I suppose.
But something pretty close to magic is happening if an engine is producing over 50 hp per pound of its weight (4+ pound engine, 250 hp).
do you know how incredibly loud a jet engine’s exhaust is when it’s supersonic? And do you know you pretty much need reheat (afterburning) just to get >Mach 1.0 exhaust flow?
yes, 1,000 horsepower out of four grapefruit sized engines is “unimaginable.” I mean, here’s a helicopter company magnifying how they got 250 horsepower (and as a turboshaft it’s real horsepower, instead of trying to extrapolate thrust>horsepower) out of 50 kg. 110 lb. engine to get 250 hp. don’t be so eager to believe something just because it’s being pushed by The Verge and Gizmodo.
The government already developed this back in the 50s (though larger and bulkier), with a few alternatives proposed through the years. For military use, it would only really be of value if it was quiet, and jet engines are rarely that.
I’m sure that they’ll test out the Flyboard Air, to see if it does better than the Granddaddies did, but probably you would need a more efficient source of energy than kerosene, to get the device small and light enough, to allow the extra weight needed for sound reduction, weaponry, and supples. So far as I’m aware, jet fuel is still pretty much as good as it gets.
I’ve always known there was something somewhere that I would prostitute myself to own, and now to see that thing…
don’t judge me
Agreed–assuming a 4 lb mass.
There are larger RC jet engines than the ones jz78817 mentions. For instance, here’s one with 784 N (176 lb) thrust. At a reasonable 250 m/s exit velocity, that’s 262 horsepower. Total engine weight is 25 lbs, so we’re talking only 10:1 PWR here (high, but not crazy high).
Hmm…flying board, Cubs in World Series…
This has to be 2015, right?
Not to harsh anyone’s buzz, but as always with wingless flying machines, there is a death zone between the ground, and sufficient altitude to deploy a ballistic parachute. Wish it wasn’t so.
You realise this isn’t a rocket though, right?
What seems odd to me about the footage (not that I’m claiming fake) is that the water surface only seems to be perturbed when the device is hovering stationary - I can’t quite work out why this effect disappears almost completely when the pilot leans it over just a little bit. Most of the thrust must still be downwards.
All fun and games until you lose your balance and some soft fleshy body part gets sucked into the jet intake.