Martin Jetpack. Maybe an IPO in the offing [Archive]

fungus pudding

13-10-2010, 10:49 AM

As Sam Morgan said - it is a solution trying to find a problem to solve.

personally I think the Hulme sports car was more marketable and we know what happened to that capital raising.

I just dont see a huge market for it. Drones are the future for the military.

Add to that that it's nowhere near market ready, and the moment it is, and if the market is proven, Toyota or Samsung or anybody at all in that game could immediately blow it out of the race. All due respect to the inventor. I wish him well, but the product is a toy.

minimoke

13-10-2010, 10:52 AM

Useful article in SST a few weeks ago.

In addition, since 2007 Rex Bionics has received $1.25m in grants from the government-funded Foundation for Science, Research and Technology (Forst). The makers of the Martin Jetpack have received $1.09m from Forst since 2008.

"The problem with Rex, and the Jetpack and everything else," says Slack, "is that it's the government funding people's hobbies. People go `wow' when they see it, but turning around and asking someone to pay for it is an entirely different matter."

Take the Jetpack, says Slack. It's been under development for a quarter of a century, but the spectre of "reinvention" looms large, despite the proprietary technology and patents.

"There's nothing wrong with it. But other people have achieved similar objectives using other technology, which is vertical take-off and landing; and to fly for long duration at a reasonable speed and controllability. People have achieved that with a number of devices over the past 50 years."

If you don't believe Slack, just get Googling and there they are: video clips and funny photos of personal flying machines from the "Hiller flying platform" to the "Williams Wasp", from the "Bell Rocket Belt" to the US Marine Corp's "Small Tactical Aerial Mobility Platform" programme. There are also a few tiny helicopters that look pretty nifty.

These machines have all flown successfully, says Slack. Several of them are even featured in the "history" section of the Martin Jetpack website, so it's not as if their existence is a surprise to Martin Aviation.

"But none, to my knowledge, have been commercially successful. It would therefore appear that the challenge is not technology [where all of the investment has gone], but understanding the market for these things."

The very last sentence is the key one when considering an IPO takeup. I can't see a profitable market so for that reason I'm not in until one is presented

Nevl

13-10-2010, 11:15 AM

As Sam Morgan said - it is a solution trying to find a problem to solve.

personally I think the Hulme sports car was more marketable and we know what happened to that capital raising.

I just dont see a huge market for it. Drones are the future for the military.

Superyachts, an easy way of getting to shore and exploring interesting areas and would basically cost bugger all on a superyacht budget. Adventure sports, for skydiving and those type of companies are 2 markets. Easy to set up a business in Rotorua and Queenstown.

Alkie

13-10-2010, 11:32 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262778/April-Fool-Did-fall-flying-rocketman-cable-laying-ferrets-Queen-flying-easyJet.html
Or maybe this?

minimoke

13-10-2010, 12:00 PM

Superyachts, an easy way of getting to shore
Presumably the Jet pack will come with the Chihuahua carrier as an optional extra.

and exploring interesting areas
So thats a hands free version of teh jetpack so you can take photos.

Adventure sports, for skydiving and those type of companies are 2 markets.
Lower than a 8m freefall, slower than a fly-by wire, heavier than a parachute, more expensive than a bunjy jump. Shorter flight time than a microlight. The marketing people will no doubt see the opportunity.

Easy to set up a business in Rotorua and Queenstown.
Getting past civil aviation rules will be a challenge. Do you seriously think an adventure operator will let some hungover German loose on one?

ratkin

13-10-2010, 12:06 PM

They would be good for crossing small stretches of water , but what would you do when you reached the other side?
Couldnt exactly carry it around with you

fungus pudding

13-10-2010, 01:02 PM

They would be good for crossing small stretches of water , but what would you do when you reached the other side?
Couldnt exactly carry it around with you

No but if they catch on, there'll be a parking meter where you can leave it.

13-10-2010, 01:36 PM

Superyachts, an easy way of getting to shore and exploring interesting areas and would basically cost bugger all on a superyacht budget. Adventure sports, for skydiving and those type of companies are 2 markets. Easy to set up a business in Rotorua and Queenstown.re adventure tourism.These aren't like quad bikes. I assume you would need a pilots license and special training on the specific device.

Re super yachts: there is civil aviation - would you be allowed to land on the beach at Nice? and what do you do with it when you do land (parking meter as suggested?). Also all your guess would still need to use the tender.

As I said above, I think the market is just to niche, and that is once the work out the safety issues (I assume getting the contraption of the ground is the easy part, making it safe and controllable will be the difficult part).

Rocketman

14-10-2010, 12:42 PM

Rocketman

14-10-2010, 12:53 PM

Oh and I forgot - film appearence, events and openings, displays and promotions, aerial sports yet to be invented (but likely to be sponsored by an enegry drink company), air shows, flying tours down the grand canyon, ship to ship, ship to shore, urban anti-terrorism rapid response, assured paramedic arrival in congested urban environments, and how about ultimately urban commute - though this would not be legal right now.

STRAT

14-10-2010, 01:05 PM

I suspect safety will be an issue and a drawback.

Running costs?

14-10-2010, 01:10 PM

Markets:
1. Recreational aviation - for people who just want to fly - currently more than 1m people with pilots licences
2. Aeroclubs, who want interesting aircraft in the fleet, and want to train people to fly 3800 flight shcools in US
3. Governments for border patrol, emergency response, search and rescue, policing - where a jetpack is much cheaper than a helicopter, much easier to fly, and can operated in more confined spaces.
4. Tourism - electronically constrained flights for people who just want to fly a jetpack once in their life.
5. Military - in particular in unmanned form for forward resupply, air mobile communications and survelience towers, convoy leading ground perntrating radar for IED detection etc.
6. Civilian - building instection, aerial photography, remote site access, farm inspection. And there will be others as time goes on.1. Where is that 1m figure from. Globally I thought it would be more? However, I would expect you would need a special license for this or training at least, reducing the number substantially.
2. Targetting the same market as 1.
3. Unmanned drones are more suited. There may be a market for unmanned drone helicopter type devices but this isn't where they are currently heading. I would be more comfortable if they started in this area and expanded into manned versions.
4. limited but agree
5. Again a shift in focus would be required which would make me more comfortable.
6. again, drones could do most of this.

Oh and I forgot - film appearence, events and openings, displays and promotions, aerial sports yet to be invented (but likely to be sponsored by an enegry drink company), air shows, flying tours down the grand canyon, ship to ship, ship to shore, urban anti-terrorism rapid response, assured paramedic arrival in congested urban environments, and how about ultimately urban commute - though this would not be legal right now.These are limited markets.

I am not saying there isn't potential, I just think it is a high risk investment more suited to angel/VC (where risks are higher) rather than IPO (where product is expected to be established).

Edit: The article says they are looking for $20m. What it does not say is what % of the business that is. There is a big difference in valuation between a 5% interest for $20m and a 80% interest.

Rocketman

14-10-2010, 02:25 PM

Nevl

14-10-2010, 02:47 PM

CJ - you assume public markets should only be low risk, and anything high risk is for private markets. Why should this be the case? Surely the public should demand opportunities to diversify investment according to risk as they see fit. No body is being forced to invest - but wouldn't it be nice to have the choice.

Yeah I agree with you. I see you have put some good time into researching markets. I have shown the videos to some friends overseas in the superyacht industry and they loved it. I am guessing like Sealegs that the Search and Rescue market would be a good initial target point and quick response units in the military. Getting someone to the scene quickly with emergency supplies and first aid would be great and the fact that you can buy 4 of them for the same price as a Helicopter would also go down well.

As for some of the naysayers on this forum you will find that they are extremely conservative investors in general. Unless you offer most posters here a guaranteed 15% per year with no risk they will likely write off your company for the next 30 years until it has " a reasonable track record", However they are very good for finding roadblocks and issues that you may not have thought of which is actually very helpful in the long run.

Anyway if you are involved with Martin then best of luck and please keep us posted. The people on this forum will also generally change their mind as long as more information becomes available.

14-10-2010, 03:22 PM

CJ - you assume public markets should only be low risk, and anything high risk is for private markets. Fair comment.

I guess I was thinking from a NZ perspective which doesn't have many speculative companies. Compare that to the Australian market where there are many speculative mining co's. NZ isn't the right market to do an IPO like this. See my comparison above to the Hulme IPO which was much closer to commercialisation but still didn't succeed.

Rocketman

14-10-2010, 04:38 PM

Xerof

14-10-2010, 04:45 PM

Wearing a Dragons Den hat - I'm out

Nevl

14-10-2010, 05:11 PM

One of the sad realities of the NZ capital markets is that the VC market (which was just developing 6-8 years ago) is now extremely limited - there might be 2 funds right now but no more - and if you want anything more than say $3m you are outside their league. So early stage companies with needs for $10m plus either have to sell out to foreign interests, with usual conditions attached - like moving most of the company to that investors location - or they have to chance their arm with a public listing to remain local. If we had more IPO's we would all get used to it - the brokers and the investors. Maybe it takes a Jetpack to tip the balance.

NZ companies also tend to try to get by on peanuts. Look at IPO's in the states for the Solar industry. They go to market and ask for $500mill US. Here we have WDT trying to do it on less than $40 Mill over 10 years. Its crazy. Its also part of the reason that so many companies fail. They do not get capitalized enough at the start and spend the next 4 years trying to raise more cash through capital raising that hurt the initial shareholders.

Hopefully that fact that the Jetpack already has a $12mill production deal and hopefully can develop a drone style Jet Pack for military S&R. That could give it a nice base for sales means $20 Mil might be enough But I would ask for $40mill and then settle for less if the full amount was not raised. I am sure there would be ways to structure the IPO so that any unsold shares are held in reserve to be issued later if possible or have an extra pot of shares above the 20mill if over subscribed.

One thing I have noticed is that most NZ IPO's always need twice as much as they ask for.

I am still keen as I think it has real potential.

Nevl

15-10-2010, 12:03 PM

Ok have being doing some thinking. Martin Jetpack to Helicopters is like scooter to Motorbikes. They both have times when one is more suitable that the other

Helicopters are very expensive and costly to run. They are expensive to train in and great for a huge number of situations

Maybe the Jetpack will fit in where a Helicopter would be nice but is not used because of cost. The helicopter industry sells about 6000 per year. The Jetpack would I feel be able to a small slice of that market at one end and create a whole new niche for cheaper personal aircraft. Look at the amount of people that use microlights. The jet pack has the advantage of being VTOL so no need for runways and is at a pretty affordable price. They use Helicopters in Aussie for rounding up sheep and cattle on the big stations. A jet pack makes much more sense as it does for the high country here in NZ and with Canada and the US. Use in Land surveys and mining not to mention anywhere where personal must move around large areas with little infrastructure. After all a jetpack will never have to worry about terrain . There is a market for these, the size is something else but 200 or 300 per year is not out of the question excluding military use.

15-10-2010, 12:29 PM

One of the sad realities of the NZ capital markets is that the VC market (which was just developing 6-8 years ago) is now extremely limited and add to that the NZX is really only suitable for established companies.

Very limiting but a sad reality. My opinion is they will be wasting money trying to IPO as it wont be successful.

Rocketman

15-10-2010, 01:09 PM

and add to that the NZX is really only suitable for established companies.

Very limiting but a sad reality. My opinion is they will be wasting money trying to IPO as it wont be successful.

New Zealanders trade (emotionally and culturally) off our No 8 wire stories, and the inovation of Bill Hamilton and Bill Gallager and the like, but shy away from supporting the same with capital - does that make us hypocrites?

Lizard

16-10-2010, 08:59 AM

Some light weekend reading:

http://longorshortcapital.com/important-caveats.htm

http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/martin-aircraft-commercial-jetpack-looks-to-take-flight/

ratkin

16-10-2010, 11:42 AM

Dr_Who

16-10-2010, 12:02 PM

Me think this one belongs in the VC market.

upside_umop

16-10-2010, 12:40 PM

Its all very well bemoaning the lack of risk on the NZX , however the reality that most of these ventures do fail , or even if they do succeed they are so watered down by all the extra shares issued at a later date (and cheaper) that the IPO shareholders still lose out.

Can someone name the risky success stories from the nzx? I can only think of 42 below, and that wasnt in the same league of risk as roger ramjet

Some would say DIL was a risky IPO and a success. However, they're still below IPO.

FTB didn't provide returns for the IPO holders that originally invested i.e. 15% annualised for that risk was pretty low....it was more of a chance to let the founders liquidate...and who wouldn't?

I would say the most comparable listing to Martin currently would be Sealegs. They both target a similar type of market, and it is yet to proven (the last time I looked). McKee-Wright hyped that one up to the maximum.....

I tend to agree that this is more of a hobby for someone trying to make something cool. For it to really work it would need to be part of a bigger picture enterprise where synergies and economies of scale could exist...

Rocketman

18-10-2010, 10:54 AM

Me think this one belongs in the VC market.

So the owners should give up on NZ for capital (because there is no VC market here) and head offshore - another technology company lost to NZ? I think NZ investors should be given a chance to support NZ companies - and if they don't want to show support then none can complain when the company moves and takes its jobs and profits offshore.

18-10-2010, 11:53 AM

So the owners should give up on NZ for capital (because there is no VC market here) and head offshore - another technology company lost to NZ? I think NZ investors should be given a chance to support NZ companies - and if they don't want to show support then none can complain when the company moves and takes its jobs and profits offshore.I dont thing thak is the way it should be, just that I am being realistic in the current market.

It is the same for most NZ Tech companies - they end up getting money from the US as they get better deals there.

ratkin

18-10-2010, 12:13 PM

So nobody can give me an example of a succesful , risky IPO on the NZX?

18-10-2010, 12:42 PM

So nobody can give me an example of a successful , risky IPO on the NZX?Lets think of some risky IPO's - 42 Below, Ecoya, Wellington Drive, Xero, Burgerfuel, Charlies, windflow ...

ratkin

18-10-2010, 12:57 PM

itc provenco aquaria 21 (lol) sealegs A2 corp , blis

Many of them have been good for trading but as long term propositions none have so far proven they have what it takes

minimoke

18-10-2010, 01:04 PM

I would say the most comparable listing to Martin currently would be Sealegs. They both target a similar type of market, and it is yet to proven (the last time I looked). McKee-Wright hyped that one up to the maximum.....
.
What about Submarine Adventures. There was a guy who liked pottering around in alternative transportation (like Martin). Had an innovative deep water vehicle, Needed underwater certification (like Martin will need air certification); went tourism (Martin thinking of this) , could only get a few bods in the boat each launch (compared with one bod per jetpack). Submarines started as a tourism venture - diversified into a sub builder and ended up a defunct real estate training company.
One dives the other flies. Back then one observer said " I reckon it will go under" I reckon Martin will crash and burn

elZorro

19-10-2010, 09:52 PM

Bruce Simpson on Aardvark has had a bit to say about the Martin Jetpack, here's one blog (http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2010/0830.shtml). Apparently he's well thought of in rocketry circles. He didn't recommend anyone to buy shares in the business. I quite liked the idea of the submarine venture (above), and another outfit thought about making their own here: but I think the cost to produce a decent working model was $1mill -Seabug (http://directory.betterbydesign.org.nz/main/case-studies/details/seabug_ltd/).

Surely it would be easier to design something that travelled underwater, rather than tried to defy gravity.

Rocketman

20-10-2010, 10:49 AM

Bruce Simpson on Aardvark has had a bit to say about the Martin Jetpack, here's one blog (http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2010/0830.shtml). Apparently he's well thought of in rocketry circles.

For someone highly regarded in rocketry circle (not any circles I know) - Bruce Simpson skips over key issues in his Blog.

The Bell Rocket Belt has been around since 1961, and Jetpack International does have one. They even fly it regularly to promote energy drink Go-Fast. As Bruce Simpson said it only flys for 30 seconds - what he didn't say is that only 15 people have managed to master one in 50 years (more people have been to the moon), and the fuel is only available from one source, is highly hazardous, and costs about $1500 per flight. The Martin Jetpack is not going to be ursurped by this old technology, if any thing it is the other way round.

I think one of the major problems Martin Aircraft Company faces is its use of the term Jetpack for the aircraft. Sure it attracts attention, but it also produces so much sceptism. If they were promoting the worlds lowest cost (capital and running) and easiest to fly helecopter, we would all immediately understand its commercial attraction.

20-10-2010, 11:46 AM

Rocketman - for disclosure purposes, are you associted with Martin Jetpack in any way?

Rocketman

20-10-2010, 03:03 PM

Yes - I am assessing financing options for the company, and wish to understand views that will influence the success or failure of these options.

minimoke

20-10-2010, 04:23 PM

I think one of the major problems Martin Aircraft Company faces is its use of the term Jetpack for the aircraft. Sure it attracts attention, but it also produces so much sceptism. If they were promoting the worlds lowest cost (capital and running) and easiest to fly helecopter, we would all immediately understand its commercial attraction.
I think you might be right there. "Jetpack" does imply a science fiction wonder which has some appeal - thats why people are prepared, so far, to back a bloke pottering in his back shed.

From what I can see it looks like a couple of rotor blades strapped to your back - so is more of a helicopter type experience or more of a "plane" experience without the wings.

I reckon there might be more commercial value in adventure tourism if you tethered the Martin to a huge long pole or a great long wire and let people have a blast under their own control. Perhaps a bit like "fly-by-wire" but with the advantage of being able to go up and down, forwards or back under your own control. As far as I can tell with "fly-by wire" you just get pointed in one direction and you have no choice on your start or finish point not where you go along that wire. Your alternative is to tie a 100m rope, suspended at least 102m from the ground and nearest hard object, to someone wearing a Martin and let them go wherever they like. I'm kinda imagining some cantilevered launch pad over the Kawarau gorge. Bungy jump to one side with some Pom bouncing on a rubber band. On the other some mad German, biffing himself off the launch pad knowing the only way he can get to the bottom is through his own controlled ascent / descent. Now that could be fun!

minimoke

20-10-2010, 05:52 PM

Good luck getting that scheme past the safety manderins, minimoke. But yes, I'd give it ago!

Keeping with a "bloke in a shed", Kiwi No.8 Wire" theme surely popping down to Mitre 10 for a pair of ear muffs and a high viz vest would see you right on that score.

