WASP II - The Coolest Flying Platform Ever

"SteveLehto" (stevelehto) 07/26/2015 at 10:00 • Filed to: None

20

90

Anyone remotely familiar with internet hype knows that flying cars and jet packs are “Just around the corner!” Interestingly, much of the cool technology in this field came and went decades ago. Like the WASP II flying platform.

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! on the history of The Great American Jet Pack and in doing so, immersed myself in the study of everything from the Zimmerman Flying Shoes to the Water Jet Pack. And the coolest, most improbable flying device which actually worked: The WASP II. Yup, that thing in the picture is actually flying.

First, some background. This category (Individual Lift Devices) does not include airplanes, gliders or things of that nature. What I was looking at was the promise of personal flight. You know: Walk out into your backyard and take off. This is often summarized as “jet packs!” but there was so much more. Scientists did everything from build upside down helicopters to strap rockets to mens’ backs. Some of these things worked - in that they got a person off the ground and back down without killing them - but most had drawbacks. Expensive fuel, complicated builds, strenuous training, short flight times and so on. No one ever came close to building something that the average person could just strap on and fly.

But one of the coolest devices built in this field was the WASP II flying platform. It started with the WASP which was pretty much a jet engine blasting at the ground. WASP stood for Williams Aerial Systems Platform - Williams being the company that built it.

The operator just hung onto the device and steered it by shifting his body weight. This kinesthetic control is how many of the ILDs were steered. When the WASP worked (it took off, landed, and no one got hurt) plans were made to refine it. The WASP II was similarly a downward pointed jet engine but it had a housing in which the operator stood. This lent itself to a variety of nicknames, including the Flying Pulpit.

The WASP II had only two hand controls: a throttle and yaw control. The throttle worked as you might imagine: the more you gave it, the higher or faster you went.

Rotating or turning on a vertical axis is the problem of yaw control. To spin or turn the WASP II in mid-air, small vanes redirected some of the thrust as it blasted from the base of the craft.

The man you see at the top is Bob Courter, the guy who had the coolest job on Earth. He passed away not too long ago and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Among the cool things he got to fly were the rocket belt, jet belt, WASP and WASP II.

He’s the one who proved this thing could be flown, and steered simly by leaning in the direction you wanted to go. Under his control, WASP IIs zipped around effortlessly, defying gravity and looking like they shouldn’t be able to do what they were doing.

The WASP II was pitched to the military. It could fly at 60 MPH and stay aloft about a half-hour if need be. But it was expensive, loud, and took more than a bit of skill to operate. And since the operator used both hands to fly it, what else could he do while he was up there besides look around? Even so, Courter trained three soldiers with no special aviation background to fly the units and the group put on a demonstration which was considered a huge success.

No one could quite figure out what to do with the vehicles otherwise. So the program was closed. Of the WASP IIs built, a couple of them can be seen by people like you and me. One is in the air museum at the Wright Patterson AFB and the other is in the Seattle Museum of Flight.

Personally, I think the WASP II was pretty cool but I’ll tell you what probably made a few of the operators pause: To fly the craft, you stand with your feet on opposite sides of a small jet engine. As you straddle that jet engine, working the controls and keeping a keen eye on your balance, consider what might happen if something in that engine were to let loose. Particularly the portion that was groin-height. It never happened but it is something to think about, my friend.

Here is the obligatory youtube video to prove I’m not just makin’ this stuff up. That’s Courter at the controls. There are more videos out there and a ton of info too. And if you might want to read a book on the topic, there’s !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . And, this was not all for naught. The engine in the WASP II eventually found its way into a variety of cruise missiles and those are still in use. Yeah, you can’t ride one of those but there was a time when Bob Courter climbed aboard one of those engines and took it for a spin.

Follow me on Twitter: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Hear my podcast on iTunes: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Steve Lehto has been practicing law for 23 years, almost exclusively in consumer protection and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! He wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

This website may supply general information about the law but it is for informational purposes only. This does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not meant to constitute legal advice, so the good news is we’re not billing you by the hour for reading this. The bad news is that you shouldn’t act upon any of the information without consulting a qualified professional attorney who will, probably, bill you by the hour.

Sam > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 10:33

0

Have you ever used one of those water jetpacks? They look like they could be fun and terrifying at the same time.

