https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.


The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I
can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting on
top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot suspended
underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 16:55:10 UTC, GB wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.


The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I
can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting on
top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot suspended
underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?

Burned by jet exhaust?

On 30/11/2016 16:59, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 16:55:10 UTC, GB wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.


The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I
can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting on
top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot suspended
underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?

Burned by jet exhaust?

Absolutely. Only 5 or 6 out of 8 have big fans powered with electric
motors.

It would need to be a very small pilot?
I thought the main point was that you control them via your shifting body
weight?

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"GB" wrote in message
news
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.


The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I can
find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting on top of
something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot suspended
underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?

On 30/11/16 16:55, GB wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.


The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I
can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting on
top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot suspended
underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?
Ground effect.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 30/11/2016 4:55 PM, GB wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.


The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I
can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting on
top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot suspended
underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?


I'm wondering how the early flying lesson go?

On 30/11/2016 19:11, RayL12 wrote:
On 30/11/2016 4:55 PM, GB wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.


The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I
can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting on
top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot suspended
underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?


I'm wondering how the early flying lesson go?

Not well

On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.


Coming to a battlefield near you soon.

On 30/11/2016 21:19, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA
Astonishing.
Coming to a battlefield near you soon.

Nah! They tried that in the 60s wasn't a good idea .
No-one fancied being a floating target twenty feet above any cover.
And it had to be bigger and easier to control so that joe normal
squaddie (not the designer or someone who had taken as long as a pilot
to train)could fly one.

http://www.macroindustries.com/websi...20platform.png

harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

GB wrote
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8
designs I can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or
sitting on top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the
pilot suspended underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?

Because it would be MUCH harder to control where it goes.

Its clear that he controls it entirely by shifting his body position.

On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

What you need is some idiot with a drone trying to capture his flying from close up view.



**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

On 01/12/2016 04:52, Rod Speed wrote:
GB wrote
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I
can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting
on top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot
suspended underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?

Because it would be MUCH harder to control where it goes.
Its clear that he controls it entirely by shifting his body position.

You can move you centre of gravity by moving your legs, but that might
get tiring. It would be easy to add some control surfaces.

On 30/11/2016 21:31, soup wrote:
On 30/11/2016 21:19, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA
Astonishing.
Coming to a battlefield near you soon.

Nah! They tried that in the 60s wasn't a good idea .
No-one fancied being a floating target twenty feet above any cover.
And it had to be bigger and easier to control so that joe normal
squaddie (not the designer or someone who had taken as long as a pilot
to train)could fly one.

http://www.macroindustries.com/websi...20platform.png

The Williams X-Jet was pre-Vietnam War vintage. They could have added a
bit of titanium armour, and it might have been more popular. As it was,
it worked, but it couldn't really compete with a Huey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_X-Jet

On 01/12/2016 04:47, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.
Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.
**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.
Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The back pack is the fuel AFAICS.

On 30/11/2016 21:31, soup wrote:
On 30/11/2016 21:19, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA
Astonishing.
Coming to a battlefield near you soon.

Nah! They tried that in the 60s wasn't a good idea .
No-one fancied being a floating target twenty feet above any cover.
And it had to be bigger and easier to control so that joe normal
squaddie (not the designer or someone who had taken as long as a pilot
to train)could fly one.

I can see quite a few people that would want one and wouldn't be worried
about getting killed.

On 30/11/16 21:31, soup wrote:
On 30/11/2016 21:19, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA
Astonishing.
Coming to a battlefield near you soon.

Nah! They tried that in the 60s wasn't a good idea .
No-one fancied being a floating target twenty feet above any cover.
And it had to be bigger and easier to control so that joe normal
squaddie (not the designer or someone who had taken as long as a pilot
to train)could fly one.

http://www.macroindustries.com/websi...20platform.png
What actually happened is drones. Squaddie stays in cover and sends a
quadcopter over armed with a 20mm cannon


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

GB wrote
Rod Speed wrote
GB wrote
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I
can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting on
top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot
suspended underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?

