Flying Turbine Jet Bike.

[Calvin19 0]

This thing is AWESOME

http://www.jetpackinternational.com/jet-engine-powered-flying-motorcycle/

[JohnyCrawford 0]

Yep, "awesome" is a good word for that.

At first I couldn't figure out what that long framework was for sticking out on both sides - it didn't seem to do anything. And then as he came in to land, I realized; "outriggers". That probably helps keep it from tipping over if the thrust is a little cockeyed when he comes into land and is near the ground.

[riggerrob 643]

Outriggers are probably only needed during initial test flights.

[DJL 235]

I can't imagine that being anywhere near efficient enough to satisfy any future market.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[ryoder 1,590]

DJL

I can't imagine that being anywhere near efficient enough to satisfy any future market.

Needs lots more chrome to compete with HD.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Phil1111 1,149]

The wide separation of thrust sources would guarantee a rapid upset if power from one was interrupted.

[JohnMitchell 16]

Phil1111

The wide separation of thrust sources would guarantee a rapid upset if power from one was interrupted.

Yep, looks like a pair of "single point failure modes".

[DJL 235]

JohnMitchell

***The wide separation of thrust sources would guarantee a rapid upset if power from one was interrupted.

Yep, looks like a pair of "single point failure modes".

Yeah, nothing like a guaranteed fatality if 1 of 10 different things break.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[ryoder 1,590]

Phil1111

The wide separation of thrust sources would guarantee a rapid upset if power from one was interrupted.

Yes, a guarantee of a series of the fastest, tightest loops ever performed by a manned flying machine.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[JohnMitchell 16]

ryoder

***The wide separation of thrust sources would guarantee a rapid upset if power from one was interrupted.

Yes, a guarantee of a series of the fastest, tightest loops ever performed by a manned flying machine.

Woohoo, think RedBull will sponsor that one?

[kallend 2,027]

Turbines are extremely inefficient as direct lift producers. We see this in the Harrier and F-35B, neither of which can hover for very long at all.

Turbine powered helicopters use the turbines to drive rotors, rather than pointing them straight down. There's a good reason for that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

And there's nothing new about it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8W2SI4c93s

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DJL 235]

kallend

And there's nothing new about it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8W2SI4c93s

Jet Packs and Jet cars are one invention I think should be shelved unless there's some type of technology that doesn't make them so inherently flawed. It's as if everyone forgets the airfoil exists whenever someone tries to build one of these things.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,996]

>The wide separation of thrust sources would guarantee a rapid upset if power
>from one was interrupted.

Any separation significantly greater than zero with such an arrangement (two primary sources of thrust with four attitude control rotors) will guarantee an unrecoverable upset if a single engine fails. The Osprey deals with this by having a shaft connecting the two engines; single engine VTOL's (Harrier and F-35) just don't bother with redundancy.

[jono 0]

Pffft......drone style bikes are the way to go. Can't see any problems here!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odVFa_3lmiM

Remember you don't stop laughing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop laughing.

[Phil1111 1,149]

The problem with jets, turbofans, etc. is expense and fuel consumption. Typically its minutes. Which is very dangerous in itself.

Anything that you land on your feet is inherently dangerous. Especially if it has some weight to it. i.e. over 50 lbs.

The problem with microlight weight helicopters is design and quality of construction. This is a new design.

Empty weight — 145 kg (planned 115 kg)
Take-off weight — 260 kg
Diameter of the rotors — 4.5 m = 15'
Useful load 320 lbs
Engine —Zanzottera MZ 201 at 60 h.p.
Speed — 120 km/h

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNKPSpC6laA
more here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLVIIbs5aL8

These were popular for a while but had quality control issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu6Ept3htc8

The advantage of one of these "large" blade mini-copters is auto-rotation in the event of engine failure.

[pchapman 279]

DJL

Jet Packs and Jet cars are one invention I think should be shelved unless there's some type of technology that doesn't make them so inherently flawed.

Yeah, the bigger the fan or rotor the more efficient. Any backpack or bike style one may work, but be pretty limited in range and weight. Even super light personal helicopters with the efficiency of a big rotor are pretty limited in their carrying capacity.

Now this turbine bike thing seems to come from a company with traditional hydrogen peroxide jetpack experience. On their webpage they show that one of their guys crossed the Royal Gorge with one, with no backup parachute or anything. That's fine for a demo as long as they feel confident about the reliability. (Which could actually be good for a well designed hydrogen peroxide thing with few moving parts)

The jet bike video shows the guy staying fairly low over water usually, although an engine failure in this widely separated 2 engine thing would be much worse than in a 1 engine device. Just plain falling is likely a lot safer than the gyrations of losing one of 2 engines.

The best one could do is have the electronics switch off both engines if a solid state gyro indicates too great a bank or roll. The next step would be to add in a ballistically deployed canopy, also electronically fired. Not much help at 50' perhaps over hard ground, but could be useful if 300' up.

Anyway, cool toy they made, presumably aided by electronics (like solid state MEMS gyros) to make these sorts of things far more stable and controllable than the stuff tried in the 50s and 60s. Maybe those model airplane style turbines (I presume) are pretty reliable, and one wouldn't be putting many hours on them anyway when doing demos. Beyond demos in front of a crowd though, I don't see much use for the turbine jet bike.

[JohnyCrawford 0]

riggerrob

Outriggers are probably only needed during initial test flights.

Yeah, and they would be hell trying to zig-zag through giant trees at high speed like in Star Wars.