This would make for a fun commute.

[msmrx57]

Just saw this on DRB. :banana::banana::banana:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/7307195/Flying-into-the-future-New-Zealand-company-to-make-personal-jet-packs.html
I want one. :alien:

[Spawn-Inc]

i want one, but i wouldn't call it a jet pack or anything close to that.

a jet pack, in my mind must be actual jets and be a bit larger then a normal backpack.

also that style of flying machine has be done so many times, i see no reason for it to catch on all of a sudden.

[LiTHiUM0XiD3]

didnt mythbusters re-create this exact machine.... and have it fail horribly?

[crenn]

Just because mythbusters failed, doesn't mean that they can't do it.

[msmrx57]

The makers don't call it a jet pack. Jet packs typically have a flight time measured in seconds :( this thing has a 30 mile range and 30 min flight time :eek:. It also goes quite a bit higher than any jet pack so far has. As far as Mythbusters goes, yes they built something similar but used an already available engine (small) and it was rather heavy. I looked at the web site and they designed the engine from scratch and it's a V4 with 2l displacement.

[x88x]

I've seen a few different companies who have made similar things; still pretty awesome. :D It's more of a small ducted helicopter than a jetpack, but whatever, it's still a load of fun from what I hear.

[mDust]

I'll be waiting for version 2.0 or 3.0...

Just like cars break down in unpredictable fashions after continuous usage, leading to recalls, I'm sure these will go through several recall and redevelopment phases after hundreds of people are injured/killed in them.

[x88x]

While this one is fairly new (July last year), the concept has been around for a while. Most notably, the SoloTrek XFV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoloTrek_XFV), while was first flown in 2001, and then developed into the Springtail EFV (http://www.trekaero.com/Trek_VTOL_Springtail_Vehicles.htm), which was first flown in 2003. The current model, the EFV-4B (http://www.trekaero.com/Trek_VTOL_Springtail_EFV4B_Specifications.htm), is a much more impressive machine than the one in the OP (smaller, faster, longer range, higher ceiling, all with a less powerful motor, though it is heavier), though I think it is rather more expensive...I seem to remember seeing a quote somewhere in the $250,000 neighborhood.

[XcOM]

i want two, one for weekdays and one for weekends!

[BuzzKillington]

I'd hate to have one of these things fail above me while I'm on the freeway and have a guy with that 250lb pack land on my car.

[x88x]

I'd hate to have one of these things fail above me while I'm on the freeway and have a guy with that 250lb pack land on my car.

I'm sure he would hate it even more.

[mDust]

I'm sure he would hate it even more.

Nah...he can't hate it when he's dead. The owner of the car is stuck with a now higher insurance payment because he's now an 'at risk' driver who is 'prone to accidents'. Plus, the dead guy's insurance company terminates his coverage upon death...so they aren't going to do a damn thing about it. The driver of the car would definitely would hate it the most.

I can't see these being sold in the US without some sort of guidance chip that automatically prevents collisions, only allows it to fly at low altitude within certain GPS boundaries, and only flies at certain speed limits in others...the flying car has been denied not because of technical hurdles, but because of safety, privacy and stupid-people-doing-stupid-things hurdles. Pilots' licenses are relatively difficult to get because an idiot pilot can mess up a lot of stuff if s/he's not trained enough to do everything right and not take stupid risks. Drivers go through drivers' education classes and still f**k up behind the wheel on a regular basis. Putting the average person behind the wheel of any flying vehicle is just plain reckless. Disallowing flying cars until they are fully automated is one government intervention I'm happy about.