https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=291&v=JinhIHIF8E...
This is content marketing done right.
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.
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?
It was noted that at least some shots were most likely fake. I guess this validates it as real?
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.
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.
I wonder how easy it is to get one, do you by any chance need any sort of special license to operate them?
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.
In the comics, the first flying suit had chemical jets. And the early suits just ran on batteries.
"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."
But for safety reasons I only jump a foot or so off the ground.
:-)
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
Was this really necessary? Imagine the reaction of the guy: "Oh cool, there's a bbc article on me.. oh... :(".
>TED 2017: UK 'Iron Man' demonstrates flying suit (Original title of the post)
Keyword analysis: TED, BBC, Ironman.
Conclusion: British Clickbait.
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.
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.
Do something worth living for while you can, we all die.
