I sure hope nobody in my area (the whole county) gets one of those...10 jet engines is going to make an awful racket.

And then there is the insane engineering of the GEnX jet engine which the 787 use.

Your video, How a jet engine starts, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

All you mention are a far cry from sustained hypersonic powered atmospheric flight, which is what we're talking about here.

You mentioned a ramjet, but scramjet engines are hardly an incremental improvement, they're an entirely different class of jet engine. Ramjet engines only do around mach 2.5- 5, scramjets 4-8+ theoretically. What's needed for a viable weapon imo is the next iteration of dual mode ramjets that can do both with one engine, that's a long way off. Public scramjet engine tests have only been successful in a few short 5 second+- burns so far, launched with conventional solid rockets.

Your video, New gearing system could transform jet engines, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@newtboy -
I like / agree with your take on each of the 4 issues, but 4 really is easier said than done.

Having skills and making yourself invaluable happens quite slowly over time, and only if the arbiter correctly recognizes that value. I think capitalism has such a stranglehold on modern life that minor variations in short term profit/loss potential get overvalued while major intangible things (or at least, less tangible in quarterly reports) get ignored.

And just in general, everybody needs a job or purpose, but we can't ALL stand out and be invaluable. Eagles may soar to great heights, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. Sometimes steady adequacy is, well, adequate.

Thinking that the world owes us happiness is a character flaw, but "checking out" by half-assing or phoning it in is a fairly rational response to a system that doesn't give a fuck about us as individuals, even those that DO go the extra mile. Fix the system (to the extent that it can be), and better results would follow.

I personally don't feel upgrading the casters on your jet engine test stand means you've created a "car".

I dunno, the concept is plausible. Model jet engines can give up to 25 kg of thrust (off the shelf, more for custom built). He has six of them, so that's plenty of thrust.

I have over ten years of experience in computer animation and his movements are exactly what I'd expect. The engine effects are perfect, everything is just as I'd expect even things at a good distance disturbed by the wind. If this is fake it's the highest level of fakery and the concept is very plausible.

IMO this is probably real.

Most airliners have wings designed to be used in low transsonic. They can't effectively go faster. They would literally lose lift if they went faster. Their wing shape is made to only delay the onset of shockwaves on top of the wing (flat-ish top), allowing it to safely creep closer to mach1 than otherwise, but not to operate within/past mach1.

Fan/propeller blades themselves are also mach limited.
(They can be designed to be supersonic, but then you end up with something like this... which in hindsight nobody wants : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H)
A subsonic airfoil in a fan/propeller, operating near/at supersonic speed, loses the ability to move/redirect air, due to shockwave disruption of the airflow.

Fans/propellers with subsonic blades that spin at subsonic speeds are effectively speed limited. They lose efficiency above ~500 mph, where they begin to stop generating thrust as they travel faster. Their pitch has to increase higher and higher, until they are no longer much of an airscrew and more of a 'feathered' configuration.

Supersonic jet engines use intake devices (such as shock cones) to decelerate incoming air to subsonic speeds, so the compressor (itself a fan, i.e. a highly multi bladed propeller) can operate on that air to compress it and feed the engine combustion chambers.
Airliners have no intake devices to decelerate incoming air, and they would lose engine compression when entering near mach1 speeds.

Furthermore, their bypass fans (which are glorified propellers) would stop providing thrust.

You would need to design different planes (like the concorde). You can't just throttle up a modern airliner and go faster [than X limit] - like you can in a modern car.

-scheherazade

Ever since I first saw those miniature hobby jet engines I've wanted someone to do exactly this. Nice.

Looks like it might be a small jet engine. I'm guessing the backpack might hold the fuel. It looks like there's some sort of external hose connected to his leg (but not touching his leg.) Perhaps a fuel feed pipe?

Erm, most dog fighting was catching someone by surprise and bouncing them while retaining energy. All things being equal, the plane with the superior energy and no other intervening factors (1v1) will win purely because the opponent always ends up lower and slower, and can't make up that difference. The jet engine significantly increased the available energy to a plane, but the F35 won't be jousting against prop driven fighters...

You say the F35 is faster, but that is irrelevant (unless it's running away), energy is a heck of a lot more than max speed, and that's where the F35 is a turkey. Lift, drag, power to weight etc all factor in. The F35 is a classic Frankestein's monster, asked to do far too many things, and in that process compromising and contradicting itself constantly.

It's kinda telling that you say as soon as this plane get's in trouble, a squadron has to drop everything to run in and help it... For this sort of money, the plane shouldn't need help, particularly not from the grandpa's of the fleet.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'personal flight, real jet engine' to 'personal flight, real jet engine, jb9, jetpack aviation' - edited by blutruth

So, two little jet engines and a cubic crap-ton of fuel in the backpack?