Martin Aircraft Company Martin Jetpack
Ideas, thoughts, suggestions and questions about Best of What's New 2008? Post them in the BOWN2008 forum. If you have questions, Popular Science magazine editors will answer them there!
I suspect the jet backpacks that relied upon hydrogen peroxide were a simpler and safer solution to the need to do this kind of thing. What exactly is that need, anyhow?
I would like to have a couple of Martin's light weight engines to power big RC prototypes of other ideas.
Mr. Mike Cook's comment above it typical of the myopic shallow-minded negative dismissive attitude that prevades our society today.
Mr. Martin has summoned extrodinary inner strength, deovted all of his rescourses, aplied his passion towards this project for years, and at the end he has succeeded.
Then, the all-knowing all-seeing Mr. Mike comes along with his little computer (designed by someone else) and and pretends like Glenn Martin's achievement this is no big deal.
I'd like to know what the feckless Mr. Mike Cook has designed(?), and put into prduction?
He can not see a use for something that sustains itself and a human being in mid-air for more than 33 seconds (like all jet-packs before this one)?
When put through it's final testing phases, this Martin machine is designed to fly for over 30 minutes at thousands of feet altitude, and do it at 60-70 M.P.H..
Way to go Mr. Mike Cook! You are a real visionary. A real "insperation" everywhere you go I am sure. You must be a lot of fun at a party!
Lee Floyd (Just a fan of the Martin Jetpack, and nothing more)
Why spend that much time and effort berating somebody whose opinion is different than yours? Can't you at least attempt to see things from another person's point of view? Were the hydrogen peroxide jetpacks "simpler and safer"? I don't know. Do you? You gave no indication that you did. Mike also asked exactly what function this would serve (other than maybe showing off). You failed to mention anything about that, either. In fact, all you did was insult somebody else for having a different opinion. Next time, explain things, and leave the personal attacks at home.
I have to agree with Mike. Why spend 30 years designing something no one wants. Who is your target customer? Who wants a noisy jetpack that has a very limited flight time?
I agree with Wind there, its wonderful that Glenn followed his passion, and built something truely unique due to its modern capabilities, However its usefullness other than a purely recreational thing for people with the money to drop, is nil.
Mr. Cooks idea on using the engines however I think is great. As anyone who keeps up with aviation knows the military (who would be the only big money spender in a program such as jetpacks) has pointed to the UAV world, and the engines that Glenn created would be a wonderful application on modern, and future unmanned vehicals.
Again props to Mr. Glenn for following his passion, and indeed his engines will be usefull in the future. Its great that minds like his are around to push the aviation envelope a little more..
The advantages of such a device are obvious and exhilarating, for instance in situations where helicopters cannot come with their rotors.
Think of rescue situations in narrow mountain gorges, along high rises and building sites. Should devices like these have been available and advanced enough, the people high up their in the Twin Towers (but still too far from the top) could have been lifted of the sides.
Of course, this would need added capacity for a minimum of two. In case of capacity of one, a remote steering solution could be developed. Then a way for inexperienced people to climb in...
Jos, Delft University of Technology, security science section