Mr Martin might like to track down Alastair McWhannell, Stephen Parson, John Collet, Peter Kollar to name a few, for their views on his idea.

Rocketman

21-10-2010, 09:44 AM

- biggest issue I see with them is not what they can be used for ... but how much training and certification is required for the pilots? ... if this process isn't faster, easier and cheaper than training helecopter pilots (to the same level of safety, both for pilot, passengers(?) and the public) then the Martin's potential is seriously compromised as a helicopter with trained pilot fills most of the gaps.

As always, each situation where they can be used will come down to the competing products that fit the same situation. Dollars count.

Applying the above 2 rules to posters suggested uses on the thread, most situations would make the Martin a tough sell - unless the martin was far cheaper, safe and required minimal pilot training.

THe Martin Jetpack target price is US$100,000. A Robinson r22 is $250,000, and r44 (the worlds biggest selling helicopter) $400,000. While the fuel cost is likely to be similar (200hp engine) the maintenance will be less. So you have a small helicopter at 25% to 35% of the average hourly running cost of other widely used helicopters.

Also - the Martin Jetpack technology eliminates the need for a tail rotor, so flight control is greatly simplified (and the aircraft can operate in smaller spaces). The company estimates pilot training will take 2 to 5 days. An electronically constrained version (using onboard computers and sensors to restrict the aircraft to low heights and slow speeds) has already been flown solo by novice pilots after two 15 minute training sessions - and it is this technology that enables an adventure tourism operation.

One safety feature is expected to be hands free hover - but handling rifle recoil has not been factored in!

Nevl

21-10-2010, 04:23 PM

THe Martin Jetpack target price is US$100,000. A Robinson r22 is $250,000, and r44 (the worlds biggest selling helicopter) $400,000. While the fuel cost is likely to be similar (200hp engine) the maintenance will be less. So you have a small helicopter at 25% to 35% of the average hourly running cost of other widely used helicopters.

Also - the Martin Jetpack technology eliminates the need for a tail rotor, so flight control is greatly simplified (and the aircraft can operate in smaller spaces). The company estimates pilot training will take 2 to 5 days. An electronically constrained version (using onboard computers and sensors to restrict the aircraft to low heights and slow speeds) has already been flown solo by novice pilots after two 15 minute training sessions - and it is this technology that enables an adventure tourism operation.

One safety feature is expected to be hands free hover - but handling rifle recoil has not been factored in!

Awesome.

So what about external noise? The pilot can wear a helmet. Ones with a phone or communication system would be great but if it is at low level then external noise will be a problem.

As for financing I think an IPO could work as long as you have some sales and present as you say a chance to back the next Bill Hamilton. Run a public IPO , ignore the institutions and go straight to the public. Kiwi's would like the chance to back someone that is building a great idea in NZ. Xero is a good example of a high risk company that is starting to do well. WDT is an example of a company that got the initial sales set up totally wrong.

Burger fuel did a good IPO, unfortunately they had not delivered on their promise so far but signs are good and had a great marketing plan to get new investors behind the company.

Nevl

22-10-2010, 03:07 PM

Bugerfuel wanted 15 million and got applications for just 8 million. ... If Martin gets the same level of support would 10 million be enough?

Actually ... I think Martin would get plenty more support if they started flying their cool toy around the Auckland, Wellington and Sydney on a regular basis. Up and down the beaches in the weekend. Devonport to CBD about every hour. etc. etc. Get involved in some search and rescue too. ... Is it ready for this? ... This would really get people talking and thinking.

Exactly people need to see it being used and be able to touch and hopefully play with it. I think They should go for a lot more than 20mill and push the Helicopter side rather than the Jetpack.

Rocketmans description sounded pretty good. Also the next time there is a public search going on they should just shoulder up and head out. Heaps of publicity and hopefully a successful search.

22-10-2010, 03:22 PM

If people can see this working and there are sales, then this may be ready for IPO.

Isn't it just a life size version of this though:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/10/20/review-parrot-ar-drone/

minimoke

22-10-2010, 05:14 PM

.
Actually ... I think Martin would get plenty more support if they started flying their cool toy around the Auckland, Wellington and Sydney on a regular basis. Up and down the beaches in the weekend. Devonport to CBD about every hour. etc. etc. Get involved in some search and rescue too. ... Is it ready for this? ... This would really get people talking and thinking.
No - its got to be seen in a much larger market than tiny wee Auckland and a market that has cash. If people get to see / touch the Martin there may be potential for a successful IPO. That doesn't necessarily convert to profits for shareholders - except for Mr Martin who could make a a few bucks to keep tinkering in the back shed. I still don't get a sense of what Martins market is. Is it the AA Road Side rescue - how big a tool kit could be attached. Is it search and rescue - how many roles and defibrillator could be attached. Is it to sneak up behind enemy lines - unless the enemy are hearing impaired there is still work to be done. Is it for reconnaissance - there are drones that will do that from 50 miles high. Is it for advernture tourism - how does Flight Simulator compare. No point thinking about an IPO until the market has been clearly identified.

Nevl

25-10-2010, 10:04 PM

No - its got to be seen in a much larger market than tiny wee Auckland and a market that has cash. If people get to see / touch the Martin there may be potential for a successful IPO. That doesn't necessarily convert to profits for shareholders - except for Mr Martin who could make a a few bucks to keep tinkering in the back shed. I still don't get a sense of what Martins market is. Is it the AA Road Side rescue - how big a tool kit could be attached. Is it search and rescue - how many roles and defibrillator could be attached. Is it to sneak up behind enemy lines - unless the enemy are hearing impaired there is still work to be done. Is it for reconnaissance - there are drones that will do that from 50 miles high. Is it for advernture tourism - how does Flight Simulator compare. No point thinking about an IPO until the market has been clearly identified.

My Brother in Law has a Pizza shop. Would be awesome for deliveries. No traffic hassles and quick.

minimoke

26-10-2010, 07:15 AM

My Brother in Law has a Pizza shop. Would be awesome for deliveries. No traffic hassles and quick.
Brilliant. The exhaust could be recycled to keep the pizza warm and you might even be able to put storage bays over the empty space where the rotors are. At US$100,000 that would probably only add $100 to the price of a pizza

fungus pudding

26-10-2010, 07:48 AM

Nevl

26-10-2010, 09:03 AM

Brilliant. The exhaust could be recycled to keep the pizza warm and you might even be able to put storage bays over the empty space where the rotors are. At US$100,000 that would probably only add $100 to the price of a pizza

Delivers about 5000 pizzas a year so about $6 per pizza over 3 years!! Plus variable costs. However the speed of delivery and the wow factor could quite easily cover that. Also there is a delivery fee of $7. So as I see it not too bad.

Fungus why would the delivery staff keep dying? Flying is safer than driving.

But as a fast courier system thw Jetpack would be great. Parking is no problem as most city buildings have flat roofs so a lot of unutilized space there.

minimoke

26-10-2010, 09:31 AM

... and the wow factor could quite easily cover that. .
Have you heard the Jetpack? From the video I can imagine one of those things flying over my house delivering a pizza. I can also imagine my response.

Now my math is notoriously poor but I figure us$100,000 by 5,000 pizzas each year for three years as us$6.66 or NZ$8.50 minimum per pizza. Thats assuming you get to use the Jetpack for three years. I reckon after one month in operation the Noise Control officer will have confiscated the machine (or some cross neighbour has put two barrels of lead into it) putting the delivery price at us$240 per pizza.

I also reckon I could find some dodgy immigrant or student at minimum wage on the back of a push bike to keep my overheads down. (Would you want a minimum wager piloting a Jetpack?) Stick him in a clown costume and I still get the wow factor.

fungus pudding

26-10-2010, 09:51 AM

Delivers about 5000 pizzas a year so about $6 per pizza over 3 years!! Plus variable costs. However the speed of delivery and the wow factor could quite easily cover that. Also there is a delivery fee of $7. So as I see it not too bad.

Fungus why would the delivery staff keep dying? Flying is safer than driving.

Statistically yes; but fill city skies with pizza deliverers, and various other couriers and I have a feeling the statistcs might just change a little. This 'wow' fator would quickly become the 'splot' factor. Also your electricity bill might rise owing to the high cost of removing the odd-bod who became entangled in a mass of wires while attemting to negotiate a perfect two point landing on yourdoorstep - piping hot pizza in hand (or dangling of the power lines as the case may be.) The only upside I can see is the expansion in the pizza market. No longer would they appeal just as a dago-burger, but would find a high level of custom among the sadistic.

Nevl

26-10-2010, 09:54 AM

Have you heard the Jetpack? From the video I can imagine one of those things flying over my house delivering a pizza. I can also imagine my response.

Now my math is notoriously poor but I figure us$100,000 by 5,000 pizzas each year for three years as us$6.66 or NZ$8.50 minimum per pizza. Thats assuming you get to use the Jetpack for three years. I reckon after one month in operation the Noise Control officer will have confiscated the machine (or some cross neighbour has put two barrels of lead into it) putting the delivery price at us$240 per pizza.

I also reckon I could find some dodgy immigrant or student at minimum wage on the back of a push bike to keep my overheads down. (Would you want a minimum wager piloting a Jetpack?) Stick him in a clown costume and I still get the wow factor.

Ok your starting to take this way too seriously!! Still the point remains that the Martin Personal Helicopter has a lot of uses that are not obvious to the average observer. Also the noise factor is not such a problem when outside. Most of the video is taken inside a building with echos adding to the noise. I doubt the Jetpack is much noisier than the average boy racer car. Sound diffuses quite rapidly in the outdoor urban environment.

Still a lot depends on the restrictions civil aviation would place on its use and the ability of the jet pack to carry loads.

There are a lot of variables to be worked out but the blanket rejection of any new technology by most posters on this MB tends to get a little depressing. No wonder the NZ venture capital market is so poor. Steven Tindall and Jenny Morrell cannot bankroll the whole of the NZ VC markets themselves.

Nevl

26-10-2010, 09:55 AM

Anyone got any ideas what this toy would do to your life insurance premiums? How much to insure the thing itself? How much for 3rd party damage?

... Can't imagine that it'd be cheap!

No worse than microlights etc also being a very small vehicle 3rd party damage is likely to be less than other flying vehicles like helicopters and small planes.

minimoke

26-10-2010, 10:06 AM

Ok your starting to take this way too seriously!!
Not at all - though I suspect some are. I've still to see a valid commercial use for the Jetpack - Rocketmans don't really stack up. I agree NZ needs a VC market - but this doesn't extend to funding a bloke's hobby.

Rocketman

28-10-2010, 10:03 AM

Awesome.

So what about external noise? The pilot can wear a helmet. Ones with a phone or communication system would be great but if it is at low level then external noise will be a problem.

I think the issue of noise is a red herring - there is no doubt that the jetpack is noisey now - but there are plenty of experts in noise reduction for piston engines around - what is the noise you get from a 200hp car engine where they have done this noise suppression work?

I remember a story that Britten was hold he could not race his bike in Germany because it was too loud, but the race organisers put him in touch with a local expert who did this work, and the issue was resolved overnight with no reduction of power.

fungus pudding

28-10-2010, 10:11 AM

I think the issue of noise is a red herring - there is no doubt that the jetpack is noisey now - but there are plenty of experts in noise reduction for piston engines around - what is the noise you get from a 200hp car engine where they have done this noise suppression work?

I remember a story that Britten was hold he could not race his bike in Germany because it was too loud, but the race organisers put him in touch with a local expert who did this work, and the issue was resolved overnight with no reduction of power.

But I think you'll find it is easier to fly with a lawnmower type muffler than one off a Lexus.

Rocketman

28-10-2010, 10:38 AM

I've still to see a valid commercial use for the Jetpack - Rocketmans don't really stack up.

In a previous reply I listed all the possible application I could see for a Jetpack or as Nevl calls it a Martin Personal Helicopter. The key "commercial" applications I see as being ones where a Martin Jetpack (because it is cheaper, easier to fly and can operate in confined spaces) could be used where a helicopter would be desired but the cost of helicopter and pilot can't be afforded. This would apply to "uniformed" services like mass search and rescue, emergency response, border partrol, policing, paramedic etc - but with an initial push on the non-urban applications for obvious reasons. The strong military application is as a UAV (unmaned aerial vehicle) mule for resuply of forward troups - taking 100kg loads to the front line without risking pilot, crew and helicopter.

But we should not underestimate recreation. When Joseph Bombardier invented the snow mobile in 1959 he expected them to be sold to missionaries, trappers and for medical evac. In 1971 495,000 snowmobiles were sold - mostly to people who wanted them for fun. The Jetski story is similar.

minimoke

28-10-2010, 12:13 PM

I admire your enthusiasm Rocketman. Though I am still not convinced. Your commercial applications seem to have one major draw back - and thats payload. How much weight can a Martin carry compared to a real helicopter.If it can't carry a decent payload (such as comms, medic supplies, weapons, tools) then its commercial value diminishes. With the extra weight requirements there are probably center of gravity / load issues. How does it fly when you strap a cubic metre supply box with 30kgs of gear on the back.

I'm not sure comparing a Martin to a snow mobile is valid - perhaps a comparison with a microlight might be more reasonable. You're then getting into civil aviation jurisdiction - quite a different ball game from the unregistered snowmobile. You can pick up jetski for US$10,000, there is a wide variety of choice and they have a resale market. Can you spot the difference with a Martin?

Rocketman

28-10-2010, 03:17 PM

Robinson r22 payload 400lb Cost US$250,000
Martin Jetpack payload 280lb Cost US$100,000 - from their respective websites.
I am sure they could place a supply box near the centre of gravity or ovecome by placing it at back with adjustible pilot seat to counterbalance. They must now cope with pilot weighs varying by up to 40kg or so, so must be capable of various payloads. What does the core equipment carried my medics or search and rescue folk weigh?

I dont expect Martin expect to sell Jetpacks as much as jetski's - but these markets tend to be pyramidic (is that a word) in form. The higher the price the lower the volume. So not many Jetpacks compared to Jetskis. But note - if this pyramid of demand based on price is true - then a lot more jetpacks than Robinson r22s.

minimoke

28-10-2010, 03:37 PM

Robinson r22 payload 400lb Cost US$250,000
Martin Jetpack payload 280lb Cost US$100,000 - from their respective websites.
I am sure they could place a supply box near the centre of gravity or ovecome by placing it at back with adjustible pilot seat to counterbalance. They must now cope with pilot weighs varying by up to 40kg or so, so must be capable of various payloads. What does the core equipment carried my medics or search and rescue folk weigh?

I can't answer these questions but they are ones that should be on the tip of Martins tongue if he wants cash for his IPO.

Rocketman

28-10-2010, 03:43 PM

I can't answer these questions but they are ones that should be on the tip of Martins tongue if he wants cash for his IPO.

Agree - the company will need to assure potential investors on both the technology and the markets.

minimoke

28-10-2010, 03:48 PM

Agree - the company will need to assure potential investors on both the technology and the markets.Which is why I remain of the view this is still a bloke pottering about in his back shed. If you are out sourcing financing options it should already be very clear what the market is, the costs to market, the technology, the jurisdiction in each market relative to the end use, running costs payloads etc. Still a lot of work to do before looking at raising money.

Nevl

15-11-2010, 09:49 AM

Sometimes Kiwi companies try to do too much on their own.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10687606

Surely there are synergies here that could be exploited and provide a better offering to new investors for both Martin and Ultrasport.

Rocketman

15-11-2010, 09:49 AM

I see the Martin Jetpack featured as one of Time Magazine's top inventions of the year. And perhaps the best flight picture we have seen so far.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2029497_2030622_2029786,00.html

Rocketman

15-11-2010, 09:53 AM

Also:

http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,672224345001_2030874,00.html

Nevl

15-11-2010, 10:17 AM

Also:

http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,672224345001_2030874,00.html

Yeah that's another good one though from a marketing perspective I am not sure how many synergies there are between the 2 finished products. However from a tech and research point of view I am sure there are plenty. But it is something I would like to see is a more unified approach to overseas tradeshows and marketing.

15-11-2010, 12:01 PM

A bit of difference between the two - One took 30 years, the other 10 months and has an existing market and only needs to sell 4pa to break even.

Nevl

15-11-2010, 12:15 PM

A bit of difference between the two - One took 30 years, the other 10 months and has an existing market and only needs to sell 4pa to break even.

So you are saying that you cannot see any marketing synergies or engineering tie ups? Nothing in common at all where shared resources would help? Head office, sales, Civil aviation regulations??

No nothing??

Ok fair enough.

15-11-2010, 12:57 PM

So you are saying that you cannot see any marketing synergies or engineering tie ups? Nothing in common at all where shared resources would help? Head office, sales, Civil aviation regulations??

No nothing??

Ok fair enough.Sure there are synergies, but if you were the fast moving company, would you want to be held up by the other.

Rocketman

16-11-2010, 04:21 PM

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/8c2685a1/martin-jetpack-will-be-forced-offshore-if-ipo-fails-to-attract-investors.html

minimoke

16-11-2010, 05:04 PM

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/8c2685a1/martin-jetpack-will-be-forced-offshore-if-ipo-fails-to-attract-investors.html
A bit of publicity never hurts - but its the detail investors need to look at.

Firstly its not a strap on vehicle. Its a strap on engine with a couple of rotors.

While Time may think its a great new invention its not. Its a concept that has been tried and tested elsewhere. In fact this particular concept was invented 30 years ago but theres clearly limits to what a guy can do in his back shed.

"Requests flooding in from all over the world...." C'mon a tad of an exaggeration me thinks.

So the CEO has ticked the "Market" box. So what is the "Market"?

And the Technology box is also ticked (though a decent chunk of $10m will no doubt confirm it.

Ma and Pa investor will no doubt be attracted - they have proven over time to be gullible and not that bright.

"Confidential" JV's are wonderful marketing tools. Dress something up as much as you like but the confidentiality clause prevents any kind of disclosure. Surely if you have 500 guaranteed as an annual production run thats USD$50m income a year. Why would you need an IPO?

Still a few credibility hurdles to get over before an IPO in NZ

Nevl

16-11-2010, 05:08 PM

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/8c2685a1/martin-jetpack-will-be-forced-offshore-if-ipo-fails-to-attract-investors.html

Thats great news Rocketman except for the move offshore. Glad to see the naysayers about there being no market firmly rebutted as well with 1600 already expressing an interest and the deal to manufacture 500 overseas.

