I am Sooo buying one of these!!

[M.D. Holloway]

Specs:

Height: 5 ft
Width: 5.5 ft
Length: 5 ft
Structure: Carbon fibre composite
Empty weight: 250 lbs (excluding safety equipment)
Gross weight: 535 lbs
Useful (Pilot) Load: 280 lbs+
Maximum thrust 600 lbs+
Fuel Capacity: 5 US gallons (as required by FAA Part 103,Ultralight Regulations)
Fuel burn: 10.0 gph
Engine: Martin Aircraft 2.0 L V4 2 stroke, rated at 200 hp (150 kw). Max 6000 rpm.
Electrical system: 12 V DC Battery, starter, 360 w alternator.
Rotor: Carbon / Kevlar composite diameter 1.7 ft
Max 7058 rpm
Range: 31.5 miles (at max speed of 63 mph as required by FAA part 103).
Hover: in ground effect 8000 ft (estimated)
Hover above ground effect 8000 ft (estimated)
Standard Equipment Flight and Engine displays
Harness
Ballistic Parachute
Retractable undercarriage
Energy absorbing undercarriage.
Classification Meets the requirements of the FAA Part 103, Ultralight Regulations
Pilot License The Ultralight class does not require an FAA recognised pilots license.


The Martin Jetpack is a unique aircraft and all owners are required to pass the Martin Aircraft Company approved training program before receipt of their aircraft

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Soukus

Approx. 31 mile range. Not far enough for me to commute with, buy I would buy one. And carry a man-mounted aux tank. Would that pass the FAA scrutiny?

Velcro an aux tank to the puppy and its not considered part of the aircraft, thus legal.

[dd74]

Would I still have to obey street signals and stop signs?

[imcarthur]

With the amount of low altitude air traffic buzzing around most cities, the last thing we need are a bunch of coffee-swilling yahoos with jetpaks rocketing to work. It would be cool though.

Ian

[Tim Hancock]

If.... I mean when the engine fails at relatively low altitude, your simply dead... That said, I would probably try one if given the opportunity, but I would never think of owning one as there is no way of preventing death if it quits at low altitude unlike my ultralight which will still glide to a landing if/when it quits (BTDT).

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

unlike my ultralight which will still glide to a landing if/when it quits (BTDT).

The brother of a local Rennlister was not so lucky a couple of weeks ago. He was flying a Van's Aircraft RV 7A.

The article.

Ian

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by imcarthur

The brother of a local Rennlister was not so lucky a couple of weeks ago. He was flying a Van's Aircraft RV 7A.

The article.

Ian

Yep people die in car crashes every day too, but I will take my chances in a car or light airplane any day over a jet-pack where an engine failure at 100' nearly instantly turns you into a lump of dead flesh and bones.

[island911]

Aren't ultralights allowed ballistically deployed chutes. (w/o weight penalty)

[jyl]

Is it any more dangerous than a helicopter?

In those, if the engine fails above a certain altitude (max altitude for autorotate) you are dead. With this, if the engine fails below a certain altitude (min altitude for the ballistic parachute) you are dead. With the "jetpack" you would presumably get above that certain altitude as fast as possible and then be, in theory, safe-ish.

(I mean, aside from that you're in an untested, unproven, novel device from a tiny company with no track record in making aircraft - you know, just details.)

I think this thing would benefit from a windscreen and visible instruments.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by island911

Aren't ultralights allowed ballistically deployed chutes. (w/o weight penalty)

Yes but this one does not have one installed.

As Tim says, below 100 feet you are simply dead. At least with a helo you can auto-rotate to a landing most of the time but not with this. As well at 100 feet parachute or not there would not be time to get it open.

Believe I will do as Tim says and stick with cars or airplanes...

[Tim Hancock]

Originally Posted by jyl

Is it any more dangerous than a helicopter?

In those, if the engine fails above a certain altitude (max altitude for autorotate) you are dead. With this, if the engine fails below a certain altitude (min altitude for the ballistic parachute) you are dead. With the "jetpack" you would presumably get above that certain altitude as fast as possible and then be, in theory, safe-ish.