Because it would be MUCH harder to control where it goes.
Its clear that he controls it entirely by shifting his body position.

You can move you centre of gravity by moving your legs,

Nothing like the effect that leaning forward and back has on the CoG.

but that might get tiring. It would be easy to add some control surfaces.

But much harder to control them. And you wouldnt get anything like the
same control power as you get when you lean over so the entire axis tilts
and the thrust is no longer entirely vertical and is what accelerates the
entire thing horizontally so dramatically. There's a reason choppers have
a ****ing great rotor above what its carrying around and they are MUCH
more difficult to fly than that flyboard.

'cos the competition is in how *hard* to control they a
https://goo.gl/X0px7o

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.
Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.
**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.
Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The back pack is the fuel AFAICS.

Could be I spose.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 30/11/16 21:31, soup wrote:
On 30/11/2016 21:19, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA
Astonishing.
Coming to a battlefield near you soon.

Nah! They tried that in the 60s wasn't a good idea .
No-one fancied being a floating target twenty feet above any cover.
And it had to be bigger and easier to control so that joe normal
squaddie (not the designer or someone who had taken as long as a pilot
to train)could fly one.

http://www.macroindustries.com/websi...20platform.png
What actually happened is drones. Squaddie stays in cover and sends a
quadcopter over armed with a 20mm cannon

They actually stay back home and send it over the other side of the world.

MUCH safer for those doing the flying of it and they
get to go home to the wife and kids every night too.

RayL12 wrote
GB wrote
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8
designs I can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or
sitting on top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the
pilot suspended underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?

I'm wondering how the early flying lesson go?

Yeah, we really need a decent reality TV series on that.

dennis@home wrote
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

Coming to a battlefield near you soon.

Nope, not a chance. MUCH too vulnerable and easy to hear and see.

Any military with even half a clue uses drones to support the
apes in boots with guns, with whoever is driving the drone a
hell of a long way away from the battlefield where its safe or
even on the other side of the world where its even safer.

On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The "parachute" is his fuel tank ****-fer-brains.
Parachutes take at least 200' to deploy.

On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 19:11:21 UTC, RayL12 wrote:
On 30/11/2016 4:55 PM, GB wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.


The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I
can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting on
top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot suspended
underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?


I'm wondering how the early flying lesson go?

I 'spect he flies over water because it's a bit softer if he hits it.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 19:11:21 UTC, RayL12 wrote:
On 30/11/2016 4:55 PM, GB wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.


The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I
can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting on
top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot
suspended
underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?


I'm wondering how the early flying lesson go?

I 'spect he flies over water because it's a bit softer if he hits it.

Yeah, I thought that might be the case too.

On 02/12/2016 08:54, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The "parachute" is his fuel tank ****-fer-brains.
Parachutes take at least 200' to deploy.

I've done a jump and was told at the time that the minimum height to
properly deploy is 500ft.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 02/12/2016 08:54, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The "parachute" is his fuel tank ****-fer-brains.
Parachutes take at least 200' to deploy.

I've done a jump and was told at the time that the minimum height to
properly deploy is 500ft.

Depends on the parachute. Base jumpers do it at a lot less than 500ft.

On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 09:24:15 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 02/12/2016 08:54, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The "parachute" is his fuel tank ****-fer-brains.
Parachutes take at least 200' to deploy.

I've done a jump and was told at the time that the minimum height to
properly deploy is 500ft.

That pussy on the flyboard has a helmet on, so he's clearly afraid that he's no good at it.

--
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

On Friday, 2 December 2016 09:24:18 UTC, Bod wrote:
On 02/12/2016 08:54, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The "parachute" is his fuel tank ****-fer-brains.
Parachutes take at least 200' to deploy.

I've done a jump and was told at the time that the minimum height to
properly deploy is 500ft.

Emergency parachutes have special features.

