Martin Jetpack Still Far From "Practical"
Well, after much fanfare and suspense, the supposedly revolutionary Martin jetpack was unveiled in front of a large and curious crowd at AirVenture Oshkosh on Tuesday. After watching the videos and reading the details, I have to say I'm underwhelmed. Yes, it flew, but only a few feet off the ground, and it appeared to require two ground handlers to help keep it steady, or at least for safety reasons, to keep it from wondering into the crowd. As I suspected, there isn't any radical breakthrough in aerospace technology in this VTOL (Vertical Take Off & Landing) device. (I'm going to use the generic VTOL because many people will argue what the term "jetpack" really means.) It appears to be similar to the SoloTrek VTOL device that was attempted several years ago by a small company in California, now known as Trek Aerospace. The SoloTrek even had government backing from NASA and the U.S. Army, but after several years of development, never flew further than a few feet off the ground, and even at that, was usually tethered to a crane. Like the SoloTrek, the Martin jetpack uses a conventional internal combustion engine driving two small rotating blades, or ducted fans, to provide lift. As I speculated, this VTOL is also not "backpack" size, and weighs almost 250 pounds. It is basically built around a stand or platform that you strap into before you can fly it. Not exactly the comic book fantasy of popping a jetpack out of the trunk of your car, strapping it to your back, and zooming into the sky. At a projected price of 100K, it also seems a little excessive for it'svery limited performance. I could buy a nice, practical light aircraftfor that amount of cash.
While I commend Martin for his skill and perseverance in pursing his dream of a practical jetpack, I just wish that companies like this would wait until they have a flying machine that is pretty much a final design before hyping it to the general public. I've seen too many companies promising the next great flying vehicle (Can you say Moller SkyCar?). They string folks along for years that it is "almost ready for production", then fail to deliver, disappointing many people. You cry wolf too many times, and people won't take you seriously anymore. (I admire the way the Wright brothers did it: they performed their research in private for years, and only revealed their aircraft to the world when they felt they had solved the problems of practical, controlled flight.) Unfortunately, I guess the cost to develop just about any type of air vehicle these days requires large amounts of cash. So companies will release preliminary details well before the vehicle design is finalized to attract investors and allow them to continue development. What you as an investor or potential owner have to do is really study the product and the company to determine if they will ever deliver what they promise.
One final note. After reading about my skepticism on his jetpack in a previous blog entry, Mr. Martin offered to let me fly his device. I have to say after what I have seen, I'll pass on your offer, Mr. Martin. To paraphrase an old flying adage, don'tfly higher than you are willing to fall. Successfully flying it to much higher altitudes wouldn't change my mind either, as it wouldexceed my personal comfort level for flying. (If you go to the Martinweb site, they touch on the subject of degree of risk people are willing to take.) Even with a ballisticparachute, I'm thinking there would be a part of the flight envelope close to theground where the chute could not be deployed quickly enough to stopyour fall before you hit the ground. I'll let someone else be the test pilot on this one. I hate to disappoint the dreamers, but you're still going to have to wait a long time for that comic book fantasy jetpack to arrive.
While I commend Martin for his skill and perseverance in pursing his dream of a practical jetpack, I just wish that companies like this would wait until they have a flying machine that is pretty much a final design before hyping it to the general public. I've seen too many companies promising the next great flying vehicle (Can you say Moller SkyCar?). They string folks along for years that it is "almost ready for production", then fail to deliver, disappointing many people. You cry wolf too many times, and people won't take you seriously anymore. (I admire the way the Wright brothers did it: they performed their research in private for years, and only revealed their aircraft to the world when they felt they had solved the problems of practical, controlled flight.) Unfortunately, I guess the cost to develop just about any type of air vehicle these days requires large amounts of cash. So companies will release preliminary details well before the vehicle design is finalized to attract investors and allow them to continue development. What you as an investor or potential owner have to do is really study the product and the company to determine if they will ever deliver what they promise.
