Dubai Jetpack company just proved our predictions right. Huge performance increase for jetpacks

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,196
Location
Everywhere USA
So a while back we have a thread about Jetpacks where we discussed what it would take to actually make one work. The general consensus was that with such a high thrust to weight ratio even a small wing would vastly improve the speed and range of a jetpack. This is because any vertical thrust the wing can take off the engine can be diverted for horizontal thrust and movement.

Well, Jetman in Dubai threw a wing on a jetpack and the thing performs more than twice as well as the previous record. It goes up to 250mph and has already set a new record of near 6000 feet.


https://www.engadget.com/2020/02/19/watch-jetpack-pilot-vince-reffet-new-altitude-record-dubai/
 
Last edited:

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,601
Location
Mojave, Ca
Just think of the efficiency gains when you add a tail and fuselage! Put a nice canopy on it and you can keep your passenger and baggage dry and warm!

...or you could just buy an RV for far less money.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,235
Location
Memphis, TN
Like they say, enough horsepower and a brick can fly. When he does the takeoff, the big vertical, and then land under power, the ten year countdown clock, to being able to buy one at Walmart, will start.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,196
Location
Everywhere USA
The real limitation is that the thing burns like 50gph. Each of those engines burns 12+ gph.

They are designed from turbochargers and their pressure ratios are worse than WWII jet engines. Even reaching WWII standards would be a huge improvement.

Williams has an engine called the EJ22 which would make a perfect base for a jetpack. 100lbs and 700lbs thrust, with vastly better fuel consumption.

But you cant use a single engine for jetpacks unless the engine was modified to have split ducts like a Harrier.

Williams could either scale it down by 1/3rd and add ducts, or just scale it down by half and use two.

But of course they arent going to do that on their own, they will want up front payment for something with no known market.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,196
Location
Everywhere USA
That’s at full power. Once it goes horizontal it’s much less.

That’s the reason why the channel crossing by the wingless jet pack required a refueling halfway on a boat.

But this thing can do it without refueling and in half the flight time or less.

Performance wise it absolutely obliterates any other jet pack in both speed and range.
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
1,934
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
The real limitation is that the thing burns like 50gph. Each of those engines burns 12+ gph.

They are designed from turbochargers and their pressure ratios are worse than WWII jet engines. Even reaching WWII standards would be a huge improvement.

Williams has an engine called the EJ22 which would make a perfect base for a jetpack. 100lbs and 700lbs thrust, with vastly better fuel consumption.

But you cant use a single engine for jetpacks unless the engine was modified to have split ducts like a Harrier.

Williams could either scale it down by 1/3rd and add ducts, or just scale it down by half and use two.

But of course they arent going to do that on their own, they will want up front payment for something with no known market.
You can't just scale it down. Dividing the exhaust into two or three ducts does not solve the engine out issue. Also, the larger engine would have a longer throttle response time.
 

Doggzilla

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
2,196
Location
Everywhere USA
Nobody said it would solve an engine out issue, but that’s what the parachute is for. And it’s TBO is literally 100 times higher, so engine out issues are far less likely.

And it’s already a downsized FJ-44, and has far better throttle response than the primitive micro turbines it already uses. Throttle response is extremely good.

Not an issue in the slightest.
 
Group Builder
Top