|
|
Post by The Red Baron on May 29, 2011 17:55:04 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on May 29, 2011 18:56:42 GMT 12
Rocket parachute? I need to record the show to see it, as it makes no sense to me at the moment.
From the start I have seriously loathed the use of the term jetpack in relation to this machine. His achievements are admirable and by GOD I wanna fly it!, and I wish Mr Martin all the best with his endeavour :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 29, 2011 19:30:27 GMT 12
Have got a humble pie in the oven if it flys...  My " humble pie " is not in the oven ( but I've got a microwave if I need it )! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on May 29, 2011 20:13:05 GMT 12
It got to a few thousand feet above sea level. I guess a whole lot of people really will have to start swallowing humble pie, eh? ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on May 29, 2011 20:13:51 GMT 12
Pie back in the freezer..... ;D Lands like a pallet of bricks with the parachute. Maybe Zac will volunteer to be first test pilot....  |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on May 29, 2011 20:36:30 GMT 12
Pie back in the freezer..... ;D Lands like a pallet of bricks with the parachute. Maybe Zac will volunteer to be first test pilot.... I'd fly the thing! I found that a really touching story. The footage was wonderful and this will definitely put NZ in the aviation history books. I wish it had a better rego though: aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=46274 |
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on May 29, 2011 20:44:15 GMT 12
Lands like a pallet of bricks with the parachute. Back in the mid-1970s, I used to jump out of aeroplanes using a 7TU main parachute. They had a descent rate of around twenty-eight feet per second all the way down to contact with the ground and there was no practical way to slow them down prior to landing. In other words, they virtually landed like a pallet of bricks. Yet in spite of that, I'm still around to tell the tale about it, as are plenty of other people who used to jump out of aeroplanes with 7TUs back then. The parachute attached to that jetpack is designed for emergencies only, such as when the engine craps out. I imagine the principle behind the use of that parachute would be similar to the concept behind the reserve parachutes we used to use with those 7TU parachutes, where it was said that they were designed to save lives, not bones. And having experienced a landing while beneath one of those reserve canopies, I can tell you that although I was lucky enough to get away with not breaking any bones, that landing really hurt! |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on May 29, 2011 22:04:00 GMT 12
If the fan stops at 100 ft on take off your dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on May 29, 2011 22:22:56 GMT 12
I can think of plenty of places where I'd rather not be if the fan stopped working on a helicopter too!
And have you ever flown around over the Darren Mountains of Fiordland in a single-engined aeroplane? I have, and I imagine the fan going quiet in that situation would be rather sticky.
I've also done a 1,000-foot bungy jump out of a helicopter hovering 1,100 feet above the ground. I did that in the full knowlege that if anything went wrong with the helicopter, chances were that everyone in the chopper and myself beneath it wouldn't survive the experience. Sometimes you just do things for the thrill of it and to hell with the risk!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on May 29, 2011 22:41:18 GMT 12
It still appears it can only go up vertically in ground effect,other than creeping slowly forward,if it goes forward with any pace it must fly out of the lift column and then it would tip forward and dive head first into the ground?.
It needs a tilt fan/rotor like an Osprey to move forward with any speed.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 29, 2011 23:01:17 GMT 12
Actually it needs a wing to get forward speed.
has anyone seen a listed max forward speed there doesn't seen to be any element that would provide lift (other than engine thrust), so it can't transition to forward flight.
|
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 30, 2011 7:22:34 GMT 12
I dont think its supposed to be able to move forward at any great speed . As pointed out above , there is nothing to provide that sort of thrust ,or lift . It will be limited to slowish speeds that could be achieved by tilting , or directing the fans thrust ( but remembering that most of the fans thrust will still need to down , to keep it airborne ) .
It still seems very touchy near the ground , and I suspect the parachute innovation may have been driven by the inability to actually land the machine , as much as saftey reasons .
Still , I guess it is progress , so well done .
|
|
|
|
Post by conman on May 30, 2011 8:25:52 GMT 12
That looked like at least a couple of hundred feet lost in the parachute deploy, I understand they are working on a system which will deploy faster, I wonder if the frame has some sort of shock absorber as it would'nt be good for the pilot to take that landing force. What they need is a couple of Solid Rocket Boosters that initially fire to boost the altitude by a few hundred feet to give the parachute chance to deploy if the engine fails at low level. I was quite impressed by the overall stability they must have some kind of stabilisation system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on May 30, 2011 8:57:26 GMT 12
Back in the mid-1970s, I used to jump out of aeroplanes using a 7TU main parachute. Wow! You were advanced for that time. I was poor and had to settle for a double-T. Actually it needs a wing to get forward speed. . Back to the Fairey Rotodyne? |
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 30, 2011 9:09:48 GMT 12
I understand that it has fly by wire control system. There is what i suppose is best described as a landing bar that has a shock absorber function, as there is no way human knees can take the impact load from 200 kgs. So knees bent just like a parachutist i suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on May 30, 2011 18:45:46 GMT 12
Video:
|
|