Even if only 10% become actual sales thats still 160 Jetpacks.

Well I am hoping those figure allow investors to get more confident. I would love to see the Jetpack become another Hamilton Jet story.

Can Kiwis really be so stupid as to not back this company? I really hope not.

Rocketman

17-11-2010, 11:59 AM

I guess we will all learn a lot more if a prospectus does eventuate. Having been involved in a military/government deal myself where they want it top secret but you want to tell the world, it is going to be interesting how this detail will be handled.

minimoke

17-11-2010, 12:41 PM

Nevl

17-11-2010, 02:20 PM

Rocketman, is there any truth to the rumour America's Hangar 18 's got some spare space for storing quite a number of jetpacks. But more seriously theres a local company that does a fair bit of military work and I'd have thought $10m would have been in its grasp if there was merit in a military application (and orders) for a Jet pack.

I actually agree with Minimoke here. Would Martin look to someone like Hamilton Jet or the unspecified company he suggests and do something similar to what Mooring systems did with CCC. Total independence is not always the answer and I think a merger with a large partner would be preferable to trying to do it alone without enough resources. Mooring systems I think tried to do it on their own and is a good example of what can happen to a good idea without the necessary resources.

Still I would like to be able to invest in the company.

minimoke

17-11-2010, 02:49 PM

Mooring systems I think tried to do it on their own and is a good example of what can happen to a good idea without the necessary resources.
Though Mooring Systems had an idea that had a practical application. I have yet to see Martin clearly describe what one does with a Jet pack. They sound confused its a First Responder; its a secret military thingy; its a rich boys toy; its an adventure sport........... MSL moors ships and thats about it.

Still I would like to be able to invest in the company.
My spare cash will go to the Hulme Supercar. The engineering spinofffs (intellectual property), say into boats, seems to me a better bet rather than sinking our hard earned cash into a noisy JetPack which is hardly going to tick the "Stealth" box for a military contract..

Rocketman

17-11-2010, 04:57 PM

I have yet to see Martin clearly describe what one does with a Jet pack. They sound confused its a First Responder; its a secret military thingy; its a rich boys toy; its an adventure sport..

I think the point is that there is not just one application. What is the application for a helicopter - first responder, military, rich boys toy, emergency response, search and rescue, ship to shore, tourist flights, flight school work, mapping and surveys etc etc. So why can't the Jetpack be the same?

minimoke

17-11-2010, 05:43 PM

. So why can't the Jetpack be the same?
Because too much money will get spent on developing aspects of the Jetpack to suit its different market.

For example if you want a military application you probably want to develop some kind of hushkit and a low heat footprint. If you want First Responder you have to provide space and lift for a tool box. If you want search and rescue you'll need radio comms, heat seeking and GPS as well as some First Responder gear. Ship to shore you'll need some kind of tow bar to attach the trailer full of stuff you'd normally biff into the back of a helicopter. Tourist flights - you'll need a pillion passenger (If we can't be trusted to use a mobile phone without being distracted I can't see authorities letting tourists loose on their own with a jetpack); mapping and surveying - where will you hang the chains and how will you write stuff with two hands on the controls.

I think the point is that there needs to be one application and you target your R&D and marketing accordingly.

Nevl

17-11-2010, 06:09 PM

Because too much money will get spent on developing aspects of the Jetpack to suit its different market.

For example if you want a military application you probably want to develop some kind of hushkit and a low heat footprint. If you want First Responder you have to provide space and lift for a tool box. If you want search and rescue you'll need radio comms, heat seeking and GPS as well as some First Responder gear. Ship to shore you'll need some kind of tow bar to attach the trailer full of stuff you'd normally biff into the back of a helicopter. Tourist flights - you'll need a pillion passenger (If we can't be trusted to use a mobile phone without being distracted I can't see authorities letting tourists loose on their own with a jetpack); mapping and surveying - where will you hang the chains and how will you write stuff with two hands on the controls.

I think the point is that there needs to be one application and you target your R&D and marketing accordingly.

I think you are just trying to make things way too complicated.

GPS no prob, off the shelf unit $200, hands free mobile phone for comm's and first aid is not exactly tough either. An Iphone covers most of your objections in your first sentence. Not exactly a deal breaker there.
Plenty of space for Carbonfibre storage box on the jet Pack. None of the stuff you mention is exactly heavy. As for loading up a chopper that's not always necessary and for recon and all armaments they are heavy but a remote control unit is not exactly difficult to get off the shelf. Martin already has a unit set up for people who want to fun rides so a pilot can take over in an emergency.

For some reason you seem ideology opposed to the jet pack. I guess $250000 for a 1 hour flight on Richard Bransons Galactic one is one of those things that has no market or would never take off.

I predict the first time they fly one across the English Channel they will have 2000 people lining up to buy one and willing to pay $20000 deposit on the spot. In the US I would fly across the Grand Canyon for my first publicity flight.

The Jetpack is a great design and can be easily adapted in the same way as a helicopter to many different uses. The only constraint is what payload it can carry. But 100kgs is plenty for 95% of all circumstances and they have that covered already.

minimoke

17-11-2010, 07:26 PM

I think you are just trying to make things way too complicated.
The jet pack seem just able to get off the ground and do a bit of a supervised loop in the backyard. No point over complicating things until the basics are sorted. Like a controlled long distance flight at altitude.

For some reason you seem ideology opposed to the jet pack.. Nope mnotat all. All credit to the bloke . Hes managed to turn his self funded back shed hobby into privately funded back shed hobby. If he can get the public to fund his dream good on him.

I predict the first time they fly one across the English Channel they will have 2000 people lining up to buy one and willing to pay $20000 deposit on the spot. I Fair enough. Any idea how this guy is getting on: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26901489/ns/technology_and_science-innovation

The Jetpack is a great design and can be easily adapted in the same way as a helicopter to many different uses. If it was such a great design it wouldn't have taken so long to get to where it is today.

The only constraint is what payload it can carry. But 100kgs is plenty for 95% of all circumstances and they have that covered already. They haven't figured out their market yet so its a bit early to work out if 100KG's will do it.

Nevl

17-11-2010, 09:14 PM

The jet pack seem just able to get off the ground and do a bit of a supervised loop in the backyard. No point over complicating things until the basics are sorted. Like a controlled long distance flight at altitude.

No thats all they are allowed to do until the CAA gives it permission. If it can get off the ground and land then the length of the flight in between is just a matter of fuel.

. Nope mnotat all. All credit to the bloke . Hes managed to turn his self funded back shed hobby into privately funded back shed hobby. If he can get the public to fund his dream good on him.

The bitterness in this quote suggests you have being burnt before. Don't let one bad experience colour what other people achieve.

Fair enough. Any idea how this guy is getting on: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26901489/ns/technology_and_science-innovation

To use the jet wing you have to dropped out of a moving aircraft at altitude, not exactly step in strap on and take off is it? Not to mention hiring the plane that will take you up to a suitable height so you can jump out. The jet wing is more like a glider and has the following problems. You can't immediately take off again, can't maneuver, and is difficult to land safely. Non of those are a problem for the Jetpack.

If it was such a great design it wouldn't have taken so long to get to where it is today.
They haven't figured out their market yet so its a bit early to work out if 100KG's will do it.

That's just silly. Car have had billions spent over more than 100 years on design and are still far from perfect and still they are finding improvements that can be made. Martin has come up with an impressive design after 30 years working pretty much on his own. And as for the market. It is there. I can see the uses straight away and also the market. I guess you can't see the market for the Zorb or the Virgin space tours either.

Rocketman

18-11-2010, 01:45 PM

If they do go to an IPO getting publicity doesn't seem to be an issue.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Jetpack-company-boosted-by-appearance-in-Time/tabid/369/articleID/186559/Default.aspx (http://www.3news.co.nz/Jetpack-company-boosted-by-appearance-in-Time/tabid/369/articleID/186559/Default.aspx)

http://tvnz.co.nz/technology-news/kiwi-jetpack-inventor-in-time-magazine-top-50-3898633/video (http://tvnz.co.nz/technology-news/kiwi-jetpack-inventor-in-time-magazine-top-50-3898633/video)

Minimoke - the 100kg load is starting to be normalised in this forum - yet the Martin Jetpack website says 280lb which is 127kg. Average American Male is 87kg, say 80% are under 100kg - therefore still lift for 25kg of gear - good for a lot of applications.

Rocketman

18-11-2010, 03:02 PM

This is a fun one!

http://www.youtube.com/user/MartinJetPack?feature=mhum#p/a/f/0/wUIq5xSd2Q0

Flintstone

18-11-2010, 04:03 PM

Tough ask for a small, light engine to produce 200hp at max rpm for sustained periods reliably.
Small rotors spin crazy fast and provide less gyroscopic stabilisation than in a helicopter.
Lets see this thing flying in lee of a hill with 30km/hr breeze, or in mild thermic conditions at altitude.
Compare the Martin Jet to modern paramotors. It's a long way behind in practicality. 25 year story?

Rocketman

18-11-2010, 04:33 PM

Flintstone - do you think someone who chooses the moniker Flintsone can agree with someone called Rocketman? Our perspectives will be aeons apart.

But seriously - no doubt Martin will have to provide proof of flight at some stage, but from what I read this is why an IPO might be required - not just to sell jetpacks, but to complete the final development. Have you ever seen footage of early helicopters. With anvances in flight control and computerised stability - progress should be much quicker than it was for earlier VTOL aircraft.

I know the popular media story for the Martin Jetpack is 30 years of hard labour, but from companies office records the developmnent seems only to have got out of the shed sometime in 2004 - so its been six years of more serious effort to get to where they are today. That is not awesome progress, but it not bad either for a unique new aircraft. Boeing takes longer to make a commercial jet in a changed format - and some would say thats just a modification.

minimoke

18-11-2010, 04:38 PM

Flintstone - do you think someone who chooses the moniker Flintsone can agree with someone called Rocketman? Our perspectives will be aeons apart.

well thats me out of the conversation. But on a positive note theres a guy down here who had rocks fall on his head and heard messages from god while in a coma. Those messages told him how to design and build an audoifile quality music speaker. (I think thats how the story went). He went from crafting these in his back shed and they can now be found in your local specialist hi fi shop Harvey Norman.

minimoke

18-11-2010, 05:40 PM

The bitterness in this quote suggests you have being burnt before. Don't let one bad experience colour what other people achieve.

Not at all. I happily bought into a submarine years back and saw the loot sink merrily to the bottom of Milford sounds. Good fun at the time. I love IPO's but just not seen anything lately to take my fancy. I wasn't keen on KMD, PLU, ECO. There was talk of listing SCF and I wasn't keen. Nearly bought PRC but other demands on my cash at the time. Next time I have money to burn it will be going to the Hulme. Its pretty apparent to me the Jetpack isn't a goer - but each to their own. Follow the dream, you never known one day I might be celebrating your canny vision and ruing my skeptical approach.

Nevl

18-11-2010, 10:04 PM

Not at all. I happily bought into a submarine years back and saw the loot sink merrily to the bottom of Milford sounds. Good fun at the time. I love IPO's but just not seen anything lately to take my fancy. I wasn't keen on KMD, PLU, ECO. There was talk of listing SCF and I wasn't keen. Nearly bought PRC but other demands on my cash at the time. Next time I have money to burn it will be going to the Hulme. Its pretty apparent to me the Jetpack isn't a goer - but each to their own. Follow the dream, you never known one day I might be celebrating your canny vision and ruing my skeptical approach.

Haha old Aquasub. I was working in Milford at the time so knew that one was not a goer. Agree on the KMD and Plu though I think ECO could actually surprise but have no money on that one. Hulme has no point of difference and plenty of competition from established players. Jetpack has the market all to its self and is half the price of a Hulme.

fungus pudding

19-11-2010, 08:47 AM

Haha old Aquasub. I was working in Milford at the time so knew that one was not a goer. Agree on the KMD and Plu though I think ECO could actually surprise but have no money on that one. Hulme has no point of difference and plenty of competition from established players. Jetpack has the market all to its self and is half the price of a Hulme.

And must be incredibly vulnerable. It's a motor with a few add-ons. I'm damned if I can see how it could ever stay ahead of Toyota or Hyundai and the likes. The minute this looks like there's a market (if there is) there will be competition with heaps of clout in five minutes.

STRAT

19-11-2010, 09:39 AM

well thats me out of the conversation. But on a positive note theres a guy down here who had rocks fall on his head and heard messages from god while in a coma. Those messages told him how to design and build an audoifile quality music speaker. (I think thats how the story went). He went from crafting these in his back shed and they can now be found in your local specialist hi fi shop Harvey Norman.I was wondering why god hasnt done anything about the real problems here on earth. I can see now he has had other things on his mind :lol:

Rocketman

19-11-2010, 09:55 AM

And must be incredibly vulnerable. It's a motor with a few add-ons. I'm damned if I can see how it could ever stay ahead of Toyota or Hyundai and the likes. The minute this looks like there's a market (if there is) there will be competition with heaps of clout in five minutes.

Surely if Toyota, Hyuundai or any other (more likely Honda, Bombardier, Polaris, Bell, Robinson) saw the market developing arround the jetpack they wouldn't re-invent they would acquire - so buy on the IPO, wait for the takeover offer.

fungus pudding

19-11-2010, 12:39 PM

minimoke

19-11-2010, 01:35 PM

Surely if Toyota, Hyuundai or any other (more likely Honda, Bombardier, Polaris, Bell, Robinson) saw the market developing arround the jetpack they wouldn't re-invent they would acquire - so buy on the IPO, wait for the takeover offer.
Rocketman
Me thinks you are flying a bit high at the moment. Time to gt a bit nearer to earth - theres a bit more oxygen down here and it helps prevent fantasies. Ever hear of IPed (or APad) - check it out and see what the Chinese did to a Steve Jobs invention. To cut it short - they copied, arguably bettered and supplied cheaper.

Why would Toyota want to buy into Martin - its a bit like suggesting they should buy out CWF Hamilton Jet

Rocketman

19-11-2010, 03:41 PM

Nevl

19-11-2010, 04:54 PM

I dont think Toyota will buy into Martin - they make cars - but other might. Boeing has recently spent $200m on the development of an unmanned helicopter, Bombardier spent $150m on a three wheel motorbike. Why spend years developing a competing technology, when you can just come down to NZ and buy the company? Google doesn't invent to compete, it buys businesses when they are looking commercially sucessful. Same with all the major corporates - just look at the entire NZ technology sector - if they show signs of global success they are bought out by a big player.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a NZ company doing the buying for once??

Still you are right. There is enough IP and stuff in the Jetpack to make it very attractive to the aeronautical industry as an add on. I think the Mooring systems story is a reasonable blueprint. Though I hope Martin is a big enough success that they can dictate terms rather than the usual casting around for any suitor such at WDT and the like. I still think Martin will need more than $20mill. I think the IPO should aim for a lot more than that.

Rocketman

23-11-2010, 02:40 PM

New application idea - Surf Lifesavers - they need quick altitude to spot swimmers in trouble - by the time a helicopter is mobilised it is often too late. Have one at the surf club - can be airborne in 2 minutes and searching in 3 - lives saved.

Thats one for an easy justification model - for example NZ govt values lives at about $2m (part of infrastructure spending criteria), ask surf clubs how rescue success would change with rapid aerial response - do the numbers - justify spend on jetpacks instead of a marginal improvement in a corner on a highway.

minimoke

23-11-2010, 03:27 PM

New application idea - Surf Lifesavers - they need quick altitude to spot swimmers in trouble - by the time a helicopter is mobilised it is often too late. Have one at the surf club - can be airborne in 2 minutes and searching in 3 - lives saved.

Feel free to correct me (I'm sure you will) but as I recall there is not one single recorded death of a swimmer in a surf patrolled area. Where Surf patrols save life is through the use of IRB's - can't quite see you zooming out of the sky with a JetPack and plucking a drowning damsel in distress as the waves pull her towards a watery grave.

However - it might be good on shark patrol. The noise it makes is likely to scare off even the largest great white! The other benefit is you have one of these flying around the beaches swimmers will head back inland to escape the noise

fungus pudding

23-11-2010, 03:33 PM

Feel free to correct me (I'm sure you will) but as I recall there is not one single recorded death of a swimmer in a surf patrolled area. Where Surf patrols save life is through the use of IRB's - can't quite see you zooming out of the sky with a JetPack and plucking a drowning damsel in distress as the waves pull her towards a watery grave.

However - it might be good on shark patrol. The noise it makes is likely to scare off even the largest great white! The other benefit is you have one of these flying around the beaches swimmers will head back inland to escape the noise

Or escape the possibility of being the landing pad.

Rocketman

23-11-2010, 04:30 PM

Feel free to correct me (I'm sure you will) but as I recall there is not one single recorded death of a swimmer in a surf patrolled area. Where Surf patrols save life is through the use of IRB's - can't quite see you zooming out of the sky with a JetPack and plucking a drowning damsel in distress as the waves pull her towards a watery grave.

31 people have died at Piha since 1980 - and we loose 100+ a year in NZ waters. I am not suggesting all could be saved, far from it, but if 10 jetpacks saved 5 lives per annum, its a good return.

And I wasn't suggesting Jetpacks for rescue (though they could drop gear). The problem is finding people in time, for which an small VTOL aircraft would be valueable, and then direct IRBs there.

http://www.watersafety.org.nz/research/ The annual social cost of drownings is $392m - could justify some investment for improved performance.

minimoke

23-11-2010, 05:22 PM

31 people have died at Piha since 1980
One of those was inside a car and 15 were outside the flags and 11 were fishing a couple were shell fishing a there were a couple who died rescuing others. Surf patrol could not save the stupid.

Your idea might work as it would enable the Life Guard to fly up and down the beach for half an hour before it needed to refuel.

If the life guard is going to be biffing things to the drowning person I take it the Jetpack has a "hands free" mode. Last thing Piha needs is an out of control Jetpack crashing into the sun bathers. That will possibly also mean some gyro thingy that can compensate for the change in weight distribution as the rescue device is flung from a high. There will also need to be a wee tie thingy on the side to secure the rescue rope (that the guys in the IRB can pick up) so it doesn't get sucked into the rotors - sorry make that jetpack.

Since the Jetpack has this enormous number of outside interests I bet they'll be able to scrape up enough money to enginneer pontoons to hang off those feet things it has - this way it could hover above the twit and land gently in the pounding surf while assisting with the rescue.

