ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Is this your jetpack?

Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:30 AM by Alan Boyle

One of the classic dreams of aviation is to rise into the air with a flying machine strapped to your back. The jetpack dream is so iconic that it has shown up in movies ranging from "Thunderball" to "The Rocketeer" - and so elusive that it has spawned a book about high-tech failures titled "Where's My Jetpack?"


TODAY

Click for video: NBC News' Jenna Wolfe takes a
ride on the Martin Jetpack, live on the TODAY show.

Over the years, several ventures have tried to realize the jetpack dream - and now a New Zealand inventor is taking the wraps off a secret decade-long effort that he hopes will bring the dream to a sky near you.

Today's unveiling of the Martin Jetpack is one of the marquee events at the Experimental Aircraft Association's AirVenture, a weeklong air show that is drawing hundreds of thousands of people - and about 10,000 airplanes - to Oshkosh, Wis.

Through next weekend, Oshkosh will serve as a mecca for the aviation world's dreamers and builders. Many of the private planes parked in the fields surrounding the town's airport were built by their owners. The hundreds of events on this week's schedule range from quiet seminars on aircraft maintenance to ear-splitting flyovers of military jets.

The show focuses on the experimental side of aviation - and that makes Oshkosh the perfect place for Glenn Martin to unveil his jetpack. "This is an experimental aircraft with a big 'E,'" he told me.

Jetpack or ultralight?
Whether the Martin Jetpack technically qualifies as a jetpack is debatable. It's not the type of rocket belt that James Bond wore in "Thunderball," and it's not anything like the jet-powered, wearable wing that a Swiss daredevil cranked up to 186 mph in May. As far as the Federal Aviation Administration is concerned, what Martin has is an experimental ultralight airplane, equipped with a gas-powered, V-4 piston engine and two ducted fans that provide the lift.

That puts it in a class with several other fan-powered lifters, including Trek Aerospace's Springtail, Urban Aeronautics' X-Hawk and even Moller International's flying-car prototype. But Martin believes his 250-pound ultralight, initially priced at $100,000, stands the best chance of going commercial. He sees it as a recreational sport vehicle that just might be in the right price range for affluent thrill-seekers.

"I've made a Jet Ski for the sky," he said.

'A beast that roars'
Does it really fly? Definitely. This sneak-preview video shows the Martin Jetpack in action, in the backyard of Martin's host in Fond du Lac, Wis.


Martin Jetpack

Click for video: Watch test pilots put
the Martin Jetpack through its paces.

Other videos show pilots tooling around a test field, flying as high as 6 feet off the ground. Two team members are hanging onto handles attached to the prototype to keep the pilot at that height, for safety reasons.

"One or two have cheated, you know?" Martin said. "It's very hard to hold people back."

One of the test pilots was Martin's wife, Vanessa.

"It was really an exciting experience, because at the time it was just a prototype. It was very loud, very noisy, very hot. It was like a beast that roars," she told me. "But once you throttle up, you feel it bite, and you leave the ground, and there's this feeling of floating and freedom - you become quite overwhelmed."

Training required
Theoretically, the jetpack can fly for 30 minutes, and rise to a height of 8,000 feet. But Glenn Martin said the flight envelope will be carefully tested over the coming months. Martin is opening the order book as of today, and said 10 to 20 vehicles could be sold by the time next year's Oshkosh air show rolls around.

Jetpack buyers will be required to go through about 15 hours of flight training as well as a safety screening. "If for some reason they're not coordinated enough, we'll send them their money back and give it to the next person in the queue," Martin said.

As an added safety measure, each jetpack is equipped with a ballistic parachute.

If you do buy a jetpack - whether it's Martin's or another brand - don't expect to take it to work anytime soon: The FAA regulations for ultralight aircraft rule out that kind of point-to-point travel, Martin said. But if regulators ever adopt a NASA-inspired scheme for a "highway in the sky," that could set more liberal rules of the road for jetpack commuters as well as flying cars, he added.

