Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jetman Attempts Intercontinental Flight

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the a-jetwing-and-a-prayer dept.

Toys 140

Last year we ran the story of Yves Rossy and his DIY jetwings. Yves spent $190,000 and countless hours building a set of jet-powered wings which he used to cross the English Channel. Rossy's next goal is to cross the Strait of Gibraltar, from Tangier in Morocco and Tarifa on the southwestern tip of Spain. From the article: "Using a four-cylinder jet pack and carbon fibre wings spanning over 8ft, he will jump out of a plane at 6,500 ft and cruise at 130 mph until he reaches the Spanish coast, when he will parachute to earth." Update 18:57 GMT: mytrip writes: "Yves Rossy took off from Tangiers but five minutes into an expected 15-minute flight he was obliged to ditch into the wind-swept waters."

cancel ×

140 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Did he cross the English Channel to speak with...? (2, Funny)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227886)

Did he cross the English channel to speak with Elton John so they could sing "Rocket Man" together ? ;-))

Re:Did he cross the English Channel to speak with. (1)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227930)

Don't trust Jetman! I think he is working with Bizarro and Solomon Grundy!

Re:Did he cross the English Channel to speak with. (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228248)

DC comics, circa 68-72?

Wow.

I am still figuring out how the screaming guy in the attached photo has a piston-driven jetpack. The article says something about cylinders...

Re:Did he cross the English Channel to speak with. (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229406)

It is a four engine wing, not four cylinder.

Re:Did he cross the English Channel to speak with. (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228870)

Which Bizarro (eg, Bizzaro Superman, Bizzaro Batman)?

Re:Did he cross the English Channel to speak with. (1)

Tellarin (444097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229120)

Bizarro is Bizzaro Superman. Well, at least in Brazil. :)

Re:Did he cross the English Channel to speak with. (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229174)

Up here in the great white north (Canada), Bizzaro refers to a parallel universe/planet where they have all the SuperFriends, but they do everything backwards from the 'normal' SuperFriends).

Re:Did he cross the English Channel to speak with. (1)

Tellarin (444097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229364)

Yep, I know. But the character usually called just Bizarro is Superman Bizarro.

Re:Did he cross the English Channel to speak with. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229438)

In the USA, Bizarro is an evil version of Superman. Bizarro World is the planet that he is from.

Re:Did he cross the English Channel to speak with. (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228740)

I'm curious as to how crossing the Straight of Gibraltar is a bigger achievement than crossing the English Channel. Isn't the channel wider?

If I'm not mistaken, the Straight of Gibraltar is only about 14km, while the English Channel is about 30km at its narrowest point.

Re:Did he cross the English Channel to speak with. (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229206)

It's a semantic difference. Crossing the English Channel isn't an intercontinental journey, and doesn't involve leaving the EU.

Re:Did he cross the English Channel to speak with. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229560)

The meteorological conditions are a lot less predictable in Gibralta. Think high winds, unpredictable, rapidly changing direction etc...

He already failed (5, Informative)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227928)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6931566.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

Better luck next time.

Coulda done it easier [Re:He already failed] (4, Funny)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228008)

He could have made an intercontinental flight more easily by flying from Europe to Asia: if he flew across the Bosporus, that would be only 700 meters. And, heck, if he picked the right place, he could have just walked!

Re:Coulda done it easier [Re:He already failed] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229824)

Europe and Asia are not separate continents, though.

Re:He already failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229624)

Paraphrasing Monty Python thusly:

"He not so much flies as plummets"

Attempt failed. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227942)

And from the current news, Yves Rossy have made an emergency landing in the ocean. He has been picked up by helicopter, and announces that another attempt at a later time is planned.

Why the rockets? (2, Informative)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227952)

Tow me to 6500ft in a high-performance glider and I will traverse the straits of Gibraltar easily ... without carrying rockets or motors of any kind.

Call me when he starts doing these stunts taking off from the ground under his own (carried) power.

Re:Why the rockets? (0)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228074)

Your high performance glider probably has a much bigger wingspan than the 8ft of the jetpack.

Taking off from the ground isn't all that interesting. It just means he'd need enough extra thrust and fuel to get off the ground and up to his target height. If you're really going to get into a snit about it all he'd need is to tack on some JATO/RATO units to do that but that doesn't test the endurance of the main jetpack, so meh, not a big deal in my book.

