E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMartin Aircraft's jetpack soars as high as 5,000 feet during a remote-controlled test flight. Company founder Glenn Martin and remote-control pilot James Bowker are featured in this video.
A real-life jetpack passed a key test this month by soaring to a height of 5,000 feet, deploying an emergency parachute and drifting back down to New Zealand's Canterbury Plains.
"This successful test brings the future another step closer," Glenn Martin, the jetpack's inventor and founder of the New Zealand-based Martin Aircraft Co., said in a statement issued today.
Martin Aircraft says the previous altitude record for the fan-driven, wearable aircraft was 50 feet (15 meters). Sending a test pilot 100 times higher sounds like a scary proposition, and that's why the May 21 parachute test was unmanned. Instead, a dummy weighing as much as a human operator was put into the jetpack. The contraption was radio-controlled from a helicopter flying nearby.
The point of the exercise was to put the jetpack's emergency landing system to the test. The engine cut out at an altitude of 3,000 feet (900 meters), and then an off-the-shelf ballistic parachute popped out to slow the speed of descent. The jetpack hit the ground with a velocity of 15.7 mph (25.2 kilometers per hour), Martin Aircraft reported.
"The aircraft sustained some damage on impact, but we would expect that it is likely a pilot would have walked away from this emergency landing," the company said.
The jetpack pushed the envelope for climb rate (800 feet per minute or 4 meters per second, with the capability to rise even faster) and flight duration (9 minutes and 46 seconds). "This test also validated our flight model, proved thrust to weight ratio and proved our ability to fly a jetpack as an unmanned aerial vehicle, which will be key to some of the jetpack’s future emergency/search and rescue and military applications," Glenn Martin said.
The company expects the jetpack's first buyers to be military and emergency-response agencies — which might well be looking for ways to send in a remote-controlled aircraft capable of delivery, surveillance or extraction in situations that are too dangerous for more traditional conveyances.
Martin Aircraft's CEO, Richard Lauder, said the next steps in development will include improvements in the emergency parachute system, engine performance and high-speed flight stability.
The Martin jetpack project was unveiled almost three years ago at the EAA AirVenture air show in Wisconsin. The company says it's targeting an initial price tag of $100,000 for the recreational version of the vehicle. If the venture really does take off commercially, I could imagine jetpack rides becoming one of the offerings for recreational fliers, alongside hang-gliding adventures, ultralight airplane rides and balloon tours. Would you strap in? How much would you pay? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
More on jetpacks and other dreams of flight:
- This jetpack can be yours for $100,000
- Dude, where's my flying car and jetpack?
- Jetpack veterans meet new innovators
- Seven flights of fancy that fizzled
You can connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. Also, give a look to "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
... And in answer to the anticipated question, "When can I get my jetpack?" ... Martin Aircraft has said it expects to make its first deliveries in 18 months, assuming that it can hold to the current development schedule and expectations for project funding.
...and in another 18 mts that model will be your 'fathers jetpack'.
Whenever I hear a timeline for a novel air transport method, I think three words: "Moller Flying Car"
Maybe this thing will make prime-time faster. Wouldn't be that hard.
If they find a way to bring that price tag down to 10K instead of 100K, it will sell like hotcakes. I would love to use something like this to get to work every day.
They had better find a way to get the parachute to slow the rate to a lot lower than 15-16 MPH. You could do some serious damage hitting the ground at that speed. The average parachute landing speed is about 3-8 MPH.
Can't WAIT until Apple releases the iFly.
@person named x
Hahahaha i cant wait for apple to release the iFly either
Boo Alan!! You ruined my "Ican HAz" question. :)
Who wants to wager that in 18 months we hear about someone with a jetpack crashing through someone's roof.
one way to use it for rescuing soldiers under fire would be to drop in a jetpack from a helicopter. the soldier could strap it on and get the heck out without risking the lives of the chopper crew.
That thing moved so slow a pellet gun could shoot it down.
"The contraption was radio-controlled from a helicopter flying nearby." Nothing encourages faith in a new technology more than referring to it as a "contraption."
Well....it's a start...but pretty useless in its current state, but, everything has to start from useless and evolve.
Well put Steve. Just the fact that he got this up and running is a great start. Who knows what the final version of this might be and what applications could it be used for?
Kind of like Version 1.0 of software. Give it time to work the kinks out and create mods from the original.
Yep, lots of possibilities here.
"everything has to start from useless and evolve"
_______________
There's definitely a Palin joke in there somewhere, but I'll leave it to someone cleverer than I to come up with it.
This would be version 2.0 at least. Way back in the 60's/70's there was some initial research on jetpacks, but as mentioned in the article, previous flight times were limited to only a few seconds and control was a major problem.
To the best of my knowledge the prior packs were all rocket not jet. Rocket packs are much simpler but have an extremely limited flight time (matter of seconds).
Chad-2033112
"everything has to start from useless and evolve"
_______________
There's definitely a Palin joke in there somewhere, but I'll leave it to someone cleverer than I to come up with it.
============================
And only a moron would bring political smack into something completely unrelated
As previously learned with Halo Reach...
Everything is better with jetpacks!
Warhawk, too. I can play ground-based in that game without flinching, but put me in an actual Warhawk plane and I'm an epic fail. Jetpacks in-game, though, are so much easier to control!
Definitely with a parachute. Without? Not on your life!
The science fiction idea of a "jetpack" is like a backpack that you can just toss on your back and BOOM you can fly! I realize that vision is probably impractical...
...But at some point the huge monstrosities that they're actually building stop being a "jetpack" to me, and start being a small aircraft with a very exposed and inconveniently located cockpit.