Swathed in secrecy
Jetpack aficionados might well wonder whether Martin has enough technical competence to make his venture fly. After all, his formal background is in pharmaceutical sales and biotech rather than engineering. But the 48-year-old said he's been tinkering on the jetpack concept ever since he was a college student.

"I had my day job going on, as well as what some people called my secret night job," he said.

In 1998, he received enough venture-capital backing to devote full time to Martin Aircraft Co., and today he has a staff of 12 and a posse of corporate partners in New Zealand.

Over the past decade, Martin kept his venture swathed in secrecy - to the point that his teenage son couldn't tell his schoolmates how cool Dad's job was. Martin explained that he was trying to avoid the fate of an earlier pair of aviation tinkerers, the Wright brothers, who found themselves embroiled in years of patent battles.

"If`you read the Wright brothers' diaries, it's almost cliche, isn't it?" Martin said.

Today, Martin feels secure about his patents - and he feels he has a product he can sell. What do you think? Is Martin's price point too high? Is his track record too scanty? Or will this venture finally answer the decades-old question, "Where's my jetpack?" Feel free to add your comments below.

Update for 1 p.m. ET July 30: Hundreds gathered Tuesday on EAA Adventure's Aeroshell Square to watch the first public takeoff of the Martin Jetpack. There were so many people gathered around that the folks in the back (like me) really could only get a glimpse of what was going on.

Unless you were sitting on someone else's shoulders, as was the case for 17-year-old, 130-pound Daniel Woodberry of Nampa, Idaho. Woodberry's buddies took turns lifting him up to take pictures during the buildup to the 30-second flight.

It turned out that the pilot was Martin's 16-year-old son, Harrison, the kid who couldn't tell his friends what Dad was doing.

"I really wanted Harrison to fly," Vanessa Martin told me Tuesday.

After a couple of introductory talks, white awnings were lifted up, revealing two jetpacks. Harrison Martin started up the engine on one of them. "Sounds like a giant leafblower," Woodberry said.

Then the teenage pilot, guided by his father and another handler, buzzed around a tight little area on the square. Martin's feet never got more than three feet or so off the ground - which came as something of a disappointment to those expecting a James Bondian blast into the sky.

The flight was finished after about 45 seconds. Spectators thronged around the jetpacks, asking all the questions you'd expect from an aviation-savvy crowd. Meanwhile, Woodberry's pals looked through the pictures the teen had taken - and starting thinking about getting a massage for their aching necks.

I've added a video from NBC's TODAY show that includes a clip from the AirVenture demonstration as well as NBC News correspondent Jenna Wolfe's personal training flight.

Some commenters have asked about basic specifications for the jetpack, and here's what I was given:

  • Empty weight: 250 pounds, excluding safety equipment.
  • Gross weight: 553 pounds.
  • Useful (pilot) load: More than 280 pounds.
  • Maximum thrust: More than 600 pounds.
  • Fuel capacity: 5 gallons.
  • Engine: Martin Aircraft 2.0 L, V-4, two-stroke, rated at 200 hp. Maximum 6000 RPM.
  • Range: 31.5 miles at maximum speed of 63 mph.

Many of those specs are designed to conform with the FAA regulations for ultralights.

For further discussion of jetpack setbacks, check out my list of failed flights of fancy, as well as my colleague John Schoen's report about futurism's flawed forecasts. And stay tuned for more from the EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

 Dan, I'm kinda nervous about your statement that jet ski's and cars kill hundreds and thousands of people each year.Thank God they can't get into the house from the garage at night. But wait, My sport bike can fit through the door, I heard they "kill" people too ! oh damn, theres a gun in my drawer, knives in the kitchen.They kill thousands also. The Model glue..The alcohol in the.. Things that "Kill people" all around me. Ahhhhh....Run for your lives !!        
Very unstable and bulky. What is the point of this?
Range? Speed? Max Altitude?  What ever happened to the DARPA-sponsored Millenium Jet aka SoloTrek?  These platforms that we strap into would enjoy the benefit of computer controlled manuevers to allow it to hover with precision; add GPS and terrain avoidance radar to the mix and you have what just about every basic unmanned aerial vehicle already has...So if you are a downed aircrew member and need extraction you can program one of these gizmos to take off and land at your predetermine location, or it can be airdropped from a C-130 and as it freefalls, an altimeter switch kicks in and starts the craft up to soft land at a predetermined spot and the downed aircrew member can punch in a code that was preprogrammed off of his ISOPREP card and it automatically takes him to the friendly territory.

