
WASP II flying platform - dcminter
https://oppositelock.kinja.com/wasp-ii-the-coolest-flying-platform-ever-1720168195
======
benmarks
A different type of WASP than I was thinking!

Another aviation-related WASP program was the essential WWII-era Women
Airforce Service Pilots, which ran from 1942-44. These women "became trained
pilots who tested aircraft, ferried aircraft and trained other pilots
[including towing firing practice targets]. Their purpose was to free male
pilots for combat roles during World War II."[0]

They were recently awarded the Congressional Gold Medal and granted internment
rights at Arlington.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Airforce_Service_Pilots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Airforce_Service_Pilots)

------
derekp7
The article mentioned that the operator has both hands tied up in order to
control the craft, so there isn't much else they can do other than observe.
Seems that could be taken care of these days by using computer controlled fly
by wire.

The other big problem is high noise. So no that usable for reconnaissance. But
with a half hour of flight time, and if it could be made to hold a couple
passengers, it looks like something that would be useful for field evacuation
use.

~~~
evgen
For a fun dive into the wild days that were early-50s aeronautical research,
check out the Hiller Flying Platform
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_VZ-1_Pawnee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_VZ-1_Pawnee)].
It was basically the segway of the skies. Bay-area folks can actually go see
the original at the Hiller museum next to the San Carlos airfield.

------
hodgesrm
If you like this sort of technology check out the Hiller Aviation Museum in
San Carlos, California. Stanley Hiller's company did a lot of early work for
the US Department of Defense including helicoptors.

The aircraft on display are amazing. The mid-20th century had some incredible
aircraft designers.

[https://www.hiller.org/](https://www.hiller.org/)

------
mncharity
More recently, there's Flyboard Air[1] and EZ-Fly[2], though pricing and
availability are unclear. Water jet Flyboards[3] and packs are a few $k.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UbOG0ERCwM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UbOG0ERCwM)
[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExAY2kYvkpQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExAY2kYvkpQ)
[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjvm5kO6ILA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjvm5kO6ILA)

~~~
eth0up
Thanks for sharing this! It's something I've been confused by the absence of,
for years. This seems exceedingly worthy. It will be very interesting to see
them make progress with the fuel and distance limitations. I hope they are
more than successful.

Edit/add:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyboard_Air](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyboard_Air)

~~~
mncharity
> This seems exceedingly worthy.

Well, perhaps, though running several jet turbines... aside from the amazingly
loud noise, that seems a lot of maintenance and fuel? EZ-fly's 5 engines, 280
lb payload, and 12 minutes duration, suggests something vaguely like JetCat
P400-PRO 89 lb thrust engines. So say $3/min fuel. Running near max, so maybe
low/mid-order 100hrs for minor/major teardowns? A $10k engine. So about the
same cost/min for maintenance? Swap out an engine each shift. So several
hundred dollars per hour operating cost? So like a light helicopter? But
louder.

A similar but jetpack form:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh1x6q21-HU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh1x6q21-HU)

Thus all the attention on electric and hybrid, and winged VTOL.

~~~
eth0up
I confess, I'm waiting for an Xjet/WASP III. Can't help it. I do agree that
there is room for improvement, notably with efficiency. Do you have any
estimate of the decibel level of the WASP?

~~~
mncharity
:)

 _Any_ estimate? Well... WASP was apparently a turbofan, and thus likely
quieter than these small turbines - less high-frequency noise from shear.
Quick googling turns up [1], which has a CJR900 small airliner as 78 SEL dBA @
400 ft @ low 1k lb taxi thrust. So perhaps take that as a low bound. And [2]
suggests an upper bound of 120 db at 9 ft for one of those small turbines.
So...?

I was going to say "No idea, sorry", but when encouraging estimation and rough
quantitative reasoning, I argue that one should never say "no idea", because
its almost always untrue - one can almost always get _some_ bounds. And
surprisingly often, they are satisficingly narrow. Though perhaps not these.

One notable thought from [2] was the high-frequency noise attenuates rapidly
with distance.

[1]
[https://www.nap.edu/read/22606/chapter/6#19](https://www.nap.edu/read/22606/chapter/6#19)
[2] [https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/9317226-need-
de...](https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/9317226-need-decibel-
level-jetcat-p-70-a.html)

------
NikolaeVarius
[https://youtu.be/NkpcRX6o7VM?t=386](https://youtu.be/NkpcRX6o7VM?t=386)

~~~
paulmd
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXOjc3b_FZ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXOjc3b_FZ8)

------
makerofspoons
Calling Dick Tracy:
[https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/0616/13/dick-
tr...](https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images1/1/0616/13/dick-tracy-lunch-
box-1967-embossed_1_d45301fae936e880b9830c79fbd970a3.jpg)

------
nikodunk
I have to dive deeper into my aerospace history. Whenever I think I have an
overview, something like this crops up.

------
car
I recall that this became possible due to the development of a small jet
engine for cruise missiles.

------
astronautjones
it really pains me how much good content on the gawker network of sites/kinja
legacy sites is still actively ruined by great hill partners

