I trust someone in authority has figured out how to control 10,000 people wearing Martin Jetpacks, whizzing around the lower levels of airspace in 10,000 different directions, at 70kmh?? Sound like a recipe for disaster to me.

And what happens when there's an engine failure?? Will we now have to keep a wary eye open for falling Martin Jetpackers dropping onto us from great heights?? The new, overwhelming fear of the 21st Century?? :rolleyes:

I can't think of anything worse than flying one of those and having a flame-out at an altitude below effective chute deployment altitude. Ouch :ouch: Probably like bungy-jumping with no elastic and no river below. There is a certain feeling of security with a metal or fibreglass airframe being around you... oh and wings :ok:

er, dont choppers have an area in the speed/height graph to stay out of?

They are just as bad yes :eek: but as least they have *some* protection around you.


I can see that running costs of this unit are going to be an issue:

You can sky dive without a parachute, if you want to sky dive twice then you need a parachute.

Seems to me the Martin Thingy falls into this sort of thinking.

Every time I approach the traffic lights I trust my brakes, factory fitted, probably not looked at in 100,000km's are going to work.

Just saying....


If you want zero risk, stay at home. Even there you may get killed by meteorite or a nest of killer bees.

It seems there is a risk area with the jetpack below parachute altitude, above roll-cage protection. Just like my aircraft 100-300ft after takeoff almost every flight...To be honest I'd rather the jetpack!

Quote from T 28 D
You can sky dive without a parachute, if you want to sky dive twice then you need a parachute.

Seems to me the Martin Thingy falls into this sort of thinking.
Skydiver jumps without Parachute

This one is perhaps a tad more crazy ....

from their website

looks like they'll be out for commercial sales down the track which suggests they're confident they can convince the regulator an engine failure is survivable at pretty much all heights

Would be interesting to see what the minimum safe deployment altitude is for the ballistic parachute they're fitting.
From BRS's website:
"The altitude required is a function of speed more than height. FAA certified tests have shown that full parachute inflation could occur as low as 260-290 feet above the ground."

That's for a canopy big enough to lower an LSA sized aircraft to the ground.

"In the first 0.1 second, the rocket accelerates to 150 feet per second (over 100 mph). In less than one second, the rocket will extract the parachute and will stretch tight its lines and the airframe harness attachments. Very shortly afterward -- depending on the forward speed of the aircraft -- the canopy will become fully inflated and will decelerate the aircraft. The aircraft stabilizes under the canopy quite quickly."

I guess an engine failure at anything under 200 feet or so AGL would be your last flight? I wonder if they'll have an automatic deployment function on loss of thrust?

Hmmm.......perhaps an EF below 200' initiates a multiple airbag deployment like the mars rover? It would be a hell of a good bounce!
SGP

Maybe time to regenerate this debate?

Check out the videos

Videos

Awesome! I wish this company all the best - would love to have a go one day!

Hmmm, so it appears the Martin Jetpack is going to be produced in China, with Chinese backing, using the finest Chinese components that bribery can buy? :E

This gets better all the time. Do the test pilots draw short straws for each test? :ooh:

I don't get it, it's size is verging on that of a small helicopter and with the rise of cheap 'drones' I can't see the commercial application?

No auto rotate. No glide. It should be a simple matter to automate the BRS firing the instant the engine fails in flight.:E

Meanwhile these guys have used miniature turbine technology to make a actual "jetpack" with a decent (10 minute) endurance:


... and these guys have made a jet hoverboard:


So the Martin Jetpack maybe a little on the late side, tech-wise.

The jet hoverboard is a scam. Someone wanting to make a viral video. There are heaps of debunking of its footage on the net, showing it zoomed and slowed and passing in front of peoples heads on the bank when its meant to be 100 m away.

No, it's real. From Avweb 2/5/16:



A French Jet Ski racer has claimed a new record for hoverboard endurance with a flight that covered 1.4 miles. Guinness World Records confirmed that Franky Zapata performed the flight in front of its evaluators in Sausset-les-Pins in the South of France. He officially went 2,252 meters to shatter the existing record of 275.9 meters set by Canadian Catalin Alexandru Duru last year. Zapata's creation also appears to be a technological leap ahead of Duru's invention.

A video released last month by Zapata shows a relatively compact device called the Flyboard Air that he claims can fly for 10 minutes, goes more than 90 mph and can climb to 10,000 feet. Viewers were skeptical and many thought the video was a fake but Saturday's flight confirmed it's real. Zapata told reporters the hoverboard "has really been a life's work" but it's not clear where he'll take it from here. Zapata previously invented the Flyboard, which connects to a personal watercraft turbine to propel the pilot into the air on a jet of water. There are no hoses on the new device, just an obviously powerful but unspecified "independent propulsion unit."

Meanwhile in the UK

https://youtu.be/soxxPyaAT1k