There are bungees to rip the pack open.
There is a big spring to throw the canopy out.
There is a drouge chute to pull the main canopy straight.
They are very small and lightweight.
They can only be used once.
You may well break a leg on landing but at least survive.

In practice virtually nobody gets out and survives below 2000'
They have to release their seat belts and open the canopy and get out.
But above all they have to make their mind up to do it.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 2 December 2016 09:24:18 UTC, Bod wrote:
On 02/12/2016 08:54, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The "parachute" is his fuel tank ****-fer-brains.
Parachutes take at least 200' to deploy.

I've done a jump and was told at the time that the minimum height to
properly deploy is 500ft.

Emergency parachutes have special features.

There are bungees to rip the pack open.
There is a big spring to throw the canopy out.
There is a drouge chute to pull the main canopy straight.
They are very small and lightweight.
They can only be used once.
You may well break a leg on landing but at least survive.

What base jumpers use is quite different and
works at much lower altitudes, for a reason.

In practice virtually nobody gets out and survives below 2000'

Base jumpers do fine at much lower levels than that.

They have to release their seat belts and open the canopy and get out.

Irrelevant to flyboards and base jumpers.

But above all they have to make their mind up to do it.

Irrelevant to flyboards and base jumpers.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 08:34:05 -0000, harry wrote:

On Friday, 2 December 2016 09:24:18 UTC, Bod wrote:
On 02/12/2016 08:54, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The "parachute" is his fuel tank ****-fer-brains.
Parachutes take at least 200' to deploy.

I've done a jump and was told at the time that the minimum height to
properly deploy is 500ft.

Emergency parachutes have special features.

There are bungees to rip the pack open.
There is a big spring to throw the canopy out.
There is a drouge chute to pull the main canopy straight.
They are very small and lightweight.
They can only be used once.
You may well break a leg on landing but at least survive.

In practice virtually nobody gets out and survives below 2000'
They have to release their seat belts and open the canopy and get out.
But above all they have to make their mind up to do it.

You're talking about having to exit a plane. If you're already floating in midair and open a chute, you need only 500 ft.

--
1 in 10,000 people have their internal organs the other way round (left to right)

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 08:34:05 -0000, harry
wrote:

On Friday, 2 December 2016 09:24:18 UTC, Bod wrote:
On 02/12/2016 08:54, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The "parachute" is his fuel tank ****-fer-brains.
Parachutes take at least 200' to deploy.

I've done a jump and was told at the time that the minimum height to
properly deploy is 500ft.

Emergency parachutes have special features.

There are bungees to rip the pack open.
There is a big spring to throw the canopy out.
There is a drouge chute to pull the main canopy straight.
They are very small and lightweight.
They can only be used once.
You may well break a leg on landing but at least survive.

In practice virtually nobody gets out and survives below 2000'
They have to release their seat belts and open the canopy and get out.
But above all they have to make their mind up to do it.

You're talking about having to exit a plane. If you're already floating
in midair and open a chute, you need only 500 ft.

You don't need anything like 500' as the base jumpers prove.

On 11/30/2016 4:55 PM, GB wrote:
On 30/11/2016 16:26, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.


The odd thing about these hoverboards (and there are about 8 designs I
can find easily) is that they all have the pilot standing or sitting on
top of something. That's inherently unstable. Having the pilot suspended
underneath is inherently stable. Why don't they do that?

I think it is no accident that the developer / demonstrator is an
international level skier. You and I might not find it so easy.

The original "NASA" jet-pack did have the pilot suspended. It's
astonishing how much they have improved the flight time (presumably by
having a light but powerful and efficient gas turbine).

On 12/1/2016 9:35 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.
Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.
**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.
Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The back pack is the fuel AFAICS.

Could be I spose.

I think so. It is a lot larger than the emergency chute used by
paragliders, etc. It would be interesting to know whether the pilot in
the demo has one. Presumably a lot of the development was done "tethered".

newshound wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.
Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.
**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.
Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The back pack is the fuel AFAICS.

Could be I spose.

I think so. It is a lot larger than the emergency chute used by
paragliders, etc.

