What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

At OSH, did you see the "jet pack" fly?

G

gasman

Well Known Member
Friend
I was in the front row. And it was amazing!! Risking his son's life with this demo, the MARTIN TEAM allowed this prop driven blower to lift THREE FEET off of the ground as two men held on to the unit to keeep it from drifting into the crowd.

THE BIGGEST CROWD EVER to gather in Aero Shell Square........ and only about 3% got to see anything after waiting over an hour..... it was sad.. :(


NOW THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPCg5LYaAB0 IS NOT A JET PACK, it is real........ and the crowd would have loved it...... JET MAN.... :eek:
 
I wrote a blurb about this for my day job yesterday.

I kinda liked the part where they say "for safety reasons" two people held onto the thing, implying that unless two people aren't holding onto the thing, it's not safe. Pretty funny.

I wish the guy well. There's lots of people with money to spend. They just don't live in my house. ;)
 
Warren, I don't think that you could call that flying.

It was still attached to the ground by two big men.

Still it might be fun if they ever get it to fly.

Kent
 
Don't blame them...

...blame the insurance companies. I stopped by their booth; the bloke I talked to stated emphatically that they wanted to do a free flight demo but their liability insurance company said absolutely not.
 
Twitter...What are you doing?

Bob Collins said:
I wrote a blurb about this for my day job yesterday. ... ;)
Click to expand...

Okay, Bob, I followed your link and read your article and liked it. I also learned something new. I learned from your link what "Twitter" is, not that I really cared.

"Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co?workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?"

That definition is from the link in your article. I have noticed in recent months that all three of my married children typically start a phone conversation with "What are you doing?" My first thought is to say, "I'm talking to you!" But I usually respond with some generic answer like, "Oh, just reading my email" or "working on my RV." Recently, I found a new way to let my son know I'd rather not be asked that question. I answered with, "Well, since you asked, I'm making love to your mother." Guess what? He doesn't ask me anymore.

Don
 
They flew it many times along side the UL runway, well away from the crowd. Looked to me like they had to hang onto it because it was pretty unstable.
 
Kinda Like...

That thing and the 'show' reminded me of the traveling medicinman 'snake oil' salesmen depicted on old time TV westerns.
There were lots of BOOOs for their "performance?"
 
If they hadn't hyped themselves so much, I might have thought gee-wiz, but man were those BOO's well deserved.
 
I imagine that the OSH crowd is not too tolerent of over hype and under performance. Probably would have done better to have the thing on display at a booth and show some cool flight test videos. Then again they got on CNN, Fox News, Today, Good Morning America, VAF and many others - so what do I know?:rolleyes:

I was about 50 rows back in the crowd at the demo. I never saw it rise above the heads of the people in front of me. Sounded like a leaf blower and about as entertaining.
 
The hype did not match the reality.

I was dissapointed.
1) not a jet
2) not a pack... it is huge.
3) estimates of flight duration I heard in the media varied from 4 minutes to 1.5 hours
4) not a jet
 
I think anyone who traveled to Aero Shell Square to see a jet pack should be given their money back. The EAA should be ashamed of themselves for being duped.

Can you say hoax?
 
Stupid

My 8 and 9 year old where pretty excited. To waste 1 hour of our vacation waiting of that was ridiculous. I felt dumb for expecting it to be somehting cool.
I agree EAA should be ashamed of being scammed and promoting it as something worth a family wasting time to see.

Watch the EAA promo video of it and then laugh....oh well, laughing is good for you!
 
I was hoping for "Rocketeer" but we got "Mythbusters" instead. I wonder if they are the ones that sold Jamie and Adam the plans? Did you see that one on display was "SOLD"? Yah, Right!!!

Roberta
 
Something Old, Something New

Your tax dollars funded several early variants of this concept, including the Bell Rocket Belt; the Rocket Belt was used in the James Bond film "Thunderball." Other later variants included the Bell Jet Belt (turbojet powered).

One of the Rocket Belt prototypes is in the US Army Transportation Museum at Ft Eustis, VA (Newport News area).

