81–89 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A hovercraft doesn’t fly not because the wing in ground effect but because it doesn’t have 6 degrees of freedom which constitutes flying. A sub or a torpedo can fly through the water just like an airplane or a missile do through air.
Flight is typically 4DOF: (throttle, pitch, roll, yaw). There is no horizontal or vertical 'strafing' ability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I think the question becomes, what sort of situations are actually happening, and then what capability is needed to mitigate those situations? If an area's data says that there are enough people whose position we know, but because they didn't get rapid, low level stabalizing triage care they ended up dying then a system like this might make sense. But if most of the cases involve searching, higher level care, an…
I don't disagree, and the same conversation happened when helicopters were first considered for SAR operations. My reading of your comment was that you dismissed as unlikely any application of the jet suits in a SAR role and I don't agree that there is no place or situation where these things make more sense than a helicopter. I was hoping to describe the parameters around where they would make sense.
I don't want to say that there isn't any application of this tool in a Sar role, but I don't think that this tool is any better than what organizations currently have available. It isn't a game changer, and it isn't going to save lives that would have otherwise been lost. If you wanted to save lives of hikers, you'd spend $400k on personal locator beacons and let people snag them at a ranger station for their hike. That would save more lives than a fancy suit I bet. While I can see there is a scenario where first responders say "wow I'm glad we had the jet pack in the back of the truck" I don't see it being worth the effort to get an agency to the point where every truck and crew has that capability without sacrificing any other capability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably just US, it would be hard to compile such data globally. I dropped my friend a line and he answered back with a detailed description of his helo accident. It was one helluva freakish story. They loaded an older lady in a hilly, wooded area not quite close to Ostrava (the largest city in the region, my birthplace). She had symptoms of a serious stroke, it was 1998, no one really expected her to live long, but…
So they instantly lost the main rotor? Same thing happens in mast bumping . Here's the best explanation I know of: https://youtu.be/jDg1G2y8ZX4?t=293 (As far as I can tell no-one has made an animation of what happens.)
Seems to me like little more than a cheap publicity stunt for fundraising. I thought the number one rule for First Responders was not to cause injury (on the scene or en-route) to yourself or bystanders and not to cause further injury to the casualty. A "paramedic jet suit" just seems to be waiting for an opportunity for the paramedic to become a statistic as they fly head-first into rocky substance. Then I suppose w…
> Seems to me like little more than a cheap publicity stunt for fundraising. Having volunteered as a first responder in the White Mountains of New England and with a few friends who dealt with mountain rescues, particularly winter mountain rescues, I strongly disagree with you. There are plenty of places where there are significant numbers of people hiking/climbing/skiing/snowboarding, a vertical range of Yes, no dou…
Pretty cool usage scenario, since everyone can imagine a flying hero coming in to save the day. That being said, this feels like a solution looking for a problem. I am sure there are specific areas of responsibility that would benefit from a rapidly deployable single medic carrying a small triage kit with no patient return capability, but they are probably few and far between (especially when you factor in the above…
I agree that a jet pack isn’t as useful as a helicopter, but they are way, way cheaper. Medical helicopters cost millions of dollars and require expensive fuel and highly trained pilots. Jetpacks cost $100-300k, use a fraction of the fuel, and can be flown with a sports pilot license (much easier to acquire and maintain).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Up to a max altitude of 7 meters (at best), sure, an Ekranoplan has got all the degrees of freedom that other aircraft have, Which as was pointed out here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24629545 , is not 6 Imho no, an Ekranoplan does not fly freely. Nothing to do with a bogus DOF count though
The only reason an Ekranoplan can't fly higher is it's wings don't generate enough lift out of ground effect. Load a 747 up high enough, and it too wouldn't be able to get out of ground effect, but I'd still say it was flying.
A 747 with no fuel can't take off and fly.
A 747 with so much load that it never takes off at all, can't fly.
And IMHO, a 747 with just so much load that it can barely take off but can't get out of ground effect, also can't fly. It's borderline, but not really.
It's an academic distinction though. Give the 747 a while, and it will burn enough fuel to lighten and ascend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they instantly lost the main rotor? Same thing happens in mast bumping . Here's the best explanation I know of: https://youtu.be/jDg1G2y8ZX4?t=293 (As far as I can tell no-one has made an animation of what happens.)
If they survived the crash, it probably was something necessitated an auto rotation, rather than the main rotor departing the helicopter. If that happened they would almost certainly be dead. If the nut on the top of the rotor mast detached - called the Jesus nut - they would also be dead. Mast bumping probably wasn't the cause either since that is a problem mostly constrained to a type of rotor system that wouldn't…
Good point, went down like a stone is unlikely to be true.
> a type of rotor system that wouldn't typically be used in an air ambulance setting
Sure, I didn't phrase my comment very well, hadn't meant to imply otherwise.