SteveLehto > Sam 07/26/2015 at 10:34

0

No. I talked to the inventor and then went and saw one being demonstrated. Later, the location that had them went out of business. That is pretty much the only one of these things I would want to try since it is the least likely to kill you.

Nathan Clarke > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 11:04

0

Not to take away from anyone’s accomplishments here, be it Bob’s amazing flying or the simple yet brilliant engineering but that is the dorkiest flying thing I’ve ever seen.

shadowrunner > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 11:04

15

Cobra!!!!

Prophet of hoon > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 11:05

0

One of the criticisms I read on the WASP II had to do with its lack of weapons or armor. The statement was you were a loud, target. The other was on recoil, apparently those were about as easy to keep vertical as standing on a beach ball on ice. I guess the confluence of those issue was you wouldn’t notice people shooting at you because you were so busy trying to keep from dying at your own hand (and that would be doubly complex that if you shot back, that would kill you too). With that said, I wonder how that would work with Segway controls?

SteveLehto > Nathan Clarke 07/26/2015 at 11:05

5

What? Do you think it should have spoilers? Or cool spinning rims?

Not sure what it ought to look like when it does what it does.

Nathan Clarke > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 11:07

0

Ha! Definitely no spinners. But maybe that museum version could ditch the Pepsi Co colors and do some military garb.... you know, toughen her up a bit.

SteveLehto > Prophet of hoon 07/26/2015 at 11:08

0

Well, that was the problem with every flying platform that took two hands and kinesthetic controls to fly. There were later developments with fly-by-wire controls and automatic stabilizers and so on but you still have the issue of what you can do with it. Armoring it makes it heavy and the flight time was already an issue.

In some respects it was like a rocket belt - those flew and looked really cool but had no practical use. The difference was that the WASP II flew for a LOT longer (half hour versus less than a half minute).

SteveLehto > Nathan Clarke 07/26/2015 at 11:12

0

The top pic is military paint. The museum pics were when it was called the “X-Jet.” I don’t care for either paint job myself but I still find the thing mesmerizing in flight.

thb > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 11:14

7

Ever play metal gear solid? In 3 they have wasps with machine guns. Just a game but its all military historical fiction. And those suckers were a pain to shoot down.

SteveLehto > thb 07/26/2015 at 11:15

3

Never seen that but I suspect it’s not terribly realistic.

Nathan Clarke > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 11:17

1

For sure, it looks straight outta star wars. I’m sure sitting in that cockpit got atrociously hot. All the more to Bob for sacrificing his genitals safety to fly one of the neatest inventions of the era.

Maxxuman > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 11:18

0

“Anyone remotely familiar with internet hype knows that flying cars and jet packs are “Just around the corner!”

Of course as your article makes clear, those claims predate the internet by quite some time.

I wish I could find video of Australian comedian Anthony Morgan on a New Years Eve 2000 TV show I saw (on a recording - I wasn’t in front of the TV that New Years Eve). He pointed out that for years we’d been told “In the year 2000 we’ll all be flying around with rocket packs”. He went on to blame the government for hiding all the rocket packs as part of a conspiracy and worked himself up into a frenzy demanding “WHERE’S MY BLOODY ROCKET PACK?!” He’s an odd sort of a guy (perhaps even by comedian standards) and completely cracked me up with that routine.

SteveLehto > Nathan Clarke 07/26/2015 at 11:20

0

The whole exercise was an amazing thing to study. Flight times actually varied based upon the atmostpheric pressure, outside temperatures and how much Bob weighed that day. They actually weighed him before each flight! That’s why the numbers given for flight times are usually vague or approximate.

SteveLehto > Maxxuman 07/26/2015 at 11:30

1

The promises have always been around but recently there has been an increase in two major fields: The flying cars and the Martin “Jet Pack.” Some things never change and when the internet is replaced by something else (Holograms blasted into our heads by satellite-based lasers?) the primary promises will be flying cars and jet packs.

Oh Yes They Will > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 11:49

0

“10,000 feet”

NOPE NOPE NOPE

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 11:52

3

Now, that’s what you call a crotch rocket.

Vincent Davidson > Maxxuman 07/26/2015 at 11:58

0

Sort of like its 2015, where’s our Hoverboards and Hovercars?

