You wouldn't, any more than you would Portland, Seattle, Boise, San Fran or any other major airport. That is why, if I was to fly to work, I would contact Seattle Center right after leaving the ground. To not be in contact with ATC is a violation of FAA regulations when flying through controlled air space. Then again, for me to taxi onto the runway of an uncontrolled airport without calling it out first on that airport's assigned frequency is also a violation of FAA regulations as is not checking in with ground control at a controlled airport before taxiing anywhere from my starting location

UMM....REALLY?
All of those calculations (guesses) and still WRONG! Maybe you should keep your aeronautical engineering to toy airplanes, like Kadets and such.
https://gravity.co/
I wonder if any of us will ever hear you say, "I was wrong". The Lord knows you have proven to be wrong plenty of times here, without ever admitting it.

Just like everything else you post here......keep on GUESSING....

Astro

Kadets.....LOL I guess you need to see this again.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...e74ba0d3c8.jpg

It's been demonstrated that these can and have operated at the altitudes where this crew reported seeing it. And not just once but several times. Second, you cannot say with certainty that they MUST have done VTO, raw radar detection by typical airport radars, ASR-8 for example, is actually pretty poor. Most radar contact is based on Mode-3. So you cannot eliminate the possibility that the individual was indeed dropped from a Mode-3 broadcasting aircraft and the raw radar failed to detect the drop.

No you have not demonstrated that a VTO, climb to 3,000' and landing under power can be done.

The second part of this post I will accept. That's the difference between you and I. I will at times accept your experience.

The other difference is that I have an understanding of logic. You say that I have to demonstrate that something IS possible. I say you have yet to demonstrate that something IS NOT possible. There is however proof of VTO. There is proof of flying the channel (no small distance). There is proof of flight at altitude.

Your question is no more valid than mine.

Nope, just as I expected....LOL

Astro

Well, I spent some time on Google and looked into this thing. It's a pretty neat piece of technology. But I'd bring up a couple of points about it.

A: It does perform VTO/VLDG. However, nowhere do they speak about the fuel burn required to do so.

B: They are not clear on max load. Although they indicate 225 lbs, they do not specify if that is with full fuel. They also do not indicate the weight of Mr. Zapata, the inventor and apparently the only person who can fly it. And apparently there is no data chart that gives a duration/altitude/weight computation.

C:They are claiming a maximum flight duration of 10 minutes, which would be more than long enough to have done this 'event' in LA. But since this is purely a thrust-vector vehicle and only flys by sheer brute force, it would become critical to know one's fuel flow not only to climb to the reported 3,000', but to then maintain that altitude and have enough reserve fuel to safely land the thing.

D: As far as ATC is concerned, they obviously had no idea he/she was there. And from looking at the pictures of the contraption, it looks to be mostly constructed from carbon fiber, which has a low radar signature to begin with. A human body doesn't show up well on radar either, so without a transponder active frankly ATC would have had no clue it was there.

So the only thing that can be done is go with the pilot reports, and hopefully find him on the ground. 4 turbines are going to create quite a racket; I'd find it unlikely that NOBODY heard this thing taking off or landing.

R_Strowe

just fyi

SW400B - CRX TURBINES

88+pounds of thrust, says they are available now

a;so an outfit in austrailia that has an add in the classifieds either here or rcg selling them

The suit built by Gravity (that I linked to above) has 5 turbines and they claim a total of 1,000 HP and 144kg of thrust. I think they use JetCat turbines (at least the one's that are mounted on the arms)

Astro

was just a note to let the speedracer guy know his "short search" came up rather short.

Once again, what our "expert" says is impossible is in fact, clearly possible. In fact, up to 15,000 feet!
https://jetpackaviation.com/jetpacks/

Keep in context Flyboy!

I wonder if the author used the term manikin on purpose?

In your never-ending campaign to be the grand Poohbah of RC, and to do whatever it takes to not admit that you are wrong (quite often, I might add), once again, you fail to see the forest for the trees. That jetpack IS commercially available.

I think you would be better off staying away from your keyboard when the urge strikes, rather than keep typing and prove your ineptness.

Astro

The manikin-on-a-drone theory (from a jetpack pilot) is laughable. "Jetpacks are also loud so people near LAX would’ve have heard it
and taken pictures or videos." Yeah right, louder than a full-size airliner. As for taking off from the ground, the guy could have jumped from
a plane miles from there at 10,000'.

