Inventor who built an Iron Man-style flight suit has flown it at TED
bbc.co.ukA much much better video with a lot more details, accidents, back story, etc.... but it is covered with Red Bull logos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=291&v=JinhIHIF8E...
Red Bull consistently does some of the best advanced extreme sports out there. Awesome to have a company like that backing up their ethos and I'm happy to look at their logo because of the basic fact of how cool the stuff they're doing is.
This is content marketing done right.
The only downside is that they are effective at promoting a beverage that is likely to have a negative impact on the health of the consumers who partake.
Not liking the product is different than not appreciating the quality of the marketing.
The craziest thing is they have two F1 teams.
Interesting, for now control seems to be extremely raw but I wonder how much an active exoskeleton could help in making this more approachable, both in terms of not needing as much muscle (both strength and endurance) as well as guiding the pilot into more stability.
I actually kind of like that it requires raw strength.
the arm strength that appears necessary seems high, I would hope there is some sort of exo to assist with that or perhaps logic in the motors to shut down if they get into an odd angle
Seems like good motivation to go to the gym. You would be suprised how difficult a normal race car is to drive, most people lack the strength just to pull out of a parkinh spot in one. The exo, is the racecar case, is taken out for an important reason; weight. Pretty critical here. That said, I have no doubts a hydro assist system could be built light enough, but is unnessarry in the first few iterations.
I race a car without power steering. It is not that hard once the car starts moving.
I'm far more interested in what these guys are working on with the Flyboard (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wObBrd9wB6M). Way more controllable and practical, and equally mind blowing.
I just wish he was wearing a wing suit and had transitioned to horizontal flight.
Jetpacks are officially dead. The advantages of not lifting your own o2, of burning fuel using air, means that systems based on rockets are now done.
Then perhaps your first sentence should have read, "Rocket packs are officially dead".
I think that the terms have historically been used interchangeably, but the distinction should be made. It's awfully nice not to need to carry oxidiser for your propellant.
A rocket is something with only an exhaust. A jet also has an intake. And it goes a little further than just not lifting the 02. Any unburnt gas (air) becomes a 'working fluid' that can be pushed. A rocket moves by throwing gas away at speed. Jets also grab gas from the air and accelerate it along with exhaust products. That's why a jet or turbofan can have a high specific impulse with such a low exhaust velocity, higher (>8k) than even an ion thruster in vacuum.
Flyboard Air is so cool.
In terms of innovation, what do you think of their execution strategy?
The founder has extensive experience with Jet Skis, created an innovative hovering contraption using water jets and a business around it, then used some of that money to fund this next innovation - Flyboard Air.
Also, I've read that the engines are repurposed Jet Ski engines. Is this true?
Hackaday discussion: https://hackaday.com/2017/04/13/daedalus-jet-suit-takes-to-t...
It was noted that at least some shots were most likely fake. I guess this validates it as real?
It was noted by someone in the comments. I think I disagree. I don't see why this couldn't work, and the jet engines in question do produce sufficient thrust and are cheap enough that you could buy like 6 of them (52lbf thrust each), with a total of 312lbf of thrust, enough for this kind of project, for the price of a new car: http://www.chiefaircraft.com/jc-p200-rx.html
How much does a good rigging setup cost plus good professional video editing software to edit out such lines? I suspect it's not even much cheaper than making this work. (Particularly since you need to buy the jet engines anyway.)
I always wonder why people think something is fake when the real thing would actually be easier (if more dangerous) and cheaper than faking it.
If you look at the specific time code mentioned, you can clearly see that the back of his shirt is lifted by something that looks like an invisible cable, and that his movement in the air indeed looks like he's being pulled.
But then the astronauts walking on the moon didn't look real to some people either, so we should definitely give him the benefit of the doubt.
Eh, it's always been my understanding that the problem with rocket packs (and by extension, this) was fuel. Wingless flight -- and believe it or not, helicopters are "winged" flight, which is why they can "glide" (autorotate) -- requires insane fuel consumption.
Someone figuring out how to strap jet engines to themselves and not instantly die is impressive, but it's not really solving the hard problem. The "10 minutes" claim is probably already based on loading up with the maximum amount of fuel the person can carry - add more and you don't get off the ground without adding another engine, which burns more fuel...