RedPir8Roberts > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 12:19

0

Pretty amazing, it seems to have Segway levels of stability in that short clip (pilot to be credited in large part?), I imagine wind would be a bit of an issue as with all aircraft though. Ten thousand feet and 30 minutes range are jaw-dropping facts. The risk of being mutilated by the jet engine is less obvious than in an Aerocycle, which —wow. He’s wearing a helmet, though! Looking for that led me to the Airgeep, which while not a platform like the Wasp II, is pretty damned awesome IMO. In today’s computerized world, I’m sure that they’d have a way to compensate for the recoil on what appears to be a cannon, but in the 1960s that would have been pretty challenging to do I’m sure. The jetpack did have the benefit of helping you escape from bad guys, so there was that practical application, see the opening sequence in 007’s “Thunderball.” The flight shown there is real, and the reason “Bond” wears a helmet is because the stunt pilot insisted upon it. They don’t show Bond taking an alternate (presumably longer) route in the Aston to beat the bad guy to his lair or lugging the jetpack up to the roof, but then Bond does everything and does it well (like flying jetpacks), which is what makes him Bond. (That sequence is also the inspiration for Austin Powers’ assault on his superior’s mother, “that’s a man, baby!”)

JayHova > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 12:22

1

Lawyer, diskjockey, author of a book about jetpacks.....where’s the common point?

SteveLehto > RedPir8Roberts 07/26/2015 at 12:31

1

Yes, the upside down helicopters would really make you re-think some of your earlier life choices.

I interviewed one of the two guys who did the stunts for Thunderball. (Bill Suitor) I wonder how much editing and cutting they would have had to do if “Bond” hadn’t worn a helmet. The cool part is that he is wearing a really nice suit while flying - and it is unwrinkled when he removes the rocket belt.

SteveLehto > JayHova 07/26/2015 at 12:33

2

I have no idea! I just want a really cool-looking resume’.

Actually, I wrote the book on turbine cars and mentioned the jet belt because Dr. Williams worked on the turbine cars before he started his own company that made the engine for the jet belt. My publisher asked me if I thought there was a whole book there. And there was.

RedPir8Roberts > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 12:50

1

There really is no substitute for having one’s suits made in Savile Row, apparently. The Bond franchise’s use of real, amazing stunts like the jetpack, the spinning car bridge jump in Man with the Golden Gun and the ski / parachute jump in The Spy Who Loved Me are part of what makes it great. But it’s kind of funny that the jump in Man with the Golden Gun is followed up by the flying Matador scene, where it is pretty obviously a model at takeoff (at least when you’re not caught up in it at the theater). But I guess making two AMCs actually fly for one film was asking a bit much. Very cool you interviewed the stuntman from Thunderball.

JayHova > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 12:53

2

I just want a really cool-looking resume’.

I believe you have achieved that.

Suckafishman > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 13:19

1

Very cool. Did anyone actually fly this at 10,000’?

SteveLehto > JayHova 07/26/2015 at 13:29

0

It’s a work in progress. Check back in a couple of years.

SteveLehto > Suckafishman 07/26/2015 at 13:30

0

I think they calculated that but I never heard of them flying it that high.

the7thearlofgrey > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 13:41

3

you can fly it but you'll never be allowed membership in the club of the down to earth WASP 1 society

live2skico2 > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 13:51

4

...and the original Flying WASP

torque > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 13:53

1

Good post Steve. I remember in the late 80’s / early 90’s there was a news piece (60 minutes?) asking this same question “where’s my flying personal transport?”, and stating the same answer “it already exists” citing the wasp2 as “the answer”. They had some great video clips of it flying (in military green), stating the same drawbacks as above as to why our forces never put it in to service.

I think the concept is so enticing that I expect people to keep trying, though improbable to find a suitable solution, sure wish anyone trying good luck!

slaw > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 14:01

4

And since the operator used both hands to fly it, what else could he do while he was up there besides look around?

Use the Segway control system for yawing and you’d have a free hand. For targeting an autocannon, maybe.

No one could quite figure out what to do with the vehicles otherwise.

Positioning forward observers in otherwise inaccessible (and therefore unexpected) locations for artillery and airstrikes.

Inspecting surface ships for damage or required maintenance while at sea.

The world’s noisiest ambush.

Prevent bird strikes by scaring the crap out of birds loitering around airfields: first with the noise, then by chasing down the motherfuckers and slapping them around a bit.

Three words: crate of grenades.

chaos-cascade > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 14:03

3

Which came first the WASP or Dick Tracy’s flying garbage can?