The Rocket Belt was also a disappointment: it used hydrogen peroxide for fuel and could only fly for 30 sec...I spoke with one of the original test pilots at a museum gathering years ago...he said the fuel indicator was in the yellow zone after 15 sec and he was looking for a landing site immediately after takeoff :eek:

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_pack for more info.

Mike
 
Where's the love?

I’m a bit astonished at the negativity and somewhat bad-spirited comments about the Martin Jetpack from what is normally an optimistic, forward-thinking group.

Yeah, their jet-pack is pretty impractical in its present form. Yeah, it’s powered by a snarly 2-stroke instead of the implied “jet” that everyone dreamed of in their youth. But holy cow, folks, it HAS flown numerous times under its own power (with human safety-tethers following it around to ensure the operator’s safety in this early phase of its testing.) Did you even watch the videos?

Are we all so jaded that we’d prefer that designers never pursue the development of such cool devices? (Or at least not mention them at all until they're 100% market-ready and available at your local Sharper Image store?) It’s Oshkosh, by gosh! The host organization is the Experimental Aircraft Association! What better place to display the fringes of aeronautical development? You want perfectly slick, finished products? Go to Farnborough.

So you “wasted” a half-hour in a big crowd, only to see the top of the guy’s head as he hovered a foot off the ground? Gee, what a horrible experience. Blame EAA for getting caught up in the excitement of the whole thing, and promoting the event as something that simply could not be fulfilled due to insurance requirements. But don’t blame the poor Martin guys, who are just trying to show off their work in progress. Anybody who booed their display was very rude, IMHO.

I applaud their initiative and for bringing a truly interesting flying device to Oshkosh and attempting to show it off. Perhaps their invention will just fade away, just like the Moller Air Car and that other odd, ducted-fan plane from a few years ago. But so what? The world needs innovators like that -- they keep some of us inspired and curious about what’s next. Nothing wrong with that, even if the product doesn't eventually make it.
 
robertahegy said:
I was hoping for "Rocketeer" but we got "Mythbusters" instead. I wonder if they are the ones that sold Jamie and Adam the plans? Did you see that one on display was "SOLD"? Yah, Right!!!

Roberta
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised at your skepticism. Until proven otherwise, I'll take them at their word that they've sold a few.

Did you talk to them? Do you know how many they've built? I do; I asked; they said they've built 12 including the prototypes and that they've sold a couple of them. They've done extensive free flight tests in New Zealand, but liability concerns here in the U.S. prevent them from doing much of that here (i.e. the insurance company said no). Did you know the insurance company later told them no more flights at Oshkosh?

If you have evidence that shows this is all a sham, then I'd be very interested in seeing it....
 
Unlikely category

Bob Collins said:
What category is this in? Is it light sport? When approaching to land, do I gave way to the Goodyear blimp first? Or the jetpack? So many questions.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't sweat it, I don't think you will see many of them around the pattern. :rolleyes: Funny as it is, there is a sad side to it. I have a hunch that the people involved believe it will work. Never mind that the concept has been around since WW2 and it has yet to be the slightest bit practical.

The parallels to the Moller Skycar are amazing. Hope springs eternal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skycar

And a little something from the SEC.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17987.htm

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
ChiefPilot said:
but liability concerns here in the U.S. prevent them from doing much of that here (i.e. the insurance company said no). Did you know the insurance company later told them no more flights at Oshkosh?
Click to expand...


Insurance isn't a requirement to fly at OSH or anywhere within the US ... i just think that they have a hover craft that can't really fly much higher ... even their web site dones't show any real flying ... just hover craft with people chasing it around.

I too was VERY disappointed in the EAA ... they should have seen the jet pack in action before the "flight" at aero shell. Or at least had a fly by with one prototype and another to look at.
 
n468ac said:
Insurance isn't a requirement to fly at OSH or anywhere within the US ... i just think that they have a hover craft that can't really fly much higher ... even their web site dones't show any real flying ... just hover craft with people chasing it around.

