It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flying Platforms & Hoverboards

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Moar:



www.vectorsite.net...


It was a cute toy but of no particular usefulness, and it was cancelled in 1969. Williams continued to tinker with the idea, coming up with a one-man flying platform powered by the WR19 or a derivative engine, known as the "WASP", which was later renamed the "X-Jet". This machine looked something like a flying trashcan on skids, and could carry a pilot directing the machine with two grip-type controls. It was evaluated in the 1980s and noises were made about a more capable successor, but apparently its endurance was too limited and, as was the case with most of the other one-person flying machines, it was hard to understand that it offered any utility proportional to its expense and complexity.

Details of the X-Jet program remain entirely obscure. One X-Jet is now on display at the USAF Museum in Ohio, while another is on display at the Seattle Museum of Flight. The WR19 and its descendants did prove to be useful powerplants for long-range cruise missiles.


Interesting gadget. I suppose the Dick Tracy 'magnetic air car' in the previous post was based on this. Doesn't seem to show where the engine would be housed and how the lift was directed from the pictures.

Where did you get that it was in the '50s?




[edit on 28/9/2008 by Badge01]




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
From the Thunderbolt site:

www.thunderman.net...

There's a bit more on wearable rocket belts and gadgets, including the famous 007 gadget.

Flying Chair:




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Saying it was from the 50s was my mistake (because the Vid was black/white).

Considering how it flies and works and how absolutely amazing it is, Im starting to suspect some kind of cover-up. I originally posted it here because I saw no cover-up...but...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


There´s no way this Williams one-man craft was useless. The military implications alone would be staggering. Imagine "ground troops" flying around in that.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Thanks for the retro-comic.

You you know anything about recent developments (90s, 2000s)?

This is all I can find, but there must be more locked deep within military vaults.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...


www.flying-platform.com...

www.aerobiker.com...
(concept only, it appears)

en.wikipedia.org...

You did see the Jetpak man fly over the English Channel this past week, right? Pretty cool.

afp.google.com...

Yves Rossy.

Think I saw an update of the 007 type jet pack with a three minute fly time. Uses H2O2.




Ideally you'd want something quieter. Contra-rotating carbon fiber ducted fan?

From Intelgurl's thread (2006) Petzoldt Rocket pack:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

HTH.




[edit on 28/9/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   



awesome.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Edit. (Bah)


[edit on 28/9/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
less awesome.





posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Not sure if you saw this one - the Martin 'Jetpack' (which is a misnomer, because it's two ducted fans).

Pardon if it's a dupe.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Examples like this, which are not ready for prime time even 30 years later, make the Williams X-Jet even more remarkable - if it really lived up to the description. Too bad info is so sketchy on the X-Jet.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 




How does inertia and friction operate when something is using a gravity repulsion field? Does it automatically cancel out inertia?


Hey Brother Badge,
In order to answer this question I need to reference Paul R. Hill's book Unconventional Flying Objects. UFO fields have been called force fields because of their effect on mass. Actually, a more accurate term would be acceleration fields. This is equivalent to gravity fields, which cause weight because they are acceleration fields.


Assume the UFO above is accelerating at 100 g, and most of the power is being directed (as shown) to provide acceleration. The occupants are seated where some of the field is "leaked" as a 3-dimensional diverging field. Because of the inverse-square law, the seating of the occupants can be at some distance from the field generators where leakage field is 100 g or 99 g (the aliens might decide to "feel" one g to give them some sense of propulsion). It has been theorized that one or more of the saucers (scout ships) provide "hover power" for the larger craft, as seen in the drawing. Also notice the drawing depicts an air-control field at the front of the craft. This field is basically a pressure regulator. The reason our supersonic aircraft create "sonic booms" is because the vehicle is moving so fast that the air in front of it does not receive the incremental pressure signal to "slow down and move out of the way." The UFO does not have these issues due (in theory) to an air-control field. Thus the UFO is much different than any manmade aircraft. Airplanes use the atmosphere to generate lift and fly. To the UFO, the atmosphere is nothing but a (very) minor annoyance.

The field really doesn't need to be "gravity" so much as it needs to act on all matter, not just the charged stuff.

Edit: I know this thread is about flying platforms so excuse the ufo reference.


[edit on 23-10-2008 by Scramjet76]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Badge01
 


There´s no way this Williams one-man craft was useless. The military implications alone would be staggering. Imagine "ground troops" flying around in that.


Yes, that's where infantry belongs; up where everyone can see them, illuminated on pillars of flame, so that nobody can miss them on IR, if they didn't see them already, or hear the roar of their jet engines.

Right up until their jet fuel runs out ten minutes into the operation, and they need to get back to a fuel truck.

These things would turn regular light infantry into something that uses more logistic support and maintainence than a mechanized infantry unit with it's own air support from attack helicopters. All for the capability for a few guys with rifles and maybe some antitank rockets (who won't be able to use them well, because the vehicle requires both hands) to fly around, consequently negating the very advantages that make normal infantry useful; they can hold ground, use cover, and enter buildings, while using far less logistics than vehicles.

The infantry can't carry around the flying trashcans, which means they're just very small vehicles. You don't see infantry tooling around the deserts and cities on gas powered scooters, even though that would give them all the speed advantages of a Humvee, but letting them fit in smaller spaces. The reason: it's a stupid idea. It doesn't get any smarter when the scooters can fly.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Ok so I'm coming back to this thread....


Just typed out several paragraphs and then my computer randomly restarted.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mdiinican
 


Then why are police- and security at airports using scooters more and more? It certainly makes them quicker.

Add some weapons to the hoverboard and you´ve got a mini-plane.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join