(I mean, aside from that you're in an untested, unproven, novel device from a tiny company with no track record in making aircraft - you know, just details.)

I think this thing would benefit from a windscreen and visible instruments.

Well at the risk of pissing off Seahawk , to be perfectly honest, I don't feel very safe in helicopters either. Yes they can autorotate, but as a mechanical type, I don't like the idea of all those linkages and connections in the main and tailrotors.

A guy that used to run the local FBO has several small helicopters that he instructs in. One day while giving a demo ride in an old Enstrom to someone interested in learning to fly, he felt an odd vibration as he was climbing out around 150' and luckily decided to turn back to investigate. As he flew/hovered his way back towards the ramp, the main rotor departed the bird and they dropped like a bucket of shiit about 15'. As he got his wits back, he shut the engine down and then caught a glimmer of something as he looked up.... It was the spinning main rotor blades making like a boomerang coming back at him. He claims in that brief moment that he remembered thinking.... Great, I survived a crash and now am about to be killed by the rotor. In the end, both were OK and IIRC, the cause was due to some fatigued part in the main rotor. The gear collasped as they hit which is probably what softened the hit enough to avoid injury..... They were VERY lucky!

I had been in that very helicopter earlier that summer as well as going up several times with him in one of his R22's. I just feel much more comfortable in fixed wing small aircraft.

[Tim Hancock]

If I flew airplanes regularly in a part of the country that was nearly 100% covered with trees, I "might" consider a ballistic recovery chute, but where I typically fly (and mostly daytime VFR), an engine out may mean a busted up airplane and a bloody nose from deadstick landing in a less than ideal location, but likely not death.

[imcarthur]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

If I flew airplanes regularly in a part of the country that was nearly 100% covered with trees

That was the issue in the link above. I know that area really well & it is solid trees with few roads. Ontario has a lot of lakes but not in that specific area. Just an unfortunate accident in the wrong place.

I have always wanted to go up in a helicopter but the cost has kept me grounded.

Ian

[vwbobd]

One question: If you fart while using one of these does it flood the engine or does it give it more boost?

[kach22i]

Everyone wants a jet pack, life is short.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by jyl

Is it any more dangerous than a helicopter?

In those, if the engine fails above a certain altitude (max altitude for autorotate) you are dead. With this, if the engine fails below a certain altitude (min altitude for the ballistic parachute) you are dead. With the "jetpack" you would presumably get above that certain altitude as fast as possible and then be, in theory, safe-ish.

It really depends on the helicopter! I have a few hours in an R-22 and desire no additional hours...single engine, piston powered...yikes.

Virtually all commercial helicopters are powered by uber-reliable jet engines...the design term is turboshaft: the jet engines power is transferred to a shaft that drive the main and tail transmissions.

The helicopter I have the most hours in (Blackhawks and Seahawks) are powered by two GE T700 engines, each capable of over 1800SHP at sea level.

The chances of both engines failing at the same time is ridiculously small. I don't think it has ever happened. I worried more about tail rotor failures frankly.

Data shows that far more helicopters crash from pilot error than mechanical failure: flat-hatting, disorientation, poor judgment, etc.

Now, concerning autorotation: I attached what is called a Height/Velocity diagram...every helicopter has one. In the military we have numerous H/Vs based on a whole bunch of stuff that affects aircraft performance. We also plot single engine H/Vs. We then try and fly the profile unless tactics and bad guys prevent it.

At certain airspeeds, autorotation is doable from any altitude...there is no "max" auto altitude. In fact, as you can see in the diagram, I can hover at certain altitudes, loss all power and still transition to an auto profile.

While I enjoy fixed wing flying (lots of hours in all type of planes, from Cubs to F-18's - even got a backseat ride in an F-4 Phantom!) camming around the countryside in an H-60 is a thing of beauty...I'm glad I had the opportunity

[Seahawk]

Concerning the "Piston Pack", it doesn't seem to be able to auto, which makes sense due to the complexity of design required to enable true autorotation on counter-rotating lifting surfaces, so reliance on the ballistic chute is absolute for a safe decent should either the engine fail or a transmission break.

I'd love to fly one, however!