This engineering probably really isn't going to be required since the Jet pack will be flying up and down an empty beach.

As an aside if you gave a surf club US$100k do you think they would spend it on a Jetpack or do you think it might go to IRB's. I'll give you a few clues. An IRB goes for around $20k, an ATV will be $20k, a defibrillator is around $5k, rescue boards around $2,000 and a jets ski for around @25k

Rocketman

24-11-2010, 10:38 AM

As an aside if you gave a surf club US$100k do you think they would spend it on a Jetpack or do you think it might go to IRB's. I'll give you a few clues. An IRB goes for around $20k, an ATV will be $20k, a defibrillator is around $5k, rescue boards around $2,000 and a jets ski for around @25k

If you had $100K and could buy a jetpack to fly up and down the beach, would you buy a jetpack or a boat? I believe many would find a way to justify the jetpack - because how cool would that be for the surf lifesaving dudes!.

Might attract a few more volunteers to the job as well.

fungus pudding

24-11-2010, 10:43 AM

If you had $100K and could buy a jetpack to fly up and down the beach, would you buy a jetpack or a boat? I believe many would find a way to justify the jetpack - because how cool would that be for the surf lifesaving dudes!.

Might attract a few more volunteers to the job as well.

I would buy the boat, a new car to tow it, and an airline round the world pass. I'd just waste the change on a couple of hellicopter rides.

Rocketman

24-11-2010, 11:17 AM

Fungus Pudding - I actually agree with you - I would never personally spend $100K on a jetpack. But I can see applications where the expense can be justified, and believe there are many enthusiasts (with plently of disposable money) who would.

minimoke

24-11-2010, 02:45 PM

If you had $100K and could buy a jetpack to fly up and down the beach, would you buy a jetpack or a boat? I believe many would find a way to justify the jetpack - because how cool would that be for the surf lifesaving dudes!.
.

Tell you what. You turn up at the beach with a jet pack and I'll turn up with one of these. http://www.aussieboatsales.com.au/det/2/137/1/Power%20Boats%20$100,000%20-%20$200,000/boats/chaparral290/ or one of these http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Cars/Ferrari/512/auction-333801567.htm.

I 'll get change and somewhere to shag the westie chicks I'll be pulling! What do you get?

Rocketman

24-11-2010, 03:48 PM

Minimoke - I think you missed the point - you cant justify the Ferrari or luxury power boat as a surf lifesaving tool, but maybe you can justify the jetpack. I simply cant think of any calulation method in which the purchase of a Ferrari would reduce the cost of $392m per year to the NZ economy from drownings (unless it kept the idiot who owned it out of the water). The boat certainly - but it is not the boat you would choose - and you are back to the chick pulling power of the IRB (not the rugby board but the rubber boat) cf a jetpack.

Rocketman

24-11-2010, 04:07 PM

And I suspect a Martinn Jetpack doesnt just pull chicks it also blows them away - Lol

minimoke

24-11-2010, 04:07 PM

Minimoke - I think you missed the point Perhaps you missed my point - I don't see the boat and car as a life saving device - see them as objects a life saving dude would see as cool.I don' think the life saving dude would see the jetpack as cool. He would see my car and boat as cool - if for no other reason than the chick pulling power that the jet pack doesn't have.

There may be a more active life saving dude around these boards but I'd hazard a guess he would laugh the jetpack out of the water. For US$100 it will be very apparent what they would see as cool - gear that is designed to save the life of the swimmers in the beaches they are patrolling. Bang for buck the Jet pack doesn't add up.

Nevl

25-11-2010, 10:28 PM

And I suspect a Martinn Jetpack doesnt just pull chicks it also blows them away - Lol

Prince William is getting married next year. The perfect present would be a Jetpack!!

Imagine the publicity!!!!!

And he is a chopper pilot so he could fly it and do SAR.

I am not being silly here but as a gift to get noticed I don't think you could really do better!!

minimoke

26-11-2010, 07:43 AM

Prince William is getting married next year. The perfect present would be a Jetpack!!

Imagine the publicity!!!!!

And he is a chopper pilot so he could fly it and do SAR.

I am not being silly here but as a gift to get noticed I don't think you could really do better!!
John Travolta is a new dad today. The perfect present would be a Jetpack!!

Imagine the publicity!!!!!

And he is a pilot with his own 707 so he could fly it and do a bit of serious father / son bonding.

I am not being silly here but as a gift to get noticed I don't think you could really do better!!

ps I'm loving this thread - it just keeps on giving!

fungus pudding

26-11-2010, 07:52 AM

Prince William is getting married next year. The perfect present would be a Jetpack!!

Imagine the publicity!!!!!

And he is a chopper pilot so he could fly it and do SAR.

I am not being silly here but as a gift to get noticed I don't think you could really do better!!

And the pope has approved condoms (only for male prostitutes). What a present to mark the occasion a jetpack could be. A perfect companion for the popemobile - the ponti-pack..
I am not being silly, but as a gift to get noticed it would upstage any similar gift to Prince whatsit.

minimoke

26-11-2010, 08:12 AM

And the pope has approved condoms (only for male prostitutes). What a present to mark the occasion a jetpack could be. A perfect companion for the popemobile - the pontiffpack..
I am not being silly, but as a gift to get noticed it would upstage any similar gift to Prince whatsit.
Excellent idea!

What about giving one to Pete Bethune. If he can handle the Ady Gill he could handle a jetpack. Those pesky Japanese are off to the southern oceans so imagine the publicity with Pete swooping in (on an environmentally friendly jetpack) on a whaler. The sound of the JetPack would be a match for the sirens those whalers use. He'd find it a lot easier boarding a vessel with a jetpack. And if those Japs tried to hide you'd just send him up into the lower atmosphere for a bit of reconnaissance. Strapped to the jet pack could be a rescue knife and he'd be able to cut the lines harpoon lines - all under the watchful eye of the international media. Plus NZ would be doing its but for anti whaling!

Nevl

26-11-2010, 10:47 PM

Excellent idea!

What about giving one to Pete Bethune. If he can handle the Ady Gill he could handle a jetpack. Those pesky Japanese are off to the southern oceans so imagine the publicity with Pete swooping in (on an environmentally friendly jetpack) on a whaler. The sound of the JetPack would be a match for the sirens those whalers use. He'd find it a lot easier boarding a vessel with a jetpack. And if those Japs tried to hide you'd just send him up into the lower atmosphere for a bit of reconnaissance. Strapped to the jet pack could be a rescue knife and he'd be able to cut the lines harpoon lines - all under the watchful eye of the international media. Plus NZ would be doing its but for anti whaling!

Yeah maybe we should never invest in new ideas but stick to good old fashioned safe investments like PRC.

Rocketman

29-11-2010, 01:58 PM

minimoke

01-12-2010, 08:41 AM

I understand (assuming its not raining) a Martin Jetpack will be on display in the Armagh, Colombo corner of Victoria Square Christchurch tomorrow (Tuesday 30th) from about 10am to 12.30pm, if anyone wants to see one.

It wont be flying, but some engineers from the company will be there to answer questions. Perhaps some of you Christchurch people can come an take a look.
Dang - missed it. Doesn't it work in the rain? Now what would have got the punters in would be a launch in Victoria Square and a landing in the main square.

Or better yet. Imagine a takeoff out of the Chalice, up over the Cathedral, down columbo and into Victoria Square. With that route I reckon Martin could have been like the Pied Piper!

Either way its a Jetpack and should be flying not static.

Rocketman

01-12-2010, 09:25 AM

Dang - missed it. Doesn't it work in the rain? Now what would have got the punters in would be a launch in Victoria Square and a landing in the main square.

Or better yet. Imagine a takeoff out of the Chalice, up over the Cathedral, down columbo and into Victoria Square. With that route I reckon Martin could have been like the Pied Piper!

Either way its a Jetpack and should be flying not static.

Unfortunately it is illegal to fly an aircraft designated as a microlight in an urban area.

minimoke

01-12-2010, 10:35 AM

Unfortunately it is illegal to fly an aircraft designated as a microlight in an urban area.
So that removes one potential market. Take out any market or application that involves urban flying.

That leaves rural flying, but with a 25km / half hour flight limit a Jetpack would not even get to Darfield on the day of the Christchurch earthquake and it would have been no good as a first responder in Kaiapoi.

I'm still struggling to see an application. Can you make adventure tourism a go - I reckon you'd need at least 8 flights a day 356 days a year to make it a goer and thats not going to happen

fungus pudding

01-12-2010, 10:54 AM

Unfortunately it is illegal to fly an aircraft designated as a microlight in an urban area.

That's unfortunate? :confused: :confused:

Rocketman

01-12-2010, 02:14 PM

Can you make adventure tourism a go - I reckon you'd need at least 8 flights a day 356 days a year to make it a goer and thats not going to happen

Cant figure your maths on this one. But why do you think 8x365=2920 customers a year is not possible. 20,000 people a year tandem parachute in NZ, more than 100,000 bungee jump. If the only place in the world to fly a jetpack was NZ, surely you could get 3000 customers per year.

01-12-2010, 03:07 PM

minimoke

01-12-2010, 03:09 PM

Cant figure your maths on this one. But why do you think 8x365=2920 customers a year is not possible. 20,000 people a year tandem parachute in NZ, more than 100,000 bungee jump. If the only place in the world to fly a jetpack was NZ, surely you could get 3000 customers per year.
My math is only on teh back of a matchox and is never very good at teh best of times - but here goes.

Say a jetpack is NZ$200,000 (I know its USD$100k so I'm kinda just rounding things). I reckon one jet pack will last a year. A years worth of depreciation, operating costs, including liability insurance and scant profit probably adds another $400k expense for a the year - so that $600k needed to get it off the ground.

$600k by $200 a flight = 3,000 flights a year. 3000 flights = 8 flights a day. thats one flight every hour. An hour is needed to get a person into the jetpack, familiarise with controls, a five minute flight, getting out of the Jet pack and then a systems check before the next flight. Take out the winter months when their isn't enough light to operate in an 8 hour day you have lost your 8 day an average. Take out marginal weather conditions (to wet / too rainy / too cold) you loose your average. Add in a small window of summer daylight saving you can get in a few extra flights - but at some stage the jetpack will need to be taken out of service for routine maintenance - the more it regularly flies the more maintenance it will need..

Bungy enthusiasts will correct me but I'm pretty sure a bungy doesn't cost $200k. I reckon maintenance is pretty non existent - you replace after a certain number of jumps. Pre and post jump times are very low. Bungy can operate in more marginal conditions.

$300 approx buys you a 30 minute helicopter trip. $375 for a duel tandom skydive; $120 shotover jet; $200 for a jet pack sounds about right to me.

Rocketman

01-12-2010, 03:16 PM

I love your optimism. How many companies provide sky diving? (20,000 / 20 = 1000 each per year?). Plus they have access to more than one plane should repairs be needed. Having said that I dont know where the number of 8 per day came from.

One company NZONE has had 170,000 tandem jumps since 1990 - so that averages 8500 per year. But they started from small beginings, and now operate from two sites and have 18,000 customers per year.

Rocketman

01-12-2010, 03:31 PM

If you watch bungee jumping they have a turn arround of about 3 minute between jump - using two lines.

So jetpack - teach people away from the jetpack, use a simulator. Jetpack flight 5 minutes, 10 minutes changeover time (refuel checks etc - though could probably do in 5 mins). 4 possible flights per hour. Have back up jetpack, or even 2. Low capital cost so spares not expensive - depreciation and running cost proportional to engine hours. I accept 1 jetpack worn out in a year - so three jetpacks but rotate one out a year.

4 possible flights per hour - 11 hour summer days - 8 to 7, 8 hour winter days 9-5 = 13870 flight times. Push for 50% utilisation via marketing = approx 7000 flights. $200 per flight = $1.4m revenue. 1m overseas visitors through Christchurch airport each year - grab less than 1% of them - many are here for adventure tourism anyway so why not fly a jetpack. If numbers grow open second and third flight arena, or focus on productivity and make 6 flights per hour work giving 20,000 possible flights per year per arena. Numbers start to look real good.

minimoke

01-12-2010, 04:07 PM

So jetpack - teach people away from the jetpack, use a simulator. J.
And there I see one bottleneck. One simulator + one instructor means you need to complete flight training 15 minutes to get four flights an hour.You can only fly as many people as you can get through the simulator / flight test training. The more simulators more capital cost = more trainers = more overhead cost from which you aren't getting a direct return.

Theres no training with a bungy - just strap it on and leap and the best they can do by your reckoning is 20 jumps an hour using two lines. With your scaling you get 4 flights an hour on three jetpack lines. Your overheads are much higher and volume significantly lower. The numbers still don't add up.

Edit - Martin reckon with a few days training you can fly a jet pack. So how do they think they can safely scale that down to 15 minutes?

Oiler

01-12-2010, 07:11 PM

minimoke

01-12-2010, 07:46 PM

Rocketman et al
You are never going to convince Minimoke about the Martin Jetpack. :( Some people love to push the negatives rather than see any positives.

We kiwis are "known for the tall poppy syndrome" and seem to look for the negatives rather than the positives.

Not at all Oiler. Some companies are dreamers and tinkerers. Perhaps Mr Martin is one of those and the evidence for that is 30 years pottering around in his back shed. A couple of years ago we could have (and indeed some did) talked about this fantastic wee investment company run by this really righteous accountant down south. Or what about that brilliant financial whiz who had this uniques way of funding you into property. What about the never-go-flat battery. Ever heard of the Aquaduckt (that was an alternative form of transport aimed at any market like the military) or if you are after jet technology - what about the X-Jet engine (that was going to be a $5,000 cruise missile) or Philip Whitleys clever data compression technology or Ken Lopes Wagyo beef or Ken Rings moonerology.

The world is full of brilliant ideas but scratch beneath the surface and you'll find many lacking any substance. Where is the substance in the Martin Jet pack. We have the dreamers thinking they will be an adventure sports drawcard but on the other hand the company itself says it takes a few days to train a pilot.

More than happy to explore the positives - I'd just like someone to identify what the realistic ones for a Jetpack are.

Rocketman

02-12-2010, 09:12 AM

Minimoke - I defined real markets in my very first post

Markets: 1. Recreational aviation - for people who just want to fly - currently more than 1m people with pilots licences 2. Aeroclubs, who want interesting aircraft in the fleet, and want to train people to fly 3800 flight shcools in US 3. Governments for border patrol, emergency response, search and rescue, policing - where a jetpack is much cheaper than a helicopter, much easier to fly, and can operated in more confined spaces. 4. Tourism - electronically constrained flights for people who just want to fly a jetpack once in their life. 5. Military - in particular in unmanned form for forward resupply, air mobile communications and survelience towers, convoy leading ground perntrating radar for IED detection etc. 6. Civilian - building instection, aerial photography, remote site access, farm inspection..

fungus pudding

02-12-2010, 09:34 AM

Minimoke - I defined real markets in my very first post

Yeah - but you missed out roof-painting. :p

minimoke

02-12-2010, 10:17 AM

Minimoke - I defined real markets in my very first post
I think you mean potential but unrealistic markets:
1) Recreational flight - jet pack does not fly as far or as long as, say, a micro/ultra light so limited appeal. Where their is appeal cost (NZ$200k) may be prohibitive and opportunity for repeat trade unlikely. People with pilots can take "friends" as passengers to help fund the cost of maintaining flight hours - not so with Jet Pack
2) Aeroclubs probably would want some useful end use to have one in their fleet. It would be an expensive novelty to fly just 25km's. Do you see any clubs with micro lights or other novelty craft - I suspect there are none
3) border patrol etc - does not fly long or far enough. Not many countries I know have a 25km border. The usa / mexico border is 3,000 km's long. a 15 minute flight to emergency zone is not long enough.
4 Tourism - simulator and flight training costs (even by wire) likely to be prohibitive. If fly by wire worked we would see more then the one or two operators here in NZ
5) Military - does not fly far or long enough
6) Civilian - not allowed to fly in urban areas.

Rocketman

02-12-2010, 11:05 AM

I think you mean potential but unrealistic markets:
1) Recreational flight - jet pack does not fly as far or as long as, say, a micro/ultra light so limited appeal. Where their is appeal cost (NZ$200k) may be prohibitive and opportunity for repeat trade unlikely. People with pilots can take "friends" as passengers to help fund the cost of maintaining flight hours - not so with Jet Pack
2) Aeroclubs probably would want some useful end use to have one in their fleet. It would be an expensive novelty to fly just 25km's. Do you see any clubs with micro lights or other novelty craft - I suspect there are none
3) border patrol etc - does not fly long or far enough. Not many countries I know have a 25km border. The usa / mexico border is 3,000 km's long. a 15 minute flight to emergency zone is not long enough.
4 Tourism - simulator and flight training costs (even by wire) likely to be prohibitive. If fly by wire worked we would see more then the one or two operators here in NZ
5) Military - does not fly far or long enough
6) Civilian - not allowed to fly in urban areas.

1) There are 1.5 million jetskis registered in the US - people do use recreational vehicles for fun for only 15 minutes every 3rd weekend. Yes Jetpacks more expensive so wouldnt expect to sell like jetskis. Also 1m people fly for fun in US now - jetpack flight might be more convenient and more fun than other mircolights (of which there are 122,000 in world today)
2) Aeroclubs and flight schools exist for recreational aviation (people who fly for fun). The global aeroclub fleet is over 200,000 light aircraft. Some aeroclubs and flight schools will want the Martin Jetpack.
3, 5 and 6) Governmental and miltary markets are not bound by ultralight rules. It is the US FAA Part 103 rule that restricts fuel tanks in ultralights to 5 US gallons, and this restricts the Martin Jetpack recreational version to 30mins flight time. Border patrol, military, search and rescue versions can be slightly larger, and carry say 15 gallons of fuel, pushing flight time up to 80 minutes which at a maximum airspeed of 100kph gives a practical range of about 100km, or 50 km out and back - which is useful for many application described.

minimoke

02-12-2010, 04:20 PM

1) There are 1.5 million jetskis registered in the US - people do use recreational vehicles for fun for only 15 minutes every 3rd weekend. Yes Jetpacks more expensive so wouldnt expect to sell like jetskis. Also 1m people fly for fun in US now - jetpack flight might be more convenient and more fun than other mircolights (of which there are 122,000 in world today
There might be a clue there. If flight is so much fun (and I don't doubt that it is) then do you wonder why there are only 122,000 microlights (which only cost, say $10k or less) in the whole world compared with 1.5m jetskis. Clearly water is a greater attraction than air.