One final note. After reading about my skepticism on his jetpack in a previous blog entry, Mr. Martin offered to let me fly his device. I have to say after what I have seen, I'll pass on your offer, Mr. Martin. To paraphrase an old flying adage, don'tfly higher than you are willing to fall. Successfully flying it to much higher altitudes wouldn't change my mind either, as it wouldexceed my personal comfort level for flying. (If you go to the Martinweb site, they touch on the subject of degree of risk people are willing to take.) Even with a ballisticparachute, I'm thinking there would be a part of the flight envelope close to theground where the chute could not be deployed quickly enough to stopyour fall before you hit the ground. I'll let someone else be the test pilot on this one. I hate to disappoint the dreamers, but you're still going to have to wait a long time for that comic book fantasy jetpack to arrive.
PWY,
I understand you well founded caution. I am pretty much the same, another person yet again claiming a jetpack...... real soon !.
Thats why I have not released any details until now ! Email me, come to OSH, I will strap you into the "snazzy mockup" fire it up and you can have a flight. Don't worry we have a method where we can get a "newbie" off the ground (we recently put a nationally syndicated reporter into it) So you will be safe.
Consider this a personal invitation.
Regards
Glenn Martin
Reply to this
Glenn,
I'm not one to dash the dreams of anyone who is willing to take risks in developing a new flying vehicle. However, I've seen too many outlandish promises made over the years for the "next great personal flying vehicle" that never quite got airborne. If you have indeed produced and flown a practical jetpack, then may I be the first to congratulate you for all your hard work, and I'll admit I was wrong. It's just the engineer in me that demands to see actual proof before I get too excited about any revolutionary new flying vehicle.
Thanks for the invite to fly your jetpack, but unfortunately I will not be attending Oshkosh this year. If after reviewing all your details released at Oshkosh I decide it is indeed a practical and safe jetpack, I will take you up on your offer to fly it sometime in the future. Best of luck on your debut at Oshkosh.
Regards,
Pete
Reply to this
Since you have already flown a nationally syndicated reporter, and I am a senior editor for nationally distributed "AOPA Pilot," how about putting me on the list to lift off as a newbie? Your PR guy in Richmond, Va., has contact details. --Al Marsh
Reply to this
Glenn, I need to contact you. Please contact me through www.keanewzealand.com web site. Regards - Geoff Andrews
Reply to this
Hi Glenn,
I hope you have a great impact with your new flying device but this is not a true JetPack, it is a two stroke engine driven two multiblades fan rotors that produce the lift and powered by gasoline, something like the SoloTreek but you suceed with the design and it fly well but after having several failures with two stroke engines flying gyrocopters I really don't trust in any two stroke engine and less if this is the only thing that sustain me in the air, sure you will equip your machine with a ballistic parachute because sooner or later it will be deployed to save your life, I wish you the best sucess but if you have a good design make a small real jet engine and don't use a two stroke engine, a small turboshaft turbine will be able to power your two fans in a safer way, you don't need to use a direct jet to fly use your fans belted to a turbo shaft small turbine and then you will have the best machine!, congratulations for all your hard work!!
I built and flew several rocket belts so I know all the hard work very well.
Reply to this
Hi,
Alton, I will pass onto PR Guy. We flew the Journo out of the US, I have now found will need to get FAA/EAA approval before we repeat in US. Would love to talk to you though !.
Juan, Thanks for your comments, which I take seriously. I am well aware of all your work and love your success. I am sure I am not understating it by saying that your project and hard work is an inspiration to all of us.
As to what a "true jetpack" is I am unable after many years to decide myself ??.
The Rocket belt cannot be a true jetpack, as it is a rocket.
The Bell jetbelt is probably the only one that meets the popular definition.
It all depends upon what a "jet" is
Is a turbo prop a jet...no
Is a jetski a jet ....probably
Is a jetboat a jet ....possibly
Is a Rolls Royce Trent a jet....
most would say so, but over 90% of the thrust is derived from a fan, so is it really a ducted fan ???.
Again it is one of those great aviation debates, which is better water or air cooling ?.
Juan & Alton
Thanks for your comments and support.
Glenn
Reply to this