Or it can make for a really neat carny ride!  Cha!
Gee! I'd love to comment on this so called 'Jet'Pack,
but the absurdity of it keeps getting in the way of
logic and safety concerns. Hard to realize that some
investors will want a piece of it. I think Barnum had
the words I'm looking for! Lots of luck!
A company called SoloTrek made a prototype ducted-flying-backpack like this but much smaller, much cooler, that looked sleek and fast.  They were even funded by the DOD and DARPA, and their unit was performing tethered tests...  Don't know what happened to it (the website closed down one day and has never been back).   NOW THAT ducted-jetpack WOULD HAVE been COOL!!!
No problem, 100.000 today for rich people only, and just like the very first video-recorders, in some years maybe it will be affordable for less and with a lot of improvements...
Great Martin!  It's obvious that a revolution in commuter transportation must take place,and it's obvious that to go forward we must go vertical.  Rather than heliport stations, and highrise elevators I think the jetpack is the more practical way toward modernizing commuter traffic. (I must tell you though one Sunday morning sometime in the '90s, early in the a.m. I saw a man in a  similiar pack flying about the same height (800ft). Yes, and it was noisy.  I thought it was a helicopter at first but to my suprised amazement...
Inquiries availed me nothing.  I suspected some MIT group experiment.)
What a bunch of short sighted whiners!

One CLEAR application is search and rescue in difficult terrain! DUH!
Nano technology will eventually make this about the size of a backpack. Within a decade or two, anti-gravity technology will make it affordable.
I find it interesting that the design is so similar to the SoloTrek aka Springtail, designed by Michael Mosher.  There was also an attempt on mythbusters to build one but the engine was underpowered.

This is something the modern technology should have perfected, and if Boeing or Lockheed, Ford or Chevy had wanted to to do this we would be flying to work everyday.

The saddest part is that the first crash and death will send the FAA types to ban all personal aircraft, unfortunately, as this is the dream of every child from the 60s-today.  Flight, uninhibited flight.

Congrats to this man for pushing his dream and letting his teen son fly it. Can you imagine the coolness of knowing your dad built a flight pack?

Modern avionics, gyroscopics and computers should make it stable and reliable.
This is a stupid, pathetic joke. Shame on you for wasting my time.
The flying demo at the EAA yesterday was a bit underwhelming.  They need to be a bit farther along in development.  After the 50 second hover 2 feet off the ground with two people holding it in place one person in the crowd near me yelled, "This blows".  A local TV reporter told me he couldn't find anyone that was impressed.  The need to finish development and come back next year to show a better demo.

P.S. Alan it was good to meet you yesterday.
Congratulations to Glenn Martin & Crew!!!  You're on the opening edge of bringing yours,mine & others dreams to life!  We dreamers know you have a little tweaking to do but we're with you in spirit.  Don't worry about those nattering nabobs of negativity.  I'll give you two years to make it a little smaller and less expensive - it would make me a great 50th birthday present.  Keep up the good work.
i think someone will probably buy it and improve upon it for a later show.
This thing is great, but I hope the helmet is optional? It really wouldn't be of much use when descending head first from from any altitude (you buy this thing and the next thing you'll buy is the farm...it's a death machine).