2) Aeroclubs and flight schools exist for recreational aviation (people who fly for fun). The global aeroclub fleet is over 200,000 light aircraft. Some aeroclubs and flight schools will want the Martin Jetpack.
In which case you would see aeroclubs with fleets of microlights. But you don't

3, 5 and 6) Governmental and miltary markets are not bound by ultralight rules. It is the US FAA Part 103 rule that restricts fuel tanks in ultralights to 5 US gallons, and this restricts the Martin Jetpack recreational version to 30mins flight time. Border patrol, military, search and rescue versions can be slightly larger, and carry say 15 gallons of fuel, pushing flight time up to 80 minutes which at a maximum airspeed of 100kph gives a practical range of about 100km, or 50 km out and back - which is useful for many application described. Government and military may not be bound by ultralight rules but have you stopped to wonder if there was a need for a ultralight in those areas why ultralights aren't widely used already.

Do you even know if the Martin is capable of sustained flight at altitude over 100m. By all accounts, 3m looks like its current hover limit. I get a sense that the battle between lift and gravity has not yet been won - something investors would want some conclusive proof before throwing their money in.

Nevl

02-12-2010, 06:07 PM

Rocketman et al
You are never going to convince Minimoke about the Martin Jetpack. :( Some people love to push the negatives rather than see any positives.

We kiwis are "known for the tall poppy syndrome" and seem to look for the negatives rather than the positives.

Why do we wear so much BLACK ? Black is a death/funeral/morbid colour :confused: what does this say about our phsyche??

Go for it Martin Jetpack and I hope you succeed. :t_up:

Well i wouldn't take Minimoke opposition too seriously. After all he was a fan of Aquasub!!! Also he doesn't the get attraction of VTOL. An ultralight cannot land on 2sqm piece of land or platform.

As Rocketman points out the biggest hurdle is regulation. I guess saying your a helicopter would just involve new legal jumps.

As for minimokes 3 days training thing. Have you ever heard of remote control?? Nothing wrong with having a pilot on the ground that can take remote control of the craft.

Its not complicated. Just as before when you put up a bunch or red herring obstacles which were all covered by the iphone. http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-10429248-250.html

See you can actually fly a helicopter with an iphone.

minimoke

02-12-2010, 08:07 PM

Well i wouldn't take Minimoke opposition too seriously. After all he was a fan of Aquasub!!! theres your proof I'm no knocker of tall poppies

Also he doesn't the get attraction of VTOL. Actually I do - and I have yet to see evidence that this thing can get higher than 100m. If it can't do that we can't be thinking in terms of VTOL - and we probably can't even be thinking in terms of flight.

And whats with the remote control idea - I thought the jetpack was simple enough for pilot control. If i was looking at remote control i'd be looking at a concept that involved strapping a couple of leaf blowers on a tourists back, attach a few wires for forward/back, up/down left right motion, a few motors to wind in/release the wires and somewhere to hang the contraption - say a bungy jump bridge. $5,000 should do it!

Nevl

02-12-2010, 08:35 PM

theres your proof I'm no knocker of tall poppies

Actually I do - and I have yet to see evidence that this thing can get higher than 100m. If it can't do that we can't be thinking in terms of VTOL - and we probably can't even be thinking in terms of flight.

And whats with the remote control idea - I thought the jetpack was simple enough for pilot control. If i was looking at remote control i'd be looking at a concept that involved strapping a couple of leaf blowers on a tourists back, attach a few wires for forward/back, up/down left right motion, a few motors to wind in/release the wires and somewhere to hang the contraption - say a bungy jump bridge. $5,000 should do it!

Sounds good. Go for it. You keep talking about how anyone could do it in their spare time. So lets see some action!! As for the Aquasub. It was never a goer in Milford. Under the Ice in the Artic. Yes!!

yes the Jetpack is easy enough for Pilot control but no doubt some OSH or Civil aviation person will want a fail safe system which would be the remote unit which could be activated if necessary as a back up.

minimoke

03-12-2010, 07:36 AM

Sounds good. Go for it. You keep talking about how anyone could do it in their spare time. So lets see some action!!
No need for me to do it - I've already seen proof of concept. Actually it was thing invented by a 12 year old child which had something like a big round rubbish tin lid with a single leaf blower attached. A single person sits on it. This thing achieved lift and moved untethered across a piece of ground as big as a tennis court. It didn't need a couple of guys running after him in case the engine failed and the craft fell to the ground.

Don't know the specs they would be something like:
- engine 2 stroke 27cc petrol driven.
- Maximum lift 10 cm's,
- fuel capacity 0.5l,
- maximum range perhaps 5 miles
- maximum flight time, perhaps 5 minutes,
- safety equipment large horizontal platform to disperse forces on hard landing,
- structure aluminium (or it might have been a bit of plywood),
- weight - maybe 7 kilos,
- maximum thrust - say 64m/sec and 730 m3/hour,
- noise 70dba
- Cost maybe NZD$500 inc gst

I can imagine you're going to think I'm just being silly but I thought it was a great idea and effort and it achieved pretty much what the jetpack does. With some investment money it could be tweaked to travel further and higher and could be used for all sorts of applications. In fact in might even have a better military application as it can fly under the radar. The flat surface would enable the carrying of a payload for first responder duties. Even life guards might be impressed seeing this zoom up and down a beach.

"Fly" you're probably saying. "That thing wouldn't fly - it hovers!" So how does that make it different from a Martin?

fungus pudding

03-12-2010, 08:06 AM

minimoke

03-12-2010, 08:14 AM

Are they planning a model for a married person?
I gather that is on the cards however they aren't too keen though since they know already the Martin has been described as a "widow maker" and they don't want that kind of publicity. Potential investors can take heart that this latest Christchurch invention will comply with all OSH and Human Rights laws and there will be no discrimination based on marital status! I gather that when funds become available a bigger rubbish tin lid will be purchased along with a second blower allowing not only a married person to fly it but also a married couple - thats something the Martin can't do!

Nevl

03-12-2010, 09:22 AM

No need for me to do it - I've already seen proof of concept. Actually it was thing invented by a 12 year old child which had something like a big round rubbish tin lid with a single leaf blower attached. A single person sits on it. This thing achieved lift and moved untethered across a piece of ground as big as a tennis court. It didn't need a couple of guys running after him in case the engine failed and the craft fell to the ground.

Don't know the specs they would be something like:
- engine 2 stroke 27cc petrol driven.
- Maximum lift 10 cm's,
- fuel capacity 0.5l,
- maximum range perhaps 5 miles
- maximum flight time, perhaps 5 minutes,
- safety equipment large horizontal platform to disperse forces on hard landing,
- structure aluminium (or it might have been a bit of plywood),
- weight - maybe 7 kilos,
- maximum thrust - say 64m/sec and 730 m3/hour,
- noise 70dba
- Cost maybe NZD$500 inc gst

I can imagine you're going to think I'm just being silly but I thought it was a great idea and effort and it achieved pretty much what the jetpack does. With some investment money it could be tweaked to travel further and higher and could be used for all sorts of applications. In fact in might even have a better military application as it can fly under the radar. The flat surface would enable the carrying of a payload for first responder duties. Even life guards might be impressed seeing this zoom up and down a beach.

"Fly" you're probably saying. "That thing wouldn't fly - it hovers!" So how does that make it different from a Martin?

Ok now you have described a hovercraft. Well done. Proof of concept achieved . They can also be used as ferries. Slightly different to the jet pack. Which can actually fly don't you think.

Now your objections are just getting sillier.

minimoke

03-12-2010, 10:30 AM

Ok now you have described a hovercraft.
Perhaps I have - except I don't recall the lid having any kind of skirt attached. It was essentially a crude ducted fan - just like the Martin. Whereas the Martin should actually be described as a microlight rather than a jet pack - because it doesn't have a jet pack

Slightly different to the jet pack. Which can actually fly don't you think.
I'm not sure the Jet pack can actually fly - or at least in a sense that makes it different from a hovercraft or ultralight or leaf blower.

Look at this 2008 video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyb6vnX1My0 It hovers a metre off the ground and is controlled by two blokes on the ground. How is that "flight"

Or this one in 2009 - still a metre off the ground; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLccl_NWDQE&feature=related

Or this one later in 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7koL5g4aLs&feature=related still a hover!

Is there enough power in the Martin ducted fans to reach 100m? If not, it remains a hovercraft and investors will not see any return on their cash

Nevl

03-12-2010, 02:30 PM

Perhaps I have - except I don't recall the lid having any kind of skirt attached. It was essentially a crude ducted fan - just like the Martin. Whereas the Martin should actually be described as a microlight rather than a jet pack - because it doesn't have a jet pack

I'm not sure the Jet pack can actually fly - or at least in a sense that makes it different from a hovercraft or ultralight or leaf blower.

Look at this 2008 video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyb6vnX1My0 It hovers a metre off the ground and is controlled by two blokes on the ground. How is that "flight"

Or this one in 2009 - still a metre off the ground; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLccl_NWDQE&feature=related

Or this one later in 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7koL5g4aLs&feature=related still a hover!

Is there enough power in the Martin ducted fans to reach 100m? If not, it remains a hovercraft and investors will not see any return on their cash

yeah they did home made hovercrafts on Mythbusters. The skirt just improves efficency of the air flow and you are right about the Jetpack being more of Personal Helicopter.

Also I would be interested in seeing a point to point flight

But is this good enough for you??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaTfCKkJpOY

Probably not but never mind.

Rocketman

03-12-2010, 02:45 PM

Here is video from Martin with more altitude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaTfCKkJpOY

A quick physics class - flight at 2 metres and flight at 100m is still flight. Some will claim there is some special characteristic of flight at 2m called ground effect (an effect used by hovercraft), but for ducted fans gound effect is no longer an influence at about 3 duct diameters which for the Martin Jetpack will be about where the ducts are when the jetpack is on the ground.

So if the jetpack can fly at 2m it will fly higher. The limit to height will be a point where maximum thrust equals total weight (and so will be limited by payload (pilot weight) and air density. At 6000ft air density is 80% of that at sea level - so presuming the Martin Jetpack does not speed up blade rotation at this altitude (which I am sure it would do) then at 6000 ft it could only carry a total weight of 80% of the maximum at sea level.

Now the Martin Jetpack website says the jetpack has a gross weight of 535lb and max payload of 280lb so assume it can just get off the gound at sea level with 280lb pilot. If the pilot was only 200lb this would give excess thrust of 80lb in total 535lb = 15% excess. By my calculation this means at takeoff revs the Jetpack with a 200lb pilot would ascend to about 4500 ft before the thrust = weight.

Martinjetpack comments on the youtube site repeatedly say the company chooses not to fly higher until the balistic parachute and other safety feature are in place and tested.

Rocketman

03-12-2010, 03:18 PM

WOW - just saw I was now a member not a junior member - thanks minimoke!

minimoke

03-12-2010, 06:00 PM

WOW - just saw I was now a member not a junior member - thanks minimoke!
More than happy to do my part!. Thanks for the flight calcs. Since you can do the math and I cant how high could it go if:
you had a 200lb person (90kg fully dressed in protective gear) plus 35lbs of parachute plus 40lbs of fuel plus 5 lbs of misc gear. Bringing it to its full capacity of 535 lbs and operating at say 80% of lift to allow for a 20% margin of error.

Martin reckon it can get to 8,000 feet but your calcs suggest 4,500 feet. So are martins calcs based on launching a midget?

Rocketman

06-12-2010, 12:46 PM

I assume the fuel/parachute are in the calculation already, so my calcs above stand. If the jetpack can get to 8000 feet it must have about 10% more thrust at altitude than my simple calc (which probably just comes from higher revs when the air is thinner).

The 20% margin of error - I expect you mean some sort of excess thrust factor of safety - would be high for VTOL I think. My brother flies military helicopters and report sometimes there is no excess lift left at all in some circumstances but you have to work with this in your flight profile.

minimoke

06-12-2010, 01:05 PM

I assume the fuel/parachute are in the calculation already, so my calcs above stand. If the jetpack can get to 8000 feet it must have about 10% more thrust at altitude than my simple calc (which probably just comes from higher revs when the air is thinner).

According to the Tech Specs the Empty Weight (excluding safety equipment) is 250lbs so I think the extra weights need to be added in.

Came across an article the other day on suspension trauma or Harness Hang Syndrome. Apparently if you hang someone from a harmless (perhaps one like the Jetpack uses) and they remain vertical, death is a likely outcome. Apparently it blocks blood flow from the legs to the brain so the person faints. When you faint you usually end up horizontal returning blood to the brain - but with the Jet pack a faint would likely have other consequences.

The empty weight looks like it has to increase to to allow for foot rests and perhaps a seat

Rocketman

08-12-2010, 10:45 AM

I talked to one of the engineers at Martin Aircraft - they have been aware of suspension trauma for a number of years. To address this, but also for comfort, the jepack simulator already has a foot rest, and the same technolgy will be adopted in the jetpack itself. Being composite the whole system weighs less than 1kg.

I also understand from the conversation that by the time the jetpack gets to market it will have a least 30kg more spare thrust than it currently has through combination of power inprovement and weight reduction.

Rocketman

15-12-2010, 11:00 AM

Northington Partners in Christchurch have been contacting eligible investors (as defined by the Securities Act) in a "Pre-IPO" funding round for Martin Aircraft Company. Their document confirms a planned IPO in April May 2011.

15-12-2010, 11:12 AM

Rocketman

15-12-2010, 11:22 AM

Great ... more life on this thread ... I was beginning to miss the daily, nay, almost hourly, jetpack fix! ... :)

Im sure Minimoke will be back on soon to move things along - maybe after a quick enquiry to Northington on getting in on the pre-IPO round (lol)

minimoke

15-12-2010, 11:38 AM

Im sure Minimoke will be back on soon to move things along - maybe after a quick enquiry to Northington on getting in on the pre-IPO round (lol)Still here! Now I'm torn. I've got my own hobbies in my own back shed which need funding. Do I now stump up some cash to some accountants to enable them to find IPO funding. Or do I wait for the IPO before deciding if I want to fund another persons hobby.

Rocketman has done a good enough job to convince me the technology will probably work - I remain unconvinced on a profitable end use. Clearly the rose tinted spectacles will get a good polishing and the corporate wordsmiths and financial crystal ball gazers will be out in force to present a compelling argument.

(as an aside and probably the need for a separate thread, the other back shed blokes behind 42Below are looking at creating an iconic beer - now thats something that might get me more interested as candles don't really spin my wheels)

Rocketman

15-12-2010, 11:50 AM

Whats your hobby Minimoke? Time machine, teleporter, robot maid? If you have a real one of any of these I'm into your IPO. Or a better beer - that would be great too.

minimoke

15-12-2010, 12:53 PM

Robot maid? ... Count me in too :)
Thought about that but its not an original idea and prototypes are already well tested and available in the market place. Just head to eh back of your local newspaper and look up "Mail Order Bride"

minimoke

20-12-2010, 05:20 PM

Whats your hobby Minimoke? Time machine, teleporter, robot maid? If you have a real one of any of these I'm into your IPO. Or a better beer - that would be great too.

Christmas is coming so might have a bit more time for the back shed. This looks like something worth having a fiddle with:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/17/beam-teleportation-years-biggest-breakthrough/.

As for new business opportunities for 2011 any one prepared to stump up some cash to help Pam Corkery get her latest project franchised: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10695297.

at post #13
Markets
Oh and I forgot - film appearence, events and openings, displays and promotions, aerial sports yet to be invented (but likely to be sponsored by an enegry drink company), air shows, flying tours down the grand canyon, ship to ship, ship to shore, urban anti-terrorism rapid response, assured paramedic arrival in congested urban environments, and how about ultimately urban commute - though this would not be legal right now.
Now theres an innovative idea and she is hiring staff already - probably will have a bigger payroll than Martins and providing a service which has an unequivocal and proven level of demand. She'll be serving the tourism industry before Martins, she'll be a first responder in times of need, Like the Jet pack looks like only one person will get a ride at Pammys - and apparently the pilot will have the skill to keep things in the air for half an hour - so able to go the distance; I'd imagine theres potential in the military as an intelligence gathering option; kevlar strap ons may be an option. I can imagine the opening day will be sponsored by the Energizer Bunny. While the Jetpack maybe the ultimate male ride Pammys may have something to offer the women.

Rocketman

21-12-2010, 01:16 PM

Now theres an innovative idea and she is hiring staff already - probably will have a bigger payroll than Martins and providing a service which has an unequivocal and proven level of demand. She'll be serving the tourism industry before Martins, she'll be a first responder in times of need, Like the Jet pack looks like only one person will get a ride at Pammys - and apparently the pilot will have the skill to keep things in the air for half an hour - so able to go the distance; I'd imagine theres potential in the military as an intelligence gathering option; kevlar strap ons may be an option. I can imagine the opening day will be sponsored by the Energizer Bunny. While the Jetpack maybe the ultimate male ride Pammys may have something to offer the women.

Ms Corkery is taking a big risk here. It will either fail and investors will loose their money, or it will be a success and immediately she will be open to competition.

With the Martin Jetpack, patenting and embeded technology will ensure long term competive advantage if the technology is a commercial success (which I for one think it will be).

Where is Pam Corkery's sustainable competitive advantage. Cornering the market on big .......?

minimoke

21-12-2010, 01:33 PM

Where is Pam Corkery's sustainable competitive advantage. Cornering the market on big .......?
Since she is opening in Auckland one can only assume that the Northern Man is just not up to the job of keeping their women folk happy. The absence of a stated desire to open a branch down south suggests the opposite. I have noted she is advertising in local papers for staff which further reinforces the view that there is a lack of decent blokes in Auckland - that is her competitive advantage.

Probably also an indication there are no decent kitchen suppliers in Auckland - time to pull out of those stocks. Might account for the slump in MVN, FPA and FBU Laminates since 2007,

Rocketman

21-12-2010, 01:45 PM

Rocketman has done a good enough job to convince me the technology will probably work - I remain unconvinced on a profitable end use. Clearly the rose tinted spectacles will get a good polishing and the corporate wordsmiths and financial crystal ball gazers will be out in force to present a compelling argument.

