[Robotbeat]

It was noted by someone in the comments. I think I disagree. I don't see why this couldn't work, and the jet engines in question do produce sufficient thrust and are cheap enough that you could buy like 6 of them (52lbf thrust each), with a total of 312lbf of thrust, enough for this kind of project, for the price of a new car: http://www.chiefaircraft.com/jc-p200-rx.html

How much does a good rigging setup cost plus good professional video editing software to edit out such lines? I suspect it's not even much cheaper than making this work. (Particularly since you need to buy the jet engines anyway.)

I always wonder why people think something is fake when the real thing would actually be easier (if more dangerous) and cheaper than faking it.

[MrBuddyCasino]

If you look at the specific time code mentioned, you can clearly see that the back of his shirt is lifted by something that looks like an invisible cable, and that his movement in the air indeed looks like he's being pulled.

But then the astronauts walking on the moon didn't look real to some people either, so we should definitely give him the benefit of the doubt.

[saalweachter]

Eh, it's always been my understanding that the problem with rocket packs (and by extension, this) was fuel. Wingless flight -- and believe it or not, helicopters are "winged" flight, which is why they can "glide" (autorotate) -- requires insane fuel consumption.

Someone figuring out how to strap jet engines to themselves and not instantly die is impressive, but it's not really solving the hard problem. The "10 minutes" claim is probably already based on loading up with the maximum amount of fuel the person can carry - add more and you don't get off the ground without adding another engine, which burns more fuel...

So I find the claim totally believable, and impressive for what it is, but it's not the sort of thing that has me reaching for my wallet to throw money at the guy.

[Robotbeat]

Agreed. And I think the comparison with a jet ski or other recreational vehicle is apt: this is for fun and show, for extreme sports, and perhaps some military or rescue applications. But pretty sweet nonetheless.

(Jet ski not the perfect analogy as jet skis are fairly safe and it's not unheard of for people who live on islands to use them for errands, etc, but yeah most people seem to use them for fun.)

You could extend the range and flight time by using a wingsuit, allowing up to a glide ratio of 3 or 4 without using structures other than the human body. But wingsuit flying and this iron man suit thing require immense strength, so physical exhaustion is probably even more of a constraint in this situation than fuel consumption.

[rawland]

Wingsuit and jet engines strapped to a human body?

Exists: Jetman - Yves Rossy (also a TED Video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2sT9KoII_M

Enjoy. ;-)

(That guy crosses the English channel at ~3:50.)

[Robotbeat]

Absolutely, however Yves Rossy's wing is rigid (cheating! :) ) and the setup requires diving off from an airplane (or a cliff or tall building) and landing with parachute.

I was just talking about keeping the vertical take-off, vertical landing and just adding extra material flaps between the arms and legs like a wingsuit to extend range and endurance.

[noobiemcfoob]

Something about combining multiple jet engines firing from four independent control points leads me to think monkeys might not be the best at predicting its movement. "looks like he's being pulled" in comparison to what example of standard flight suit movement?