And I'm sure the Bell X-1 breaking the sound barrier was no big deal because it was dropped from a mothership as well.

Re:Why the rockets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30228818)

I'm sure Mr. HP Glider's point is that the resulting accomplishment is not all that remarkable. Mr. Jet Wing Man intentionally hobbled his design by limiting the wing span. Here's a link to an operational jet-powered flying machine that would literally fly circles around the aforementioned jet-wing. It cost less than half what the jet wing contraption did and it takes off and lands under its own power.

http://www.alisport.com/video/silent%20be-jet.wmv

Re:Why the rockets? (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229440)

It is also a totally different experience than flying with a jet powered wing strapped to your back.

Re:Why the rockets? (2, Funny)

mrjb (547783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229768)

It is also a totally different experience than flying with a jet powered wing strapped to your back.

Tell me about it. He spends all this money and what does he get? No food served. No seat. NO PLANE?!!? Worst. Airline. Ever.

Re:Why the rockets? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30230036)

It's a different kind of flying altogether!

Re:Why the rockets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229622)

Not having done either, I'll defer to your assertion. I guess it all depends on what you consider 'impressive', it certainly did not do anything aviation-wise that is noteworthy. By that I mean distance, altitude, speed, etc. It's also not practical. I'd classify it as more of a stunt, like Knievel's attempt to cross the Snake River, than an aviation event.

Re:Why the rockets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30228450)

They are jets, not 'rockets'.

Re:Why the rockets? (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228628)

So jets don't generate thrust? News to me.

Re:Why the rockets? (4, Funny)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228942)

He uses a jet-powered wing because it's a fucking jet-powered wing strapped to his back, and that is awesome.

That is not difficult to understand.

Re:Why the rockets? (2, Insightful)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229810)

It's indeed awesome, but it would be awesomer and potentially awesomest if he base-jumped off a cliff on the African side, and jetted across the Strait to land on the European side.

Wow (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30227966)

Cool story bro.

And he failed. (2, Informative)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227980)

Due to "difficult winds" he dropped into the Ocean after completing half the trip. The entire trip was, for reference supposed to last 15 minutes and span 38 Km, He was picked up by a rescue chopter and is reportedly unharmed.

Re:And he failed. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228032)

You mean he was not damaged any further.

FAIL (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229418)

I actually RTFA and the cause was "Sterzel said the wing malfunctioned, possibly due to engine failure".

Which I find kind of funny... ...because when you are flying what is essentially a wing, with an engine strapped to it... that's a pretty much catastrophic (total) failure.

Well at least the parachute worked (sounds like it was the only thing that did), so I guess it wasn't a total loss.

He could have been a superhero (3, Funny)

V50 (248015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227990)

Dammit, this is why you're not supposed to reveal your secret identity. He could have been a superhero with a wide array of crazy gadgets, but now if we see some crazy guy with a jetpack stopping crime, everyone will know who it is. :(

Re:He could have been a superhero (3, Funny)

V50 (248015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228016)

On second thought, the guy in the picture is bald, so if that's him, I'd say he's more likely to end up as a supervillian. Might be for the best.

Re:He could have been a superhero (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229592)

He can't be a villain with a French accent. Everyone knows that real villains are bald and have English accents.

Re:He could have been a superhero (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228990)

So he's not the man they think he is at home?

Isn't the English Channel Larger? (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30227992)

I'm not actually sure. But I think so?

Anyways, Wake me up when he tries like... Beijing Capital International to LAX

Re:Isn't the English Channel Larger? (2, Insightful)

interploy (1387145) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228504)

Anyways, Wake me up when he tries like... Beijing Capital International to LAX

Seriously. Okay, so technically the Straight of Gibraltar separates two continents, but this is not an intercontinental flight. The Spirit of St. Louis made an intercontinental flight. The article title is BS. If they want to use "intercontinental" to describe a distance, then there had damn well better be an ocean involved.

Re:Isn't the English Channel Larger? (2, Informative)

asylumx (881307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229044)

The Spirit of St. Louis was a TRANS-ATLANTIC flight.

Re:Isn't the English Channel Larger? (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229510)

Yes, but last I checked, North America and Europe were different continents, so it was both trans-Atlantic and transcontinental.

