Came across this today, why hasn't it gotten more cover

Every year there's some faggot coming up with a new jetpack bullshit. It'll never happen.

File: mjetpack_fhfiuhfiu.jpg (152KB, 1154x595px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1154x595px

>>910795
>Came across this today, why hasn't it gotten more coverage recently?
Because industry consensus is that it's not worthy?

It's not difficult to strap a few prop drives or ducted fans together with a gyro chip and make a "flying thing", people do it making quadcopters all the time.
Making it bigger isn't really much more difficult than making a small one.

The two problems with the person-carrying ones are-
1) the obscene rate of fuel consumption (battery-powered devices are a total non-starter) and
2) the safety issue of what happens if one or more engines fails in-flight.

>>910795
Doesn't look all that much better than the flying platforms that have been around since the 50s. Does it have a much better range or something?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOVh-vlUius

File: Ziltoid- consider the following.jpg (31KB, 307x239px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 307x239px

suicide bomb

this is why we can't have nice things

>>910795
When I looked at the thumbnail on the catalog I thought it was a robot slut spreading it's legs

>>910819
In answer to point 2, from their website: "The dedicated engine is being designed to an aviation industry standard. In addition, the Martin Jetpack is designed to protect the pilot, including a ballistic parachute and a crumple undercarriage."

>>910884
They claim it has a flight time over 30 mins and speed of 74kmph (46mph)

Guess only time will tell whether it's a success or flop.

>>910903
>30 mins
That's not really transportation-grade.

It could work with first responders, though the low endurance means they'd have to work as a detachment that trucks the vehicles and ground support to an area near the disaster site, and then sends the vehicles on quick sorties in and out of the site.

I'd probably fly that thing right into power lines.

>>910924
Yeah, I believe they're aiming at a first responder market initially.

True, they're not really good for distances, but in urban areas where the journey planned isn't longer than 15-20 minutes they might work.

That said I imagine governments would freak out with regards to regulations, safety (e.g. >>910929 ) and how to prevent trespassing over private land if members of the common public were to have access to them.
So I'm not sure how viable they would be on a large scale.

Same reason why I'm glad flying cars will never work, the general public is retarded. If you gave everyone the freedom to fly, you'd have a huge rate of accidents, and now with debris raining down.

File: robot_jf498r.png (427KB, 616x726px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 616x726px

>>910899
>When I looked at the thumbnail on the catalog I thought it was a robot slut spreading it's legs
I am interested in your products and would like to subscribe to your newsletter

File: 9dof_china_vnwiuwninvw.jpg (147KB, 1204x742px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1204x742px

>>910884
>Doesn't look all that much better than the flying platforms that have been around since the 50s. Does it have a much better range or something?
To be fair--the ancient flying platforms used hydraulic stabilization computers. This was basically an air-spun gyro that had linkage bars to a pair of little hydraulic valves, to try to control the thing in the X-Y axis. These worked but were maintenance headaches; even most military planes weren't equipped with them for reliability reasons.

That is not a problem now tho. Pic related--a $20 Chinese 9DOF board is way more sensitive and reliable than any hydraulic stabilizer would be.

-------

The problem with light aircraft crashes is mostly two things: pilot errors/inattentiveness, and engine failures.
Most engine failures are not exactly "failures" like pistons or valves failing, the most common type of failure is the fuel system clogging and stalling the engine.
This is especially a problem during the critical times of takeoff and landing, when the aircraft does not have enough altitude to glide to a reasonably-safe place to attempt to land.... And this is when a lot of crashes happen,,, and why they occur.

Powered-lift aircraft like the Martin Jetpack don't EVER have the ability to glide; they are -always- in their critical flight stage. So the applied margin of safety for them is set far higher than you would get for an airplane or even a helicopter.

>>910899
same here

>>911125
>To be fair--the ancient flying platforms used hydraulic stabilization computers. This was basically an air-spun gyro that had linkage bars to a pair of little hydraulic valves, to try to control the thing in the X-Y axis. These worked but were maintenance headaches
What, no they didn't

>>911148
>What, no they didn't
witness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscopic_autopilot#Early_development

>>911158
And what does that have to do with flying platforms, or even helicopters?

>>911160
>And what does that have to do with flying platforms, or even helicopters?

Because of what this guy said-
>>910884
flying platforms were developed during WW2, but weren't practical for battlefield use and were not publicized until the 1950's. Those were the ones that used hydraulic computers for stabilization.

Transistors were invented in 1947 but remained too expensive even for common military use all the way through the 1950's.

Conventional helicopters don't need gyro stabilization due to having large-diameter rotors. ( many 2-bladed helicopters did often use flybars to improve blade stabilization )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_rotor#Flybar_.28stabilizer_bar.29

>>911173
That has nothing to do with gyroscopic autopilots. Gyroscopic autopilots were for planes. You're fucking clueless.

>>911173
No they didn't. Flying platforms used counter rotating propellers in order to remain stable.

File: monocopter_02.png (571KB, 659x526px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 659x526px

>>910795
rather ride on this 2bh

The problem with all of these designs and the reason they are so damn inefficient is that it's a flawed concept from the ground up. Basically all these machines use brute force (ridiculous amounts of fuel/power) to CONSTANTLY fight against gravity to keep the machine hovering. They just blast an insane amount of energy towards the bottom using propellers, impellers, jet engines, etc. to counteract gravity. This is extremely inefficient because they don't utilize airflow to provide lift like an airplane or a helicopter does. Essentially the way almost every single jetpack design works is closer to a hovering rocket than it is to a plane/helicopter.

And that's why these things rarely get more than 30 minutes flight time, produce an insane amount of noise and become a lethal falling brick the second the engine stops working, unlike planes and helicopters that have gliding/autorotation in an emergency. Unless someone invents an anti-gravity device the entire concept of hovering without a rotor remains a stupid pipe dream with current technology that for some reason people desperately cling to. Yes, it's possible to build a jet pack to prove a point but since the underlying physics of every current approach are extremely inefficient they will never be a practical solution for pretty much anything other than to look cool for 30 minutes until you have to refuel them. Add to that the fact that they're fucking deathtraps even with a parachute involved and you can see why this kind of thing doesn't receive "coverage".

We've been talking about this shit since the 50s and nothing has changed about the fact that blasting a constant stream of air towards the ground is a highly inefficient way of achieving lift.