Talk:Jet pack

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jet pack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met Rocketry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spaceflight Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Water sports Low‑importance Jet pack is within the scope of the WikiProject Water sports, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Water sports. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Water sportsWikipedia:WikiProject Water sportsTemplate:WikiProject Water sportsWater sports Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Popular culture (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture Culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I recently stumbled upon a video of a supposedly working Japanese jetpack made out of bottle rockets. (it's actually linked from the mythbusters wiki page). It looks as if it actually works. Trajectory looks a bit odd though, large chance it might be a hoax. http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/31501/detail/ Whacha guys think? Squiggle 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mythbusters busted it.WolfKeeper 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Rocket Packs have been in flight since the late 60's. I remember watching a man fly into the Orange Bowl in Miami Florida when I was a kid. If you'd like to see the real deal, you can see a man who does this for a living and videos to go with it [www.rocketmaninc.com] - Added by David Woroner 6/21/06 [1]link title

The Bell rocket belt is referenced in the Similar devices section. When adding to an article, please check closely to avoid duplication and keep the tone consistent. Chairboy 15:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The one mentioned for James Bond actually flew and worked. I just saw Modern Marvels do an entire episode on James Bond vehicles and gadgets in which they showed it working (in one instance at the Superbowl). They called it (and it is usually referred to by most Bond websites) as the "Bell Textron jet pack," FYI. After looking at that website it would appear it is called the "rocketbelt" though. Informative :) K1Bond007 21:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the Bell Rocketbelt works very nicely indeed. Millions saw it in action at the 84 Olympics during the opening ceremonies, don't forget. Chairboy 23:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OMG, I could totally build a real jetpack. This will be my funnest project yet. It's so simple, I couldn't believe when I read "fictional" that it hasn't actually been done. I could totally do this. The U.S. Military departments funded by them have built solar technology that is capable of fueling itself off of electricity and then launching themselves in a rocket-like manner. Just combine some of that technology with jetpack technology and walah. wow. Another interesting thing is how NASA is trying to build more devices that power themselves off actual atmospheric air. Its not going to be too far away before someone builds an actual jetpack. --Cyberman 07:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

After building the working rocket pack or rocketbelt, Bell Aerospace also built a working jet pack or jetbelt. Development began in 1965. The device was first flown in April 1969 by pilot Robert Courter at Fort Myer, Washington. Courter subsequently flew the jetbelt for an Ovaltine television advert. However, when rocketbelt and jetbelt inventor Wendell Moore died in May 1969, the entire flying belt project was shut down. Bell sold the patents for the jetbelt to Williams Research of Michigan in 1970. The jetbelt never flew publicy again.

• Brown, Paul. Rocketbelt Caper, The. Lulu Press. ISBN 1-4116-2984-1.

External Links

• The Rocketbelt Caper

The intro claims the US military declared jet packs are officially lamer than helicopters. Source please? Tempshill 19:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Googling found this. It's not official, but it sounds authoritative (then again, so do we). --Kizor 21:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The actually existing "jet pack" is a familiar sight - not that you see it every day, but that it's memorable and many people have seen demonstrations on TV. It should be thoroughly documented here. The "jetpack in space" ought to be thoroughly documented also, although I think it should be in its own article. Tempshill 19:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A-HA! I knew it was real, I just couldn't find a source. I doubt I'll be able to do so now, though. As for jetpacks in space, though, the MMUs and SAFER units are linked to in the article. --Kizor 21:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The articles gives me a strange impression, that these devices do not really exist (though I know they do and the article does state this). This is caused mainly by the images, which are two renderings and a movie screenshot. A list of some really build devices with names and manufacturer and at least an image of a real jetpack in use should be added. The name of the inventor would not hurt either.