Yeah, tho base jumpers would be a more viable comparison.

I agree tho, his is a lot thicker than you see with base jumpers.

My main reservation was what must be the feed line for
the fuel down his leg looks much too thin to be viable.

It would be interesting to know whether the pilot in the demo has one.

Cant see how it could be done unless its the outer
of the fuel pack, furthest away from his body.

Presumably a lot of the development was done "tethered".

I spose so but particularly the way you just lean
over to do most of the important controlling,
hard to see how you could do that tethered
without the tether causing you to crash in a
way that you wouldnt do without the tether.

I dont plan to fly one any time soon.

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 21:04:49 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 08:34:05 -0000, harry wrote:

On Friday, 2 December 2016 09:24:18 UTC, Bod wrote:
On 02/12/2016 08:54, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The "parachute" is his fuel tank ****-fer-brains.
Parachutes take at least 200' to deploy.

I've done a jump and was told at the time that the minimum height to
properly deploy is 500ft.

Emergency parachutes have special features.

There are bungees to rip the pack open.
There is a big spring to throw the canopy out.
There is a drouge chute to pull the main canopy straight.
They are very small and lightweight.
They can only be used once.
You may well break a leg on landing but at least survive.

In practice virtually nobody gets out and survives below 2000'
They have to release their seat belts and open the canopy and get out.
But above all they have to make their mind up to do it.

You're talking about having to exit a plane. If you're already floating in midair and open a chute, you need only 500 ft.

As this fellow's only at 50 feet or so, a parachute won't save him

On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 09:06:48 -0000, harry wrote:

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 21:04:49 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 08:34:05 -0000, harry wrote:

On Friday, 2 December 2016 09:24:18 UTC, Bod wrote:
On 02/12/2016 08:54, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The "parachute" is his fuel tank ****-fer-brains.
Parachutes take at least 200' to deploy.

I've done a jump and was told at the time that the minimum height to
properly deploy is 500ft.

Emergency parachutes have special features.

There are bungees to rip the pack open.
There is a big spring to throw the canopy out.
There is a drouge chute to pull the main canopy straight.
They are very small and lightweight.
They can only be used once.
You may well break a leg on landing but at least survive.

In practice virtually nobody gets out and survives below 2000'
They have to release their seat belts and open the canopy and get out.
But above all they have to make their mind up to do it.

You're talking about having to exit a plane. If you're already floating in midair and open a chute, you need only 500 ft.

As this fellow's only at 50 feet or so, a parachute won't save him

Maybe a different kind of parachute?

--
Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?

On Sunday, 4 December 2016 17:48:30 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 09:06:48 -0000, harry wrote:

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 21:04:49 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Sat, 03 Dec 2016 08:34:05 -0000, harry wrote:

On Friday, 2 December 2016 09:24:18 UTC, Bod wrote:
On 02/12/2016 08:54, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 1 December 2016 04:48:02 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
harry wrote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deyMNPbaRpA

Astonishing.

****ing hell.

Wonder how many will end up dead learning to fly one.

**** all I spose, bet they arent cheap.

Bet the parachute is completely useless most of the time.

The "parachute" is his fuel tank ****-fer-brains.
Parachutes take at least 200' to deploy.

I've done a jump and was told at the time that the minimum height to
properly deploy is 500ft.

Emergency parachutes have special features.

There are bungees to rip the pack open.
There is a big spring to throw the canopy out.
There is a drouge chute to pull the main canopy straight.
They are very small and lightweight.
They can only be used once.
You may well break a leg on landing but at least survive.

In practice virtually nobody gets out and survives below 2000'
They have to release their seat belts and open the canopy and get out.
But above all they have to make their mind up to do it.

You're talking about having to exit a plane. If you're already floating in midair and open a chute, you need only 500 ft.

As this fellow's only at 50 feet or so, a parachute won't save him

Maybe a different kind of parachute?

--
Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?

The only thing that would save him at fifty feet would be an ejector seat..... I don't see one.