Regardless... The point is that the term transcontinental is *usually* used in reference to distances much greater than the width of the strait. Thus using it in the title, while technically accurate, is misleading.

Re:Isn't the English Channel Larger? (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229534)

Err... I meant intercontinental. Transcontinental would be travel over the width of the same continent as you started.

Re:Isn't the English Channel Larger? (1)

interploy (1387145) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229722)

And somehow that makes it not intercontinental? Anyway, it doesn't change the point. "Intercontinental" is for epic voyages, not for skipping across what amounts to an oversized lake.

A phrase like "Attempts Intercontinental Flight" merits a certain expectation of daring and grandeur, and a distance less than 30 miles is not it. This is sheer overhyping and sensationalizing a nothing event, and personally I'm getting really sick and tired of people celebrating mediocrity.

Engineering Effort? (2, Insightful)

quangdog (1002624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228014)

I'm sure there is significant engineering effort involved in creating something like a personal jetpack, but he's still jumping out of a plane at altitude and essentially gliding with a bit of a boost from his jet engines along the way.

Being a lazy American, of course I did not rtfa, but I did take the time to look up just how far he'll actually fly: looks like about 12 miles.

Re:Engineering Effort? (2, Insightful)

quangdog (1002624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228062)

Ok, so then I went and rtfa, and it claims he'll fly 23 miles. Then I checked google earth, and it lists the distances between the 2 locations mentioned in the article as 19.3 miles.

As others have said, I'll get excited when he can go from, say, New Jersey to the Oregon coast (with an in-flight movie along the way).

Re:Engineering Effort? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228978)

He can do that when he buy a ticket on an airliner.

Somehow I think he's having quite a bit more fun doing what he's doing now.

Re:Engineering Effort? (1)

kclittle (625128) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229620)

And his feet stay warmer. A little cold around the neck and shoulders, though.

Re:Engineering Effort? (2, Interesting)

Alastor187 (593341) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228316)

I'm sure there is significant engineering effort involved in creating something like a personal jetpack, but he's still jumping out of a plane at altitude and essentially gliding with a bit of a boost from his jet engines along the way.

Engineering is about solving problems with practical solutions. You are assuming he didn't consider what it would take get of the ground using the jet pack. But I would assume he did look at the issue, and found that it would significantly increase the cost, weight, and risk by launching from the ground.

If his end goal is just to fly around, then to solve the problem of take-off he probably reasoned the best solution was to use existing aircraft to get to the proper altitude. Then just figure out how to get in/out of the aircraft with his equipment. Sounds like a smart engineering decision to me.

Re:Engineering Effort? (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228670)

This leaves me wondering exactly what the "gee whiz" factor is then. Part of what makes a personal jet pack neat is the fact it is self-contained transportation. Just strap on your cool superhero/supervillian pack and go fly places. The portability factor suffers more than a little bit if you also need to bring along an airplane ... oh and an airport when it can take off ... oh and a pilot to fly the thing and land ... but aside from those 3 items we are ready to get into some mischief with this jet pack thing!

As a technology demonstrator this thing is undeniably cool ... but more in a movie prop kind of way rather than a "when will these be available at Wal Mart?" way.

Re:Engineering Effort? (4, Informative)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228884)

He's evolving down from "skydiving" to a workable personal jetsuit, rather than up from "rocket skating." An early iteration had no engines at all, just a delta-wing personal glider (and it could probably be considered as an incremental improvement over the "wing suit" which came after the "balloon suit"...)

It's just safer this way. If he fails, he's ditches the wing and activates "plain old skydiving" mode with a parachute. If he'd started from the ground on the first try, there are dozens of places where a failure means death without any fall-back options at all.

In previous interviews he has stated than an eventual goal is to do a complete flight including takeoff.

Re:Engineering Effort? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229784)

This could probably be done more easily _without_ the engines.

Ooooh... Intercontinental (4, Insightful)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228104)

Calling 23 miles "intercontinental" seems disingenuous. I mean, I could drive down to Mexico and make an "intercontinental" jump of 1 foot... But labeling it as such is just stupid.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30228182)

Well, it is intercontinental. But yes, it's in the same league as saying you can see Russia from your living room and that makes you aware of world affairs.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228932)

And what office was Tina Fey running for when she said that?

