|
Post by philip on Nov 16, 2010 13:06:45 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Nov 16, 2010 20:48:10 GMT 12
..or ever fly.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 16, 2010 22:04:11 GMT 12
I notice the latest publiscity is coming from the US press, thanks to the Time Magazine mentioning it was "most anticipated invention of the year" (in other words it's been bloody ages, where the hell is it already?). It seems fitting that it is the Americans most interested in this as they are the culture that seems most hellbent on finding gimmicky new ways of getting lazier whilst being more and more environmentally impractical in everyday life.
I think the "jetpacks" are environmentally impractical because they are built for just one person only while the governments of the world are trying to convince people to car-pool, use a bus or train, or for goodness sake get off your arse and walk. And to sell to the US market they'll need to make it wider, and thus it will need bigger engine thrust, and will naturally use more fossil fuel resources and be even more environmentally unsound. Please Time magazine, show some responsibility and forget this stupid toy, and promote the use of the humble bicycle! It's safer, cheaper, more environmentally friendly, more healthy and probably more fun on a bike anyway. And a bike won't soak up 20 years of taxpayer's grants for "development" before they quietly disappear from the media radar.
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Nov 17, 2010 6:21:44 GMT 12
I dont get why they are so keen to call it " invention of the year " ? Surely jet packs were invented many decades ago ? He may have put a lot of effort into developing the idea , but results have been less than spectacular .I just dont so see it justified as being described as an " invention ".
|
|
|
Post by DragonflyDH90 on Nov 17, 2010 7:03:45 GMT 12
This has bugged me for a while so think its about time I posted it. Have a look at the Springtail Exoskeleton Flying Vehicle, look familiar. www.trekaero.com/Trek_VTOL_Vehicles.htmFirst tethered and free flight in 2003 and project abandoned in 2005, even after a US$5.1 million grant from the US Defence Department to pursue and develop the technology. If it has been discounted once before by the USDoD they certainly wont touch it again.
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jun 4, 2015 12:20:17 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Jun 4, 2015 14:48:38 GMT 12
How bizarre. Perhaps this is the beginning of the end? It's been kind of torturous to follow, and to hear the founder is no longer directly involved seems like a nail in the coffin.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2015 16:20:15 GMT 12
Does it have a cup holder??
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jun 4, 2015 19:12:25 GMT 12
More info on what looks like the beginning of the end: "4 June 2015 Martin Aircraft shares have fallen after founder Glenn Martin unexpectedly quit the board, reportedly because the backyard jetpack inventor wasn't enjoying the company's corporate culture and pursuit of professional customers. The shares declined 3.2 per cent to 75.5 Australian cents on the ASX, having retreated from as much as $A1.52 on March 25. The company debuted on the ASX on February 24, after raising $A27 million ($NZ29.4m) to fund the commercialisation of its jetpack in an initial public offering at 40 Australian cents a share. Ahead of going public, the company had touted a letter of intent from the US Department of Homeland Security for the provision of jetpacks and had said it had a potential sale in the oil industry. But the NZ Herald on Thursday reported that Mr Martin was unhappy with the Christchurch-based company's direction, saying he wasn't comfortable at corporate events like the Paris Air Show, where attendees included military organisations. "I'm not a corporate beast - I'm an inventor of a jet pack ... that people want to fly around in," he told the Herald. "It wasn't any fun for me anymore." Chairman Jon Mayson said Mr Martin emailed his resignation on June 2, about an hour before Mr Mayson was due to get on a flight to Shenzhen, China, for a board meeting. Shenzhen is the base of KuangChi Science, Martin's biggest shareholder. Glenn Martin is the third-biggest investor with 15.6 per cent. "I'm sorry that for whatever reason, he feels he can't continue on the journey," Mr Mayson said. "Martin Aircraft would not exist without all the hard work he has done. Nothing has changed - he's the founder, his name's on the company and he's a large shareholder." " home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=207791
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jun 4, 2015 20:54:10 GMT 12
I hope Glenn Martin gets a bit out of the deal, even if it dies, so many people get things started, end up with nothing, I feel this could go either way so easily. Reacon he's had a few years of fun out of it, wonder what he'll get into next, something exciting? isc
|
|
|
Post by conman on Jun 5, 2015 8:50:13 GMT 12
I really can't ever see the Jetpack as being a commercial success, an interesting curiosity yes, GM would do well to flog off his shares and cash up, maybe he will move on to develop a flying car
|
|
dodgy
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 89
|
Post by dodgy on Jun 5, 2015 10:33:05 GMT 12
It isn't a jetpack anyway - it has ducted fans. Cannot see any commercial viability whatsover, it is Glenn's wet dream. What can this do that the emerging drone market cannot do? Why oh why would you even want to spend so much to suspend someone in the air for 30 minutes (with bugger all payload)? Drones loaded with surveillance equipment, medical, logistical can all do this better as they are not encumbered with a pilot and human related safety equipment.
