Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

As I predicted

The ramp-up of hype in preparation for investors to bail from the Martin Jetpack by floating an IPO continues.

In this story we're told that the jetpack has been redesigned and is now much better than before, offering a speed of 56Km per hour (that's just over 30 MPH in the old money) and a range of 30Km.

I'm sorry... have I missed something here?

The "old" MJP was supposed to have a 100KPH top speed and a range of 50Km -- yet somehow the figures announced today constitute a "quantum leap" in performance?

As I've already told readers, this is a textbook "quick, let's get our money out" move on the part of investors who, after five years of unfulfilled promises and missed targets, now realise that unless they can convince others to buy their shares, they've done their dosh.

Of course some might say I have no reason to doubt the word of MJP and that perhaps I'm just a tired old cynic.

In response -- I point to this PR Hype from 2010 and ask -- well?

In their latest bit of pre-IPO hype, MJP makes reference to "a company responsible for testing floodlights in stadiums" and claim that this company is interested because of "the potential the jetpack had to make its job easier". Well I'm sorry but I fully expect that technology has already relegated the MJP to the history books on that one. Unmanned aerial systems (drones to the plebes) have already reached the point where they are a much more cost-effective (and safer) alternative to the MJP in such a role.

Other big news is that MJP have CAA approval for manned flights.

Hmmm... I hope this doesn't rebound on CAA in a bad way.

As far as I am aware, there is no other manned aircraft on the market or under development in NZ which has less "survivability" in the event of an engine failure at low (sub 500 feet) altitude than the MJP.

Although they claim that the craft has a ballistic parachute and on a conventional light aircraft, these chutes can be deployed at altitudes as low as 200 feet, the situation with the MJP is somewhat different. Fixed-wing aircraft usually have significant forward (air)speed when such a chute is deployed and that airflow serves to very rapidly inflate the deployed chute. In the case of the MJP however, its very low airspeed (max 56KPH) means that there will be no airflow to inflate the chute and thus its full deployment will be significantly delayed.

An engine failure in a fixed wing aircraft leaves that craft still able to maneuver and glide under the control of the pilot and with a relatively low rate of sink.

Engine failure in a helicopter also generally allows for the craft to convert its altitude into rotor-energy (by way of autorotation) and also ensures that the course and rate of descent can be controlled in a way that can minimise the risk of injury or death.

If the engine fails on your MJP at 400 feet then I'm afraid -- you're stuffed!

The first authorised manned flights of the MJP will indeed be very interesting and likely a whole lot more successful than the subsequent IPO.

How many Aardvark readers will be queuing to buy shares in MJP or perhaps one of their jetpack units?

As a footnote, I note that that great publisher of press releases with bylines (NZH) has TWO stories running on the MJP today. Here is the other one. Clearly the NZH now has neither reporters nor editors. Why aren't they challenging MJP on their former hype and asking how a significant reduction in speed and range can be a "quantum leap" in performance?

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font