What would make this more useful and interesting is the stand piece used to hold the pack up so you can get into and out of it easily. If instead of a static stand, you had an extendable one with retracting/telescoping pole segments. Thus when you get in the stand is active, once air born you flip a switch and the poles retract into the pack. and when landing, click a button, and they extend to aid in landing at a stance. Additionally they could be spring loaded somewhat to provide a little flexibility.
More of an art story than science I'd say. I have often wondered whether or not a jet pack that was meant for assisted jumping rather than sustained flying would be practical to a degree that full flight jet packs are not.
Snake Oil Baron
I think the retractable stand idea is a good one (even if it is just to raise it higher and shows on the outside).
It would be neat to see it in a movie like a similar one used in the Cody Banks movie.
I think it would be cool if it was powered by a tiny turbo prop engine.
For this idea to become a total winner, it needs to:
Forget stands, it should fly directly to the user's back and position itself for fitting.
No complex two-joystick controls. To be massively adopted, it has to be completely autonomous. Set waypoint and forget. It should avoid obstacles. Google already does this in its cars.
The current fuel capacity suggests this may only be useful for low altitude short commutes, but I see a possibly better application for this.
Could this be re-engineered as an alternative to traditional aircraft ejector seats or, with the necessary structural considerations built into the fuselage, integrated into passenger seating on larger airliners (i.e. Escape pods)?
Those jets drink one liter per minute (that's about 3.5 minutes per gallon), are rip-year-ears-off loud, and you don't want anything spinning at 70,000rpm in line with parts of your body...
would it be quieter and more controllable as a quad copter design? maybe better mileage to boot?
nice shot of reality christopher. and why is the intake pulling you downward, i think this is a children's toy.
This is basically just someone doodling with a 3D CAD program right? The intake would suck your pants off and probably extract the contents of your rectum.
Actually rectal content expulsion would occur naturally as you tried to control it.
Why doesn't someone make a lighter weight and updated version of the Williams Aerial Systems Platform? That one had a useful range and payload capacity. Modern composite materials would improve it.
Fine 'till you run out of fuel at 1000 feet. Better have a 'chute as well.
What's all the fuss about? There's already a device like this, the Martin Jet Pack made in New Zealand:
Weight 254 lbs (115 kg) excluding safety equipment
Pilot Weight Up to 280 lbs (127kg)
Speed Cruising speed of up to 63 mph (100kph)
Fuel Capacity 5 US gallons (18.9 litres)
Fuel burn 10 US gallons (38 litres)/hr
Flight Time & Range At the target fuel consumption, the flight time will be 30 mins and the range up to 30 miles (50 km)
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.
Hover in ground effect 8000 ft (estimated)
Hover above ground effect 8000 ft (estimated)
Standard Equipment Flight and Engine displays
Energy absorbing undercarriage.
My GI Joe had something identical to this 40 years ago.
And: Where is the turbojet engine which can generate ~400 pounds of static thrust continuously for an hour, burning less than 50 pounds of fuel per hour, at the worst-possible-turbojet-case altitude of sea-level-to -500 feet, oh, and itself, with all equipment needed to produce such thrust weighs less than I do (200 pounds).
If I could find a jet engine like that I'd get a second mortgage and buy it!
All of mine are < 100 lbs static thrust. :-(
So yes, this thing must be imaginary, or there'd be specs, complete with the important part, the SFC of the engine, and the manufacturer.
Does no one consider doing any research before commenting?
The "Jet Belt" was first developed by Wendall Moore while working for Bell AeroSystems. The following link gives readers the basics of what he developed way back in the '60's. He came up with both the "Jet Belt" and the "Rocket Belt".
The Jet belt was much more practical than the hydrogen peroxide powered one. But after his death, and the military's decision to go with helicopters, the concept and device faded away.
The problem with this is noise,I can't envision one of these,let alone 4 or five flying through the air,the noise and jet exhaust at low altitude would be a little too much.I think a electric quad rotor,1 or 2 seats , tubular cage around you, motors and props above you, would be perfect for short low altitude trips.A company Jobe is making real nice electric motors.Around 12 horse each,very affordable.maybe six motors,but you could fly on 3.This Quad rotor concept started by Evolo and other's could really take off,its safer,has very few parts,unlike a regular helicopter,which is a parts nightmare,can be fitted with a ballistic chute,could be made pretty quiet,with newer blade technology,noise suppression etc.This might end up as one of the safest ways to fly and the cheapest.I think I'm right on this one,give it 10 years,their will be a few flying,it just makes sense.A farmer could check on his cattle,crops etc with the extra option of being able to hover safely.
noise? he did say this is like the model t to cars..it's a start.