I too was VERY disappointed in the EAA ... they should have seen the jet pack in action before the "flight" at aero shell. Or at least had a fly by with one prototype and another to look at.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that EAA would let them fly w/o liability insurance? Airshow liability insurance is a big deal; it's expensive, and many/most states have laws that you needs to have such in order to put on any kind of exhibition.
 
I think the name Jet Pack was misleading, I did go to the booth and watched the videos, and I did ask questions. I would have thought the videos might prove performance to be better than demonstrated at EAA, but they did not. If this this is capable of 500 ft AGL flights, where is their proof. I never saw any flight, video or otherwise that went above 3 ft. If that is all they have in 30 years of developement, I think they need to do better. And why single me out. I'm entitled to my opinion, too!!

Roberta
 
I'm not ashamed to say I boo'd. "Truth in advertising" implied something more than an 18 inch hover from something called Jet Pack Man. Rob and I came up with 'jet poop man' a couple minutes after its 'flight'....I'd rather seen the pots and pans guy in the fly mart I think :).
 
I was about 50' back in the crowd and only saw the top of his helmet. I'd rank it up there with a time share presentation or a movie with sub titles. If it wasn't for the bottle of water that the EAA sold to me as a member in good standing for $2.75 the time would have been wasted. To top it off there was a grouchy old fellow on one of those old lady electric scooter things openly coughing on people to keep a clear area around him so that he could see without standing up. All wasn't lost though, they had Glacier Girl parked there and we looked at that.
 
DeltaRomeo said:
I'm not ashamed to say I boo'd. "Truth in advertising" implied something more than an 18 inch hover from something called Jet Pack Man. Rob and I came up with 'jet poop man' a couple minutes after its 'flight'....I'd rather seen the pots and pans guy in the fly mart I think :).
Click to expand...

Aw come on, at least he beat the gravatational forces of the earths mass and DID become airborne. I wonder what the na sayers said about those nutty Wright brothers?

They will get better, and so will the Jet Poop, I mean Pack!
 
Rocket Man

I stood for about 45 minutes. I don't know why. All I saw was a jet rotax inducted fan pac mans helmet raise up about three feet move back a little,then move forward, then dissappear back down.

But what was entertaining was the way it was staged. First, there were no barricades. Not even a yellow ribbon. As the crowd gathered and moved in, the EAA guy yelled at everyone to move back. Okay, a bizillion people deep and NOW we're gonna move back? Then EAA guy says, "If you don't move back this won't happen." Lot's of boos. Masses love threats. Then CNN told people not to touch their truck because it was shaking the camera. Right. Children, stay out of the cookie jar. Then CNN had the speakers moved out of their way. Then the announcer says you may want to cover your ears and hold your hat. Uh, what? Then after Jet rotax inducted fan pack man kind of did his thing, the guy next to me yells at CNN if "They got it". Funny.

I should have watched the bull riding.

But, as Carl Sagan once said:
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown
 
ChiefPilot said:
Do you really think that EAA would let them fly w/o liability insurance? Airshow liability insurance is a big deal; it's expensive, and many/most states have laws that you needs to have such in order to put on any kind of exhibition.
Click to expand...



Really ... their web site claims its an ultralight ... should have been down at the ultralight area and flew every day ... you can't tell me all those vendors have airshow lability in the ultralight field ... i know the EAA isn't checking our airshow liability insurance when we flew in with the RV. Did all those in the mass arrivals have to get insurance?

I said it over and over up there ... you can't call it a jet pack in from EAA members, they know the difference. They would have done better "flying it" in front of the Today show.



I guess i'm just showing my disappoint in the hype. :confused:
 
jet pack-thumbs down rocket racer thumbs up

As I recall, it wasnt a man flying it. It was a 15 yr old boy who looked pretty slender and light weight. Wonder if it would have lifted off the ground with my 200 pounds strapped into it? :eek: Don't know how much more power the two stroke could have put out as it sound pretty revved up.

The Rocket racer on the other hand, taking off and climbing fast with a long flame coming out of it, lived up to the hype.
 