Save your money and drop a ripe mellon from the rooftop to see what you've just avoided.
daemon,
Helicopters land by auto-rotation in the event of engine failure.
For 100K, that is not a lot of money considering the uses and the kickoff of what this technology could bring and for how long he worked on his vision.  Obviously the price is not catered for all working classes. Remember the first cell phone?  Expensive, and was very very bulky and look at the evolution of those in just 14 years - satellite, military, real time web, streaming and so on and practically cost a penny.

This is a working prototype, so nothing is perfect, but it is working...ten years from now who knows how perfected it will be.

With any type of aircraft, the prototype will eventually become a standard model once defects are cleared and the need for this type of technology is developed.
This will be a great way to get rid of all the rich play-boys.  Let them auger it into the mud-ball. So long as the authorities don't spend millions of dollars of tax-payer's money looking for them.
"The videos I have seen show a lack of stabilization, beginning with the pilot's feet. " - I was going to say "beginning with the pilot's head." The inventor doesn't seem to tightly wrapped either.
Finally, somebody came up with a personal transportation device even dumber than the Segway. Congrats.
A lot of these comments look like those the Wright Brothers experienced a hundred years ago.  Look at where we are now.  Give these guys credit.  They've done what many considered impossible.  I'd like to get my hands on one of their engines.  200 hp at such a light weight is awesome.  Congrats to Martin co for solving the problem of controlling their invention.  Well Done!!
"It's a shame the developer has not entertained a more fuel friendly concept such as the use of Hydrogen."

They'd face the same problems that anyone else who wants to use hydrogen as a fuel faces: difficulty of storage, low energy density. And for anything that flies, weight is even more critical. There's a reason the Shuttle ET is as big as it is.

If hydrogen liquefied at liquid nitrogen or liquid natural gas temps, and had a density closer to that of water, a lot of engineering problems would be more manageable. But it doesn't. We must deal with it.

The jet pack: the new form of transportation, the future. However, this jet pack might be too big to handle properly. Also $100k ? I thought this kind of technology would have been $150k instead for several reasons:
1. This is DEFINITELY cutting-edge technology
2. Think about it. This is one-of-a-kind, and there's no doubt about it
3. This might just be way greener than cars.
4a. If the health sector grabbed hold of this unique machine, think about this.
4b. NO more accidents. (Who can crash when you have 5000 lanes?
4c. Faster response to accidents
   If you can fly over traffic to assist someone, they probably would have possibly a 28% higher chance of survival. (Notice possibly! This number is simply an estimated guess.)
Anyways..........................

Jet packs are seriously cool.
I'm glad Christopher Columbus didn't waste money and resources on a useless whim!!  Where would we be without his useless and dangerous trip to find new trade routes that weren't there?  Where would we be without all the idiots who wasted time and resources to bring us things like the combustion engine or the MRI?  America was built on ingenuity and invention. Where is that spirit today?
what if it rains or snows, winter is cold to fly basicaly nake.. no windscreen.. it's a hobbie for some but I would not invest in martin ac if I had caps to venture out..
Ray
Below 500' the FAA has no authority? That's a new one on me. Last time I looked, Class B, C, D, and Surface area Class E airspace all have areas that extend to the ground. Also, the FAA regulates ultralight aircraft, and the reg's state they cannot fly over densly populated airspace...at ANY altitude. And yes, this includes below 500' too.
Helicopters autorotate, so no parachute required, just extensive training. Too large, too expensive, too unstable. And didn't Burt Rutan's company already do this? See their aircar... As for the Cessna Skyhawk costing a quarter million plus, last time I checked, you could go further than 30 miles in a Skyhawk....and more comfortably....and more passengers, etc...

Let's compare apples to apples people...geez....
I was there - I saw it - and I saw a flight performed in the middle of a 5000 person crowd. The gave the best demo they could to stay safe on the day.

Go to their stand at Oskosh, talk to their people, and you will soon understand this is a serious breakthrough in aviation.