Ok it is almost Christmas so I am ready to take up the challenge again Minimoke.

You should view the Martin Jetpack in two ways. You can choose just one of these but I think it is correct to consider both as legitimate.

1) The Martin Jetpack will have a market as a recreational vehicle, just like the jetski. To take your arguement Minimoke, there is no maket for the jetskis, because there are no commercial uses. It is true there are no commercial uses, but in the US alone 1,500,000 jetskis are registed today - all for recreation. If you were commenting on the first jetski - you would have said don't invest there is no market - when in fact it turned out to be a multibillion dollar industry.

2) the Martin Jetpack is a small easy to fly helicopter. It can replace a helicopter for low range activity, and has the advantage of easy to fly and low capital cost. Again Minimoke, given the arguments you make against the Martin Jetpack in a commercial role, on the day the helicopter was invented you would also have said it was not a good investment as there are no known commercial applications, when in fact this has turned out not to be the case (there are many commercial applications abopted by purchacers of helicopters). It will be the same for the jetpack (it has the utility of a small helicopter) - and I have previously listed extensive commercial application where I think the jetpack may be consider useful and commercially viable.

So the Martin Jetpack will have recreational interest and commercial interest - which makes for an inherently less risky investment than a new product targeting only one unproven market.

minimoke

21-12-2010, 02:05 PM

Ok it is almost Christmas so I am ready to take up the challenge again Minimoke.

You should view the Martin Jetpack in two ways. You can choose just one of these but I think it is correct to consider both as legitimate.

1) The Martin Jetpack will have a market as a recreational vehicle, just like the jetski. To take your arguement Minimoke, there is no maket for the jetskis, because there are no commercial uses. It is true there are no commercial uses, but in the US alone 1,500,000 jetskis are registed today - all for recreation. If you were commenting on the first jetski - you would have said don't invest there is no market - when in fact it turned out to be a multibillion dollar industry.

.

Ok so I have a moment before my next flight.
I watched part of a fishing programme the other day. The good kiwi bloke was catching a Marlin off the back of a jet ski.

A jet ski can carry passengers and can tow skiiers. It can travel for longer than half an hour at speeds greater than the Martin and lower to the ground - enhancing the speed thrill.

You can ride waves and surf with a jetski. There are international jetski races It can be used by lifeguards to patrol beaches and rescue people.

Its relatively cheap (so you can sell volumes) and not controlled by regulations (other than some harbor type boat licenses in some areas).

Lets face it. A martin goes up, travels horizontally for some distance and then goes down. Thats pretty much it!

Must fly - theres still a few days till Christmas!

PS I think Da Vinchi has the intellectual property right to helicopters - he didn't make a bob out of it - it was only future generations that revised and reworked the concept,

Rocketman

21-12-2010, 02:27 PM

The first jetski was a single person machine that could not pull a waterskiier, and did not provide stability to enable fishing. This is a result of 30 years of development and diversification into different models.

But you still highlight my main point - the jetski is almost entirely recreational.

I can image flying a jetpack down the Grand Canyon, or into Petra as an alternative to donkey. Personal flights into national parks, an aerial equivalent to the Milford track. Red bull sponsored jetpack skill chalenges over the Thames. One on one aerial paintball fights and eventually tournements. Quick jetpack flights down to the store from the bach in the sounds. Dragging out the fishing net into better water. Of course none of this would be fun - all just a chore to endure.

fungus pudding

21-12-2010, 03:02 PM

I can image flying a jetpack down the Grand Canyon, or into Petra as an alternative to donkey. Personal flights into national parks, an aerial equivalent to the Milford track. Red bull sponsored jetpack skill chalenges over the Thames. One on one aerial paintball fights and eventually tournements. Quick jetpack flights down to the store from the bach in the sounds. Dragging out the fishing net into better water. Of course none of this would be fun - all just a chore to endure.

Can you also imagine the average punter bothering to go through the necessary training, and meeting the aviation laws that already exist and those that would develop around this thing? Can you imagine how many would be prepared to pay the high price to purchase, or even hire? Seems to me there will be a reasonable demand for the jetpack from a certain sector, but I don't think their mothers will let them near the things.

Rocketman

21-12-2010, 03:25 PM

I read somewhere a comment from the company saying they expect the training to take two days. You don't need a pilots licence as the aircraft is classed as a microlight.

More than 1 m people in the world have spent $10,000 or more to get a pilots licence so that they can hire aircraft for $150 per hour or more. This is a big effort and expense - but they still line up to do it for the love of flying.

If the jetpack is a two day course, the demands may be more like those required for PADI certification for diving. So how many people in the world have gone through PADI? A lot I bet.

21-12-2010, 04:43 PM

If the jetpack is a two day course, the demands may be more like those required for PADI certification for diving. So how many people in the world have gone through PADI? A lot I bet.That is probably quite a good analogy as the training would be similar thoguh the per dive/flight costs differ significantly.

But when you dive, you experience near weightless and get to see things which you otherwise couldn't. it also doesn't impact either.

I agree getting a birds eye view over Petra would be amazing but everyone else who is there would be pi$$ed and therefore you would never be allowed. Africa maybe but the noise would scare of the very animals you are trying to view.

minimoke

21-12-2010, 06:07 PM

If the jetpack is a two day course, the demands may be more like those required for PADI certification for diving. So how many people in the world have gone through PADI? A lot I bet.

Well thats blown it for me. I'm CMAS certified and had the misfortune to dive with a PADI trained person once. Dumb prick couldn't figure out why he couldn't get below 10m without heading for the surface. He tried and tried but in the end I had to give him a hand. It really isn't that difficult to let the air out of your BCD!

I've also walked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon and into Petra. Frankly, I reckon if you're to lazy and don't want to walk you deserve a sore ass from the donkey! While a jetpack might attract one tourist to these places it will probably turn off 10. (You've convinced my a jetpack can go up and down - what about in between canyon walls at Petra?)

Rocketman

22-12-2010, 09:47 AM

I agree the Petra idea is ill-conceived - jetpacks in major tourist locations wont work - you cant have every mad bugger flying around in a personal helicopter.

But for scenic wonderlands it could be different. You don't use jetpacks to fly over the walking trails, you use then to establish alternative tourist routes that would not otherwise be accessible. So the Grand canyon would work, national parks etc.

In answer to the "fly down a canyon question" the guys at Martin Aircraft think you will need about 12 metres minimum width to avoid turbulence off the walls affecting the flight safety. They have flown in a 15m wide building (with end walls and roof) and they needed a good 3-4 m clearance from the walls.

minimoke

23-12-2010, 08:32 AM

you cant have every mad bugger flying around in a personal helicopter.

For a thread related to dreams may I paraphrase the old bard "And there in lies the rub" (on another thread I've been recommended some light reading so in the Festive season spirit I'm suggesting a wee read of Hamlet).

If you can't have mad buggers flying personal strap on helicopters and you'd have to be a bit of a mad bugger to want to strap on a helicopter we time warp to a 20th century bard who says; Only the insane would want to fly missions - to be grounded from flight you have to be certified crazy - to be crazy you need an assessment - only sane people would ask for an assessment. (your reference here is, of course, Catch 22 a much better read!)

I think your market had just dried up!

Rocketman

23-12-2010, 10:14 AM

Minimoke - you use the mechanism so often used in the forum, take an extract from a comment, thereby taking it out of context, and draw conclusions from this extract.

My suggestion is that it would be inappropriate - in respect to other visitors to a site - to have some people also visiting by jetpack. So I suggest jetpack tourism is not prohibited - they just need to find their own routes. Much like we have done for mountain bike riders - giving them their own time on the Heaphy, or opening up specific trails.

The "catch" in Catch 22 is simply a comment that it is sane not to want to die - which is of course true. My use of the term "mad buggers" was not a reference to sanity, just phrasing to add colour and visual imagery to what otherwise would have been a dry sentence. Turn the sound off on the famous Toyota advert and you will see what I mean.

minimoke

23-12-2010, 12:40 PM

Minimoke - you use the mechanism so often used in the forum, take an extract from a comment, thereby taking it out of context, and draw conclusions from this extract.
Looks like this is not the time of year for a bit of levity.

So on a serious note if you look at adventure tourism, in particular hang gliding and parachute jumping I think you'll find most experiences are based on a tandem jump. While tourism operators are happy to fling a person off a bridge with a rope ties around their ankles there appears to be some reluctance towards allowing learners to fling them selves solo from hilltop or plane.

And since this is the thread for serious thought and earnest response you aren't seriously comparing a jetpack with a mountain bike are you?

Rocketman

01-02-2011, 09:48 AM

fungus pudding

01-02-2011, 10:09 AM

Jay

01-02-2011, 10:22 AM

Saw it too fp
Not the same thing from my understanding - was more like jet propelled compared to a horizonatl propellar and seemed less bulky. However I think the range/time is less than the Martin "vehicle"

minimoke

01-02-2011, 10:35 AM

I noted in The Press this morning that Martin Aircraft Company has confirmed their intent to list on the NZX in the middle of this year, and that they are preparing a prospectus. Sorry can't find electronic version of the story

Also Steve Bayliss ex AirNZ GM Marketing has joined the board see http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1101/S00355/former-air-new-zealand-marketing-guru-joins-jetpack-maker.htm
Rocketman - its not hard to confirm an intent. This news would have been more interesting if they had confirmed that they were listing mid year.

I'll look forward to the prospectus but already can't see me investing. On top of that generalization I am quite certain that I 'l be stockpiling my cash for the SOE IPO's. There will be a lot more to be made there than on the Jetpack IPO.

minimoke

01-02-2011, 10:43 AM

There was a rocketman on TV the other night demonstrating his flying ability and machine,- might have been on Close Up. He spoke of the risks, which certainly didn't make it sound all that appealing for the casual user. I don't think the name Martin Jetpack was mentioned, so I'm not sure if it was quite the same thing.

Its the real RocketMan (not the Martin jetpack). Check out TV One On demand http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/s2011-01-28-video-4006796 . go to Chapter three to avoid teh adds.

Rocketman

01-02-2011, 10:48 AM

Rocketman - its not hard to confirm an intent. This news would have been more interesting if they had confirmed that they were listing mid year.

Maybe my choice of words was wrong - they said they were listing.

I also saw the segment of Dan Schlund - who calls himself "Rocketman" (now there is a coincidence) on Close up. He flies the only active bell rocketbelt in the world - maximum flight time 30 secs, fuel cost about $2000 per flight, and its so hard to fly the rocketbelt as he said "more people have walked on the moon than flown one". The Martin Jetpack is not like the rocket belt, it is better compared to small personal helicopters.

minimoke

01-02-2011, 10:57 AM

Maybe my choice of words was wrong - they said they were listing.

Its probably semantics. in the paper it says "Christchurch based Martin Aircraft company plans to list on the NZX this year". It goes on to say "Chief Executive Richard Lauder said yesterday the company would list towards the middle of the year but had yet to register it prospectus." Thats the media for you. Lets wait for the prospectus!

I'm please to see you've moved from the novelty jetpack for rich adventure seekers to what it probably really is - a wee helicopter. You can now start to identify your market and with that the competition.

Rocketman

01-02-2011, 12:37 PM

I'm please to see you've moved from the novelty jetpack for rich adventure seekers to what it probably really is - a wee helicopter. You can now start to identify your market and with that the competition.

So Minimoke - the question I now put to you is - would you invest in a helicopter company that can produce a personal helicopter for just 40% of the price of the world largest selling personal helicopter, which doesn't require full helicopter pilots' training to fly and is therefore markedly more accessible?

minimoke

01-02-2011, 01:00 PM

So Minimoke - the question I now put to you is - would you invest in a helicopter company that can produce a personal helicopter for just 40% of the price of the world largest selling personal helicopter, which doesn't require full helicopter pilots' training to fly and is therefore markedly more accessible?
Let me know who you consider the worlds largest selling personal helicopter to be and I'l get back to you.

(if we are into buying helicopters SCF will have theirs on the block any day now)

01-02-2011, 01:24 PM

(if we are into buying helicopters SCF will have theirs on the block any day now)Talk about non essential SOE's ;)

Rocketman - I hope they do list, it will certainly add diversity to the NZX. Add the Heartland bank which went on today, a few other small IPO's I know are in the wind and the a Power company the following year, things are looking up.

Rocketman

01-02-2011, 01:52 PM

Let me know who you consider the worlds largest selling personal helicopter to be and I'l get back to you.

Robinson R22 - about 5000 sold to date - base price US$266,450, payload 180kg, 3 hours, range 450 km, pilot training (50 hours 8-10 weeks US12,000)

Martin Jetpack - Price US$100,000, paylaod 120kg, 30 minutes, range 40km, pilot training (2 days say $2000)

So you get longer range in R22, but for short range activity jetpack is $38% of capital cost. Could assume operating cost would be similarly cheaper.

minimoke

01-02-2011, 03:10 PM

Robinson R22 - about 5000 sold to date - base price US$266,450, payload 180kg, 3 hours, range 450 km, pilot training (50 hours 8-10 weeks US12,000)

Martin Jetpack - Price US$100,000, paylaod 120kg, 30 minutes, range 40km, pilot training (2 days say $2000)

So you get longer range in R22, but for short range activity jetpack is $38% of capital cost. Could assume operating cost would be similarly cheaper.
Ok, so why do people buy the R22. It seems to be good because it seats two people - so a good commuter craft. It looks like it is good for cattle mustering on ranches. Police can use it for their work (with special comms loaded on board) and traffic reporting. Farmers can use it for aerial spraying. Its heated and you are seated. Doesn't look like you get wet in the rain. Its also used for helicopter training. No mention is made of it being a sport alternative to jetskis or in the adventure tourism industry.

Edit - and the R22 can have floats attached so good for marine work - can't see the jetpack doing that yet.

so lets make a comparison.
- Taking two of us for a longish distant flight - I'd go for the R22.
- For comfort (seated and warmth rather than in-your-face air con) - I'd go for the R22
- For cattle mustering (have you any idea how big some of our little stations in NZ are?) - its the R22
- For police work. I'm not sure how all the comms and search lights, batteries could be loaded onto the jetpack. I don't know how will voice comms work with the Jetpack - I'll assume its a challenge. I'll go for the R22.
- For traffic control. How long is the Auckland motorway - Might stick with the R22.
- For ag work - I cant see tanks and booms attaching well to the jetpack - its the R22 there.

OK, its more than twice the price but I reckon you get more than twice the value.

I see there are 5,000 R22 off the production line, there have been over 1,200 reported incidents and apparently 180 deaths. I'd imagine your chance of dying in a Jetpack would be higher (only because it is new and doesn't have the benefit of 20 years of production) and I think that figure would be considerably higher than jetski related incidents. I'll be looking for an indemnity insurance line in the prospectus.

Xerof

01-02-2011, 03:50 PM

Wearing a Dragons Den hat - I'm out

No change to my original and only comment on this topic.
This is VC territory in my view - I'd like to know which broker is organising/leading the IPO......

Rocketman

01-02-2011, 04:25 PM

Ok, so why do people buy the R22.

Because it is the lowest priced helicopter on the market.

Not everyone will pay $165K more for the features of the R22. The characteristic of most markets is that the highest volume is at the lowest price point for similar products. The Jetpack and R22 are similar - they are both small VTOL aircraft. So therefore expect demand for the jetpack to ultimately exceed the 5000 R22's sold to date.

minimoke

01-02-2011, 04:55 PM

The Jetpack and R22 are similar - they are both small VTOL aircraft.
And thats where the similarity ends. The Jetpack cannot fly as far or for so long or carry as many people or keep passengers dry or do all the kinds of things the R22 does. It doesn't matter how cheap the Jetpack is, if it does nothing but go up, go some short horizontal distance and come down again then whats the point? If you try suggesting its some rich person jet ski alternative then there is little point comparing it with an R22 which has proven commercial applications - none of which I can see include leisure or adventure activities.

01-02-2011, 09:47 PM

Rocketman - can I ask what percentage of your portofolio will you be putting into it.

You are dong a very good salesmans job but are you just a white shoe wearer who doesn't put their money where their mouth is. Maybe instead of saying what type of people will be buying the jetpack, you should let us know what sort of people should be buying the shares. To me this is VC stuff.

Rocketman

02-02-2011, 12:17 PM

Rocketman - can I ask what percentage of your portofolio will you be putting into it.

I have attended a persentation by the company for their current pre-IPO investment round and have already invested in the company.

I guess that makes me both informed and biased

minimoke

02-02-2011, 01:44 PM

I have attended a persentation by the company for their current pre-IPO investment round and have already invested in the company.

I guess that makes me both informed and biased

That makes you informed - but not biased. You are simply backing your judgement based on rational thought.

minimoke

02-02-2011, 01:59 PM

While we are looking at helicopters what about the Snark. NZ Designed it is said to be the "meanest" unmanned combat aerial vehicle. It is constructed of carbon fibre and kevlar, is light and fast with speed up to 280 km/h. It is also extremely quiet and virtually invisible to radar or infrared detetection as it recycles its exhaust gases.

The vehicle can also carry a payload of 680kg in firepower or in surveillance equipment.

Unfortunately TGR went bust and Trevor Rogers is now off to jail for contempt of court:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4608910/Former-MP-jailed-for-contempt.

I reckon an operator could have loads of fun with one of theses: http://www.gizmag.com/go/4785/

Rocketman

02-02-2011, 03:59 PM

I am surprised Trevor Rogers got away so lightly - putting a company into receivership - and then stealing the assets to sell!

Looks from the pictures that the the Snark was a concept made from plywood in the pictures. I don't think it ever flew. Boeing reputedly spent $200m on its unmanned helicopter the Maverick (ironically noting prior conversations based on the Robinson R22). Their subsequent version the A160 sold for $15m - I can see why Trevor Rogers was interested.

But you can't make this work from a shed with no money.

iolair

24-02-2011, 11:28 PM

I have attended a persentation by the company for their current pre-IPO investment round and have already invested in the company.

I guess that makes me both informed and biased

Have been looking to invest in this for a while.

How did you get the invite to the presentation and where?

How much are they generally looking from a potential investor (does not have to be exact, just ball-park number.)

Any insight most appreciated.