So I find the claim totally believable, and impressive for what it is, but it's not the sort of thing that has me reaching for my wallet to throw money at the guy.
Agreed. And I think the comparison with a jet ski or other recreational vehicle is apt: this is for fun and show, for extreme sports, and perhaps some military or rescue applications. But pretty sweet nonetheless.
(Jet ski not the perfect analogy as jet skis are fairly safe and it's not unheard of for people who live on islands to use them for errands, etc, but yeah most people seem to use them for fun.)
You could extend the range and flight time by using a wingsuit, allowing up to a glide ratio of 3 or 4 without using structures other than the human body. But wingsuit flying and this iron man suit thing require immense strength, so physical exhaustion is probably even more of a constraint in this situation than fuel consumption.
Wingsuit and jet engines strapped to a human body?
Exists: Jetman - Yves Rossy (also a TED Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2sT9KoII_M
Enjoy. ;-)
(That guy crosses the English channel at ~3:50.)
Absolutely, however Yves Rossy's wing is rigid (cheating! :) ) and the setup requires diving off from an airplane (or a cliff or tall building) and landing with parachute.
I was just talking about keeping the vertical take-off, vertical landing and just adding extra material flaps between the arms and legs like a wingsuit to extend range and endurance.
Something about combining multiple jet engines firing from four independent control points leads me to think monkeys might not be the best at predicting its movement. "looks like he's being pulled" in comparison to what example of standard flight suit movement?
My question when I first saw this was where do you get such jet engines? They look small enough to be from any kind of plane/UAV, but also quite large for any small model aircraft.
I wonder how easy it is to get one, do you by any chance need any sort of special license to operate them?
Get this puppy: http://www.amtjets.com/pdf/Nike_specification.pdf or this bad boy: http://www.amtjets.com/lynx.php
I'm pretty sure they are JetCat RC engines (based on the purple cowling): http://www.dreamworksrc.com/catalog/Jetcat-Engines
It's worth noting that these jet engines are actually just car/truck turbo chargers that were repurposed and placed in a relatively simple combustion sleeve. You can actually build your own fairly easily with little more than a trip to the junk yard.
Look for model jet engines they get to be surprisingly big. I haven't looked them up in a number of years but I wanted to build a jet powered bike in a previous life and if I remember right the only thing stopping me was price. Also runtime sucked for them all.
For between about $2500 and $4500 (depending on thrust), you can get a small model jet engine: http://www.chiefaircraft.com/radio-control/turbine-engines/j...
I love these things. I love enabling gadgets that enable hobbyists and garage entrepreneurs to do crazy things like this that would normally require a military program to fund.
They could also be suspenders for motor-gliders. Like these from the Netherlands:
Here is my own video of him flying.
I thought the point of Iron Man's suit was that the Arc Reactor allowed for stupidly high powered "repulsor beams", which then allowed for force/heat to the generated. This just seems like another Jetpack style design.
I feel like the combo of arm + leg + back thrusters and an exoskeleton are sufficient to warrant the analogy.
Interesting that it looks like he ditched the leg thrusters and switched to a back pack, I wonder if trying to control all limbs at once was too complicated.
If you've flown anything like the flyboard - it's quite a bit like snowboarding where the balance required from your feet quickly wears out your leg muscles.
Controlling power from your backpack doesn't wear the body down nearly as much.
[1] Flyboard - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Bm3cs9TFo
Even better: Flyboard Air
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA
It looks insane. Though more Green Goblin than Iron Man.
That really does look insane. I wonder if this type of thing would be practical in the military. I guess it would probably make soldiers too vulnerable for the most part.
But perfect for a 'One man army' movie. Or recruiting film. Cough cough.
Here's a random thought regarding an active exoskeleton, could help with both leg strain and limb control: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14218746
I think he just moved the leg thrusters up to his arms, making two on each arm. At least that's the way it looks from this pic [0], where he has only one thruster on each limb. He may have had the backpack all along, but I'm not sure.
That's the movie premise.
In the comics, the first flying suit had chemical jets. And the early suits just ran on batteries.
This seems like the latest April 4th, 2017 flight test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hT__fdxWig
Going by the video, it’s less of a “flying” suit and more of a “hover” suit.