Any chance of an expanded fiction section? Too much of the article currently discusses the real world instances... --Fangz 14:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Be bold. Put up any information that you can source. Even though jet packs have been built, they are impractical at this point, so most of the references would be in fiction. Val42 19:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A separate article has already been created for the Bell Rocket Belt. It should have its own article as an aircraft type. The details in this article about the Bell rocket belt should be moved to that article. Rsduhamel 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Anthony Appleyard 07:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At about 17.50 on 1 Jan 2005 I merged Longer history of rocket packs into Jet pack. Anthony Appleyard 13:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rocket Belt and the Jet Pack are NOT the same machines. Both where built by the same company, Bell Aerosystems, but the Rocket Belt uses a hydrogen peroxide rocket as the power source to fly and the Jet Pack uses a Williams turbine. Please keep this two pages separated. If you want to add a picture of the Jet Pack to the Jet Pack page go to http://www.rocketbelt.nl and go to the Bell Jet Belt menu; don't be confused with the Rocket Belt, the word JET diferentiates both machines. 13:54, 25 February 2006 200.95.151.164 .

• The pages rocket belt and jet pack were identical, so I again redirected rocket belt to jet pack. I put some text in jet pack explaining the difference between a rocket belt and a jet pack. Anthony Appleyard 14:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that small TurboJet engines are commonly available for model aircraft these days, is it now feasible to build a TuboJet pack?

The average weight of a man is about 190 pounds.

BMV jets (http://www.bvmjets.com/) supply a turbojet that can provide 50lbs of Thrust.

Turbine Thrust (lbs) Diameter Weight (lbs) Price JetCat P-200 50 5.12 5 $4,995.00

With 2 banks of 3 JetCat P-200's strapped to your back you would have 300lb of Thrust to play with. That should be enough to cover the weight of the man, the engines and a reasonable amount of fuel. Then again, I have no idea how many pounds of fuel one of these engines would burn per second. Does anyone here know the rough figures?

Or is there some flaw to this idea? Do these model jet engines only generate 50lbs of thrust when they are travelling at some speed through the air?

I've looked at pulsejet engines but they always seem to be very long, so might not be practical for a jetpack. Opinions? -- (unsigned by anon)

I think that the big problem with turbojets is controllability. Basically turbojets can't respond to the throttle fast enough to give the fast thrust variation that you need. But hey, what do I know. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrier jumpjets seem to manage it OK. I think a turbojet based jet pack has been built IRC.WolfKeeper 02:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some cleaning up. After about half-way through the article, the language changes to far worse, barely legible due to serious grammatical errors.

Yes, and the article also is very repititious; some of the later sections read as if they were paraphrased from earlier sections. The article needs a rewrite.--Drvanthorp 06:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in serious need of clean up and restructuring. 1) It must separate fact from fiction. 2) The fiction is fine as long its kept there. 3) The non-fiction needs first the a) separation of the rocket (Bell) from the b) jet (Williams). Individual elaboration on implementations is fine, just make certain to reference current disposition. 198.123.50.168 (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is inconsistent use of the term "jet pack/jetpack" and "rocket pack/rocketpack". Neither the word "jetpack" nor "rocketpack" appears in authoritative english dictionaries (Oxford or Websters). So it would appear that terms "jet pack" and "rocket pack" are more appropriately generic terms. But "jetpack" and "rocketpack" will have legitimate use in trade names or specifically published names. I have gone through and attempted to consistently apply the generic use of "jet pack" and "rocket pack". Mac160 (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/02/06/solotrek.jetpack/index.html - Worth a read - article might need updating to take this into account.
• This seems to be a sit-in type of backpack helicopter, not a jetpack. See SoloTrek XFV. Anthony Appleyard 05:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"At the end of the war this device was handed over to Bell which tested it on a tether out of fear of harm as no test flier was willing to risk his life with the German machine. What became of the device is not known but Bell later came up with its famous "Rocketbelt" design that Wendel Moore claimed was his own. Although of different configuration and operation, it is suspected that Moore had knowledge of the German machine - hardly an "original" idea."

The last two sentences in this paragraph from the article contain non-factual information, speculation, and opinion. I believe those statements should be removed. Any comments before I do so? Overcast75 17:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph edited.Overcast75 05:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jetpackinternational.com/index.html

I remember seeing the jet pack get flown on an episode of six million dollar man in the 1980's when he was battling a robot which couldn't be stopped. my friend says he saw it on Gilligans Island also.

