astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Funny how you guys are so quick to point fingers about thread crappers, yet post stuff like this? You guys angry? Have something against folks pushing the limits and doing stuff they love?

Were the Wright brother's, "Dumb asses" or "idiots"? Or is it just dreamers and innovators in general? Or is it just the one's that make you look bad on your toy airplane internet forum alternate reality world?

R_Strowe

keep in mind that he is operating essentially a jet aircraft, one not terribly different than any other aircraft. There is a big difference in the amount of fuel and thrust needed to get/keep a wing flying, and what is needed for a ballistic device.

I am sure that someday the obstacles will be overcome. But the safety, practicality and ability to launch in this manner, climb to 3000’ ( or more), loiter around, and have enough fuel to safely land (under control), well after 30 years of experience operating turbine engines, and having strong knowledge of their fuel consumption requirements, I just don’t see it happening. At least not to the altitudes these thing were reportedly at.

R_Strowe

Dick T.

My Feedback: (243)

Just expressing opinions here Hog, no need to get spun up about them.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I'm not spun up at all, I was just curious as to why you guys feel the need to call other folks idiots and dumb asses, it is really not conducive to the types of conversations you guys claim to want to have. It is not only rude and condescending, it is hypocritical.

Astro

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I guess you just have a problem with facts then?

Astro

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

also kinda wondering, just where, when, and who said that what was seen at LAX was a "ballistic device" and not a "winged device"?

his u tube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuB...K5pY7_Q/videos

R_Strowe

Simple. I was not aware or Mssr. Rossy's efforts towards VTOL. All of the others (that I was aware of) were pure thrust vehicles. My bad.

R_Strowe

init4fun

Thank You for that link Mongo,

I gotta admit, I simply cannot understand how anyone can view those videos and not accept the possibility that what's flying around LA could be a similar human carrying device. Just as surely as the LA sightings could be a drone dressed up to look like it's carrying a person, it also could be something like your video depicts, a real person zipping around the skies just like the gents in the video are doing.

The future is now....

init4fun

Just curious, has anyone seen a jetpack using electric ducted fan motors and lipos instead of actual miniature turbine engines?

Oh, and, for a little comic relief, then there's this ........

Retiredat38

Had an interesting chat yesterday with a gent who is very heavy into the home built world. His credentials are that of an engineer by both education and trade. He is part owner of a Piper Cherokee, full owner of one of the RV series of home builts. His wife ( a CFI) has her own plane and he is currently building his own design from foam and fiberglass. Basically what we might call a scratch built.

He's never been involved in RC and even asked questions as to how we move the control surfaces on a model. Yet he knows a surprising amount about the new FAA rules concerning RC and vehemently against BLOS in any form.

He mentioned to me two drone strikes with which he has personal knowledge of. One simply bounced off the nose of a private jet. But left a dent and minor damage. The second involved the tail rotor of a Bell Jet Ranger. Cost of those repairs started at $4,000.

I see a few conclusions that can be drawn from all this.
1. I suspect there are a lot more "drone strikes" which do not make it to the front pages.
2. Whether these are real strikes or not, the aviation world believes them to be and as such, RC is losing their support.
3. These full size GA owners/flyers are people too. And when some droner causes them thousands of dollars of damage to their aircraft, and then gets away scott free. People get pissed and eventually will act.

This is an area where the AMA could have taken the lead and made a difference. I know, I know they've mentioned safety all along. BUT THEY DON"T ENFORCE IT! And had they come out early and really pushed the safety aspect of all this instead of demonizing non-AMA members, to include getting on the case of clubs that routinely violated rules. Things now might be different. Programs that make sure people understand that flying their drones near full size simply is not cool. Encouraging the clubs to go out and try to identify some of these folks and either correct them or turn them in. Now someone is going to say "But that will hurt the hobby! We need to be PC about all this and make sure we don't hurt anyone's feelings." BULL! The hobby has already hurt the feelings of the owner of that Jet Ranger whether it was a real drone or not. How many more do you want to insult?

Fact is people, without full size aviation on our side this hobby has no hope. So we can act, collectively as a group AND individually. Or we can continue to bite one of the hands that feeds us.

As for those who would sit back and do nothing while expecting the other guy to do it? Go find another hobby. I for one don't want you here!

Retiredat38

I'm not going to wade through the posts to see if this distinction has been made yet but, are you guys talking JET Packs or Rocket Packs?

I watched a video that's about 6 years old on these things and most things called Jet Packs are in fact Rocket packs. These rocket packs typically use Hydrogen Peroxide as a fuel. The combustion chamber of sorts is located behind the pilots head and the reaction produces high pressure steam which exits the control nozzles on either side of the pilot a bit above his waist.

However in the 1960's the Army did have a program that investigated the use of a Jet engine in place of the rockets. The engine chosen is 12 inches in diameter, weighs 60 pounds and produces 300 pounds of thrust. Curiously enough it's the same engine currently being used to fly our Cruise Missiles.

Anyway, when configured as a Jet Pack it provided over 30 minutes of flight time. Thirty Minutes I would think is more than enough time to get to 3000 or even 5000 feet and tool around a bit. But those times were in the 1960's. Who knows what one could get today with modern fuels and such.

