sharetrader
Page 37 of 61 FirstFirst ... 2733343536373839404147 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 609

Thread: Martin Jetpack

  1. #361
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    at this stage you have until 13 February to apply for shares. Trading expected to start on asx 23 February.

    If all is going to plan notice of the special meeting went out to shareholders on 28 January. I don't know if it did get sent. The special meeting is due on or before 16 February.

    Still a few targets to be hit before listing actually takes place.

    Followers of mjp will see they have a solid history of indicating sales and production at future dates and have consistently failed to deliver. It remains to be seen if they can achieve a 23 February listing. I wouldn't bet the house on it.
    Yes, their management have a solid track record of consistently missing deadline. Just look at how long they are taking to actually float this thing. If you look at their roadmap from the original prospectus, you'll see solid proof that they don't meet deadlines at all.

    B

  2. #362
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Investors shouldn't be surprised. This jet pack hs taken 30 years to get from concept to protype stage. I am seriously struggling to think what other product has taken so long in the history of mankind. Sure there was the wheel, that took a while but I don't think the combustion engine took that long. Electricity and light bulb? Jet engines only took a few years during WWII ( I know - you'll say the Germans had the Nazi war machine behind them but Martin has the benefit of known technology and $20m). Here we basically have an engine, a couple of fans, a bit of ducting and a harness. So to lighten the mood who can come up with things that have taken 30+ years to develop, get to market and return a profit to the company. - lets try to focus on the last 100 years.

  3. #363
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    Investors shouldn't be surprised. This jet pack hs taken 30 years to get from concept to protype stage. I am seriously struggling to think what other product has taken so long in the history of mankind. Sure there was the wheel, that took a while but I don't think the combustion engine took that long. Electricity and light bulb? Jet engines only took a few years during WWII ( I know - you'll say the Germans had the Nazi war machine behind them but Martin has the benefit of known technology and $20m). Here we basically have an engine, a couple of fans, a bit of ducting and a harness. So to lighten the mood who can come up with things that have taken 30+ years to develop, get to market and return a profit to the company. - lets try to focus on the last 100 years.
    <br>


    I feel you're being very flippant here.


    The guy was doing this as a hobby initially - he wasn't devoting full time towards it, he didn't have a team of scientists he was paying money towards .. this was a single person who had a dream. &nbsp;During his hobby he has realise that he MIGHT actually have something.

    As for your examples the biggest one that springs to mind is the electrical car
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

    The electrical car has been toyed with for many decades. The first one was designed in the early 1900's, Yet they've only just come into mass production in the last decade. This is because the idea has finally been brought to realisation by people who have the ability to do so.

    The dream of flight was another one that took many many years .

    You simply can not compare a war funded dedicated team designing a jet engine .. to a single man with a hobby. That is being very ignorant.
    Last edited by GuessX; 04-02-2015 at 07:56 AM.

  4. #364
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GuessX View Post
    <br>


    I feel you're being very flippant here.
    Moi?

    As for your examples the biggest one that springs to mind is the electrical car
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car

    The electrical car has been toyed with for many decades. The first one was designed in the early 1900's, Yet they've only just come into mass production in the last decade. This is because the idea has finally been brought to realisation by people who have the ability to do so.
    You are heading way back here. Lead acid battery came in around 1859. First electric car production in 1884 with the Thomas Parker car. Less than 30 years

    The dream of flight was another one that took many many years .
    Let's exclude da VincI. The Wright brothers (or Richard Pearce - take your pick ) were tinkering in the early 1890's. After they took off in 1903 the first commercial flight was in 1914. Less than 30 years.
    You simply can not compare a war funded dedicated team designing a jet engine ..
    I specifically didn't

    to a single man with a hobby
    there you have it in a nutshell.

    Any Other Examples?

  5. #365
    Advanced Member robbo24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,008

    Red face

    Through all this twatwaffle, I still maintain my stance that the Martin Jetpack with its promise of a low-cost, versatile and easy to use vertical flight system will find its way into many recreational and industry uses.

    The proposition that existing drones - ranging from lightweight surveillance drones to long range weapon delivery drones - fill the same market as the MJP is incorrect, in my view.