Safer this way

Just imagine if this contraption actually flew on those two stroke engines. This isn't a helicopter that can autorotate or an airplane that can glide. If that thing got to 100 feet and an engine coughed that would seem to be all-she-wrote. Maybe they work in theory but by the number of two stroke engine failures I have seen, I wouldn't want anyone staking their life on them.
 
Some guys at my home airport (Lodi) went through a few million of the taxpayers' dollars to create a remarkably similar device (now for sale as a movie prop). I was impressed that the New Zealand version at least was a lot smaller and quieter. But it appears to suffer from the same fundamental flaw as the one DARPA abandoned: once you are above an altitude from which you refuse to fall, you are doomed if the engine(s) quit. Might be an interesting ground effect toy, but it's $100,000.

As a side note, that whole episode was the most disorganized EAA event I have ever witnessed. For a moment there when they were trying to move everybody back I thought the crowd was going to become a European soccer scene.
 
No chance this is Jet Poop Man

DeltaRomeo said:
I'm not ashamed to say I boo'd. "Truth in advertising" implied something more than an 18 inch hover from something called Jet Pack Man. Rob and I came up with 'jet poop man' a couple minutes after its 'flight'....I'd rather seen the pots and pans guy in the fly mart I think :).
Click to expand...

My money is on this jet kind of guy. Truly an exciting thing to watch.

drmq9.jpg
 
I also waited to see the "jetpack" fly, when I saw the ducted fans, and then heard the 2 cycle engine I immediately thought about the Mythbusters segment. The Martin guys were more successful than the Mythbusters, but not much. If they can make it work, great, but I bet I don't see it back at Oshkosh next year. I've been going to Oshkosh since 1970 and it seems like every year we see something and comment, "I bet that won't make it back."

Anybody else remember the Foxjet? They plastered the entire covention site with stickers and handed out piles of literature. They had a composite mockup of a small 4 passenger personal jet. One convention and it was gone.

I can't believe that the EAA didn't ask for a little more information about the "jetpack" before they sent out the press releases hyping this thing. Oh well I guess that's part of why I keep going back. one of these days something might actually live up to the hype, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
BuckWynd said:
I?m a bit astonished at the negativity and somewhat bad-spirited comments about the Martin Jetpack from what is normally an optimistic, forward-thinking group.

Yeah, their jet-pack is pretty impractical in its present form. Yeah, it?s powered by a snarly 2-stroke instead of the implied ?jet? that everyone dreamed of in their youth. But holy cow, folks, it HAS flown numerous times under its own power (with human safety-tethers following it around to ensure the operator?s safety in this early phase of its testing.) Did you even watch the videos?

Are we all so jaded that we?d prefer that designers never pursue the development of such cool devices? (Or at least not mention them at all until they're 100% market-ready and available at your local Sharper Image store?) It?s Oshkosh, by gosh! The host organization is the Experimental Aircraft Association! What better place to display the fringes of aeronautical development? You want perfectly slick, finished products? Go to Farnborough.

So you ?wasted? a half-hour in a big crowd, only to see the top of the guy?s head as he hovered a foot off the ground? Gee, what a horrible experience. Blame EAA for getting caught up in the excitement of the whole thing, and promoting the event as something that simply could not be fulfilled due to insurance requirements. But don?t blame the poor Martin guys, who are just trying to show off their work in progress. Anybody who booed their display was very rude, IMHO.

I applaud their initiative and for bringing a truly interesting flying device to Oshkosh and attempting to show it off. Perhaps their invention will just fade away, just like the Moller Air Car and that other odd, ducted-fan plane from a few years ago. But so what? The world needs innovators like that -- they keep some of us inspired and curious about what?s next. Nothing wrong with that, even if the product doesn't eventually make it.
Click to expand...


Ditto...I've wanted to say something about the negative posts all day, but didn't have the opportunity to do so until now. You beat me to it, Buck. Thanks.
 
CE196 said:
Aw come on, at least he beat the gravatational forces of the earths mass and DID become airborne. I wonder what the na sayers said about those nutty Wright brothers?

They will get better, and so will the Jet Poop, I mean Pack!
Click to expand...
The Wright Brothers did what they claimed which included leaving ground effect.
 
I didn't see the jetpack demo... but the Rocket Racing League demo was equally a let-down. I think they needed to do some higher VNE testing or something, but they didn't let it burn down low and pick up speed, they just lit it off and headed into a climb... boring.
 
BrentHumphreys said:
...1) not a jet...
Click to expand...
A turbofan jet pack really did exist according to this link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Jet

According to a linked British article this podium thingy was a follow-on to a device that actually had the jet engine strapped to a person's back.

Ok dreamers. It doesn't take a genius to realize that human beings are not structurally intended for this. Ever had a back ache? At least the podium thingy didn't ask much of the pilot's spine -- unless it ran out of fuel at altitude.

Step back and look at the bigger picture. Why go though all the trouble of turbofans, rockets or ducted 2stroke powered propellers to create bouyancy when the same thing can be achieved with a very simple device -- a balloon?
 
Jeff, I think your on to something....

JDRhodes said:
Step back and look at the bigger picture. Why go though all the trouble of turbofans, rockets or ducted 2stroke powered propellers to create bouyancy when the same thing can be achieved with a very simple device -- a balloon?
Click to expand...



Like this...
http://www.cloudhopper.org/Sightings.htm[/QUOTE]

Let see:
Fuel is ignited and burned without the use of piston, rod, crank, no moving parts.
There is a whooshing sound and lots of hot gas.

This must be a rocket pack!:D

Kent
 
Hmm.

Well, I understand the disappointment for those who had let their imaginations run a little free at hearing 'jet pack' and waiting for ages, and then not seeing anything, or hearing a screaming two stroke when you expect a tick-tick-tick-whoosh of a personal turbine firing up.

It's two years later, and having seen the steady progress of this aircraft, and having listened to Glen speak and having spoken to him, I can categorically say that this is nothing remotely close to the 'Moller Flying Car'. There is no hyperbole, no crazy promises, just solid engineering, hard work, and steady, steady progress.

The MJP has flown with 210lb pilots, it has flown out of ground effect, and the company is working very closely with a ballistic parachute company. They live, eat and breath the dead mans curve.

Rockwell execs saw the demo at Oshkosh and rushed away to get clearance to provide MJP with a restricted gyro/sensor/flight control package, which means the aircraft is now VERY easy to fly, with more safety features than have ever been seen on a small aircraft. Dial in a max altitude, max speed and ring fence your flying area, and you CANNOT fly outside those parameters or beyond your capabilities. The MJP will very politely and gently, say "no".

More importantly, Glen has a solid business plan that is based on commercial realities, not promises, snake oil and charisma.

I don't want to sound like a parochial cheer leader, but having been very skeptical of this thing in the past, I now genuinely believe that the engineering advances made by this company, steadily and quietly over the last 20 years are indeed cause for quiet celebration and admiration.

I'm all for healthy cynicism, but I am saddened by the the negative rock throwing response from this particular audience, for whom I have immense respect, in that they cannot recognise exactly the same qualities they hold so highly in themselves and their peers - or are methodical engineering, problem solving, innovation, hard work and sheer determination only things to be valued if you are building an RV?
 
By way of follow up:

A hovercraft? Only in ground effect? Attached to the ground by two safety guys? No, no and no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaTfCKkJpOY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TBndcBjQFM

Yes, I appreciate there is no pilot on board in the first video but there is an 80 kilo lead weight.

Perhaps the reason they don't currently fly higher than 10' manned is that they understand the dead mans curve, and until they have solved or managed that particular problem to their complete satisfaction, they don't want to place their test pilots at unnecessary risk. Like most other aircraft designers, builders and engineers, I suspect.

Is it noisy? **** yes. It also has no muffler, yet. MJP are working towards a target noise level of a street motorbike, which does not seem unreasonable.

Is it big? Yes, bigger than a back pack - which also means there is a safety frame and crush zones to offer some protection to the pilot in the event of a crash.

Is it small? Yes, smaller than an ultralight aircraft. Flight time is 30 minutes, which is a 20x improvement on the Bell Rocket Belt (What? It's not a Belt! A hoax, I say. A HOAX!)

It seems that most people are profoundly disappointed that it's not what they imagined, and that is completely understandable. But I would have thought that pilots, and homebuilders more than anyone else, would understand that no one is going to turn up at Oshkosh out of the blue and present a fully fledged Rocketeer type backpack just like in the movies.

Real progress doesn't work that way.

And it's an indictment on the snake oil salesmen who have gone before that there is so much cynicism at something that should be applauded and celebrated.

As I alluded to earlier - we all are quick to congratulate our peers who finally get the aircraft of their dreams into the air - and quite rightly so. I just don't understand why so many here (of all places!) are so quick to decry someone else who has done exactly that - without a kit, without a design, without the shoulders of giants like Van to stand on. Just trial, error, smarts, hard work and belief in oneself.

Weren't there two brothers like that a wee while ago?
 
Last edited:
Human nature

chinch said:
...
As I alluded to earlier - we all are quick to congratulate our peers who finally get the aircraft of their dreams into the air - and quite rightly so. I just don't understand why so many here (of all places!) are so quick to decry someone else who has done exactly that - without a kit, without a design, without the shoulders of giants like Van to stand on. Just trial, error, smarts, hard work and belief in oneself.

Weren't there two brothers like that a wee while ago?
Click to expand...
Stating the obvious, but humans are very resistant to change - this is coded into our DNA. Risk takers get weeded out of the gene pool. We have to accept this, understand it, and work with it. Humans are also very adaptable when change does come.

I didn't see the jet pack at OSH, but saw the hype before hand, and I can understand why people were disappointed. There have been fantastic products launched with too much hype that have failed, and crappy products launched in such a way to keep our attention long enough to be successful. This is why marketing people get paid so well.

I really hope that the Marting Jetpack is successful, and that I have the opportunity to fly one.
 
Critics are people that have no idea how things work and get done. They do not understand the huge effort it takes to get something built, made safe, and approved by a government authority. Most homebuilders only have to deal with the "get it built" part as the other two peices have been accomplished by the people that came before them.
I did see the jet pack demo at OSH in 2008. I was very skeptical and felt I was right in my attitude when I saw the demo. That was mostly due to me over expecting based on my vision of a jetpack. I do admire the effort and wish all the luck for success. With out individuals trying there would be no EAA and OSH. I love innovation in aviation, that is why I am here (day job and evenings in the hanger). All the best for those making the effort.
 
Last edited:
Gasman - I fully understand that, EAA hyped the thing (not Martin, BTW) and the media came like moths to the flame - as it captured their imagination as much as anyone else.

I don't think MJP are wholly blameless - calling their aircraft a 'jet pack' was always going to cause people to point out that technically it is neither (the same "misnamed" criticism can be pointed out of the Bell Rocket Belt and the 'jet' pack in the last video you posted). It's clearly not jet turbine powered, and it is large, if you are expecting something you strap ON, as opposed to strap TO.

But I also understand that from a marketing perspective, everyone knows what a jet pack is and after decades of the term being in pop culture (Flash Gordon, Rocketeer, etc) it makes commercial sense to leverage that existing common knowledge. I don't pretend that it is 100% accurate (I found the verbal gymnastics on the website describing how it was a jet because there was a jet of thrust to be somewhat disingenuous) , but I fully understand the commercial marketing realities of that part of business.

As I said, I understand the disappointment, I felt exactly the same way when I first saw the MJP. But once I got over the fact that I wasn't going to be rescuing pretty girls from the clutches of evil nazis in zeppelins using a rocket pack strapped to my back, I could fully appreciate just what MJP have and are achieving.

As for getting a chance to fly the MJP, I understand MJP are looking very closely at an adventure flying franchise model to complement the production side of the business, where people can fly the MJP (low and slow) after an hours training. So, if you want to fly it without actually having to purchase one, then it sounds like that is going to be very possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top