Talk:Williams X-Jet

Untitled
Hi I'm new to Wikipedia. I really don't know enough about correct Wiki format to properly add to the article but just wanted to share this information to anyone who might want to add this. Thanks!

"In 1989, the price of an individual Williams X-Jet unit was described as being "more than a Jeep, less than a helicopter", dependent on the size of the production run."

Source: http://jetpack.free.fr/journaux/guardian20000914.htm

The thrust to weight information is incorrect. I do not know the correct value, but no vehicle with an empty weight of 400 lbs can have a thrust-to-weight ration of 4.11 with an engine only producing 600 lbs thrust. 1.5:1 is a more likely number.


 * I double-checked the specs on the museum display and it clearly says that the thrust to weight is 4.11:1. Can someone find the correct number and post it with their source?  Otherwise, I am going to change it back to 4.11:1.  Also, what's the source of the change from 10,000 ft ceiling to 11,000 ft ceiling?  I can't find confirming info.  --JimCollaborator 04:42, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * If the machine plus operator weighed 550 lb, and the engine produced 600 lbf thrust, then the thrust-to-weight is 600/550 = 1.09:1.


 * 4.11:1 is the thrust-to-weight of the engine, not the aircraft. (ie, 600/146). --Rlandmann 12:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, that makes sense (to my non-engineering mind). What about the change to the 11,000 ft ceiling?  --JimCollaborator 17:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Typo! Thanks for the catch --Rlandmann 01:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

akira
it should be noted that katsuhiro otomo probably used these as a basis for the flying platforms in "akira", so maybe there should be an "in art" entry


 * Maybe a mention on the Akira (film) page, but probably not here, I would think. --JimCollaborator 08:05, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

It could be well argued that there is a place for it here... but there is some research to show that's where Otomo got the idea. Gingermint (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "In Art" is one thing when it's about the ongoing development of a fantasy theme, such as "wormholes" or "magic wands". It's another when the fantasy is a concept taken from reality -- and usually weakly understood by the fiction writer. NASA is regularly assailled by people who have seen some TV show, explaining that a world authority on the subject has got it wrong, because their favorite author wrote something else. I'd argue that artistic mention here is not only unencyclopedic, it's contrary to Wikipedia goals of establishing fact. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Do They Still Make These?
So, are these still around? And why aren't these more common? Was there something wrong with them? Gingermint (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be a lot more to this article. Too many unanswered questions! Oh, and lets not forget the whole flying humanoid thing! Gingermint (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"It was evaluated by the U.S. Army in the 1980s, and was deemed inferior to the capabilities of helicopters and small unmanned aircraft." There's got to be more to it than this. Specifically, inferior in what way? And who says? Gingermint (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was the flight-time - 30-45 minutes isn't all that long if you're looking at a military mission. Compared to a helicopter, which can also mount heavy weaponry and carry multiple individuals, I can understand the justification. In regards to civvie applications... how would it be classified and regulated? Could you fly one in urban environments? How much demand would there be? And so forth. 174.97.139.145 (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would add that this thing would be very dangerous, much more than anything currently used. I mean, there is no protection for the "pilot", if the engine quits, you're dead, etc. Aesma (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The flying platform aka flying manpad, 'wasp' airlift or turbine skylift is infact george orwellian in nature, a helicopter rotary system which goes two directions for one person travel. It would save costs in travel, and pollute the environment much less.  You could have 10000 per state with 100 per county, and a license outside the state would be subject to the law.  This still does not prevent air traffic congestion, ie 500 in one area (under say airspace of 1000 ft you could have 20 foot regulatory formations for 50 in one area, if more than 50 are in an county they are subject to the law eg bean poles with red/green lights within the area).  Therefore height regulations or a 'heighto-meter' would even lessen greatly sky traffic congestion or crash with up/down signals instead of left/right and speed regulations would prevent crashes.  However, some speculate that they are too dangerous, even with a grate over the fan chamber...and like the car crashing, failure in the motor would result in untimely death, or a possible deathrate eg parking zones would need be made or created.  On top of that it would require limited travel or a flightless mode for gas station rooftops.  The fact is it is extremely easy to fly, and cuts down the law of travel.  Without a radar tower, and pilots license it would be too dangerous and it would never work unless given to that small 2 percent that can afford small airplanes.  Yet a civilization would still need new laws and licenses to obtain this technology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.70 (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

X-Jet listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect X-Jet. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)