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229460)

They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
Sarah Palin, on her foreign policy insights into Russia, ABC News interview, September 11, 2008. http://www.allgreatquotes.com/sarah_palin_quotes.shtml [allgreatquotes.com]

Tina Fey made it funny, but didn't invent it. In fact, some of Tina Fey's best lines were direct quotes from Palin ...

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (3, Informative)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228190)

Calling 23 miles "intercontinental" seems disingenuous. I mean, I could drive down to Mexico and make an "intercontinental" jump of 1 foot... But labeling it as such is just stupid.

I know as American's we're supposed to hate Mexico, but they are still on the same continent as the US.

There are a few good examples of short intercontinental flight that would make it even more trivial which you could have used. The Suez Canal and Bosporous would be suitable candidates.

As a typical American (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228488)

I know as American's we're supposed to hate Mexico, but they are still on the same continent as the US.

I disagree. As a typical American, I like Mexicans and I have no problem when they come down from up North with their Molsons to play hockey.

Hey Mexicans! Pretty day, Eh?

Yep, I've been around a bit. I've even been to Alaska to see Russia.

Re:As a typical American (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229630)

I know you're joking, but even the people from Leno's "Jay-walking" bit would unlikely to mix up an average Canadian with an average Mexican.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228890)

I've never heard that we're supposed to hate Mexico - where do you get that from?
Also, there is no apostrophe in "Americans".

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229788)

I hate you (and I may or may not be an American)

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (5, Funny)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228202)

I mean, I could drive down to Mexico and make an "intercontinental" jump of 1 foot... But labeling it as such is just stupid.

Not until Mexico conquers Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Panama, you can't.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229026)

Hey! I'm salvadorean you insensitive...

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229648)

Technically, they only need to conquer Panama.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30228226)

Is it more stupid than thinking Central America is a continent?

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228270)

Actually you would be making a "intracontinental" jump since both the US and Mexico is within North America.

You would need to drive to Panama and jump over the international border with Columbia for it to really be "intercontinental".

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228318)

I was too busy being pedantic to say that your point is still very valid.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30228648)

More than Half of the world count south and north america as 1 continent named America. So for some that jump would not count as intercontinental.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (2, Funny)

eviloverlordx (99809) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229002)

More than Half of the world count south and north america as 1 continent named America. So for some that jump would not count as intercontinental.

That must be the half of the world that doesn't know geology or plate tectonics.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

guantamanera (751262) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229160)

I do not know about geology much or plate tectonics but the land used to be one continuous mass until somebody decided to split it in Panama. Asia and Europe could be another example, and I think the continents were named and split with imaginary lines way before we knew much about geological and tectonic plates. The Olympic logo represents 5 contains that is why it has 5 rings.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229184)

More than Half of the world count south and north america as 1 continent named America. So for some that jump would not count as intercontinental.

That must be the half of the world that doesn't know geology or plate tectonics.

Since you know so much about geology and plate tectonics, you must think that India is part of Oceania, and not of Asia, huh?

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (4, Insightful)

Tellarin (444097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229336)

North, Central and South America are the same continent; America.

If continents were defined by plate tectonics, then America would be split in 6. And the crossing would be from Mexico to Guatemala.

Approximately:
- North American Plate (Canada, most of USA, Mexico, and Belize)
- Pacific Plate (part of California, USA and Baja California, Mexico; and possibly a few Alaskan islands)
- Caribbean Plate (Caribbean island countries and Central America)
- Nazca Plate (Peruvian and Ecuadorian islands)
- South American Plate (almost all South America)
- Scotia Plate (south of Terra del Fuego, smallish parts of Chile and Argentina)

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229082)

Reference?

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229694)

By that definition, Europe, Asia, and Africa would be one continent as well. Europe and Asia share a long land border and Asia is only separated from Africa by the Suez canal.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

Tellarin (444097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229210)

Actually, the continent is still America. North, Central and South. It is one continent.

Otherwise, he could just jump from Mexico to Belize (N.A. to C.A.) or something like that.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229710)

Then you would say that Africa, Asia, and Europe are one continent as well?

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228906)

And what continent would you jump to from Mexico ?

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229052)

Calling 23 miles "intercontinental" seems disingenuous. I mean, I could drive down to Mexico and make an "intercontinental" jump of 1 foot... But labeling it as such is just stupid.

