Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest Howard Hughes
Posted
if you have a reaction time of 2 seconds you should not be flying anything bar a kite

It's not so much the reaction time, but the recognition time that gets you!
Posted
So you think a helicopter is any different? Hover below 50'

Chances of surviving a 50' heli drop are pretty good, lots of things to dissipate energy, Jetpack not so much.

 

Relatd: Website worth visiting ... http://tecaeromex.com

 

 

Posted
I'd rather my chances in the jet pac with BRS from 50' than a helicopter hovering at the same height

Not a chance in hell the chute will be open by the time, less than 2 seconds, you hit the ground - mathematical fact, I'm just the messenger.

 

Youtube this and count the time from the wing snap; 1/ Time taken to launch the chute (more than 2 seconds) and 2/ Time taken for chute to deploy....

 

Argentine Rans-7 Accident and BRS Parachute Save

 

I'll risk the helicopter thanks.

 

 

Posted
Not a chance in hell the chute will be open by the time, less than 2 seconds, you hit the ground - mathematical fact, I'm just the messenger.Youtube this and count the time from the wing snap; 1/ Time taken to launch the chute (more than 2 seconds) and 2/ Time taken for chute to deploy....

 

Argentine Rans-7 Accident and BRS Parachute Save

 

I'll risk the helicopter thanks.

Good for you.... Personally I would jump at the chance to strap one on. With any activity there are risks. The important thing is to identify (risk) and manage as best you can. If you want to fly something which is totally risk free you might be better off playing with models :rotary:

 

 

  • Agree 1
Posted
If you want to fly something which is totally risk free you might be better off playing with models

My reply above is based on a choice, that you proffered, of falling from 50' in a helicopter Vs Jetpack, that was the subject matter.

 

I can't see where anyone in the thread has said they wouldn't have a go in one so I'm not sure why the cowardice mocking comments.

 

 

Posted

Sorry if I have offended you.... I'm just sick of people finding fault. I guess my point was. You don't hear people going OMG Helicopters are so dangerous what if the engine stops. But it is a real risk, especially at low altitude hover. The same risk applies to the jet pack. They have minimized the risk as much as possible with the BRS but how much safer could they make it? I didn't mean to imply anyone was a coward (your words not mine) simply that if you expect to be able to fly this type of aircraft you are going to have to accept a level of risk (I personally believe the risk to be no greater that in a helicopter flown in the same manner). But if you feel the risk is too great then you should avoid this type if aircraft. Personally I think as these things become available they will fall out of the sky fairly regularly, but it will mainly be due to operator misuse.

 

 

Guest Howard Hughes
Posted

It's gotta be safer than a Robbo at any altitude! 022_wink.gif.2137519eeebfc3acb3315da062b6b1c1.gif

 

 

Guest ozzie
Posted

B

 

Not a chance in hell the chute will be open by the time, less than 2 seconds, you hit the ground - mathematical fact, I'm just the messenger.Youtube this and count the time from the wing snap; 1/ Time taken to launch the chute (more than 2 seconds) and 2/ Time taken for chute to deploy....

 

Argentine Rans-7 Accident and BRS Parachute Save

 

I'll risk the helicopter thanks.

Bex, Stated minimum fire height for the BRS on the Jet Pack is 8 mts.

 

 

Guest ozzie
Posted
I can just imagine you aussies using them instead of robbies to muster cattle!!!!!

You'd be IFR all the time due to the red dust

 

 

Posted
BBex, Stated minimum fire height for the BRS on the Jet Pack is 8 mts.

Yes, I read that previously and promptly ignored it.

 

Under what circumstance can you imagine pushing the button at 8 meters and making a difference?

 

 

Guest ozzie
Posted

You don't Bex the on board computer makes the decision for you.

 

 

Posted
You don't Bex the on board computer makes the decision for you.

Hope it's not Microsoft; "Are you sure you want the parachute to open?" .... "Parachute opening now, please close all other functions to begin" .... "Would you like to backup parachute command before opening?" .... "Please restart computer for Parachute to open".

 

Ok, so we have a G sensor that just detected a sudden downwards movement/engine failure etc. - before that parachute canopy has even started to open, and I don't care if the actual firing happened in milliseconds, you have hit the ground already.

 

In Martin's own video, the line takes 2 seconds to go taught and over 3 seconds to have full canopy - the math just doesn't work, you have already met terra firma up close and personal.

 

Allowing around 2.5 seconds of available time, add some drag for the jetpack and you are going to need at least 30+ meters to make a difference.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Posted

OK bex so what do you suggest they do? You seem to be banging on about what height the recovery chute will successfully deploy from. As I have said over and over. This type of VTOL aircraft is always going to have safety issues near the ground. Mitigate as best you can (which I believe they have) then either get on with it or watch from a safe vantage point (possibly on the ground). If you can think of a better system to provide a greater level of safety I suggest to contact Martin JP directly. Any fool can identify fault it takes genus to find solutions..........

 

 

Posted
OK bex so what do you suggest they do? You seem to be banging on about what height the recovery chute will successfully deploy from. As I have said over and over. This type of VTOL aircraft is always going to have safety issues near the ground. Mitigate as best you can (which I believe they have) then either get on with it or watch from a safe vantage point (possibly on the ground). If you can think of a better system to provide a greater level of safety I suggest to contact Martin JP directly. Any fool can identify fault it takes genus to find solutions..........

You know your arguing with someone who's not a pilot , dont you ?

 

 

Posted

"Any fool can find fault, it takes genus to find solutions" ..........?....................solutions found by family, that's odd.....Oh ! I must be the fool then?015_yelrotflmao.gif.6321765c1c50ed62b69cf7a7fe730c49.gif By the way, it would take anything

 

0.9 sec. to fall 8 meters. I think that the BRS folks are having you on.......Better luck at 50 meters...

 

  • 31.30 m/s
     
     
  • or112.70 km/h
     
     
  • Time until impact: 3.19
     
     

 

 

 

Nope still doesn't work....

 

 

Posted

Actually I did have a thought. What if they installed air bags in the lower 4 corners. which could automatically deploy and act to help break the fall impact? I know.. more weight and cost but might help? Sure they must of thought of this already though.

 

 

Guest ozzie
Posted

Go the way the Russians land the Soyuz. retro rockets. In the original white Martin version the retractable gear leg could take a 25ft fall to protect the pilot. maybe the new one is similar as well. I'd still take the risk and chase the that sh*t Finkelstein Kid on his MX bike.

 

 

  • 7 months later...
Posted

Hullo my new bestest friend, David Mayman.

 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...