Nevl

01-03-2011, 09:44 AM

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4714668/Jetpack-company-flies-closer-to-IPO-lift-off

Yah!!

Rocketman

01-03-2011, 10:20 AM

Have been looking to invest in this for a while.

How did you get the invite to the presentation and where?

How much are they generally looking from a potential investor (does not have to be exact, just ball-park number.)

Any insight most appreciated.

The company is running a small pre-IPO investment round, only available for eligible investors as defined by the Securities Act. Northington Partners have been managing it - contact them if you want information. Use the Auckland number.

Rocketman

15-03-2011, 03:14 PM

Some more media

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10711744 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10711744)

Rocketman

29-03-2011, 10:06 AM

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4811893/Skys-the-limit-for-jetpack-boss

minimoke

29-03-2011, 10:48 AM

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4811893/Skys-the-limit-for-jetpack-boss

And in that article Lader says
In the future when disasters like the Japan quake strike the jetpack could be used to fly rescuers to areas where helicopters and planes can't get to, Lauder says.
Lets look closer to home - what about the Christchurch earthquake and how the Jet pack could have been used.

It couldn't help in the CTV building because it had already collapsed and can't lift concrete floors: no lifting device
It couldn't help with the Forsyth Barr building because it couldn't get people out after the stairs collapsed.: no multi person flight function
It couldn't help in the resthome where the woman died - an ambulance was needed there: No medical specialist's likely to be found amongst jet pack pilots.
It couldn't help out east because there is no clues how it would assist with liquefaction. No sucking blowing ploughing ability
It couldn't help out Sumner because it cant move rocks. No nudge bars
It couldn't help out New Brighton cos it can't move porta loos or power lines. No towing / haulage ability

So just how could a Jetpack have made a difference in Christchurch?

As for Japan how is it going to dump water into a nuclear reactor or out run a tsunami.

Rather than saying the Jetpack would be good in disasters here's a prime example where it could have been used (christchurch) and how it might have been used (Japan).

C'mon rocketman how would the jetpack make a difference?

Nevl

29-03-2011, 10:56 AM

And in that article Lader says
Lets look closer to home - what about the Christchurch earthquake and how the Jet pack could have been used.

It couldn't help in the CTV building because it had already collapsed and can't lift concrete floors: no lifting device
It couldn't help with the Forsyth Barr building because it couldn't get people out after the stairs collapsed.: no multi person flight function
It couldn't help in the resthome where the woman died - an ambulance was needed there: No medical specialist's likely to be found amongst jet pack pilots.
It couldn't help out east because there is no clues how it would assist with liquefaction. No sucking blowing ploughing ability
It couldn't help out Sumner because it cant move rocks. No nudge bars
It couldn't help out New Brighton cos it can't move porta loos or power lines. No towing / haulage ability

So just how could a Jetpack have made a difference in Christchurch?

As for Japan how is it going to dump water into a nuclear reactor or out run a tsunami.

Rather than saying the Jetpack would be good in disasters here's a prime example where it could have been used (christchurch) and how it might have been used (Japan).

C'mon rocketman how would the jetpack make a difference?

Scouting, recon, Aerial surveillance. Coordination. The better view a jet pack gives you over a helicopter must help Not to mention unmanned Jetpacks landing in areas too dangerous for helicopters with over headpower lines and the like. The small size and the lack of a rotor blade makes it better for urban settings in moving men and equipement. Also having a guy in a jet pack just outside a window is a lot better than in a helicopter where you are 20meters away.

I still can't believe you invested in aquasub!!

minimoke

29-03-2011, 11:45 AM

Scouting, recon, Aerial surveillance. Coordination. The better view a jet pack gives you over a helicopter must help
I'm assuming pilots must have eagle eyes. If we are relying on human eyesight how much value is there really here. I'm not sure a pilot can use binoclears

Not to mention unmanned Jetpacks landing in areas too dangerous for helicopters with over headpower lines and the like.
Perhaps - but what does it do once it has landed? Fly in urgent medical supplies - with no doctor attached. Maybe something like radios might be of value - but couldn't something like a motor bike do the same job?

The small size and the lack of a rotor blade makes it better for urban settings in moving men and equipment.[/quote}] but we already know teh Jetpack lift capability isn't too much more than the weight of a standard person. Its not going to moving heavy equipment.
[quote] Also having a guy in a jet pack just outside a window is a lot better than in a helicopter where you are 20meters away. And this would have helped those in the Forsyth BArr and Clarendon tower buildings how?

I still can't believe you invested in aquasub!!
Oh well - Life is full of lessons - something backers of the Jet pack will find out.

Rocketman

31-03-2011, 02:28 PM

And in that article Lader says
Rather than saying the Jetpack would be good in disasters here's a prime example where it could have been used (christchurch) and how it might have been used (Japan).

C'mon rocketman how would the jetpack make a difference?

The company says one of the key advantages of the jetpack is that it is very easy to fly and will not need the training required for a helicopter. So you should be able to train firefighter, police, paramedics, engineers to fly them. So for Christchurch:

Close aerial surveivance of scenes to manage emergency response efforts/firefighting.
Getting paramedics to other events in the city (heart attacks) quickly when the roads are impassible and the bridges are out.
Rapid police response to burglars/looters
High rise building inspection/structural assessment/finding occupants
Roof top landings as required

Japan: Some of the above plus massed low level search, GPS tagging of survivor locations, emergency pack drops.
Unmanned for close camera observation and radiation detection of nuclear facilities, informing optimal water dousing.
(Expensive) personal tsunami escape system.

minimoke

01-04-2011, 09:44 AM

Getting paramedics to other events in the city (heart attacks) quickly when the roads are impassible and the bridges are out.

Having been on one site where a person died of head injuries with heart complications I can absolutely assure you a guy flying in on a jetpack would have been a total waste of time. A morphine drop might be of some value but thats the sum total of it. Do you guys seriously think you're going to get a heart specialist flying one of these things. Here's a clue - check out the appetite for risk your target pilots have. I'm happy to be corrected but I reckon you'll find they would much prefer to have two feet on the ground - or as a minimum two wheels.

I think we might have been over this before - but what height altitude does the ballistic chute need - something like 100m. The Grand Chancellor stood at 85m - not sure now with the tilt! Is there some fault in my logic that if you have a minimum safe operation height of 100m then your high rise building work will only work on towers above 100m. The top of the PWC building is possibly the minimum height building you could use a jetpack - and thats the only one left standing.

As for Japan - whats the evac zone around Fukushima - 20KM? I guess you might get some relative of a Kamikaze pilot flying a jetpack of the power plant so you're not totally out of options.

Rocketman

01-04-2011, 11:44 AM

Having been on one site where a person died of head injuries with heart complications I can absolutely assure you a guy flying in on a jetpack would have been a total waste of time. A morphine drop might be of some value but thats the sum total of it. Do you guys seriously think you're going to get a heart specialist flying one of these things. Here's a clue - check out the appetite for risk your target pilots have. I'm happy to be corrected but I reckon you'll find they would much prefer to have two feet on the ground - or as a minimum two wheels.

I think we might have been over this before - but what height altitude does the ballistic chute need - something like 100m. The Grand Chancellor stood at 85m - not sure now with the tilt! Is there some fault in my logic that if you have a minimum safe operation height of 100m then your high rise building work will only work on towers above 100m. The top of the PWC building is possibly the minimum height building you could use a jetpack - and thats the only one left standing.

As for Japan - whats the evac zone around Fukushima - 20KM? I guess you might get some relative of a Kamikaze pilot flying a jetpack of the power plant so you're not totally out of options.

1. I didn't suggest emergency medical response for earthquake victims - I suggested paramedic response for a city with the roading network down. Defibrillators are core kit for first response paramedics to save lives and do not require heart specialists. After an earthquake cardiac events increase and if you dont get paramedics to people quickly to stabilise them they die.
2. I suggested an UNMANNED version for obsevation of the nuclear plant
3. I understand the target specification for the ballistic shute is under 10m deployment.

minimoke

01-04-2011, 01:21 PM

1. I didn't suggest emergency medical response for earthquake victims - I suggested paramedic response for a city with the roading network down. Defibrillators are core kit for first response paramedics to save lives and do not require heart specialists. After an earthquake cardiac events increase and if you dont get paramedics to people quickly to stabilise them they die.[\quote]
Engineering a solution to a non-problem. In Christchurch, for example there were no deaths due to heart attack in the period immediatly after the shake. There have been deaths due to heart attack after the quake - but this was once some lines of emergency response had opened up. When triaging, those with a wee heart murmer are somewhat down the queue when you have crush trauma to deal with.
[quote]2. I suggested an UNMANNED version for obsevation of the nuclear plant Fair enough. Aren't there already unmanned drones that can do this?

3. I understand the target specification for the ballistic shute is under 10m deployment. So if your paramedic is cruising around the top of the Hotel Grand Chancellor and his engine conks out he's got around 4 seconds before he becomes another statistic. Given he's going to take 3 - 4 seconds to react and deploy I reckon he'll still end up a statistic. Essentially that takes Christchurch type cities out of your target market.

This also gives us a clue to the minimum cruising altitude for renaissance work - 85 meters assuming a BRS can be deployed at 10m. But if you want to deploy at say 30m as a minimum threshold that means an operational height of 180m to allow for the reaction time. Thats now opening up your market to the top floor of the tallest building in Tokyo.

Rocketman

01-04-2011, 01:42 PM

I think the ballistic chute is linked to the onboard accelerometers and other electronics, and will automatically deploy in about 1/50 sec if there is a problem. So the human response argument is negated.

I don't think there are many unmanned aerial vehicles that can hover over a site and carry heavy monitoring equipment, except unmanned helicopters at about US$15m each

I am thankfull there are no cardiac deaths in Christchurch because an ambulance always gets there on time.

minimoke

01-04-2011, 02:54 PM

I think the ballistic chute is linked to the onboard accelerometers and other electronics, and will automatically deploy in about 1/50 sec if there is a problem. So the human response argument is negated.
By my reckoning you still need 4.5 seconds at 100m to allow for deployment time. Or because it might be a slower craft 7 seconds has an operational height of 275m.

I am thankfull there are no cardiac deaths in Christchurch because an ambulance always gets there on time.. Thats becasue we are wise and have a couple of aspirin and paper bag in out first aid kits!.

Shame we don't live in Wellington. Check out thsi press release in February

A new look for paramedics in Wellington.

Wellington Free Ambulance is deploying medics on mountain bikes for the first time in its 85 year history.

The high spec Norco mountain bikes are equipped with ambulance radio communications, defibrillators and advanced medical first aid kits.

Wellington Free Ambulance spokesman Ross Cameron says they will be used for big events, and patrol the wharves and Oriental Bay during busy summer weekends.

He says this will be particularly important for the Rugby World Cup when the pedestrian count will be so high they will not be able to get ambulances or quad bikes through the crowds.

Ross Cameron says they will start off with two bikes, but hope to expand the fleet over the next few months.
Or if you are wanting something a bit speedier they have 2 or 3 Honda ST1300's kitted out for a base price of $20,000

Rocketman

01-04-2011, 04:05 PM

minimoke

01-04-2011, 05:43 PM

Just had it clarified - the target parachute deployment time is 1.1 secs (fully deployed and inflated) from event with automatic electronic firing of rocket. From a hover you will fall less than 6 metres in that time, and it takes only 2 more metres to slow down to the parachute descent rate. So if they can achieve this then 8m is enough. They also say they are designing other safety features to take a 10m fall.
The physics and forces involved to get a free fall arrested in 1.1 seconds and 10m are way beyond my comprehension! 1.1 seconds - they are having you on surely? Is there any system in the world that comes even comparibly close?

US navy fight jet ejector seats take over 4 seconds and I have no idea how much money they would have invested in that technology.

You might find there is a lot more money to be made in the safety systems than in the jetpack!

Or imagine the military application. You'd be able to drop paratroopers over enemy lines and the could free fall to 10m deploy the chute and land before anyone know it

The technology to recognise an engine failure, blast out a chute and get the chute inflated in less than 1.2 seconds must surely be a world first. Have they given you any idea how long they expect to perfect this technology - or is it an idea with another 30 years worth of development.

But I suspect there will be justification and the money for flying paramedic response in other cities of the world. Even motorbikes can't take the crows route to emergency events. And maybe a medical insurer will diferentiate its product with guaranteed response times enabled by flying paramedics - you buy the insurance to get the service.
I think you missed my point. That you can create a device to fly paramedics is one thing. To actually get paramedics to fly it is quite a different proposition. The desire to save life does not ordinarily go hand-in-hand to significantly risk ones own life!

bob.not.a.builder

03-04-2011, 05:02 PM

Scouting, recon, Aerial surveillance. Coordination.
Everyone seems to be heading towards UAV these days, instead of a single guy doing it, there could be a few of them from the safety of a room. Hi-Def communications these days have come along way, you can now buy hi-def wireless links and its good for flying hobby r/c planes. Plus they have things like FLIR infrad that would be more valuable and a vulnerable pilot.

I think that this jetpack is a solution to a unknown problem. Is there not confusion on what applications these are for?

On a side note I think that quadrotor helicopters would have vast more applications. They are highly maneuverable and mechanically speaking they require only 4 motors, unlike with a jetpack which required rudders, controls sticks, its still a mechanical problem with constraints for user safety.

Rocketman

04-04-2011, 01:44 PM

The physics and forces involved to get a free fall arrested in 1.1 seconds and 10m are way beyond my comprehension! 1.1 seconds - they are having you on surely? Is there any system in the world that comes even comparibly close?

Try airbags - from Wikipedia:

The design is conceptually simple; a central "Airbag control unit"[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#cite_note-24) (ACU) (a specific type of ECU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_control_unit)) monitors a number of related sensors within the vehicle, including accelerometers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometers), impact sensors, side (door) pressure sensors,[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#cite_note-25) wheel speed sensors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_speed_sensor), gyroscopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope), brake pressure sensors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_sensor), and seat occupancy sensors. When the requisite 'threshold' has been reached or exceeded, the airbag control unit will trigger the ignition of a gas generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_generator) propellant to rapidly inflate a nylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon) fabric bag.....

.....Typically, the decision to deploy an airbag in a frontal crash is made within 15 to 30 milliseconds after the onset of the crash, and both the driver and passenger airbags are fully inflated within approximately 60-80 milliseconds after the first moment of vehicle contact.

So airbag is 0.06 seconds fully inflated after event. I see no reason a rocket propelled parachute with airbag inflating outer ring could not be out in 20 times this figure (1.2 seconds from accelerometers detecting free fall)

minimoke

04-04-2011, 03:44 PM

Try airbags - from Wikipedia:

The design is conceptually simple; a central "Airbag control unit"[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#cite_note-24) (ACU) (a specific type of ECU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_control_unit)) monitors a number of related sensors within the vehicle, including accelerometers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometers), impact sensors, side (door) pressure sensors,[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#cite_note-25) wheel speed sensors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_speed_sensor), gyroscopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope), brake pressure sensors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_sensor), and seat occupancy sensors. When the requisite 'threshold' has been reached or exceeded, the airbag control unit will trigger the ignition of a gas generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_generator) propellant to rapidly inflate a nylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon) fabric bag.....

.....Typically, the decision to deploy an airbag in a frontal crash is made within 15 to 30 milliseconds after the onset of the crash, and both the driver and passenger airbags are fully inflated within approximately 60-80 milliseconds after the first moment of vehicle contact.

So airbag is 0.06 seconds fully inflated after event. I see no reason a rocket propelled parachute with airbag inflating outer ring could not be out in 20 times this figure (1.2 seconds from accelerometers detecting free fall)

I've noted a key device in air bags is the Impact Sensor. So, if I've got this right Martin are going to invent essentially a huge donut which will self inflate similar to an airbag. This will blow the sides of the chute out and allow it to be immediately filled with air enabling the gentle descent of the pilot with brown pants. Your idea might be quite feasible - have you any clues that anyone has come close to achieving such a device.

04-04-2011, 04:20 PM

I've noted a key device in air bags is the Impact Sensor. So, if I've got this right Martin are going to invent essentially a huge donut which will self inflate similar to an airbag. This will blow the sides of the chute out and allow it to be immediately filled with air enabling the gentle descent of the pilot with brown pants. Your idea might be quite feasible - have you any clues that anyone has come close to achieving such a device.I wouldn't think it would be too hard. It is all about setting the right parametre so it doesn't go off accidentally. It might include rev meter (drops below a certain amount), altimetre (rate of decent), gyroscope (lean is great than expected - ie. one engine down, or rate of spin indicates out of control), fuel meter (out of fuel), distance sensor (when combined with rate of decline might indicate problems).

There are others you could add in (ie. smoke sensor) but it may actually be better for it not to deploy as the pilot might be able to land even in there is an issue (I know helecoptersc can autorotate(?) and land even if the engine dies)), or just that you have a stunt pilot pushing the boundaries (ie a fast swoop to the ground that would look pretty darn cool, the system may think is a probably crash landing and ruin the look).

minimoke

05-04-2011, 08:08 AM

I wouldn't think it would be too hard.
If its not so hard where is there a working example. The concept seems ideal for military, adventurer parachuting, space craft recovery, dragster (Car and boat) type applications - indeed anywhere there is a parachute that is used. So we are now looking at a Jet pack carrying a pilot, a parachute and a inflating donut that has to be, what, 25 metres round? Sounds like you are packing a fair bit of gear onto the jetpack. Backers of the IPO are, I reckon, backing more garage tinkering - this time on parachutes!

05-04-2011, 10:52 AM

If its not so hard where is there a working example. The concept seems ideal for military, adventurer parachuting, space craft recovery, dragster (Car and boat) type applications - indeed anywhere there is a parachute that is used. So we are now looking at a Jet pack carrying a pilot, a parachute and a inflating donut that has to be, what, 25 metres round? Sounds like you are packing a fair bit of gear onto the jetpack. Backers of the IPO are, I reckon, backing more garage tinkering - this time on parachutes!Cars already preload teh brekes if an accident is sensored. Some even apply them lightly and the technology (but not public acceptance) is there for the car to brakes to be fully deployed (but imagine if you got a false postive on the motorway with ABS brakes deployed and no way to overrid them!!!).

And I dont think the jet pack investment will be a flyier - I just feel sory for Rocketman who continually jumps into the ring with Tyson and gets pummelled each time.

