. I'm sure the answer is some where in the middle, eh.
wavefool 3 years ago
gas weed wacker jet pack zzzzzzz
Drama4youBaby 3 years ago
This certainly is a curious piece of work but, I prefer to use my anti-gravity shoes when levitating to and from work.
pm0501 3 years ago 2
Physics fool, If it can get off the ground that means it can over come gravity, thus can attain any altitude where the density of the air is the same so lets say 1000ft atleast?! And even at that altitude it will as you put it "be using the ground as lift" thats how a helicopter works... newton "action and reaction" blades push air air pushes ground.
and I like the idea of making it fixed wing capable too!
manicmailman159 3 years ago
Not quite. In aerodynamics, there is a phenomenon known as Ground Effect. It is basically a cushion of air built up under a propeller or fixed wing, air forced downwards and reflected off of the ground. This jetpack dosn't seem to move above that limit.
mazlak00 3 years ago 2
the ground effect only exists if the helicopter is lower than the radius of the blade.
(or the wingspan in the case of a plane)
pizzagorgonzola 3 years ago
WRONG!
Ground effect relates directly to the amount of thrust being produced, I.E. the collum of air being projected at the ground. The Harrier and F35 can experience ground effect as high as 500 ft.
Go back to school kid, your making yourself look like an idiot.
Stylensky 3 years ago
absolutely not.
pizzagorgonzola 3 years ago
Helicopter ground effects??
wavefool 3 years ago
yes, the blade acting as a wing.
pizzagorgonzola 3 years ago
correct theory 90 degrees off on linearity
wavefool 3 years ago
just read about it.
there really is a (limited) ground effect with choppers (and this jetpack is a chopper, not a plane)
pizzagorgonzola 3 years ago
no, the air is NOT pushing the ground.
the ground has no effect at all.
the air goes down -> the plane (or whatever it is) goes up.
however i think this "jetpack" is crap, it looks terribly unstable.
pizzagorgonzola 3 years ago
I was over simplyfing perhaps but in laymans tarms the net effect is the same, But yes MZlak00 also I hear the guy wants to test it at 500ft or something like that and this is well over 3ft off the ground (fan to ground not bast of pack) and so will be well above the radius of the blade I should think
manicmailman159 3 years ago
right, that's why i don't think it uses the ground effect.
i'm sure it can go higher, the problem is that u need very tall guys to hold it steady if u do :)
i don't believe one second that this pack is capable of staying horizontal.
pizzagorgonzola 3 years ago
Great....
but I dont think it can go any higher....I bet its using the ground as lift....and its reached its max height with max power...all video clips show it flying at relativity the same height.
Standard999999 3 years ago
hehe, go back to school !
pizzagorgonzola 3 years ago
This can go to 8000 feet as stated by the creator. It is low to the ground for safety reasons, if you were listening to the video.
ChezzyKnytt 3 years ago
Now all it needs are swing wings where the safety bars are for fixed wing flight at low altitudes, would save fuel if you had a support system like wings rather than relying soley on the power of the engine.
BardLinos 3 years ago
Can it go higher if you have taller people holding on to it?, All you need is really tall friends and you can fly anywhere
frankturley 3 years ago
Doesn't look very useful. I can only think of a very limited market where this kind of equipment would come in handy. In addition the weight and size of this are not great selling points either.
realmeister 3 years ago
I think it looks EXTREEMLY useful! I imagine this for:
Firemen - (particularly useful scouting backcountry while burning here in so cal - closer than a heli certainly)
Police - like a small heli for use in downtown - could be lower than the buildings - could also prove useful in crowd control/spotting
Movies/stunts - I am sure if this hits the market you will see it in a movie. Maybe even a Bond (too clunky maybe!).
In the age of predators, I think it is a no-go for military use at all.
ProductionDesignrMAX 3 years ago
These people should be thinking electric motors and gyros for the next phase.
DHMIII 3 years ago
I totally agree with the GYRO. Without a gyro this is not going to ever be a viable product.
I don't yet agree with the electric motors tho'. I have a lot of experience with LiPo and LiMn batteries and it would take a LOT of juice to produce the same amount of power as a 2 stroke 2L engine. That is a LOT of power (twice as many power strokes as a 4 stroke 2L).
Electric motors as long as you don't mind an extension cord or 5 minute runtime vs 1/2 an hour.
ProductionDesignrMAX 3 years ago
You sure about that?? Tesla Motors has the fastest electric car, so strong enough electric motors doesn't seem like the problem. Energy power sources [reasonably priced alternatives] is an issue for the entire transportation industry. So any future for this machine would depend on looking in that direction now. Even hybrid tech or something makes sense to me.If you build a 5-10 minute electric model, i would think people would rush at the opportunity to make the flight longer.
DHMIII 3 years ago
True but a Tesla vehicle can be designed to distribute the weight where they want it. Rare earth magnets are powerful, but combine them with batteries and the propulsion system will be very heavy. I think an electric version of this would bust the 254 lbs ultra-light weight restriction. As far as a two-stroke engine (previous post), wouldn't you have to have a computer controlling the carb jetting as the altitude changes?
tmdpc 3 years ago
True on the Tesla, the latter is over my head. I would think a computer would be necessary for a gyro so i would imagine it would be needed for the pressure changes.. but i honestly have no idea. i just don't want to give up on alternatives.. you do know that exxon posted something like 11.68 billion dollar profits in one quarter [3mo]which is something like $1500 a second!!! [or a minute i cant remember but either way thats completely a piss in our face]
DHMIII 3 years ago
But i do see your point, if the technology isn't advanced enough yet you have to use what you can.
DHMIII 3 years ago