From an aircraft it's easier to see and make out objects in the air than people think. An airline pilot in France who reported a close call with
a drone on landing could tell the exact model of DJI drone it was from the grapics. You've got two airline pilots reporting the same thing, in
one case with the jet pack guy going faster than his aircraft, as I recall. That's no drone. What's the point of arguing about it?

Ask Speed, he's the one that claimed it was impossible and (by doing so) was trying to discredit the OP and make himself look knowledgeable. When it is proven that Speed is wrong, he just continues to stand his ground (with spin and deflection) instead of acquiescing to the truth and admitting he was wrong.

The point of arguing (debating?) it to me, is to make sure the facts are presented.
The point of arguing it to Speed, is to try and not tarnish his fragile ego. Why do you think these threads circle like the swill in a toilet bowl? facts chasing figment...(or is that figjam?)

Astro

About spit out my coffee laughing. You’re so emotionally hijacked to prove me wrong that you’re noting, lest I say virtually celebrating, that it may well have been a drone - flying in Class B airspace!

Well done! Yet another stick handed to the FAA to beat the hobby with.

Emotionally Hijacked, I like it. Tell us again how many years now that you have had a boner for the AMA?

So rather then considering the possibility of it being one of the 1M plus UAS operators currently registered, you and the Astool are hedging your bets on it being somone who has the finances, knowledge of how to build such a vehicle, integrate the flight control system, test and learn how to fly the thing without being noticed.

Talk about being emotionally hijacked, you and the piggy are betting against astronomical odds for two reasons.

1. Trained professional pilots " said so "
2. We don't want Speedy to be right.


And let's not kid one another, it makes zero difference what I want thus to be. The FAA will release their findings and if they aren't able to make a determination then maybe they are just inept as the AMA. I have to conclude that you would be as happy as a pig in slop ( pun intended ) of this ended up being an AMA member with a UAS thus giving you a stick to beat the AMA with. Now let's just sit back and see what the pig has to say next, we all know he can't leave this alone The pig has as much self control as a crack ***** on a Friday night.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...4d8941076.jpeg
None of Jetpack Aviation's nor their competitors jetpacks are available to consumers!
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...831bd26e3.jpeg
Rare and IMPOSSIBLE to land without a parachute!
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...ab6f276b4a.jpg
Take a screen shot of this form, fill it out and email to: WWW.dontbesucha*****.com

Anybody close to Portland area? Speedy needs a hug!

Astro

From Jetpack aviation website:

DescriptionThe JB 11 is powered by six turbo jet engines specially modified for vertical flight. Each engine produces approximately 90lbs of thrust. A sophisticated engine computer balances thrust between engines and in the unlikely case of an engine failure it will enable the pilot to maintain control and land. We design all computer hardware and write all code in-house.

The JB11 can carry a heavier fuel load and hence has longer endurance than the JB10.

As for the JB10, the JB11 can be operated either in the Ultralight or Experimental category.

▸PricePRICE UPON PRIVATE REQUEST

Astro

;) Honestly Speed , using the above words does make it look like you are taking this far too personally . As I said earlier , my initial thought was also "No Way , it had to be a drone/balloon/etc" but then I searched and discovered the very real possibility that it was a someone VS a something and that will have be the way it stands , unless the FAA actually catches the someone/something , , , that it very well COULD have been a someone just as well as it could have been a something .

And you know what ? Even if it IS found to be a drone , I'm kinda happy that the story led me to do the search that showed me just how real the 1950s science fiction fantasy of having a real jetpack has become , I really think that guy crossing the English Channel on one is nothing short of pretty darned cool ! Somewhere in between all this jetpack news and Elon Musk's "Not a Flamethrower" , I now have a renewed confidence in the technological aptitude of the next generation ..... :D

:eek: Or not , depending on how they choose to employ this great new technology .

This image comes from the very same BBC story I found in my Google search , when I had to know if it could have been a real jetpack operator those two Pilots saw .

I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and call this pretty freakin disturbing , and leave it at that ............

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...bc9e0684c1.jpg

Also states " Qualified buyers ". Granted this could mean financially qualified or there could be more to it. I would at very least think that in order to buy on you would also be required to go through their training program. I would also think it's safe to assume that a list of everyone who has purchased one ( provided anyone has ) or been through their flight training ( although not doing flight training currently ) is already in the hands of the FBI.