He beat Apple to the punch on the watch for sure.

IGetPwnedOften > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 14:06

1

I’ll take two. Where do I sign?

I’m sure that one day (within two years maybe...? ;-) ) we’ll have flying cars and jetpacks, but until then, this’ll do me.

Having said that, can you imagine the carnage if everyone was let loose in the skies? The only way it could possibly work is if every vehicle were autonomous. Maybe that’s Google’s plan - take over the web (check), take over the roads (getting there) and then take over the skies.

Done with Kinja > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 14:16

3

With modern tech, maybe this idea should be looked at again. Better thrust, small engines, lighter weight materials, modern computers and avionics and better fuel management could all add up to a fun and viable little package! The Segway of the sky!

JayHova > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 14:36

1

Give me a shout when the autobiography is released.

Tvrtko-Kamen > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 14:59

1

So this was something like flying Segway?

Phantomlimb > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 15:03

1

I wonder which way it spun when they tried to shoot a gun from it.

SteveLehto > Phantomlimb 07/26/2015 at 15:18

0

Equal opposite reaction . . .

bobobobinalong > chaos-cascade 07/26/2015 at 15:54

1

I believe the good constable wins again. The WASP was in the 1970s; Tracey got his pods along with the Space Coupe in the mid-60s. Both used magnetic propulsion. He also beat NASA to the Moon by five years.

Miles Teg > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 16:02

2

I kind of want to built one of these.

alohahomer > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 16:18

5

I remember the 60 minutes episode. Maybe inspired the hover bikes from Akira.

PatriceBoivin > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 16:35

0

I’m confused, in the 1980s there were pictures of people using jet packs and things like this to work on power poles. Was it all just hype? Why are things being posted now saying jet packs don’t exist yet? I thought life was straightforward, but the more news I read the more confused I become. It’s like reading posts about what’s healthy to eat and what isn’t, there are contradictions everywhere.

Vashvashvashvashvash > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 16:38

0

I do think know too much about the wasp, but one of the earlier iterations of that idea, the vz-1 was said to be very stable. The pilot could handle heavy cross winds, as well as fire a rifle without having to be too concerned about the recoil.

other concerns could have been alleviated at the time as well. Surely it was possible to make a one handed device that could control thrust and yaw. The danger of a self destruction of a jet engine is handled today by essentially wrapping it in Kevlar, making the housing strong enough to contain the flying blades. There is still the question of what to do with such a machine, or rather what can it do better than existing aircraft.

Also it’s not really fair to call the prop powered platforms upside down helicopters. From what I understand, the center of gravity was still below the prop. It was more a conventional, but small, helicopter with counter rotating rotors that the operator stood on top of.

SteveLehto > PatriceBoivin 07/26/2015 at 16:41

0

Jet packs and rocket belts exist. They just are not practical. Nor can you easily go out and buy one. The rocket belt flies for no more than 30 seconds. Every one that you have seen in flight was only in the air for 25 or 28 seconds MAX. They never found any practical use for them and anything showing them being used for those purposes was probably an artist’s rendering.

SteveLehto > Vashvashvashvashvash 07/26/2015 at 16:44

0

The upside-down helicopter was more a reference to the fact that the blades were underneath the operator instead of overhead. Obviously, they had to still move air in the same direction as a typical helicopter; otherwise, it would not fly.

The Hiller flying platform that you refer to was also grossly oversold. It was nowhere as easy to operate as they claimed, nor was it all that practical. I’ve seen the films of them firing guns from it and you can tell that it was not terribly stable.

ToastedTires > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 16:45

0

Ok, not as cool (not jet powered) but arguably better:

In the mid-1950s, Hiller Aircraft constructed a series of flying platforms for an Army-Navy program. The pilot simply leaned in the desired direction and the platform would follow. Hiller Aircraft incorporated twin counter-rotating propellers in a round housing (ducted fan). Sixty percent of the platform’s lift was generated by thrust from the counter-rotating propellers and 40% was generated by air moving over the ducted fan’s leading edge (Bernoulli principle).

https://howthingsfly.si.edu/media/flying-p…

These things proved almost TOO stable AND there were no compressor blade whizzing by your genitals.