Quote from the text:
"Mr Browning said it is easily capable of flying at 200mph (321km/h) and an altitude of a few thousand feet.
But, for safety reasons, he keeps the altitude and speed low."
"Safety" - he's technically correct, but I believe it is guaranteed death if he'd try it: "The suit can currently fly uninterrupted for around 10 minutes." That leads me to the assumption that if he climbs up to a few thousand feet or goes full throttle to reach that speed, he'll be out of fuel faster than he can break & land.
adding a parachute might help, at least once he's high enough.
Sounds like the next extreme sport. rocket up.. wingsuit/parachute down.
Yves "Jetman" Rossy does that on the way down. Up with a helo, flying with a wing, propulsion jet engines.
Hard to believe he couldn't find a height between 3 feet and a few thousand to do a safe demonstration
I can jump over buildings with a single bound.
But for safety reasons I only jump a foot or so off the ground.
:-)
s/over/off ;)
that cant be possible
> "it is easily capable of an altitude of a few thousand feet. But, for safety reasons, he keeps the altitude and speed low."
Sure.
I have watched some of the video, and at no point does he sustain a height high enough to stop benefiting from ground effect.
Hovering for maybe 10 seconds at 5 meters up would do it.
Until he does demonstrate this, I shall choose not to believe him, and won't consider this actual "flight". For much the same reason that an Ekranoplan is not actually an aircraft.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(aerodynamics)
or comments last time this device was on hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13993728
Ground effect in this case would be virtually non-existent because of the extremely small disk loading in the case of those miniature jet engines. The ratio of the jet diameter to each jet's height off the ground shows that the ground effect is pretty small in this case. Probably less than 1 percent thrust increase in the case where the jets are attached to his arms and back according to this graph: http://www.copters.com/aero/pictures/Fig_2-39.gif (This graph proves that he's getting essentially zero ground effect.)
The actual exhaust velocity of those jets is extremely high, and for a lot of the video he is holding the jets at a significant angle with respect to vertical, giving cosine losses. With a thrust to weight ratio of over 1, I have no doubt he could achieve extremely high speeds (yeah, 200mph or over) given even a slight amount of lift from his body in horizontal(ish) flight.
> Ground effect in this case would be virtually non-existent
Then it should be easy for him to demonstrate a sustained hover at 5 or more meters up. Or if it's not a lack of power, does he not have the necessary fine control do do that?
How would you like to fall from 5 meters height while carrying 6 lit jet engines and a bunch of flammable liquid on your back?
The answer is pretty obviously safety. That, and I doubt flying is terribly reliable either given he is doing it with muscles and his muscle memory (super impressive, by the way), so if he did it over water just to prove a point, there's a good chance he'd ruin tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment.
He could fly to five metres attached to a safety line on a ten-metre tower, or a crane. A simple auto-descender would do fine.
My impression watching this guy's videos when they have hit the news over the past few months has been that, for whatever reason, it skims the ground and can't ascend. If he wants to disprove that, it should be possible to rig up a safe test.
As far as I can tell, they're working on a garage budget. A ten meter tower and crane is non-trivial to rent and setup.
No reason to disprove something that is disprovable with a basic understanding of basic physics and aerodynamics.
I expect the big challenge with a device like this is NOT ascending too high where you'd be at risk of breaking a leg or thousands of dollars worth of red-hot jet turbine. This isn't a drone, it's a flying person.
That fits the "lack of fine control", doesn't it?
So he's not going to fly much then, is he?
I think this takes some time. It takes 2 years of constant practice to learn how to walk well, and we evolved that capability. Learning to hover and fly might similarly take years. He most certainly could do it, but at significant risk of breaking bones and wrecking his equipment and/or starting on fire.
> Learning to hover
But if there's no ground effect in those videos, then he can already hover. So if there's plenty of footage of stable hovering at 0.5 meters "in mid air", why is there none at all of hovering at 3.0 or 5.0 meters? It doesn't entirely convince me that it can be done.
For the same reason that just because you can balance on a balance beam 30cm from the ground, you'd probably be hesitant balancing on one 5 meters off the ground.
EDIT: If you want to see him testing the concept in a bunch of iterations, you can check out the vimeo page here: https://vimeo.com/gravityindustries/videos/
Arguably, the leg-mounted jets COULD be close enough for ground effect, but they're apparently destabilizing so they switched to two backpack-mounted engines instead.
