I wish I had some faith that this thing would ever get released, it keeps getting pushed back and re-designed from scratch. Surely it's good enough already?
Facebook User
The Martin Jetpack is the sort of vehicle a major car manufacturer should be developing. The sky is where all travel should be moving to. Vehicles like these will rid the world of traffic jams. Obviously there are obstacles but they can all be overcome.
The range and speed make it no better than an off road (or road) motorbike and considerably pricier. Obviously, gaining access to high "action" zones will be the most useful application. It's too cumbersome and slow for military action.
@ Facebook User
There already vehicles that can rid the world of traffic jams, and some are even made by car manufacturers. They're called motorbikes. Get one, they're awesome.
These things will not be a viable transport solution until some seriously disruptive tech breakthroughs fix the problems of ridiculous inefficiency, high cost and the potential to be really dangerous. Yes, you can say these are obstacles that can be overcome, but the root cause of them is gravity and it's such an obstacle that Newton called it a law.
First responders typically require a considerable amount of equipment. They say nothing about the weight limits of this thing. A "typical" person with equipment will easily weigh more than 225 lbs. Will it even get off the ground in this condition??
IMHO, the term "Jet Pack" is a misnomer. This is nothing less than a small VTOL aircraft that the pilot straps himself into. The key word being "onto."
Jet packs described in literature and those that built are are worn.
Also, IMHO, these will never be released commercially to consumers as an alternative mode of regular transportation. There are several reasons, not the least of which the fact that the vast majority of consumers can barely be trusted to drive a car, let alone manage a vehicle in the air. Think I'm wrong? The next time you go for a drive, see how many drivers never cross the centerline markings and actually come to a full stop at a stop sign or when turning right on red. How about that nice fat "Stop" line that indicates where your car should stop at a signal or sign. Simply things yes, but those are laws for a reason. They are a social contract that allow a driver to have a reasonable expectation of what to expect from other drivers.
That's why driving is such a pain in the ass.
And you think it'd be better if they were flying? LOL.
At best, this will be a flash in the pan fad for the same people who can ratioanalize the need to tear around wilderness areas on ATVs.
Again, another series of comments, all of them negative. If it were left to such people there is no need for anything newly designed, ever!
Awesome product, which will only improve with time.
Flying vehicles will not be a solution to traffic problems in urban & suburban areas unless they are flown by an air traffic control system, if ever. The consequences of a collision for an aircraft can be much worse than they are for a ground vehicle, even for one with a parachute like the Martin Jetpack.
The Martin Jetpack has jets instead of propellers or fans. The hot exhaust will limit where it can be used.
There's a simple solution to the limited lift capacity of the Martin Jetpack. Put smaller people in them.
Wonder if the electric quad copter would perform as well? Perhaps more stable. Beautiful design will be waiting future reviews.
Others have already told the Facebook User that having lots of vehicles in the sky would be dangerous. But there's one other major reason why all travel shouldn't be "moving to the sky." No flying machine can ever come close to a vehicle with rolling wheels for fuel efficiency. It takes a lot of power, hence a lot of fuel to get aloft and stay there. In a world that's already choking in CO2 and where fuel is already scarce enough to make prices uncertain in the long term, the last thing we should do is burn gas an order of magnitude faster by putting everyone in flying cars.