I also saw it on Knight Rider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.26.43 (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCIS also had a whole episode about jet packs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.122.179 (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• People always say that a jetpack is an immpossible thing to build... it's not. I'm still a kid that still goes to school like all others but little do the other kids know that it possible for even one of there schoolmates to build a jetpack. the jetpack that i am building is called the Chaser. it is not an active machine though it does seem that it is complete. The Chaser is a simple divise 1 foot by 2 feet. when the machine is put into an active mode it slowly gains the energy to speed up the "fans" that are turned up allowing are to push you down towards the ground. then when the energy collectors are finished they blow through a diffrent set of fans blowing down. as you levatate the fans that are blowing down are lifting you and the fans that are blowing up are keeping you at a reasonable height keeping you more comfortable flying. message by unknown user
• Are you describing a hovercraft or a backpack helicopter? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chaser is a simple 1 foot by 2 feet design of an inactive jetpack that is still in the process of being made... I am a kid ready for high school and i am already half way done with this flying machine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bird moose (talk • contribs) 01:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that the cruise missile was powered by the same type of turboject used in the Olympic jet pack demoe?Engineman (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article repeatedly says that the cost of the fuel for a hydrogen peroxide powered rocketpack is one of the major negatives of this design - but how much are we actually talking here? Does anybody know how much a 30-second amount of fuel costs? Are we talking $10,000 here? $1,000? $500? $50,000??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.128.26 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4640262/James-Bond-style-jetpack-powered-by-high-pressure-water-invented.html

Obviously, it doesn't work without a lake or large source of water, or a boat/base unit to pump the water up to the pack, but it certainly appears to actually work. --204.4.131.140 (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a wet dream for jetpack fans. See http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/01/move-over-jetboy-the-electric-powered-super-quiet-personal-vtol-vertical-takeoff-and-landing---nasa-puffin-may-be-the-pe.html Fredrik Bränström (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the second section (WWII German development) the section states that the prototype was handed over to "Bell."

Assuming this is Bell Aerosystems in the USA? Adding hyperlink untill further notice. RRM MBA (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following section needs to be reworded. "Rocket packs can be useful in outer space, where much less thrust is needed, because the weightlessness of space removes the need to continually fight against gravity"

There is no weightlessness in space. The sense of weightlessness is a byproduct of the speeds needed to offset the earth's gravity to remain in orbit. the concept that weightlessness removes the need to fight against gravity is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njb1969 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it.--Patrick (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find mentioning propellant usage per unit of time misleading when it comes to orbital operations. While it may be strictly true, the time factor is irrelevant when you're not hovering. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is mentioned in a comparison with use near Earth. I think in an EVA the g-force does not need to be as high as g, and additionally, does not need to be continuous.--Patrick (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the flying tech used by fictional comic book character Iron Man be considered a Jetpack technology? And if not why not?. Also why no mention of Boba Fett from Star Wars?! He is clearly seen using a jetpack in the movies.--Ickesshadow (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Michael Jackson use a jet pack in one of his concerts? Was this a real one or SFX? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charrchr (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pic is of a nice size and covers a flying man but is not a jet pack at all. Readers of The E.E. (Doc) Smith book will readily recognize the "test rig" put together to check the movement of the propulsion system against the movement of the Earths progress against the sun. The man is not flying but rather has been left behind by the movement of the Earth as it moved on while he was enveloped within a blanket of "Inertia". The hero uses rapid bursts of "Inertia" to slow his gravity-fueled descent and is met with grave concern by his love interest upon making a return. The rig is used only once as the danger of passing too far out into the earth's wake leaves the hero promising never to use it again when his love interest realizes just how unlikely his return to earth safely has been. In any case while the pic at first appears to be a good one, the object depicted is for the story "The Skylark of Space" and is not in any way a "Jet pack". Perhaps another more suitable pic could be found to illustrate this section such as "The Rocketeer"? I would have included "Ironman" and "commander cody" but the description of their flight methods is consistantly described as "by using repulsor rays" for Ironman and "using radio energy" to support himself for Commander Cody making both technically not Jet-Pack users either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.68 (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur: The Flying Suit of Dick Seaton is _not_ a jetpack and a very poor example to use. Wiki has a better image already available: The Cover to the magazine publication of Starship Soldier (Starship Trooper) by Robert Heinlein plus these: http://pulpcovers.com/tag/jetpack/page/2/ and https://manifestfuture.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/a-curated-look-at-pulp-covers/ would be a better fit. Presumably copyright free.Brobof (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Michael Jackson use a jet pack in one of his concerts? Was this a real one or SFX? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charrchr (talk • contribs) 17:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson was lifted into place by overhead crane while wearing a costume (non-functioning) jetpack. It was a nice effect but not a "real Jet-pack".