> just because you can balance on a balance beam 30cm from the ground, you'd probably be hesitant balancing on one 5 meters off the ground
I get what you're saying, but when applied to someone supposedly building flying machines, I just find it a bit of a thin rationale.
To get ground effect with something like that you would have to interrupt any recirculation (see helicopter ground effect). Just looking at the dimensions of everything you would think that the possible ground effect (recirculation) zone would be less than half a metre and the engines are higher off the ground than than that.
Does ground effect apply, when your lift is from a narrow jet rather than a wing? I believe ground proximity presents a problem for VTOL jets, at least in part due to recirculation.
Great, now we can have real live incarnation of Iron Man vs Green Goblin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQLAUFhIxm4
Seems like an easy way to become a double amputee.
Then you can attach the jet engines directly to your stumps. You save some weight too!
That's the spirit.
If you are lucky enough...
Fun, it seems there are two versions he's been trying; one with leg thrusters on his calf and one where those thrusters are on the backpack. Watching the video I imagine holding the harm thrusters down to feel a bit like you're holding your self up on parallel bars.
could tethered electric ducted fans raise someone in a wingsuit to a suitable altitude? as an alternative to this.
> He was inspired by his father, an aeronautical engineer and inventor, who killed himself when Mr Browning was a teenager.
Was this really necessary? Imagine the reaction of the guy: "Oh cool, there's a bbc article on me.. oh... :(".
I don't think it's a spoiler for him at this point in life.
Yeah but it can be unpleasant when other people casually bring up tragedies about your life randomly when the context isn't quite right.
The phrase "killed himself" seems like a really odd choice. I assumed the author meant in some kind of aeronautical accident, but perhaps it's just a really crass way of saying "committed suicide".
As a brit, that reads ok - to me, it does not imply intention. "Fred killed himself whilst overtaking a lorry on the A30" would not imply suicide (but possibly poor judgement).
I also found this sentence bizarre. It doesn't add any important information to the reader and makes it sound he was inspired by the suicide.
Yeah. It sounds like his father killed himself, so now this guy is going to do it too, albeit in a more spectacular way.
Perhaps something to do with Howard Stark's tragic death when tony was young?
I can't wait to see my girlfriends face when I land in the back garden wearing one of these.
spoiler: it's not an iron-man style.
>TED 2017: UK 'Iron Man' demonstrates flying suit (Original title of the post)
Keyword analysis: TED, BBC, Ironman.
Conclusion: British Clickbait.
It has jets in the rough location of the hands. Very similar to Ironman, just not with the compact form factor that he has.
I fail to see how this is clickbait. Can you explain how this suit's flight mechanism is dissimilar to Iron Man's Mk III from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Earth-19999). He's obviously not using repulsors for flight, but the thrust for suit is hand mounted just like the Mk III.
I can imagine a sport developing out of it though, even if it's not a full suit. Imagine gymnastics or skateboarding with this suit.
> He was inspired by his father, an aeronautical engineer and inventor, who killed himself when Mr Browning was a teenager.
Inspired he was; his invention clearly has the potential to kill the user. He may end up doing the same thing his father did, though surely I don't wish him such fate.
Who peed in your espresso this morning?
The espresso machine is broken. You can see why I'm upset!
Seriously though, there is a long (and sad) tradition of flying machine inventors (or engineers) getting killed by their own inventions. Looking at this particular one it has all the flashy features ('Look! I am the Iron Man!') and none of the safety ones.
Paraglider here. Having met many hundreds of flying contraption enthusiasts, I'd say as a population we're much less bothered about maiming and killing ourselves than average.
From "The World's Fastest Indian"
Tom: Aren't you scared you'll kill yourself if you crash?
Burt Munro: No... You live more in five minutes on a bike like this going flat out than some people live in a lifetime.
Indeed. YOLO.
My grandfather was an EAA builder and the most overly cautious man I have ever known. He got out of his car to look behind it every time he reversed, and then went and did insane aerobatics in something him and his buddies built in a garage. We all have our own level of risk we accept. That man died at 96, tired of living.
Do something worth living for while you can, we all die.