Could the military really not find use for this tech?
This is decades old surely they could have something even better by now?
Putting a single vulnerable exposed defenceless soldier in full view of an enemy frontline?
Not much use.
>>30006749
This plus satellite photography becoming a thing.
>>30006747
These cunts were so fucking obnoxious
FUCK OFF LET ME SNEAK PAST IN PEACE
>>30006774
Not really related but okay
>>30006747
is this real? Wtf am I looking at?
>>30006780
>tfw i just shot them down
>>30006749
>Putting a single vulnerable exposed defenceless soldier in full view of an enemy frontline?
>Not much use.
Yeah, Marines have been doing that for 240 years anyways, they never needed hover platforms
What is this think is there any info about it? Seems fake as fuck.
>>30006798
>>30006825
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYta-DQOINw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_X-Jet
Apparently not cost effective at the time, but with all our budget and improved tech now we should have hover bike soldiers zipping around.
>>30006747
Same problem as jet packs they only have a flight time of a few minutes tops.
There's no real way around that, you can only make a jet engine so efficient. You'd have to invent a more powerful fuel or an entirely different means of propulsion.
>>30006833
Make it electric?
>Performance of the WASP was impressive, with a speed of 60 mph and a service ceiling of 10,000 feet.
>Maximum flight time was just over 30 minutes.
I'd shit my pants going that high in a flying trash can.
>>30006833
Everything I find gives it a flight time of 30-45 minutes, the source seems to be the Museum of Flight which has one on display.
>Williams went on to produce the X-Jet. Similar to the Wasp but with a highly efficient turbofan engine from a cruise missile, it could fly for 30 minutes at a top speed of 60mph. The X-Jet was highly manoeuvrable and much more stable than it looked.
>>30006833
Here's image showing size of fuel tanks labeled 28 and 30.
this thing is fucking awesome. I could see it having some non military applications at least. Someone fund this.
>>30006882
jesus that engine placement
>>30006747
Commuting to work in one of those would be so cash.
>>30006935
>giving everyday civilians personal aircraft.
No thanks. I worry already about ground vehicles.
>>30006952
My dad has a Cessna.
>controlled by simply leaning
I can't believe how well it seems to work without having gyros or any sort of control system besides pilot just shifting his mass.
>>30006952
>>30006952
But everyday civillians can already have personal aircraft ya big dummy
>>30006747
Looks like another "great" pentagon project
What I wonder is why this tech hasn't been made into a commercial product.
>>30006814
Paratroopers are this
Also, I would love so badly for someone to, if they made this, put wheels on the side and drag it into town like a chariot, Roman style. Then just when everyone thinks you're a reenector, fwoosh, no man, I'm god-damned apollo
>>30007352
People have enough trouble navigating WITHOUT having a third dimension to account for.
>>30007352
This is too plebian for anyone who would be able to afford it. Its slow, and unlike a private jet, you don't feel like you're flying in a lavish hotel room. Which is all rich fucks really want anyway, a flying hotel room in which to do coke and get their dick sucked
>>30006962
fucking lol
quintessential faggot
>>30007394
Who doesn't want that at least sometimes?
>>30007406
People who don't have a childish and autistic obsession with jetpacks? You sound like a kid from a cartoon, man.
>>30006849
>Service ceiling : 10 000ft
For what purpose
>>30006847
Electric motors might be more efficient, but with current battery tech you're not even going to get close to the flight time of a combustion engine.
>>30006747
They are incredibly loud, insanely so. Highly vulnerable to small arms fire, which transforms the vehicle into a bomb when its operator inevitably dies and it crashes into the ground. Eats fuel like crazy, and for what? A helicopter or a drone could do its job much better.
It's single purpose that I can envision would be scouting a ravine or some other horizontally (but not vertically) confined space, or as a means of personal transport across something like an ocean facility. In both cases the expense and the risk involved don't outweigh the minor convenience you get from having a guy float around in a jetbooth.
They're still neat though.
>>30007437
I meant the coke and blowjob part, but jetpacks are pretty cool, and I've always wanted to fly one naked.
>>30007503
The air at 10,000 ft while you're standing on a mountain is the same thickness as if you go horizontally away from the mountain.
Imo, there's really no point at putting a soldier at risk when you can achieve the same purpose with a VR head unit and a quadcopter.
Or just using a drone in general. However, robots on jetpacks remotely controlled by drone operators ... muh dik
>>30007701
>not robots on jetpacks remotely controlled by drone operators on quadcopter boards
>>30006747
the military lost interest once they figured no matter what you do, the pilot is fucked in nearly any sort of major malfunction, god forbid an engine failure.
There's no emergency landing something like that, only fireballing. At least helicopters can autorotate
>>30006830
>Trusting grunts with spinning blades of death that will explode if they run into anything
>>30007352
It already has, look up the Martin Jetpack
>>30006747
>Could the military really not find use for this tech?
What do you think? Think about if for a few minutes, then give us one practical use of the thing that isn't from a fantasy novel or sci-fi movie.
>>30007352
Probably the fact that an engine failure almost can't end in any way that doesn't result in a fiery explosion.
Not a very good sales point, imo
>>30006747
Weaponize that bitch and put robots on it.
>>30008132
>>30007918
>in a helicopter
>>30006747
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_Z9GuUjgbE
UAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHH
>>30007385
Underrated post.