Vashvashvashvashvash > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 16:57

0

I’d like to say that I’ve seen the same videos (I can’t know for sure, but how many of them can there be?) and it didn’t appear, to me, to be that dramatic. The platform would shift a foot or so and quickly right itself. It appeared more comparable with firing from a small hovercraft than trying to balance on a beach ball. Of course, I wasn’t there, so I have no way of knowing how badly it was oversold.

One would think that modern technology could make for a very stable, or rather self stabilizing platform. While military application are probably not there, I can see how it could be useful in the civilian world, especially if it can be made cheaper than a helicopter and easier to operate (easy enough so as not to require the same license)

Neat idea, and certainly considerably more useful than a jet pack. We’ll see if anything becomes of it.

Why is mobile kinja so awful? Typing should not be this difficult

Martin Drkos > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 17:38

1

So the ridiculous flying platforms from MGS3 were actually a real thing? Then again, so was the ridiculous nuclear rifle. Now dig up some secret military files about a prototype half screw driven half hovercraft with nuclear launch capability.

SteveLehto > ToastedTires 07/26/2015 at 17:45

0

I did a chapter on those too. They were not quite as practical as Hiller made them out to be. Still, they were pretty cool becuase they were relatively low-tech (and thus, easier to make).

SteveLehto > Vashvashvashvashvash 07/26/2015 at 17:46

0

As for over-selling, Hiller was king (maker of the bladed flying platforms). He claimed they were so easy to fly, “A trained bear could fly one.” Yet, he only demonstrated them being flown by an Air Force test pilot.

SteveLehto > Martin Drkos 07/26/2015 at 17:47

0

I’ve never actually seen a nuclear rifle. Or a nuclear car. I know they TALKED about nuclear cars but no one ever made one.

Vashvashvashvashvash > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 18:11

0

In his defense, trained Bear pilots were presumably in short supply at the time. A problem that remains unsolved to this day

SteveLehto > Vashvashvashvashvash 07/26/2015 at 18:13

0

OR, maybe they flew trained bears all the time but kept the work classified?

OK, I’m off to research my next book . . . .

e_is_real_i_isnt > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 18:31

1

The Robinsons used one extensively in their early planetary explorations but the technology got lost.

Dan > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 18:34

0

Australian accent on the video?

SteveLehto > Dan 07/26/2015 at 18:38

0

No idea. Didn’t sound Midwestern to me.

Ad_absurdum_per_aspera > slaw 07/26/2015 at 18:45

0

Making sure there were plenty of muzzle flashes to help CAS pinpoint the enemy.

For Freudian fear-overcoming, though, there was nothing quite like the Soldier Processor . Maybe it was okay to fly, but it looks like using a riding mower upside down.

Vashvashvashvashvash > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 18:47

0

Great, now I have to watch out for Bear paratroopers coming to silence me for good. How does one prepare for that?

SteveLehto > Vashvashvashvashvash 07/26/2015 at 18:52

0

There is no defense. That is why it is such a brilliant idea.

ToastedTires > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 20:01

1

I fell for the hype! I feel so ashamed.

SteveLehto > ToastedTires 07/26/2015 at 20:23

1

At least you didn’t waste millions of taxpayer dollars developing it.

ToastedTires > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 20:31

1

What's funny is I could get a few million to develop an advanced flying lawnmower but it will be 2016 before I can get $12,000 to replace windows that have been broken since 1996. If I'm lucky.

sklooner > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 21:41

1

I could use this to paint my house

zack_falcon > shadowrunner 07/26/2015 at 22:31

1

Nope. The correct answer is Jonny Quest:

(excuse the pixellated picture, please)

Vashvashvashvashvash > SteveLehto 07/26/2015 at 22:46

1

And yet, there you are, criticizing the technologies that by your own admission will result in the strongest military this world has ever seen.

Peace thru strengths

Strength thru bears in upside down helicopters

SteveLehto > Vashvashvashvashvash 07/26/2015 at 22:59

0

I only pretend to not take it seriously. To throw off the commies.

Manin Pub (told me so it must be true) > SteveLehto 07/27/2015 at 02:47

1

That is an incredible machine. Noisy? Imagine being the pilot. Basically your head is above the intake, your legs wrapped around a screaming jet engine. The pilots made it look quite easy. Brave men.

10,000 feet? That’d be a flight not soon forgotten.

Manin Pub (told me so it must be true) > SteveLehto 07/27/2015 at 02:52

1

Speaking of men with enormous balls.....