CHU: It was a real Helium jetpack but the pilot is a stunt double not Michael Jackson himself. Switches as the boxes of equipment comes in. But not A crane ? You cant fool those people in that concert they will sue you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:E180:8870:C985:92D5:85D6:EE10:F182 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Michael Jackson used a real jet pack in one of his concerts. But it only looked like he was flying it. Magician David Copperfield was hired to find a way to "switch" Michael (who had put on a helmet to shield his face) to a professional who donned a real jet pack and flew away, prompting the announcer to say over the loudspeaker - "Ladies and Gentlemen, Michael Jackson has left the building..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.122.179 (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Williams Wasp count since it was a jet powered functioning device which actually passed testing but was discarded as making it's user too much of a target? The Williams wasp used the newly refined small jet engine later to be placed in US cruise missiles to lift a "Dick Tracy" style bucket aircar with us helicopter style skids. The device had much longer duration that the "Rocket belt and showed promise before being discarded with the reasonable viewpoint that infantryman hovering low over a battle field would lack cover and concealment making them expensively outfitted targets for enemy forces to pickoff. Shown here in the youtube video copy of stock US Army footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJARrc40imk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.68 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Jet Pack' used at the end of a number of the 1992 Michael Jackson Dangerous tour performances was a 'Powerhouse Productions Rocketbelt' piloted by Kinnie Gibson'

I would like to object to Jetpacks being tagged as an emerging technology.

1. They have been around for a long time.
2. They will always have limited range until we invent a nuclear energy supply small enough to fit into a backpack.
3. The ability to have one person fly in such a manner is of limited practical value.

These are novelty items with only incremental changes. They are not a promising emerging technology. Indolering (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• They are much further flying per fuel used if wings are added: see Jet pack#Winged jet and rocket packs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Pac This should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.219.201 (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is Jetpac, a videogame whose main feature is an interstellar rocket-pack. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One single AP press report (By Frank Jordans 5/14/2008) is the source for EVERY article that says Rossy "rose 2,600 feet" on his flight across the Alps. HOW did the reporter know that? WHO measured that and HOW? I am totally skeptical that given all the weight and the shortness of the wings that he could do any more than make an assisted glide at a steadily (if very slowly) declining altitude. I WANT ANSWERS! Genepoz (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some of the earliest jet packs was created in Romania in 1956 by Iustin Capra it was called the "flying rucksack" . Little is known by this project because the communist regime persecuted the inventor for his work. few words about this are already written in the Romanian wiki: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Capr%C4%83#Automobilul_Virgilius — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.177.32.154 (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) a picture with the actual device: http://www.mnt-leonida.ro/site/08GaleriaPersonalitatilor/JustinCapra/RucsacCapra.jpg[reply]

• I have added section Jet pack#Justin Capră's flying backpack. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Sir . I need to make a small remark about: "(to the displeasure of Romania's Communist authorities) sent the idea to the USA".... it is very unclear if HE sent his idea to US or a spy stolen his idea and sell it to US. I would recommend extreme caution when mentioning this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.177.32.154 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that when the jetpack provides an uplifting force at the back of the pilot, gravity should make the pilot tumble / turn forward, as his or her center of weight is in front of the jet. How is that effect avoided?Meerwind7 (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jet pack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080519135201/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5jfWNoyCK4QHbCQ_3bzRRjCjvlYiQD90LTSVG0 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfWNoyCK4QHbCQ_3bzRRjCjvlYiQD90LTSVG0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jet pack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517134644/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_re_eu/switzerland_rocket_man to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_re_eu/switzerland_rocket_man
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130806054354/http://www.zapata-racing.com:80/en/flyboard/historique/ to http://www.zapata-racing.com/en/flyboard/historique/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140218160906/http://swatkats.info:80/episodes/season-2/when-strikes-mutilor/screenshots to http://swatkats.info/episodes/season-2/when-strikes-mutilor/screenshots

