How does the Jetpack International rocket belt work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yaddle13
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Jet Work
AI Thread Summary
The Jetpack International rocket belt operates using hydrogen peroxide as a monopropellant, which is decomposed by a catalyst to produce thrust. It can achieve brief hover times of 30 to 40 seconds due to the high rate of peroxide consumption. Discussions highlight the potential of turbojet engines for longer operation times compared to rocket belts, although noise remains a significant drawback. Current advancements in technology could improve jet pack designs, but challenges like thrust production and control persist. The conversation also touches on the feasibility of personal flying vehicles, emphasizing safety concerns and the complexities of mass public use.
Yaddle13
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Here is a link to videos of it: http://www.jetpackinternational.com/video.html"

Can anyone give me information about this thing? Like how it works and what does it use for fuel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
It's a small, hydrogenperoxide rocket.

http://www.transchool.eustis.army.mil/Museum/Jetbelt_files/image007a.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting they call it all a jet pack, though one uses rockets and that winged design actually uses small jet engines - quite impressive btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_pack
 
Our version (WR19 based) back in the late 60's used a turbine engine as well.
http://www.mzak.cz/motory/williams/jetbelt_1.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FredGarvin said:
Our version (WR19 based) back in the late 60's used a turbine engine as well.
http://www.mzak.cz/motory/williams/jetbelt_1.jpg


how was the performance on your turbine jet pack?

on wikipedia it says that jet packs using turbojets have much more potential. the one they built got a much higher operation time then the rocket belt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was excellent. I have seen footage of it flying. Folks that worked there back then that saw it fly said it was really a sight to see. It's major drawback was the noise. It had a small featured part (as did another of our engines) of National Geographic's show on cruise missiles. It's not bad for a brief intro.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com.sg/watch/program_details.aspx?id_program=5743
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ah I'll have to try to get that segment. It a bummer that so many jetpack projects lost funding because of the noise.

I think if it was worked on now, lots of progress could be made with today's technology and would be easier to implement. (I'm sure it's easier to make a turbojet now than in the 70's)

If anything, they'd make good for entertainment.
 
I think a flying car has much more market potential than a personal jet pack. And a lot of the implementation problems - like the noise are the same.
 
  • #10
I really hope the flying car never becomes practical anytime within the next 50 years or so.

Drunk drivers are bad enough, who wants drunken celebrities crashing into buildings on their jet propeled car

or worse, they make it cheap enough for everyday people, so the FAA is so flooded with applicants for flying cars, the quality of pilots goes down, standards are lowered, and you have normal everyday people drunk and flying
 
  • #11
Trust me. We have been working with NASA on the GAP program which has, as, one of it's "goals" to get more of the population flying. They want to do this by making the aircraft, navigation, etc... as simple as possible so that even a caveman could do it.

The general public flying in mass quantities like that will not happen in either of our life times. The flying car is still a joke. I don't think in all this time in development it has made it past hovering with tethers. There are certain realities that some people refuse to accept under our current technologies.
 
  • #12
FredGarvin said:
There are certain realities that some people refuse to accept under our current technologies.
Why what are the main problems ? Thrust for vertical take-off and landing ? Control ?
 
  • #13
Performance and controllability are their two major hurdles.
 
  • #14
I think we should dig canals and create a new type of boat so we can just boat around everywhere. but that's pretty out there.

By performance do you mean stuff like fuel effiency, or like producion of thrust and obtaining high speeds?
 
  • #15
Production of thrust, transitional flight, not crashing...you know...
 
  • #16
ah you almost had me excited there lol.

anyways, this summer I'm going to try to make a jet pack out of 2 valveless pulsejet engines that I'll be making. for now I'm only interested in it achieving relativily stable flight for a period of time ( t>31 seconds?) while controlling it remotely.

I'm going to try to insulate the engines and fuel tanks with some material (nomex? something like that) and build the engine out of Inoconel (sp?).

Also I'm going to try to run it on home-electrolysis-ed hydrogen or home-distilled kerosene to a high concentration.

any thoughts?
 
  • #17
the Jetpack Internatioal is a hydrogen peroxide monopropellant rocket, using one catalyst pack and 2 nozzles for propulsion. They use peroxide at a high rate and can hover for only 30-40 seconds.

Virutally all present rocket belts (the other name for these) are H2O2. There wqas one guy in Germany or UK starting on a LOX/fule one but he did not finish it.

I have been considering a bipropellant one, for fun and income. You can google "microlaunchers" for what I've been up to.
 
Back
Top