Elite Engineer Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Why aren't jet packs out in the world? Doesn't have to be a commercial thing. Why not the military, or super-rich. Im talking rocket powered jet packs, not those pusedo-jet packs that shoot out water -Is it the physics, the risk? The Ford Pinto was a public car at one time, and you cant say that wasn't risky. ~ee
Klaynos Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 There are. I recall a TV show a few years ago. I recall a few difficulties. Fuel (length of flight). Stable control. Safety. People had been working on them for decades with limited success. The time of flight seemed the real kicker for any real use. 1
ajb Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Time of flight and their control seem to be the big issues as Klaynos points out. There is little chance of an off-the-shelf model for public use any time soon.
Sensei Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Why aren't jet packs out in the world? Would you buy and use cell phone, or car, if it would work for 10 minutes or so.. ? Comparison of time of flight you have even on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_pack Jet pack H202 23 seconds Jet pack H202-Z 33 seconds Jet pack T-73 ~9 minutes ($200,000 price) Edited June 4, 2015 by Sensei
swansont Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 The reason for the short operational time is that there is a limit to how much fuel/propellant you can carry on your back. You need to exert a thrust greater than the weight of you+device+fuel.
Phi for All Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Is there any other transportation that utilizes a jet engine for maneuvering and thrust without a fixed-wing? The military is backing helicopter tech, like drones. There are easier ways to put a single human up in the air. I think flying like this would be incredibly difficult to learn as well. Like astronaut training on steroids.
Delta1212 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 There are safer, cheaper and ultimately easier ways of doing pretty much everything a jet pack does. It's like asking why we don't all take miniature Zeppelins to work. It sounds really cool, but if you actually had one I expect it would be a big expensive hassle that would quickly become a lot less exciting than just driving. Ultimately, the idea of a jet pack is much cooler than the actual implementation, because your imagination doesn't have to worry about practical considerations and engineering problems.
Klaynos Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Is there any other transportation that utilizes a jet engine for maneuvering and thrust without a fixed-wing? The military is backing helicopter tech, like drones. There are easier ways to put a single human up in the air. I think flying like this would be incredibly difficult to learn as well. Like astronaut training on steroids. Harrier jump jet. It had a fixed wing but didn't always use it. Used more water during hover than fuel to keep the engines cool.
StringJunky Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Harrier jump jet. It had a fixed wing but didn't always use it. Used more water during hover than fuel to keep the engines cool. The UK is getting the F35B Lightning variant which is VTOL. for use on their new aircraft carriers.
Klaynos Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 The UK is getting the F35B Lightning variant which is VTOL. for use on their new aircraft carriers. I didn't think it was true VTOL, it cannot hover? Yeah the F-35B is STOVL...
Phi for All Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Harrier jump jet. It had a fixed wing but didn't always use it. Used more water during hover than fuel to keep the engines cool. The Harrier used its fixed wing in all the instances it was using its engines to travel distances. AFAIK, VTOL is for small maneuvers. Or maybe its utility is in simple maneuvers, rather than small. Would it cost less to use a jetpack like a JATO rocket to shoot a skydiver straight up instead of jumping from a plane?
StringJunky Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 ...Or maybe its utility is in simple maneuvers, rather than small. Would it cost less to use a jetpack like a JATO rocket to shoot a skydiver straight up instead of jumping from a plane? You can bet your life, if the technology even existed to do that, the BASE jumper nutters would be on it!
Phi for All Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 You can bet your life, if the technology even existed to do that, the BASE jumper nutters would be on it! Too true. And that would actually be pretty fun if it worked. Human rockets. You only need them to work for half a minute anyway. I see the jetpack as a crude propulsion device, most efficient at gross linear motion within the atmosphere. If fuel weren't a problem, it could be a convenient alternative to using a much bigger device (like a helicopter) for certain situations. If I have a small delivery, I can use my motorcycle rather than firing up my 18-wheeler truck. If I dropped something overboard, I can use SCUBA equipment rather than getting the submarine ready. But in the air, we have drones for quicky missions like that. No need to risk a life for 30 seconds of operation.
John Cuthber Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Jet packs are easy; it's the fireproof trousers that are the problem. 1
Klaynos Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 The Harrier used its fixed wing in all the instances it was using its engines to travel distances. AFAIK, VTOL is for small maneuvers. Or maybe its utility is in simple maneuvers, rather than small. Would it cost less to use a jetpack like a JATO rocket to shoot a skydiver straight up instead of jumping from a plane? https://youtu.be/0UilDqgwkro There are significant points in that where the wing is providing no lift. It's all thrust manoeuvring. It could dance, and go backwards!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now