[squarefoot]

True, but it's very unlikely that the flyboard has some sort of redundancy built in: if a single jet engine gets hit the whole thing goes down. Exposive/incendiary ammo would also defeat the self sealing tank, assuming he's using one. To me it's a wonderful piece of engineering and I'd drool to pilot one (a few meters above sea level, I'm not a hero:^) but I wouldn't bring one in battle. It could make sense though to build a similar contraption under military jet pilots seats, so that if the pilot ejects, the seat brings him as far away as possible from enemy territory before deploying the parachute.

[brohee]

There are seven engines, and the firmware can adjust to the loss of one. "The company also says it’s intuitive and safe to use, with the computer-controlled systems providing built-in redundancies and automatic compensation if one of the jet engines fails. “I thought it was a gust of wind,” Henry Berkowitz, one of the two former special operators who now work for Zapata, told CNBC in 2017."

See https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23854/one-company-thin...

[squarefoot]

Thanks for the link! That makes it even more interesting. That military pilot makes it seem even more similar to a flying segway. I only wonder the amount of energy used to drive the center of gravity to maintain balance. In other words, if the same fixture was mounted as a jet backpack how much efficiency would be gained, if any?

[Zenst]

Interesting thought about ejector seats, though those currently use solid fueled rockets iirc, as much safer.

Though it does as you say, offer some form of assisted powered control decent option. Not sure on the altitude and I know that becomes a factor for jets. Big difference operating around sea level and a few thousand feet up.

For me, something like this that would give firefighters the ability to reach and rescue people trapped up high in a building, even if one at a time. That truely opens up progress.

Alas the fire services have never ever had the same RnD budgets of military services, which is a thought that opens up a whole raft of debate as an indictment upon how we view protecting lives and assets - given fire in the modern world kills more people. For example in the UK in you get around 300 deaths a year due to fire. Compared with an average of 50 lives a year military wise. Though it is a bit like comparing apples with pears, it does make you think how some priorities are more grounded in history than others.

Now what this might open up as a viable alternative to parachute would be helicopters that tend to operate at altitudes that preclude any parachute. Sure you would need to eject the rotor and seen that upon military helicopters, that eject the cockpit. But this might open up safety upon more commercial offering.