JetPack = Ultimate Geek Gadget

Sure, it can fly only for 75 seconds--and that's the upper end--but its creators hope that further research and development may make jetpacks a viable solution for everything from forest fire control to business commutes. For about $100,000, Thunderbolt Aerosystems says you can have a TP-R2G2 this summer.

Click to expand...

SelousSizzle said:

Is the crane that attaches to the jetpack in the first picture needed to actually fly this?

Click to expand...

Dzero said:

I could have used one for some of the blind dates I've had.

Click to expand...

Furious Salesman said:

That will be 75 seconds of the most fun I will have in my life followed by another 75 seconds of fun and then another 75..........

Click to expand...

Steve said:

I have been looking at this jet pack called The Thunderpack all week and I can’t help wonder…if money was no object, how many of you would have something like this? I'm guessing a lot.

Click to expand...

wikipedia said:

Packs with the turbojet engine work on the traditional kerosene. They have higher efficiency, greater height and a duration of flight of many minutes, but they are complex in construction and very expensive. Only one working model of this pack was made; it underwent flight tests in the 1960s and at present it no longer flies. One report indicates a sighting in 1984 of an anonymous flier in Maryland

In 1965 Bell Aerosystems concluded a new contract with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop a jet pack with a turbojet engine. This project was called the "Jet Flying Belt", or simply the "Jet Belt". Wendell Moore and John K. Hulbert, a specialist in gas turbines, worked to design a new turbojet pack. Williams Research Corporation (now Williams International) in Walled Lake, Michigan, designed and built a new turbojet engine to Bell's specifications in 1969. It was called the WR19, with a rated thrust of 195 kgf (1,910 newtons) and weighing 31 kg.

The first free flight of the "Jet Belt" took place on 7 April 1969 at the Niagara Falls Municipal Airport. Pilot Robert Courter flew about 100 meters in a circle at an altitude of 7 meters, reaching a speed of 45 km/h. The following flights were longer, up to 5 minutes. Theoretically, this new pack could fly for 25 minutes and go up to 135 km/h.

In spite of successful tests, the U.S. Army lost interest. The pack was complex to maintain and too heavy. Landing with its weight on his back was hazardous to the pilot, and catastrophic loss of a turbine blade could have been lethal.

Thus, the "Bell Jet Flying Belt" remained an experimental model. On 29 May 1969, Wendell Moore died of complications from a heart attack he had suffered six months earlier, and work on the turbojet pack was ended. Bell sold the sole version of the "Bell pack", together with the patents and the technical documentation, to Williams Research Corporation. This pack is now in the Williams International company museum.

Special features of the turbojet pack
The "Jet Belt" used a small turbofan engine, which was mounted vertically, with its air intake downward (1). Intake air was divided into two flows. One flow went into the combustion chamber, the other flow bypassed the engine, then mixed with the hot turbine gases, cooling them and protecting the pilot from the high temperature. In the upper part of the engine the exhaust was divided and entered two pipes, which led to jet nozzles (2). The construction of the nozzles made it possible to move the jet to any side. Kerosene fuel was in tanks (33) beside the engine. Control of the turbojet pack was similar the rocket pack, but the pilot could not tilt the entire engine. Maneuvering was by deflecting the controlled nozzles. By inclining levers, the pilot could move the jets of both nozzles forward, back, or sideways. The pilot rotated left/right by the turning the left handle. The right handle governed the engine thrust. The jet engine was started with the aid of a powder cartridge. While testing this starter, a mobile starter on a special cart was used. There were instruments to control the power of the engine, and a portable radio to connect and transmit telemetry data to ground-based engineers. On top of the pack was a standard auxiliary landing parachute (4); it was effective only when opened higher than 20 meters.

Click to expand...

MrSteel74 said:

My guess the crane is used to help support the pack so it doesn't break your back.

Click to expand...

Methadras said:

Seriously, where the hell is my flying car already.

Click to expand...

topcat989 said:

actually, it's a rocket pack, not a jet pack. pic below is a true jet pack. The problem with these is of course the time limit. There was a true jet pack, as in a jet turbine engine pack, and it had a 20 min flight time. Never got developed past flight worthy prototypes becuase they cost too much. Not near as famous as the bell rocket pack becuase the bell was first and continued on in hobbies/movies/exhibitions. The jet pack was built and it worked just fine, looked much like the rocket pack, except the exhaust tubes were much larger diameter. It had a nice 20 min flight time, but the expense of the engine+maintenence was too much so the military didn't fund it past proof of concept.

ah, good 'ol wiki:

Click to expand...

dawp said:

I wonder if you could build one of those with several micro jet used in rc jet planes. Be a whole lot cheaper that a standard turbojet like in the wiki.

Click to expand...

topcat989 said:

mmmmmmmmmmaybe.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4lcMHfJoY_M

this guy says that his finished product will cost $200K and give 5 min flight time. Also those micro jets can only be run for a few hours before they need to be stripped and bearning replaced, relubed. It'd be a maintenance nightmare to do that to 10+ engines every 3-6 hours of flight time, although in 5 minute chunks would yeild you some fun.

The reality is that there is not going to be a rocket based pack that won't be severly time limited, nor a jet pack that is just beyond the capabilities of normal folks. It would take a dedicated company will literally $millions$ in capital in order to come up with a balanced design between weight of pack, thrust, saftey features, etc. Bill gates could do it. Shit he could do it out of the change in his sofa. For anyone with less than, oh, $15- $30 million to throw down, I wouldn't give them much of a chance. And becuase the market is so limited, no company will invest in it.

B4 I'd ever strap one of these to my back (jet pack with 30 min flight time) I'd want a ballistic barrier between me and the engine. Having a 3" long, 3/4 lb turbine blade go through your spine at twice the speed of a ought 6 bullet will positively fuck up your day. And after the engine catos at 200 ft (too high to live, too low for normal parachute) I'd want a parachute gun that literly blast the parachute out and inflates it in a second or 2.

So basically we are left with more conventional like fixed wing, helicopter, or ducted fan. Those are the only realistic options for the forseeable future.

Until we figure out antigravity

Click to expand...

SirKronan said:

This is ridiculous. Not the idea, but our employment of it. We have research labs and people wasting hours and many dollars of grant money, money from donors, maybe even some of their own personal funds to yield JACK SQUAT in the way of true development. I agree with every single poster that's commented something to the fact that this is something we've been trying to do since the 60's and look how far we've gotten? NOWHERE. The models today are no cheaper to produce, and are scarcely more effective/practical than models made 40 years ago. If you're not going to release something worthwhile in over 40 years of development, stop wasting the bloody money on it. Put it towards cancer research or something...

Click to expand...