    There's many possibilities, even beyond the first responder and sky-winch capacities already put forward by the company. Current drone designs encompass completely different applications to the specifications of the Martin Jetpack. Just look at what's available - they are a completely different product in every sense. The Martin Jetpack can carry out drone-like functions but by no means are those functions the primary purpose of the product.

    As much as minimoke wants to overlook it, there's a lot of things you can do with 100kg payload (over and above pilot and fuel). There's plenty more things you can do remotely with a larger payload sans pilot.

    Not much point posting on here with genuinely interesting ideas for a novel product - it's just the standard old copy-and-paste-minimoke-on-the-whiskies response every time

  6. #366
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robbo24 View Post
    As much as minimoke wants to overlook it, there's a lot of things you can do with 100kg payload (over and above pilot and fuel). There's plenty more things you can do remotely with a larger payload sans pilot.
    like what? Let's be clear. As at today this thing cannot take off without two ground crew nor is very stable in above moderate winds. That is with one pilot and fuel. How many more years will it take to develop so it can fly in more turbulence and with a load that is bound to affect lift and drag.

    Not much point posting on here with genuinely interesting ideas for a novel product - it's just the standard old copy-and-paste-minimoke-on-the-whiskies response every time
    c'Mon, give me some credit. The effect of the whiskies doesn't come in to play until well after lunch.

  7. #367
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robbo24 View Post
    The proposition that existing drones - ranging from lightweight surveillance drones to long range weapon delivery drones - fill the same market as the MJP is incorrect, ...
    That as maybe. But if martin are touting business in the USA it is useful to look at drones from a regulatory view point. They can't fly above 500 feet or within 5 miles of an airport. And as more drones come out so will more regulations. So you wouldn't want a mjp to be a drone.


    We know martin don't want it to be an ultralight. There's a 5 gallon fuel limit with them. I don't think 5 gallons would get a loaded mjp far. Then there is the daylight operating hours and keeping clear of urban areas which would also be an impediment for a mjp

    Or could it be a light sport aircraft. You need a sport pilot certificate for that one so its a bit limiting. And I'm not sure if martin have got the max stall speed issues sorted entry into this class - robbo can probably enlighten us.

    So attention should be given to the regulatory environment in which a mjp is being developed. Hence perhaps the interest in China where with a large population the value of life is said to be cheap.

  8. #368
    Advanced Member robbo24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    like what? Let's be clear. As at today this thing cannot take off without two ground crew nor is very stable in above moderate winds. That is with one pilot and fuel. How many more years will it take to develop so it can fly in more turbulence and with a load that is bound to affect lift and drag.
    You've seen one video on YouTube showing the MJP being held by two ground crew in a test flight and conclude that is how it is launched.

    I recently posted you a video of the Martin being controlled by remote control. There is no ground crew and it seems to take off just fine... The windsock in the backround is waving around too...

  9. #369
    Legend minimoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robbo24 View Post
    You've seen one video on YouTube showing the MJP being held by two ground crew in a test flight and conclude that is how it is launched.
    Of course - it's the one promoted by mjp.

    I recently posted you a video of the Martin being controlled by remote control. There is no ground crew and it seems to take off just fine... The windsock in the backround is waving around too...
    Robbo - where is your viewer advisory on the noise!. Those are grade 5 ear muffs the remote operator is wearing? Yes You have me on the windsock - it is surely moving. Just! That looks like a west Melton paddock surrounded BY shelter belts with a wee breeze through a gap to get the windsock moving. A very rare wind free Canterbury day. Take the camera out today with 100 kph winds forecast and show us the video. Or how about one with a 99kg load attached.

  10. #370
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minimoke View Post
    Of course - it's the one promoted by mjp.


    Robbo - where is your viewer advisory on the noise!. Those are grade 5 ear muffs the remote operator is wearing? Yes You have me on the windsock - it is surely moving. Just! That looks like a west Melton paddock surrounded BY shelter belts with a wee breeze through a gap to get the windsock moving. A very rare wind free Canterbury day. Take the camera out today with 100 kph winds forecast and show us the video. Or how about one with a 99kg load attached.

    I think many light aircraft would struggle with 50knot winds. I know I wouldn't fly a Cessna in them.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •