Commercial Jetpack!

It would be nice if it were more compact, but they are claiming a 30-minute flight time, which is huge compared to earlier efforts.


It does help to illustrate a different point I make about alternatives to internal combustion.  Note the device uses gasoline.  Nothing else that is so cheap and plentiful has gasoline's energy content to weight ratio.  Which is why it is so freaking hard to replace in cars.


  1. Mike C.:

    The only problem is, it's not a jetpack. Those are ducted fans, not jet engines.

  2. DOuglas2:

    We say "jetpack", but in this case there is little "jet" about it.
    I must say when I read the words two-stroke and V4 in the same sentence I think I must be reading about the Saab 96 car.

    But it is probably really a high tech racing motorcycle engine. Very high power-to-weight.

  3. Evil Red Scandi:

    Allegedly it requires an engine overhaul after 100 hours of flight... not sure how practical that makes it. I'm definitely sure I don't want to be an early adopter on this one :-)

    Anyway, stories like this are always a good excuse to discuss reasons we don't have the flying car...

  4. CB:

    Is this guy wearing a fire protection suit? I love the idea of a jetpack (I was Jetsons-technology obsessed as a child), but maybe not this one. Anyways, improvement on the older models eh?

  5. Ian Random:

    Damn, I wonder if the Mythbusters will have to revisit their first failed attempt:

  6. Eddie:

    A company here that arose from a Moller protege (the flying car guy) has been developing this for years. They managed to get a model in the air, then their company was restructured, renamed, and came back with a strange little product line basically featuring sticking their fan turbines into anything they could think of:

    Looks like the guy from New Zealand did a better job all around.

  7. IgotBupkis:

    I'm waiting for the suit that uses an arc reactor for power, myself...