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jet pack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730052216/http://www.jetpackinternational.com/equip.html to http://www.jetpackinternational.com/equip.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730052216/http://www.jetpackinternational.com/equip.html to http://www.jetpackinternational.com/equip.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tv3.cat/videos/71209
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151107191504/http://jetpackaviation.com/the-jumpjet/jb-9/ to http://jetpackaviation.com/the-jumpjet/jb-9/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930023905/http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4217989.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4217989.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jet pack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080601141103/http://www.daylife.com/photo/0aKOeAIdiCeDE to http://www.daylife.com/photo/0aKOeAIdiCeDE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

165.139.226.6 (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)The natural ability of humans to fly, how good or bad it is in fiction and bothering to make a contrast, and the technological limits today, are not suitable for making such a negative turn of phrase at the beginning. It is as if there is doubt worded in, and a small amount or remembering fiction with disdain to say, "oh, well, realistically they are not as good." We have jetpacks. Period. Say we do, tell them it is awesome, because it is, and is more recreational than stated initially as well with some future development perhaps one day with air-breather technology.[reply]

Here's a link to an article w/video: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6543347/Startup-plans-launch-worlds-jetpack-racing-league-2019.html Probably best to wait until the league actually starts, if ever. Until then this is just a "heads up." Phantom in ca (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kg and pound 2A01:5EC0:1001:EB25:9C67:9F21:F39D:5797 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to see jetpacks in every country, due to high cost and dangerous to use by being near to a combustion engine and it is only used by professional pilots. But if you want an unusual sighting now available in Wikipedia articles by clicking this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaFryingPan (talk • contribs) 02:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Martin Jetpacks (30 minutes of flying, record at this time)
• Jetman jetpack

Go Fast Jetpack (one of the most significant jetsuit models, by records it set up) by Jet Pack International Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a few years or decades I think jet packs will be used as a sport, as fastest jet pack flyer or fastest jet pack, an other one could be jet pack drill etc. What do you think. 46.99.138.118 (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2024, 99% Invisible did an episode on jetpacks called "Rocket Man". Website Transcript They interviewed Steve Leto, author of "The Great American Jetpack", who told them Nazi jetpacks are a hoax. So are Romanian ones that predate Bell's.

I didn't want to delete a section that many people have worked on and has citations. So I just added a paragraph in the Nazi jetpack section saying basically what I said above. (Since I have citations for it!)

Some moderator can decide if the sections should be deleted, moved to fiction, or moved under a new headed of "hoaxes".

I looked into all of the sources linked for the Nazi jetpack, none of them are acceptable sources. Source 15 references a book that mentions a Nazi jetpack. The bookhas one sentence that mentions just that it existed. The source the book cites for this is a dead link going to a biography page on a man named Clive van Heerden, who worked at Philips at the time the book was written and is not a historian. Sources 16 and 25 references this page that no longer exists. It has no evidence for authenticity, and there are no other pages online that back it up. Source 26 is a reupload of source 16's text to a new site. Sources 17, 19, and 24 link to the same news article that references source 26. I can't read German, but source 18 appears to be a paper discussing Nazi propaganda films and has no historical evidence regarding the Himmelsturmer. Source 20-22 are papers discussing the history of pulse jets in Germany and do not mention pulse jets being used for a jetpack. I believe source 23 is a Nazi propaganda booklet but I was unable to find it anywhere, making it unacceptable on the grounds of not being accessible. Source 27 also simply links back to the text of source 16. All of the information in this section is either inaccessible, unrelated to the existence of German jetpacks, or links back to this or this website, both of which have the same text and have no other sources that corroborate their claims. I'm going to delete the section, as it is clear the information here is not acceptable to Wikipedia standards. -Bermudarhombus1, 3:51, May 15, 2024 (EDT)