I mean, who in their right mind would strap themselves to the bottom of a helicopter and control it with a handheld remote? That's more or less what these devices really are -- helicopters without a cockpit, but with a pilot strapped onto the bottom.
I think we're talking about mobility here.
In our horse days who but a daredevil would of thought of strapping into a metal and safety glass vehicle and speeding at 45mph.
I doubt that we have much to worry about. As soon as they start producing and selling them government regulations and controls will have to be implemented. Since the government is all about power and control they most likely will see these "aircraft" as a possible invasion by terroist organizations. The war on drugs and human smuggling across mexican borders at night will be off the charts.The cartels have more than enough money to buy several of them and the ROI is high since it would be hard to get caught.$10000 dollars to be smuggled into the U.S. deep inside and a waiting car to transport them to northern cities.Ten trips and it's paid for. Yeah this is a non starter for U.S. citizens the government won't allow us to own one.IMHO
That's not a JetPack.. It's a Prop-Pack
another decade of tinkering and they might just have the astronaut emergency ejection seat ready for prime time!!, a mile up?...not yet, he has a good idea for a niche application, extraction via Q-branch.
As a memeber of the EAA, I've seen this device up close and personal, but it simply doesn't fly with a real person on board. The builders are so paranoid that they won't fly it themselves, instead using only dummies and remote control. If THEY don't trust it, I sure don't. So either they get flying or forget about it. Period. 18 months my wazoo. They've had years to get it where it is, so 18 more months is just smoke and mirrors.
A 13MPH landing with this thing strapped to your back is not all that likely to result in "walking away". Crawling, maybe, with two broken legs... but still, there are times when that'd be better than the alternative.
Still, I want one, once it's working. Wouldn't it be great if the biggest inconvenience of jetpacking in to work was bugs on your teeth from that great big smile ;-).
So did it make it to 5000 ft. or not?....because later in the story it claims it only made it to 3000 ft. before the engine cut and it fell to earth.
"A real-life jetpack passed a key test this month by soaring to a height of 5,000 feet,"
"The engine cut out at an altitude of 3,000 feet (900 meters), and then an off-the-shelf ballistic parachute popped out to slow the speed of descent. "
So which is it?
That's my question too. Neverminding of course that this "fanpack" is said to go a mile high when a mile is actually 5,280 feet.
Perhaps the upward momentum, at a speed of 800 feet per minute (about 13 feet per second) carried it the rest of the way? Not!
Actually I thought it simply meant it went up to 5000 feet then quit at 3000 as it was descending. Ran out of fuel before it made it all the way down.
There was more than one test going on here in the one flight. It flew up to 5000 feet, but when they did the test of the emergency landing system they brought it down to 3000 feet before they turned off the engine. The term "cut out" was poorly chosen, since it implies an accident. The engine "failure" was part of the flight plan, to test the emergency landing system.
He said 5000 above sea level. You only need to fly 3000 feet off the ground to reach 5000 if your elevation is already 2000 feet.
Neat toy, for the ultra-rich. I see limited or NO real military applications. Search & rescue takes time, and this gets only ~10 minutes. You need the lift and space to carry the victim, equipment, etc.. As an attack platform, useless. So, in reality, a rich man's toy... nothing more. Still cool!
Impressive accomplishment. That was some pretty carefully edited footage of the landing though...looked to be quite a bit harder than it appeared to be in the video. Plus that parachute looked like it was about to collapse a couple of times...need a much larger one methinks. No doubt lots of narco-trafficking with this easy new tool.
I would just suppose even the dummy was a little afraid on that test run.
I wonder if the first horseless carriage looked so cumbersom to the people at that time as it does to me now. I guess I'm just looking for the 'model T' version to come out.
The "Carbon Fiber Lizzie"?
somthing that looks and rides more like one of todays single persons off-road type machines
Hmm, well, it seems that to have a more extended range and make this more usable... one would end up developing a different kind of helicopter.
It's already almost too large to be called a 'jet pack'.
Ok, so why a jet pack, if you can drive a Jaguar XKR for a fraction of the cost?
only you dont need a road with a jet-pack
Ah, isn't that one more of the jet pack's problem? What if the engines fail and the damn parachute doesn't open? Toast!
Besides, you cannot drive it with a beautiful blonde on your lap, playing with your hair and licking your face. Now can you?
But you could jet pack over the castle wall and moat, land on her bedroom balcony and have her do all those things on a bed.
Why would you want to do it in a car? No space, leg cramp, and little useable traction.
I'll go for the jet pack.
Well, you would have more "thrust"....
The Angry Guy,
My point exactly.
Rediculous!! This thing need A LOT more development before I'd strap one on. If I were designing one, I'd try designs similar to 'jet ski' type impeller or shrouded fans for thrust. I'm still worried about having a hot engine strapped to my back.....
From the video it looks like it does use a ducted fan, but that's just based on the video.
The Segway of the skies.
I flew on US Airways......it was a bit scary.
Hell. No.
For one thing, hitting the ground at 15.7 mph, most people over 30 wouldn't walk away. We'd limp away. After about 10 minutes of recovery on the ground.
Military parachutes get you to the ground moving that fast. Though you are right, it is NOT fun. I was 21 and badly rolled an ankle on my second jump. The Black Hats used to say," These things get you to the ground as quickly as is safely possible...." Then again I was a "heavy drop", but i wasnt the only one limping off the DZ.
@Lunchbox: Exactly. No thanks! (4 years at Bragg + 0 years airborne = still able to walk normally) I'll fly the plane. Somebody ELSE can jump out.
Miker,
Congrats at dodging the airborne bullet, especially given four years at Bragg. I had to go get my mosquito wings and I was never even in a damn airborne unit.