Well done Glenn Martin
Too many critics and not enough enthusiasm.  If somebody feels the need to design and build something with their own money, which they did, then good for them. what you people don't realize is that they were highly regulated as to what they could do at the airshow.  The two people were and will only be there for safety considerations.  As for the center of gravity, it is quite low because of where the engine is located. The design may be big and bulky, but I'd definitely love to see the critics design something better.  If you are wondering... No, I do not work for them.  I was in Oshkosh when they unveiled it.  I talked with them about it and learn a lot.  So next time you want to question technology and progress in the world, don't even bother turning on your computer(you probably wrote letters to congress about us wasting time and money on computers too!!!).  Because it is people like the designers of this "jetpack" that allow convienent and pratical things to eventually come from may at first be deemed useless and impratical.  P.S. you might as well turn off your electricity too, because I am pretty sure you were one of those people who deemed electricity and light bulbs to be a novelty for the wealthy.
Vow!
Well done!for first step, second, third && cont step foward to improve it convinience for public, do hope so
Impractical, not just in a basic sense of the word. Possibly an unmanned version would be useful. the japanese have a much better version and it already flys at HIGH speed and altitude as well.
http://www.acecraftusa.com/
Lets not forget FAA is for America only. What about PAL-V ?  Or the GENH-4 ?

This heavy device is certainly a leap forward, but by no means ready for any sales. Reminds me so much of MOLLER VTOL. I invested in that. they never got off the ground far either.....
for everyone linking the sport jetpack from gofast, what you are missing is that this vehicle is estimated to go 31 miles at nearly as fast - unfortunately at 6mpg
The bad guys on the GI Joe cartoon used to fly these, only they had (plastic?) bubbles around the pilot. Man, did I love GI Joe.

A ride on one of these is worth $100K if it means I get to cruise directly past Beltway traffic jams on the way to work.
wow ... where can i see videos of this
The jet pack is here,and its certainly something that someone could buy. 100k is the price of a nice fast car. That being said,like the fast car,its an expensive toy. The fact is,such a thing will always be an expensive toy. Its just not practical to have a tens of thousands of these things zipping around over LA or San Diego or New York City. Think of it like rock climbing. People may go rock climbing for fun and accept the risk,in fact thats part of the fun. If 5 million people had to do scale a cliff to get to work everyday,think of the casualties. With aircraft,it gets worse,becuase those things are going to come down on top of someone.
Think of how safe the roads would be if there were only buses,every bus was held to similar standards to that of a jetliner and every bus driver had the level of training a pilot had. Similarly,if you take air travel which is very safe (most of the accidents are small private planes in fact) and add millions of very small aircraft piloted by relatively unskilled people.(less training than current non-commercial pilots) The death rate would be unacceptable,both to the pilots and passengers as well as the bystanders on the ground. (not to mention runway accidents and mid air collisions) Imagine every traffic accident,even the small ones,resulting in one or more fatality. That's what we are talking about.
All of these flying vehicle designs have a serious flaw. Consider the X-Hawk. Their website actually suggests that the lack of a rotor (as opposed to a helicopter) is a safety feature. In fact its just the opposite. If a helicopter has a engine failure,it will auto rotate. Think Black Hawk Down. You lose an engine and your in for a rapid decent and a very hard landing,with severe injuries like broken bones and collapsed discs in your spine. Very painful and debilitating.
In a jet pack or flying car design without the engine,you fly like a brick. You hit the ground in a fiery wreck and they will identify the pieces of your charred corpse from dental records or DNA (perhaps after sorting them out of the pieces of the occupants of the minivan you landed on)
What on Io is a "gallon" ?? I think I read about that in an 18th century textbook, local scholars couldn't agree if it was meant as a unit of measurement or as a joke...

Seriously though, yeah, wow @ 30 minutes... If it can hold itself off the ground for 30 seconds without straining it, you know it can travel quite some distance in 30 minutes!