The technology to do what was originally reported I believe is available. It's simply a question of whether anyone is fooling around with it or not.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Not really sure what to think about you some days......On one hand you post the above, and on the other hand you post this?

Everything you just posted about jet packs was discussed in that thread. I would like to kindly remind you of forum etiquette. If you want to participate in the discussion that is fine, but please take the time to read the thread in its' entirety before engaging.

Regards,

Astro

R_Strowe

Very good points. However, when a full-scale pilot violates some rule/reg, the FAA has the power to both fine the pilot as well as suspend/revoke their certificate. But in the case of the AMA, the worst they can do is revoke one's membership. I just don't see that being in nearly the same league.

Interesting note about the jet pack. I'd be curious to know what the fuel consumption was at max thrust (300#s thrust/pounds per hour).

R_Strowe

ECHO24

Ouch! Retiredat38 thrashed like a rag doll by the newly-appointed forum etiquette monitor.

Retiredat38

Responds to a question without actually answering it.
Followed by a lecture about forum etiquette.
Sort of a do as I say and not as I do by the self anointed PC Cop.

So please show me where in this thread aside from my post, the following was mentioned:
The Army project in the 60's
wherein a JET engine was used that weighed 60 pounds
produced 300 pounds of thrust
was 12 inches in diameter
And could carry enough fuel plus pilot to fly for 30 minutes

I will say this, I now understand why people call you names.
I'll admit to having a few for you myself.
But I find you not worth the effort.

Retiredat38

Ah but remember, revocation of membership would remove that all important secondary insurance coverage. Something which I believe in AMA think would effectively ground the miscreant. Preventing him from flying ever again. Unless of course he decides to become one of those horrible criminal elements of RC. A Rogue!

Lions and Tigers and Bears Oh My!

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I get tired of repeating myself to those who can't comprehend the written word. My words are there and they are very clear.

A "lecture" about forum etiquette? The, "self-anointed" PC cop? I simply pointed out that it is widely considered rude to jump into a thread and post without reading and understanding the context of the discussion. Your hurt feelings do not change that. Call me names if it makes you feel better, I am used to it!

You folks are real classy to call people names whenever someone challenges you. Real mature and very shallow. Sad.

Astro

init4fun

I fly at both an AMA field and at a town owned piece of land where RC flying has been allowed for years, no AMA required.

... guess that makes me, "Bi Aeronautical" .......

ECHO24

My favorite:

"If you want to participate in the discussion [you have my permission], but [I want you to do it this way] before engaging."

Sorry, I've never seen such infantile puffery on a forum, like a schoolmarm talking to a first-grader.
And this coming from a guy who can't even remember his own posts no less.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

All of this coming from the guy who has been here less than a year. Typical.

Retiredat38

You obviously have made the mistake of believing I give a damn about what you have to say.

Just to be clear, I don't!

Comprehend that?

franklin_m

I was curious as well. JetCat P200x produces 210 Newtons at max thrust where corresponding fuel flow is 730 ml/min (note 1). Assuming you need 300 lbs thrust total.

210 Newtons = 47 lbs thrust, 730 ml/min = 11.6 gal/hr, and Jet A = 6.8 lb/gal

300 lbs / 47 lbs thrust per engine is about 6. That puts total fuel flow for 300 lbs thrust at about 473 lbs Jet A per hour. So back of the envelope approximation for 1:1 at 300 lbs: (Someone check my math)

6 x 2530 grams per motor is roughly 33 lbs in engines, 200 lb operator including controls, 70lbs fuel takes you to 300 lbs total. At 473 lbs/hr that's approx 8.8 min flight time. Every 10lbs shed in operator weight adds a little over a minute in flight time. 8.8 minutes isn't a long time, but it's not insignificant either.

Note 1: https://www.jetcat.de/en/productdeta...ngines/p200_rx

Retiredat38

I can only pass on what the video told me. The thing that caught my eye was the reported engines use in our cruise missiles. So I started to look that up and found this on Wiki. Oh, and according to Wiki the max continuous thrust is now 430 pounds. I suspect it will prove some interesting reading for those of you with more knowledge of the jet engine.

Williams F107

That does appear to be the beast. However, something else of interest to this discussion off the same Wiki page is this, the Williams X-Jet which uses the same engine.

Williams X-Jet



Again I'll say I believe we have the technology available for what was reported to be real. The only question remaining is whether someone out there is exploring these possibilities or not.

Hydro Junkie

Okay, let's look at this a little bit differently. Franklin stated an R/C six turbine bank with 473 pounds of thrust can run up to 8 minutes with 70 lbs of fuel carrying an operator that weighs 300lbs. What if the operator was wearing a "wing suit"? That operator would almost have to be in good physical condition to be able to use the suit so that could bring the weight down and could take the bank down to five turbines with the correspondingly less fuel. Now, let's play the scenario:
Operator lifts off at full throttle and goes straight up for around three minutes. As we all know, a 1:1 power/weight ratio should allow for a climb of greater than 1000 feet/minute so it is possible that after three minutes, the operator could be between 4000 and 5000 feet up. Now, cut the throttle to idle and use the wing suit to fly around for a bit. For landing, throttle back up and use the remaining fuel to land. Sounds doable to me, what do you all think?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Yet you keep replying to me and take emotional jabs at what I have to say, which clearly indicates otherwise...