(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-10 05:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] silmaril.livejournal.com
"The pilot must also weigh between 140-240 lbs."

BUGGER. Bugger bugger *grumble* bugger.

Note to self: Put on weight once you've saved enough money. Or invest in *mumble* pounds of ankle weights as ballast.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-10 05:21 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-10 05:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] publius1.livejournal.com
Note to self: I now have a reason to lose...um... A LOT of weight.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-10 05:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] falconwarrior.livejournal.com
We could split the price and ride it Voltron-style assuming you weigh between *mumble* and *mumble mumble* pounds. Then neither of us will have to go to other extents to prevent flying off into the stratosphere.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-10 06:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anton-p-nym.livejournal.com
Mygaw... that's beautiful... pity about needing a total overhaul after 100 flight-hours, but otherwise it's marvellous and I actually do want one. ("Want" and "will get", of course, being two entirely separate states.)

-- Steve should also start a pool on when the first "jetpacker 'run over' by an aircraft" accident results from a 3D version of jaywalking.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-10 06:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] quotation.livejournal.com
As jet pilots concentrate more and more on their LCD screens, and as hobbyists find smaller ways in to the sky, this is already a much bigger problem than most people know.

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-10 07:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladyfox7oaks.livejournal.com
Nah, just strap your luggage on as that extra weight!

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-10 07:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] falconwarrior.livejournal.com
Alternate ending: the extra weight can perhaps be provided by your warhammer? And don't tell me you wouldn't want to soar through the skies wielding a huge-ass hammer.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-10 08:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] firebreathnchkn.livejournal.com
Hoverdude goes whirrrrrrrrrr.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-10 11:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lafinjack.livejournal.com
Those aren't jets, they're turbines.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-11 01:04 am (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-11 02:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pappy-legba.livejournal.com
You're thinking in terms of automobiles, not of aircraft. Overhaul after 100 flight hours is pretty good for most things that fly. And that's considering that there are probably intermediate maintenance requirements between those intervals.

Keep in mind that for a lot of aircraft, you have to think in terms of maintenance hours per flight hour. Imagine if you had to have your car in the shop for two hours for every hour you spend driving it.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-11 02:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pappy-legba.livejournal.com
Most jets are turbine-powered, but you're right that it's not a jetpack. It's a ducted fan-pack.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-11 02:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pappy-legba.livejournal.com
Edit: 1000 hours between overhauls, not 100.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-03-13 02:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] corruptedjasper.livejournal.com
Yeah, complete and total overhaul (as in, you need to replace the entire spaceframe with a new one) after 2000 hours was what was quoted for the kit-helicopter that that veterinarian built in "A Helicopter Is Born", as well as some fairly hefty (replacement of a few hundred quid worth of parts) maintenance every 25, and even more (like, full engine overhaul, right the way down to the crank bearings) every couple hundred.

Presumably the only stuff that remains after a while, even without failures and/or accidents, is the non-structural parts like the fiberglass on the outside.

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Mar. 9th, 2026 08:53 pm