Nevl

05-04-2011, 11:06 AM

Cars already preload teh brekes if an accident is sensored. Some even apply them lightly and the technology (but not public acceptance) is there for the car to brakes to be fully deployed (but imagine if you got a false postive on the motorway with ABS brakes deployed and no way to overrid them!!!).

And I dont think the jet pack investment will be a flyier - I just feel sory for Rocketman who continually jumps into the ring with Tyson and gets pummelled each time.

Actually Rocketman has shot down every single one of Mini's arguments. He is getting so desperate that he is inventing ever more implausable needs to back up his equipment. If we follow Minis logic you would never be allowed to drive a car or fly in an airplane unless every single passenger had their own self inflating parachute. He is setting the bar for the jetpack on a way higher level than airplanes that have to fly 100's of people at a time.

minimoke

05-04-2011, 11:35 AM

Actually Rocketman has shot down every single one of Mini's arguments.
He is certainly able to come up with all the answers. However converting answers to a product that you can manufacture for a reasonable price, sell to a market that wants it and can find people actually prepared to fly it in the numbers required to turn a profit is another matter.

Referencing technology developed in motor cars, for example, is all well and good but lets reflect on the many years it has taken to evolve this technology - which is on the back of sales volumes.

The development, testing and certification of this unique parachute system in a JetPack application must surely going to cost truck loads of loot. Or am I just a bit nuts to think that Martin can't do it in a commercially viable way.

Oiler

05-04-2011, 01:07 PM

Actually Rocketman has shot down every single one of Mini's arguments. He is getting so desperate that he is inventing ever more implausable needs to back up his equipment. If we follow Minis logic you would never be allowed to drive a car or fly in an airplane unless every single passenger had their own self inflating parachute. He is setting the bar for the jetpack on a way higher level than airplanes that have to fly 100's of people at a time.

Rocketman has very calmly shot down Minis arguments. :cool:

It is not something that I would invest in, however I am not going "bag" on anyone wanting to have a go. I hope it is a success for Martin Jet Pack and they seem to have captured a lot of interest from overseas.

This country needs more people like Martin to give it a go instead of the continual knockers sitting on the sideline coming up with all the reasons in the world why XYZ wont work, cant work, stupid idea etc. :mad ;:

minimoke

05-04-2011, 02:26 PM

This country needs more people like Martin to give it a go instead of the continual knockers sitting on the sideline coming up with all the reasons in the world why XYZ wont work, cant work, stupid idea etc. :mad ;:
I'm not so sure we do need more "Martins". Sure we need idea creators - but more importantly we need people who can convert an idea into a business which creates jobs and wealth. Martin, for example has taken 30 years to get to this stage. Does NZ have this sort of time on its side.

Another thing we could do more of is "Advisory Boards" made up of people who will let aspiring business owners know of the risks they face. It isn't all about taking a good idea and turning it into a gold mine. Theres a real world out there and it ain't all rosy!

I don't think you'll see I've knocked Martin - but I don't think its a commercially viable idea. The more we discover about the jetpack the more it seems unlikely to succeed as a great investment.

On a positive note, scammers are able to take NZ'ers for $448m a year according to Consumer Affairs. A Jetpack is a whole pile more credible than a bank transfer from Nigeria

elZorro

05-04-2011, 07:52 PM

I'm not so sure we do need more "Martins". Sure we need idea creators - but more importantly we need people who can convert an idea into a business which creates jobs and wealth. Martin, for example has taken 30 years to get to this stage. Does NZ have this sort of time on its side.

Another thing we could do more of is "Advisory Boards" made up of people who will let aspiring business owners know of the risks they face. It isn't all about taking a good idea and turning it into a gold mine. Theres a real world out there and it ain't all rosy!

I don't think you'll see I've knocked Martin - but I don't think its a commercially viable idea. The more we discover about the jetpack the more it seems unlikely to succeed as a great investment.

On a positive note, scammers are able to take NZ'ers for $448m a year according to Consumer Affairs. A Jetpack is a whole pile more credible than a bank transfer from Nigeria

I can't agree more Minimoke, good R&D should be directed at the smartest business areas. A big business would look at this project, decide what the market would pay for it, decide how big the market was, and then see if it could be manufactured for 1/3 of that budget, or better. If no go at that stage, the project would be canned, like 90% of the ideas presented. This is just smart business, and a process learnt by many years of failed ideas and wrong turns. The private sector is better at this than CRIs, who I think have not a show in hell of getting products off the ground by themselves, because they have no established channel to sell into. So they'll work on ideas that have no market, are way overpriced if they were ever manufactured, and will ultimately cost the taxpayer a fortune when they are canned after several hundred thousand or more are spent. Don't ask me for examples, I have one or two, and it's common knowledge.

So is the Martin Jetpack idea more like one we would see from a CRI, or does it have sound business planning behind it?

minimoke

06-04-2011, 07:32 AM

So is the Martin Jetpack idea more like one we would see from a CRI, or does it have sound business planning behind it?
There is certainly a fair bit of intellectual and business grunt behind Martin
Richard Lauder has a strong CV
Denis Chapman ex Switchtec goes without saying
Anthony Romano probably appreciates something to do given the tram and gondolier are out of action for a while.
A few investment angels and bankers add to teh mix.
Then theres the consultants being used - loads of Doctors in there.

All suggesting its not the Jet pack that is the thing that will be sold but the technology within it.

Rocketman

06-04-2011, 09:25 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxHL55BIjj8

Nevl

06-04-2011, 08:13 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxHL55BIjj8

Nice and one of the comments said he has already put down $3500 deposit. Great video and decent height.

I think a flight to the top of a mountain would be cool. Specially in ski season.

minimoke

07-04-2011, 07:34 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxHL55BIjj8
The website is also up for a bit of information.

It's perfectly understandable wanting to buckle the missus onto a jet pack and send her merrily on her way, but I have to admit to some sense of concern when I see he's strapped the kids in as test pilots. Sue Bradford would have had a field day!

fungus pudding

07-04-2011, 08:46 AM

The website is also up for a bit of information.

It's perfectly understandable wanting to buckle the missus onto a jet pack and send her merrily on her way, but I have to admit to some sense of concern when I see he's strapped the kids in as test pilots. Sue Bradford would have had a field day!

She'd be quite happy - as long as they are made in New Zealand.

Rocketman

19-04-2011, 11:20 AM

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1104/S00525/global-business-leader-joins-martin-aircraft-company-board.htm

New Director for Martin Aircaft

minimoke

19-04-2011, 01:20 PM

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1104/S00525/global-business-leader-joins-martin-aircraft-company-board.htm

New Director for Martin Aircaft
Hopefully they don't drown under the weight of Director and consultant fees before the IPO. At least we get to see where the IPO funds will go.

Rocketman

03-05-2011, 09:25 AM

A Radio NZ story on the Martin Jetpack can be found here.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld

03-05-2011, 02:54 PM

A Radio NZ story on the Martin Jetpack can be found here.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworldYOu never give up do you.

Rocketman

04-05-2011, 10:39 AM

YOu never give up do you.

I thought the purpose of these forums was for information and discussion - but fair enough - I have established my own opinion on the company now as an investment of interest to me - and will move on.

Thank you to those of you, including Minimoke, who enabled me to work up a balanced view on potential risks and rewards of the investment opportunity

Signing out

Rocketman

04-05-2011, 11:22 AM

I thought the purpose of these forums was for information and discussion - but fair enough - I have established my own opinion on the company now as an investment of interest to me - and will move on.That is correct. and it is good.

Which poster here supported Resturant Brands through all the bad news, against the opinion of everyone else here. But that has proved to be a good investment.

Since you seem to have insider knowledge, how is the IPO coming.

minimoke

04-05-2011, 11:45 AM

I thought the purpose of these forums was for information and discussion - but fair enough - I have established my own opinion on the company now as an investment of interest to me - and will move on.

Signing out

Rocketman
I'm not sure it necessarily follows that forming a view or making an investment decision prevents a person from continuing to making contributions. C'mon, we need a wide range of views other wise we'll all end up with a one sided story and wheres the fun in that!

I'd actually encourage your regular postings. We only need to look at the initial flurry of postings in the likes of Tasman Capital and Pulse threads to see a relationship between a lack of posting and a lack of liquidity in those companies and consequential drop in SP.

minimoke

04-05-2011, 11:58 AM

Which poster here supported Resturant Brands through all the bad news, against the opinion of everyone else here. But that has proved to be a good investment.

And another investor here who supported another company through all the bad news, against the opinion of everyone else. And that proved to be a bad investment.

Everyones views and contributions should be welcome!

minimoke

04-05-2011, 02:09 PM

I have established my own opinion on the company now as an investment of interest to me - and will move on.

Hey Rocketman, hope you haven't burnt all your cash on Martin as I've got a hot new tip for you.

Just come across another bloke who's about to start pottering in his back shed. He's not into jet packs but flying saucers and cars that levitiate. Verdun Burgess has a proven record of being an innovator and heres some of his new thoughts:

Anti-matter, gravity, propulsion and a power source are conundrums that Mr Burgess had already given a lot of thought to. "If I do manage to get something that does levitate and create its own energy or treble the energy input as to output, I've then got a problem because it's a different power source, isn't it?"
That power source, he theorised, could allow them to hook up three wires to the house and cut the main lines to the power grid.

"The other side of it is that if you get something that levitates and needs batteries to chug it along, you've got a different problem because that in itself means you can build cars that can actually levitate."

For the car industry, that would be akin to changing water into petrol, he said.

The idea of flying across the night skies has captivated Mr Burgess from childhood. Aged six in Invercargill, he found discarded charts of the night sky while on his paper run and took them home. For years on clear nights, he would take them outside and try to figure out how they fit together above him.
"I was fascinated by them. I've found out a little bit more since then in so far as the distances needed to travel."

He's already figured out a couple of models to try out his power generation theories and said the machine would need to travel at the speed of light. "Can it be done? Oh, yeah. According to theory, [we can] actually travel faster than the speed of light and I'm talking about four to six times the speed of light."

Oiler

04-05-2011, 06:23 PM

Hey Rocketman, hope you haven't burnt all your cash on Martin as I've got a hot new tip for you.

Just come across another bloke who's about to start pottering in his back shed. He's not into jet packs but flying saucers and cars that levitiate. Verdun Burgess has a proven record of being an innovator and heres some of his new thoughts:

Anti-matter, gravity, propulsion and a power source are conundrums that Mr Burgess had already given a lot of thought to. "If I do manage to get something that does levitate and create its own energy or treble the energy input as to output, I've then got a problem because it's a different power source, isn't it?"
That power source, he theorised, could allow them to hook up three wires to the house and cut the main lines to the power grid.

"The other side of it is that if you get something that levitates and needs batteries to chug it along, you've got a different problem because that in itself means you can build cars that can actually levitate."

For the car industry, that would be akin to changing water into petrol, he said.

The idea of flying across the night skies has captivated Mr Burgess from childhood. Aged six in Invercargill, he found discarded charts of the night sky while on his paper run and took them home. For years on clear nights, he would take them outside and try to figure out how they fit together above him.
"I was fascinated by them. I've found out a little bit more since then in so far as the distances needed to travel."

He's already figured out a couple of models to try out his power generation theories and said the machine would need to travel at the speed of light. "Can it be done? Oh, yeah. According to theory, [we can] actually travel faster than the speed of light and I'm talking about four to six times the speed of light."

MM is this a piss take ??

I suspect Rocketman is gone as he has said in his last post. :(

Sad but cant say I blame the guy. I hope his dream IPO does work for him.

Maybe the Navy Seals could have used the Jetpacks to get into Osamas compound :D

minimoke

04-05-2011, 07:15 PM

MM is this a piss take ??

I suspect Rocketman is gone as he has said in his last post. :(

Sad but cant say I blame the guy. I hope his dream IPO does work for him.

Maybe the Navy Seals could have used the Jetpacks to get into Osamas compound :D

No piss take - though i suspect the well known Mt Burgess may have spent a little too much time in the barrel Room.

RM will be back - he'll miss our merry banter.

Despite my skepticism I hope the jet pack does take off. But these things are so fraught with difficulty - just look at WTL.

The Navy Seals is possibly a prime example of why the jet pack won't be a flyer. Osama was hidden in the jetpack accessible compound for three years - loads of time for Martin to fine tune the craft for anti-terrorism duties if there had been real military interst. Besides who has ever heard of a Seal needing a parachute

minimoke

06-05-2011, 10:52 AM

Rocketman - any relation to Jetman?

In todays news:
"A Swiss daredevil planning to fly above the Grand Canyon in a jet-propelled wingsuit won't know if he's allowed to do so until the day of his scheduled flight.

The US Federal Aviation Administration says it's still reviewing adventurer Yves Rossy's proposal to ensure it meets safety standards.

FAA spokesman Ian Gregor says a decision won't be made until tomorrow (NZ time), the planned day of the flight.

The 51-year-old Rossy plans to jump from a helicopter on the Hualapai Reservation, soaring over the Grand Canyon in his first US flight in the custom-built suit.

The reservation lies west of Grand Canyon National Park.

Rossy, who calls himself the "JetMan," has flown over the Swiss Alps and across the English Channel in the suit."

Phaedrus

29-05-2011, 08:21 PM

The Martin Jetpack was featured tonight on "Sunday", TV1. It looked good, climbing at 800 ft/min to 3500 ft, then deploying its rocket launched parachute to land safely. All done by radio control, with a fullsize, fullweight dummy on board. I want one.

Awamoa

29-05-2011, 09:10 PM

You get the feeling that this guy is not far away from some serious recognition.

BIRMANBOY

29-05-2011, 09:46 PM

Easy peasy..just set it on hover 40 feet over the meter area ...oh wait on... then the meter readers will use there council issued machines to get up there and issue the ticket.....hey there is a market after all. Every city council in NZ will need at least 6...I'm in!!!
No but if they catch on, there'll be a parking meter where you can leave it.

Nevl

30-05-2011, 07:06 PM

_Michael

30-05-2011, 07:12 PM

Yeah good flight. So that is Mini shot down again when he said it was just ground effect keeping it up. Also again he brings up Jetman which needs a plane to get him to altitude and a Parachute to land. Have to wonder where his brain is if he cannot see the difference.

Anyway Martin seems to be up and running and have proved that it works. Now production and fulling those first 1000 orders that they have deposits on.

Would be great to see a business like this on the NZX

NZ needs more big exports ideas.

I went to NZX investor presentation day and was impressed by Martin Jetpack CEO

He seemed like a straight shooter. Hope they make it to market.

Oiler

30-05-2011, 07:27 PM

Yeah good flight. So that is Mini shot down again when he said it was just ground effect keeping it up. Also again he brings up Jetman which needs a plane to get him to altitude and a Parachute to land. Have to wonder where his brain is if he cannot see the difference.

Anyway Martin seems to be up and running and have proved that it works. Now production and fulling those first 1000 orders that they have deposits on.

Great presentation and all the best to Martin Jetpack. Its not my kind of investment but I wish them the best of luck. This thing will sell well in the US, they love these toys.

Unfortunately we lost Rocketman after all the badgering from Mini. As Michael says NZ needs more big export orders.

Rocketman if you are still reading ST ..... we would love to hear your latest comments.

Nevl

31-05-2011, 01:40 AM

Watched the video, what an annoying noise, like a giant mosquito. If they ever become popular like jetskis I hope someone invents some kind of large, jetpack swatting device.

Yeah well a small aircraft sounds loud close up as well. once it is up a few 100 meters you will not hear it. Just like most small aircraft.

Sent the link to an ex airforce general now in the private sector. His reaction was Wow! And this guy used to fly fighter jets.

Arbitrage

31-05-2011, 08:12 AM

Yeah, when I saw the footage on TV and rewatched it on youtube, I couldn't help but think that the US military must be interested. What a versatile machine in somewhere like Afghanistan where you need to move small patrols around difficult terrain. Half a dozen Marines strapped into these machines would make a great fighting unit.

winner69

31-05-2011, 09:15 AM

minimoke

31-05-2011, 12:22 PM

Unfortunately we lost Rocketman after all the badgering from Mini.
C'mon - whats up with a little robust debate?
phradeus wants one - lets hear what he's going to do with it.

minimoke

31-05-2011, 12:27 PM

Half a dozen Marines strapped into these machines would make a great fighting unit.
They will have to be light weight marines cos the thing only carries 120kg. Oh - and you have to hope your enemy are deaf. You'd hear this thing from a kilometer away.

Nevl

31-05-2011, 07:02 PM

They will have to be light weight marines cos the thing only carries 120kg. Oh - and you have to hope your enemy are deaf. You'd hear this thing from a kilometer away.

Rubbish. You only hear it in the video because it is close and at low levels.. Once it is up in the air you will not hear it as much.

You are still putting up poor arguements. Its like the one whgere you said it would be impossible to fly by remote control. Seems not to be too diufficult. Also the military want one that can lift 200kg. Not a problem. A lot of the safety stuff can be dropped for military usage. As a mobile and veristile unit it would be great and a mobile gun platform 200kgs or even 120 kgs is plenty of fire power.

troyvdh

31-05-2011, 07:14 PM

.....I would wait for Mach 2........hey in 5 years these "things" will be so naff......remember when folk paid $15000 for a flat screen...3-4 yrs ago...

Te Whetu

31-05-2011, 09:11 PM

.....I would wait for Mach 2........hey in 5 years these "things" will be so naff......remember when folk paid $15000 for a flat screen...3-4 yrs ago...

I suspect Mach 2 will look something like this... the military get all the cool toys.

http://starcrafthero.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/terran_reaper_by_george_feng.jpg

percy

31-05-2011, 09:20 PM

I suspect Mach 2 will look something like this... the military get all the cool toys.

http://starcrafthero.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/terran_reaper_by_george_feng.jpg

I reckon that's phaedrus.!!

Phaedrus

01-06-2011, 08:32 AM

http://starcrafthero.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/terran_reaper_by_george_feng.jpg

I reckon that's Phaedrus.!!
The resemblance is uncanny!

The Martin Jetpack is the ultimate toy. I reckon I would use one as much as I use my jetski or motorbike.

I haven't felt like this since I got the hots for a one-man hot-air balloon that just strapped on your back.
Mrs P vetoed the idea on the grounds of safety. I respected her wishes because the thing wouldn't go to windward.

This will.