Airline pilots see 'a guy in a jetpack' flying 3,000 feet over LA

More hazards for pilots?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/airline-pilots-reported-seeing-guy-jetpack-flying-3-000-feet-n1239027?ocid=uxbndlbing

Are there really jet packs that can get to 3000'? This one says 1000 fpm with 5-10 minute endurance. This might make it up that high using a good chunk of the fuel available, then you'd better get back down before your fuel runs out!

https://newatlas.com/jb10-jetpack-european-flights-on-sale-contest/46387/

 

Wow that’s crazy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Party ballon shaped like Ironman.

 

That would be a lot more likely for sure. I wonder if there's any chance the plane's tail had a camera for passengers to have a view and it shows it.

 

Regardless...maybe it was an alien...a Mandalor...the new pentagon UFO team should get right on it!

 

The JB-10 claims to have a "service ceiling" of 15,000 feet.

https://jetpackaviation.com/jetpacks/

 

Of course that could mean you can fly the thing at 15k, but not necessarily take off from SL and climb to 15k and return (10min endurance). Need to wear a chest mounted chute.

 

I would agree with that, but you could certainly go to 3000 feet.

 

I noted that 3000' was feasible in the original post, but a 1000 fpm climb rate and a similar controlled descent rate, would take 6 minutes, which seems iffy with a 5-10 minute fuel tank capacity. This was reported by pilots coming into LAX, so I'm assuming the starting altitude was near sea level and that climb power and descent power fuel flow averages out somewhat.

 

I worked with three engineers that were hang glider pilots operating out of the bluffs near Lake Chelan, Wa. One of them , using thermals from the numerous cumulus in eastern Wa., got to 10,000ft and almost to Spokane. Many times these guys would cruise to Ritzville and all over eastern Wa. and some times return to their starting point. Sailplane pilots operating out of Mazama strip would be gone from just after 0900 to 1700 or later and would visit Canada and Idaho. I flew with one of them locally and I couldn't believe how easy it is to find lift over the mountains there on a warm day...like a high speed elevator. . All you have to do is to sit there and you go up. A real kick in the butt and real flying. I remember one older guy who was gone all day had to spin his airplane over the strip to lose altitude as fast as he wanted. Absolutely the best stuff.

 

I would think rates of climb (and certainly descent) would be significantly higher than that, but maybe not. 1000 fpm is only 20mph vertically, and this thing should be able to exceed that. Practically speaking, much over 3000fpm would be uncomfortable, though.

2000fpm would cut the time in half, and they claim a 10 minute endurance.

 

Very dependent on the wt of the operator/pilot. The JB-10 has a max thrust (ISA) of 395lb, and weighs 83 lb empty. Assume the fuel load is only 12 lb, then the initial net thrust to lift the pilot is 300 lb. A 200 lb pilot will see a thrust of 100 lb, while a 150 lb pilot would see a net thrust of 150 lb or 50% greater than the heavier pilot. Bit difference in acceleration, obtainable vertical speed, and as the link also states "Endurance is dependent on pilot weight and density altitude".

 

I've been in mt waves along the east side of the Sierra's (in a Mooney). Glider pilots love those things. But better have some O2 on board as it is an elevator that can be impossible to get out quickly, or without exceeding airframe limits.

I don't think a jet pack is a very good glider. YMMV

 

I remember reading about a researcher guy who soared to 30,000 ft in a P-38 with the power off when he was investigating that standing wave. The glider pilots that I mentioned had O2 and plenty of energy bars on board when they departed.

 

The 1000fpm estimate came from the linked article about the JB-10.

The excess thrust calculation above might be a bit off. The JB-9 was reported to have a fuel capacity of 38 liters or 10 gallons. The JB-10 was said to be similar to the JB-9, but with more fuel capacity, but I couldn't find what the increase was. Let's say it's 15 gallons, so as to make the increase over the JB-9 worthwhile. The fully fueled weight of the jet pack is then 83 lbs + 102 lbs (15 gals x 6.8 lbs/gal) = 185 lbs. With thrust of 395 lbs and a 200 lb standard FAA male and 185 lbs of equipment+fuel, that only leaves 10lbs excess thrust! It would be very sensitive to the weight of the pilot.

That may be why they went to the JB-11, which has an empty weight of 115 lbs but was increased to 530 lbs of thrust.

P.S. I did find that the rumored price of the JB-10 was $250,000 (apparently recently discontinued in favor of the JB-11), the full flight school is $30,000 and an introductory flight is $3,000.

P.P.S. JetPack Aviation is located in LA, where the sightings occurred.

 

I believe that wt is slightly conservative as it includes an allowance for carry-on bags.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC120-27E.pdf

Interesting that the AC defines acceptable methods for air carriers to use in wt and balance calcs, yet the actual floor loading limits used for design of the aircraft are based on an avg pax wt of 170 lb (plus carry-on wt and seat wt).

 

OK, good clarification. So the FAA summer weight of a male is 200 lbs and assumes 5 lbs is summer clothing and 16 lbs for personal effects. But trade that off with a flight suit (over light clothing) plus a helmet and net it might be 10 lbs lighter to a wash. So maybe 10-20 lbs of excess thrust?

 

Looking at prior revisions to AC120-27 the FAA Standard male has added 30lb in the last 30 yrs. Women even more. America needs to go on a diet.

 

Nothing illegal about filling a blow up dolls with helium is there?


Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This thing can get up to 10,000 feet. It's got a pretty slick turn.

 

Beyond all the technology, I assume this thing must still be subject to FAA regs like everyone else, so was he legal or bootleg?

(mandalorians excepted of course.....)

 

Im speculating that the FAA is speakign with Jet Pack aviation to see has a jet pack and who maybe was flying that day.
Could also be some backyard unit, lots of microturbines about.

 

They are cool little units, but

@ 10 min endurance damn are they thirsty.

I know, I know, they are turbojets, which have always been thirsty.

Should probably just use the search function, but didn't someone make strap on wings with a couple/four of these units attached?

 

According to their website, depending on which model it is, it's either experimental or an ultralight. I'm not all that familiar with ultralight regulations, but I assume the same airspace stuff applies to them as it does to everyone else. I'm sure that would be the case if they are running it in experimental.

 

Interesting... the Jetpack Aviation CEO says his wouldn't be capable of it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8689813/FBI-investigating-reports-mysterious-jetpack-flier-near-Los-Angeles-airport.html