ScottishJohn 25 #1 September 4, 2004 (what bird has jet engines ?) http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1090900.html A Swiss airline pilot has become the first man to fly horizontally thanks to two jet engines strapped to stubby wings. Rocket man Yves Rossy reached a speed of 112mph during the four minutes he spent hurtling through the Alps. His invention took five years to perfect. Rossy, 45, told the Daily Mirror: "It was absolutely fantastic - freedom in three dimensions. I felt like a bird." Attached to his three-metre wide, 40kg carbon wings, he launched himself from a plane high above Bex in Western Switzerland, leaving a spectacular vapour trail before landing by parachute. With his next prototype, Rossy hopes to be able to launch from the ground. And he believes his bizarre contraption has bags of potential - especially for Hollywood. "It would be a great device for James Bond so he can go behind enemy lines," he said. Rossy has already claimed a place in the record books by becoming the first to windsurf off a hot air balloon. I hope that there is video of this somewhere---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BeattheDrums 0 #2 September 4, 2004 Launching from a plane, speeds of 112mph, four minutes of flight time, and landing by parachute... Can't a wingsuit give you the same thing? However if he were to take off and land it that would be pretty neat. A thunder of jets in a clear blue sky, a streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
adamjenner 0 #3 September 4, 2004 QuoteA Swiss airline pilot has become the first man to fly horizontally thanks to two jet engines strapped to stubby wings. i'm a little hungover here...but what you're saying is this man has invented a jetpack??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #4 September 4, 2004 QuoteRossy has already claimed a place in the record books by becoming the first to windsurf off a hot air balloon. ??? www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #5 September 4, 2004 clicky"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brodes 0 #6 September 5, 2004 Windsurf. Could that work? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #7 September 5, 2004 There's something wrong with that report. 40kg carbon wings - why so heavy? Jets in one place, rockets in another???? I reckon you'd need around 50 pounds of thrust to maintain level flight with rudimentray wings. This could be done with model airplane gas turbines but these aren't very fuel efficient. Using rocket motors would be very very inefficient as well as dangerous. Using a large model plane piston engine would be the most efficient way to achieve level flight.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #8 September 5, 2004 QuoteLaunching from a plane, speeds of 112mph, four minutes of flight time, and landing by parachute... Can't a wingsuit give you the same thing? However if he were to take off and land it that would be pretty neat. not when you exit at around 2500m and you open at 1500m... and you have to unfold your wings which take around 150m... That gives you a flying height of around 850m, which is the equivalent of 2800ft !!! The reason I can give you these figures is that I worked with Yves and did teh video from the Porter for most of his flights (actually all except 1)... I am very proud to have participated in some way to this project. www.jet-man.com I can read your remark as cynical, but you didn't have all elements to judge... Now maybe it will ring some kind of a bell... 2800ft in 4 minutes... As for the landing... Might be a bit risky... For the moment... a pic here as well as an article... jet-man.com will soon be updated. concerning the windsurf, had to be red skysurf... the turbines come from jetcat 2x20kg thrust approx... the weight is 40kg... around 10kg fuel, 6kg smoke oil, some weight for the parachute of the wing in case of release, some weight for the adjustable "seating", 2 turbines, loads of electronics... oh yeah, and a foldable wing.... who said it could be much lighter... Could be a few kg lighter, but this is a prototype, it has to be built to resist.scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #9 September 5, 2004 QuoteQuote the weight is 40kg... around 10kg fuel, 6kg smoke oil, some weight for the parachute of the wing in case of release, some weight for the adjustable "seating", 2 turbines, loads of electronics... oh yeah, and a foldable wing.... who said it could be much lighter... Could be a few kg lighter, but this is a prototype, it has to be built to resist. That makes more sense. 40kg for the entire assembly, not just for the carbon wings. Interesting that he uses turbines. These small ones are cute but incredibly inefficient and expensive. Something like these would make a lot more sense except for the COOL factor.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 140 #10 September 5, 2004 you suggest flying with props ??? incredibly inefficient ?? well, errr, I have seen them in action during a couple of months.. I wouldn't say inefficient is the best way to describe them...scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BeattheDrums 0 #11 September 5, 2004 Quote I can read your remark as cynical Not meaning to be so much cynical as just trying to figure out exactly why this was so special. Only going 2800ft in 4 minutes is just that. Thanks for the additional info. A thunder of jets in a clear blue sky, a streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 140 #12 September 5, 2004 no problem, always ready to bring the light to the common of mortals scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #13 September 6, 2004 Quoteyou suggest flying with props ??? incredibly inefficient ?? well, errr, I have seen them in action during a couple of months.. I wouldn't say inefficient is the best way to describe them... How do you define efficiency? If you take it as (useful work produced)/(energy of fuel used) then miniature gas turbines are just about the most inefficient engines ever produced. Has it occurred to you that Otters, Casas, C130s, Skyvans, King Airs, etc., all have props because they are more efficient than pure jets?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #14 September 6, 2004 I guess the efficiency you’d be looking for in this instance would be a version of power to weight ratio. So you’d want the best thrust / the weight of the unit or alternatively X amount of thrust / the weight of unit + weight of fuel required to create X amount of thrust. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #15 September 6, 2004 QuoteI guess the efficiency you’d be looking for in this instance would be a version of power to weight ratio. So you’d want the best thrust / the weight of the unit or alternatively X amount of thrust / the weight of unit + weight of fuel required to create X amount of thrust. Turbines still lose for low speed (<350mph) applications, and then they have the added complexity of the electronics needed to make them run. The efficiency of a gas turbine depends on the pressure ratio of it's compressor and the temperature capability of the first stage turbine blades. In both areas, miniature turbines suck.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 140 #16 September 6, 2004 QuoteHas it occurred to you that Otters, Casas, C130s, Skyvans, King Airs, etc., all have props because they are more efficient than pure jets? and has it occurred to you that actually all your examples mostly fly with turbines ?? There might be a few piston KA's, but AFAIK all are turboprops... And the size of the prop would be lets say, I can imagine, 40cm diameter, times 2, thats around 80 cm wasted for usable space on a 3m wingspan wing, with human parts (like arms) who could intermingle with the prop Maybe this is one of the reasons why jets are used and not turboprops. The electronics are the same, and mechanics are even more complicated, cause you'd then need an interface between the turbine and the prop. Just try and imagine yourself with 2 props turning real fast just a couple of cm from the hands you'd need to open or cutaway... scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ryoder 1,590 #17 September 6, 2004 What really puzzles me is how you unfold a wing in flight?! It seems like there would be tremendous pressure resisting pushing the end of the wing into position. I expect you could go into a head-down dive, or roll over on your back, but both of these manuevers seem hairy. So how is it done?"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tbrown 26 #18 September 6, 2004 So why am I thinking of Wiley Coyote ?? Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #19 September 6, 2004 QuoteQuoteHas it occurred to you that Otters, Casas, C130s, Skyvans, King Airs, etc., all have props because they are more efficient than pure jets? and has it occurred to you that actually all your examples mostly fly with turbines ?? There might be a few piston KA's, but AFAIK all are turboprops... And the size of the prop would be lets say, I can imagine, 40cm diameter, times 2, thats around 80 cm wasted for usable space on a 3m wingspan wing, with human parts (like arms) who could intermingle with the prop Maybe this is one of the reasons why jets are used and not turboprops. The electronics are the same, and mechanics are even more complicated, cause you'd then need an interface between the turbine and the prop. Just try and imagine yourself with 2 props turning real fast just a couple of cm from the hands you'd need to open or cutaway... I didn't suggest turboprops, I suggested OLD FASHIONED, UNCOOL, Piston engines with almost zero complexity. Like 99.9% of model airplanes use. I even gave you a link which I guess you didn't read. Problems? It's just a matter of engineering. After all, turbines have their own safety problems, like hot exhaust a couple of inches away from your body parts. If you're REALLY interested in sustained flight, you would go with the most efficient propulsion system which is not a turbine. If all you care about is the COOL factor, then turbines or rockets win.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 140 #20 September 6, 2004 QuoteWhat really puzzles me is how you unfold a wing in flight?! It seems like there would be tremendous pressure resisting pushing the end of the wing into position. I expect you could go into a head-down dive, or roll over on your back, but both of these manuevers seem hairy. So how is it done? so the wings are held folded by a loop and a pin, which are released after exit. The deployment is made with gas loaded springs with around 130kg pressure each.scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 140 #21 September 6, 2004 QuoteSo why am I thinking of Wiley Coyote ?? do you really think you're the first to think like that ??? Each and everytime I get on the plane with Yves, we all think the same... He should get some spnsoring from ACME...scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 140 #22 September 6, 2004 Quote I didn't suggest turboprops, I suggested OLD FASHIONED, UNCOOL, Piston engines with almost zero complexity. Like 99.9% of model airplanes use. I even gave you a link which I guess you didn't read. Problems? It's just a matter of engineering. After all, turbines have their own safety problems, like hot exhaust a couple of inches away from your body parts. Oh yes I did read your link. But Jet Cat were also interested to help Yves with the turbines, they need to test them in extreme conditions... And this might be the extremest to day... I'd rather jump with a Nomex suit and hot exhausts than with a metal armor to prevent my arm being chopped off... scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 140 #23 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteRossy has already claimed a place in the record books by becoming the first to windsurf off a hot air balloon. ??? skysurf/snowboard actually scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites piisfish 140 #24 December 20, 2006 updates on www.jet-man.com/actuel_eng.html with video and pics scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
piisfish 140 #10 September 5, 2004 you suggest flying with props ??? incredibly inefficient ?? well, errr, I have seen them in action during a couple of months.. I wouldn't say inefficient is the best way to describe them...scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BeattheDrums 0 #11 September 5, 2004 Quote I can read your remark as cynical Not meaning to be so much cynical as just trying to figure out exactly why this was so special. Only going 2800ft in 4 minutes is just that. Thanks for the additional info. A thunder of jets in a clear blue sky, a streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #12 September 5, 2004 no problem, always ready to bring the light to the common of mortals scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #13 September 6, 2004 Quoteyou suggest flying with props ??? incredibly inefficient ?? well, errr, I have seen them in action during a couple of months.. I wouldn't say inefficient is the best way to describe them... How do you define efficiency? If you take it as (useful work produced)/(energy of fuel used) then miniature gas turbines are just about the most inefficient engines ever produced. Has it occurred to you that Otters, Casas, C130s, Skyvans, King Airs, etc., all have props because they are more efficient than pure jets?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #14 September 6, 2004 I guess the efficiency you’d be looking for in this instance would be a version of power to weight ratio. So you’d want the best thrust / the weight of the unit or alternatively X amount of thrust / the weight of unit + weight of fuel required to create X amount of thrust. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #15 September 6, 2004 QuoteI guess the efficiency you’d be looking for in this instance would be a version of power to weight ratio. So you’d want the best thrust / the weight of the unit or alternatively X amount of thrust / the weight of unit + weight of fuel required to create X amount of thrust. Turbines still lose for low speed (<350mph) applications, and then they have the added complexity of the electronics needed to make them run. The efficiency of a gas turbine depends on the pressure ratio of it's compressor and the temperature capability of the first stage turbine blades. In both areas, miniature turbines suck.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #16 September 6, 2004 QuoteHas it occurred to you that Otters, Casas, C130s, Skyvans, King Airs, etc., all have props because they are more efficient than pure jets? and has it occurred to you that actually all your examples mostly fly with turbines ?? There might be a few piston KA's, but AFAIK all are turboprops... And the size of the prop would be lets say, I can imagine, 40cm diameter, times 2, thats around 80 cm wasted for usable space on a 3m wingspan wing, with human parts (like arms) who could intermingle with the prop Maybe this is one of the reasons why jets are used and not turboprops. The electronics are the same, and mechanics are even more complicated, cause you'd then need an interface between the turbine and the prop. Just try and imagine yourself with 2 props turning real fast just a couple of cm from the hands you'd need to open or cutaway... scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #17 September 6, 2004 What really puzzles me is how you unfold a wing in flight?! It seems like there would be tremendous pressure resisting pushing the end of the wing into position. I expect you could go into a head-down dive, or roll over on your back, but both of these manuevers seem hairy. So how is it done?"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #18 September 6, 2004 So why am I thinking of Wiley Coyote ?? Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #19 September 6, 2004 QuoteQuoteHas it occurred to you that Otters, Casas, C130s, Skyvans, King Airs, etc., all have props because they are more efficient than pure jets? and has it occurred to you that actually all your examples mostly fly with turbines ?? There might be a few piston KA's, but AFAIK all are turboprops... And the size of the prop would be lets say, I can imagine, 40cm diameter, times 2, thats around 80 cm wasted for usable space on a 3m wingspan wing, with human parts (like arms) who could intermingle with the prop Maybe this is one of the reasons why jets are used and not turboprops. The electronics are the same, and mechanics are even more complicated, cause you'd then need an interface between the turbine and the prop. Just try and imagine yourself with 2 props turning real fast just a couple of cm from the hands you'd need to open or cutaway... I didn't suggest turboprops, I suggested OLD FASHIONED, UNCOOL, Piston engines with almost zero complexity. Like 99.9% of model airplanes use. I even gave you a link which I guess you didn't read. Problems? It's just a matter of engineering. After all, turbines have their own safety problems, like hot exhaust a couple of inches away from your body parts. If you're REALLY interested in sustained flight, you would go with the most efficient propulsion system which is not a turbine. If all you care about is the COOL factor, then turbines or rockets win.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #20 September 6, 2004 QuoteWhat really puzzles me is how you unfold a wing in flight?! It seems like there would be tremendous pressure resisting pushing the end of the wing into position. I expect you could go into a head-down dive, or roll over on your back, but both of these manuevers seem hairy. So how is it done? so the wings are held folded by a loop and a pin, which are released after exit. The deployment is made with gas loaded springs with around 130kg pressure each.scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #21 September 6, 2004 QuoteSo why am I thinking of Wiley Coyote ?? do you really think you're the first to think like that ??? Each and everytime I get on the plane with Yves, we all think the same... He should get some spnsoring from ACME...scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #22 September 6, 2004 Quote I didn't suggest turboprops, I suggested OLD FASHIONED, UNCOOL, Piston engines with almost zero complexity. Like 99.9% of model airplanes use. I even gave you a link which I guess you didn't read. Problems? It's just a matter of engineering. After all, turbines have their own safety problems, like hot exhaust a couple of inches away from your body parts. Oh yes I did read your link. But Jet Cat were also interested to help Yves with the turbines, they need to test them in extreme conditions... And this might be the extremest to day... I'd rather jump with a Nomex suit and hot exhausts than with a metal armor to prevent my arm being chopped off... scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #23 December 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteRossy has already claimed a place in the record books by becoming the first to windsurf off a hot air balloon. ??? skysurf/snowboard actually scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #24 December 20, 2006 updates on www.jet-man.com/actuel_eng.html with video and pics scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