"Stupid American" refer to you specifically.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

Darth Muffin (781947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229068)

Besides the above point, I wouldn't call it "intercontinental" because he didn't leave from a continent. He left from a plane 6500 feet above the continent. Hell, starting from that high you could probably sail an unpowered glider across the straight of gibraltar.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

DomNF15 (1529309) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229444)

But labeling it as such is just stupid.

Not just stupid, also wrong. Last time I checked Mexico was still part of the North American continent...next time drive down to Nicaragua and jump there.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229494)

I could fly 2000km and not leave Canada, let alone the US, let alone North America.

It is a stupid thing to say. I can fly unassisted intercontinental, by walking up to the line, and jumping over it. There, I can fly intercontinental unassisted... lame.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229946)

I mean, I could drive down to Mexico and make an "intercontinental" jump of 1 foot... But labeling it as such is just stupid.

Actually, you'd need to drive down to Panama, but the principle does still hold.

Re:Ooooh... Intercontinental (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30230062)

I mean, I could drive down to Mexico and make an "intercontinental" jump of 1 foot

If it's any comfort, my first thought when I read intercontinental was across the Channel from England to France. Bad day for geography I guess.

More like "power-assisted gliding" (1, Flamebait)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228158)

he will jump out of a plane at 6,500 ft and cruise at 130 mph until he reaches the Spanish coast, when he will parachute to earth."

Want to impress people? Do it by taking off from the ground.

Re:More like "power-assisted gliding" (2, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229138)

A guy designing and building a personal jetpack, jumping out of a plane a 6,500 ft, and flying 15 miles in high winds at 130mph... DOES NOT IMPRESS YOU????

Yes, calling it "interncontinental" is exaggeration. But it is still impressive.

balls!!! (4, Funny)

visionsofmcskill (556169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228168)

I think he could probably fly a whole lot farther if it weren't for the drag created by his monstrously huge friggin balls.

that is one brave dude

from france to britain = intercontinental... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30228206)

...if you go by the term "contintental europe", which explicitly excludes great britain (incl. ireland, as well as iceland).

Intercontinental? (1)

mseeger (40923) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228294)

What is the definition of intercontinental? The flight was supposed to be 20 miles. That is not much... There are places were continents are so close together, so you can jump :-) the distance. If he goes Tokio to LA with his suite, i'll be impressed.

"Using a four-cylinder jet pack" (1)

jiteo (964572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228360)

Never mind the first intercontinental jetpack flight, the guy invented a whole new engine!

Re:"Using a four-cylinder jet pack" (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229740)

Nah, the telegraph invented the four cylinder jet pack. The experimenter just used four run of the mill jet turbine engines.

Gross! (2, Funny)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228420)

Incontinental? Ewww. Put this in idle, please...

Wait, what? Intercontinental? Ohh! Nevermind...

Nothing short of awesome. (1)

LikwidCirkel (1542097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228460)

I'm amazed how critical we all are of this stunt, over nitty-gritty details like not taking off from the ground, or being "only 23 miles". Sure, the article has a bit of questionable information, but no matter how you look at it, this guy is full of awesome and has far more balls than most of us. The design and the execution of these stunts is far from trivial.

If I defeat Jetman... (2, Funny)

HishamMuhammad (553916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228484)

Do I keep his jet-powered wings? Are they useful for beating other bosses or is he too hard and I should get some other weapons first? Do you guys think I should defeat him before or after Cutman?

Just a performance.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30228490)

It might be an expensive feat but it's along the same lines of stunt men entertainment.

It's a lousy way... (1)

rusty0101 (565565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228678)

...to avoid customs. I mean how many customs agents are going to be looking for him now?

Re:It's a lousy way... (0)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 4 years ago | (#30228922)

Forget customs. If he tried this coming in from Nova Scotia to North America, he would get shot down.

M

Re:It's a lousy way... (1)

al.caughey (1426989) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229338)

Did I miss something?!? when did Nova Scotia get annexed from North America?

Last words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229290)

"I'm headed towards a 'what'?"

Not taking off from the ground? (1)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229392)

That's not flying, that's falling with style...

Just think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30229430)

Some terrorist will strap one of these wings to his or her back and slam themselves into Sears Tower with a bomb on.

I guess it was too... (1)

uuddlrlrab (1617237) | more than 4 years ago | (#30229634)

short of a trip for him to pull a Steve Fossett.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>