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Jun 5, 2015 14:08:02 GMT 12
I do not like how he called it a Jetpack. Yes, it's "jets of air", but it has never sat well with me.
I agree with the commercial aspect (or lack thereof), I can only envisage it as an "adventure" machine. Even commuting isn't terribly practical because where at work would you keep it?!
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jun 5, 2015 16:09:01 GMT 12
What can this thing do that a Robinson R22 cant already do much better?.I've always said from day one it was a flight of fantasy. Has some parallels to PowerBeat batteries.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 5, 2015 18:00:37 GMT 12
So is the actual production going to be done in China? That would be typical of the way things are nowadays with New Zealand industry and innovation...
If you don't like this machine being called a jetpack you need to tell Mr Hamilton off for his jetboat too (and tell him he also never invented the jetboat like what has been claimed, just like Hackett claiming he invented modern bungy jumping when it was actually a couple of poms who did it first)
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jun 5, 2015 20:20:48 GMT 12
I suppose it had to be called something. As far as jet boats go, I'v got a bit in a book fron 1868 about this sort of propulsion. Bungy jumping, what about Vanuatu, sure they only use vines instead of rubber. isc
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Jun 5, 2015 20:24:45 GMT 12
So is the actual production going to be done in China? That would be typical of the way things are nowadays with New Zealand industry and innovation... If you don't like this machine being called a jetpack you need to tell Mr Hamilton off for his jetboat too (and tell him he also never invented the jetboat like what has been claimed, just like Hackett claiming he invented modern bungy jumping when it was actually a couple of poms who did it first) Crazy alright Dave. Their after sales support is crap (as are most of the products). Yes, they have no doubt improved from what they were but still a long long way to go. I would be very reluctant to fly on ANY aircraft manufactured in China..
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Jun 5, 2015 21:10:51 GMT 12
"Jet" refers to the speed at which this thing would plummet to earth should it sustain an engine failure at low altitude. No matter how you dress it up it has no engine out capability,it can't glide or autorotate it would just drop like a tonne of bricks. It also has very limited range and endurance,it would need to be transported by road to most applications its being marketed for.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 5, 2015 21:30:45 GMT 12
I suppose it had to be called something. As far as jet boats go, I'v got a bit in a book fron 1868 about this sort of propulsion. Bungy jumping, what about Vanuatu, sure they only use vines instead of rubber. isc To be fair to Hackett his website does acknowledge that the Brits did it before him, I guess it is actually the kiwi media who left that part out www.bungy.co.nz/who-we-are/historyHere's a great programme on those Brits who did it first www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fvhtbThere's a previous thread about jet boats here rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/13729/jet-boats
|
|
|
Post by hardyakka on Jun 5, 2015 23:38:29 GMT 12
The one thing that the Martin "jet pack" does have is a contained propulsion system that does not have dirty great blades spinning around overhead threatening to smash themselves to pieces on anything you get close to. With a bit of lateral thinking, there are some niche applications that it might prove suitable for, but as a general purpose flying machine, it is a bit limited. The things that I think will spell its failure are the lack of endurance and the "death zone" between "high enough that the fall will kill you" and "high enough to deploy a Ballistic Recovery chute" in case of an engine failure. Mind you the Canberra bomber had a "crash zone" in the gap between "lift off speed" and "single engine climb speed" that didn't stop it from being a successful design. Would I fly one? Maybe once to see what it was like... Would I own one with the expectation that it would be a useful aircraft? Probably not.
P.S. Being a fat bastard, they probably don't build a model that could lift my carcass anyway...
|
|