Evil13RT > alohahomer 07/27/2015 at 06:19

0

Akira basically solved all the major concerns.

What is it? A scout vehicle.

How do I shoot? Mounted gun.

Engine less in-your-groin and it obviously had some stability software for a total novice to fly it. Im surprised they couldn’t find a market for a real one.

Martin Drkos > SteveLehto 07/27/2015 at 07:01

0

This is the nuclear gun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Croc…

SteveLehto > Martin Drkos 07/27/2015 at 07:19

0

Yes, I knew they made a nuclear GUN. In military parlance, a GUN is what many civilians would call a cannon. I thought someone was referring to a rifle (or other handheld device). As far as I know, no such thing like that was ever made.

Sissyfoot > SteveLehto 07/27/2015 at 09:46

1

Please stop posting fascinating non-lawyer things so I can keep you conveniently categorized in my head.

JimmyNoVA > live2skico2 07/27/2015 at 13:23

0

Spalding! Get your foot off the boat!

JimmyNoVA > SteveLehto 07/27/2015 at 13:26

1

As the author mentions, first thing that came to my mind were three, terrifying words: Uncontained turbine failure. Yikes.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > SteveLehto 07/27/2015 at 13:27

1

Yves Rossy has gotten us as close to a “practical” jet pack as anybody. You can’t exactly take off from your back yard, but sustainable flight isn’t a problem.

With modern digital control systems and gyroscopic stabilization I wonder how far away we are from a true flying platform/saucer. The concept doesn’t seem that far removed from a jet powered flying Segway.

SteveLehto > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 07/27/2015 at 13:29

0

I love Rossy too. He is getting CLOSE to it but still - the average person could never use his wing.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > SteveLehto 07/27/2015 at 13:46

1

He definitely makes for some astonishing footage.

The Real Five 0 > SteveLehto 07/27/2015 at 16:32

1

a recoiless gun, or what everyone else calls a rocket launcher :-)

Manic Otti > SteveLehto 07/27/2015 at 18:17

1

“Courter trained three extremely terrified soldiers”

SteveLehto > Manic Otti 07/27/2015 at 18:38

0

You’d think so, right?

I interviewed one of them too. Said it was one of the coolest things he ever got to do. But yes, there were some scary moments early in his training.

Manic Otti > SteveLehto 07/27/2015 at 18:56

0

Aside from the fact that you’re first flight was bound to be a solo, I’d bet there were some scary moments. As far as what you’d do if something went wrong, what would you do other than squat down inside the thing and hope for the best?

SteveLehto > Manic Otti 07/27/2015 at 19:02

1

It had a ballistic parachute which worked above 75 feet or so. Below that, you were on your own.

Manic Otti > SteveLehto 07/27/2015 at 19:34

1

Interesting.

Rick Brasche > SteveLehto 07/28/2015 at 12:29

0

The Hiller VZ-1 platform was a bit easier to fly and with better performance. the WASP motors had a short operational lifetime and would have had to be replaced often. Some company was even making a kit. But safety and fear won out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_VZ…

SteveLehto > Rick Brasche 07/28/2015 at 12:32

0

Not sure I’d put those piston engines up against a Williams Jet but to each his own.

As for what was “easier to fly,” I don’t know if that is the criteria either. Look at the films of Courter on the WASP II and then look at the films of the VZs in flight. Tell me which one you think actually performed better. Courter would have done circles around the Hiller.

Which also raises the question: Why aren’t people rushing to recreated the Hiller considering how simple of a build it was?

Prophet of hoon > SteveLehto 07/28/2015 at 20:00

1

I have a response to this, I was in Court today doing lawyerly things and was bored - it was there that I hit upon the perfect solution.

Here is my solution/response.

SteveLehto > Prophet of hoon 07/28/2015 at 20:24

0

World domination is ours!

Prophet of hoon > SteveLehto 07/29/2015 at 21:17

1

You’ve figured out how to control a woman with guns? you’re good, you’re VERY good.

xtnp > SteveLehto 07/30/2015 at 10:47

1

All it would take now days is a couple of Segue controllers basically. Hook them up to some thrust vectoring vanes.

SteveLehto > xtnp 07/30/2015 at 10:48

0

There were some guys who made a flying device that used those kinds of controls but it was more of a jet pack. It is doable, especially with modern electronics.