It is cool to see more and more of these things coming to light now... If we build enough in our sheds, someone will eventually figure out how to mass produce them - like the automobile.
weird...try biofuel
As a pilot and engineer, I took great interest in Martin's jetpack and watched its public unveiling at Oshkosh this past summer.  I looked it over carefully and asked a lot of questions.  My conclusions are that it is undoubtedly a really cool machine, and also very dangerous.  It is powered by a single, two-stroke engine which is custom-designed by Martin for the jetpack.  Those of you who have any experience with two-strokes know that they are not the most reliable powerplants, even with dual ignition such as this one has.  What's more, this engine has no service history like certified Lycoming aircraft engines, or a car engine, to work the bugs out of it and give it a proven track record.  So engine failures with this machine are not a question of if, but when.  Yes it has a parachute but the marketing guy told me it would only work above 600' or maybe lower if you have sufficient forward airspeed.  So there's a 'dead-man zone' up to several hundred feet above ground where any engine failure will result in death or serious injury.  This thing is NOT a helicopter...a helicopter can autorotate which is similar to an airplane gliding when the engine quits.  The jetpack is a powered lift device where the ducted fans are driven from the engine with belts.  If the engine quits, the fans won't continue spinning fast enough to make sufficient lift for a safe landing....you just fall out of the sky.  Speaking of drive belts, they are another failure point, only they are worse than an outright engine failure because when one set of belts breaks, the other fan keeps going and then you get severe assymetric thrust which would spin the jetpack out of control so fast you probably wouldn't be able to activate the ballistic chute even if you were high enough.  There is more than one belt per fan for redundancy but I've seen ultralights with FOUR 'redundant' belts between the engine and prop, but when one belt failed, it got tangled in the other belts and caused them all to fail subsequently, so I'm not too confident in this design feature.  Finally, the jetpack has no protection for the occupant in the forward direction so any crash with forward motion will result in the 250 lb jetpack coming down on top of the pilot, complete with hot engine, spinning parts and gasoline.  Bottom line is this is a cool toy that will probably be sold in small numbers and doubtlessly make it into a movie or two, but nobody who values their life will do any more than hover around their backyard and annoy the neighbors.
If this ever gets mass produced, I don't see the materials costing any more than $10,000,would probably be a lot less, actually. But inventors have to try to milk some cash out of their inventions initially, anyway...it's not worth the time and effort put into it otherwise, especially if it never gets big.
No way, It would NOT feel anything like it looks like it would. Do you know what a motorcyle feels like? well a motorcycle is STABLE aside of this thing. most of us would not want you showing off over our head, and even if you could do it we don't want you landing on our rooftops, and their would be NO way to keep you from trying. NO! now go play with your sister.
What happens when it hits 88 MPH?
All of the comments talking about "more toys powered by gasoline" or suggesting that adding a 500lb tank of hydrogen would be a great feature just don't understand the problem. Using gasoline in ultralight aircraft is not a problem,has not been a problem and never will be a problem. The problem is that people drive light trucks to work and back everyday,with only a single passenger because they think it makes them look wealthy or "cool".
 The real problem is the sense of entitlement. The idea of "I deserve" to drive a vehicle that gets 10mpg because I can pay for the gas. The idea that because you can pay 5 dollars a gallon and drive your Cadillac Escalade its ok,even when the money goes to finance middle eastern terrorists,even when trucking companies are going bankrupt because they are being killed by fuel costs,and even though there are brown clouds of smog over big cities like Los Angeles. Wheres the conservative "personal responsibility" values when it means something. It seems ironic that the same people who say that the laid off trucker does not deserve a "handout" and should take "personal responsibility" for his situation,wont take personal responsibility for putting him there by driving his company out of business.
 The real solution is to take only what you need. Waste not,want not needs to be the rule of the day. If everyone drove small fuel efficient cars unless they needed to carry 7 passengers it would do more than any number of hybrids or alternative fuel vehicles we could hope to get on the road in the next 20 years.(Not to say that hybrids or alternative fuels are bad,they are in fact great,but they don't begin to make up for the gas gluttons)
cool,High-tech, but looks dangerous.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1230228

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google