Відео

😍

26:25 the ronja drawing is insane oml

My most beautiful airplane in the world

Flying by PC-12NG

That guy has got chops. Started his vertical spins with the runway directly in line with the top of his helmet and finished them at the exact same line on top of his helmet. Didn't drift an inch. Great stuff.

A bit of useless information although very capable of landing on unpaved strips the RFDS do no use there PC 24's for landings on unpaved strips where they use use there PC 12's. Great video thanks for sharing took a ride to Perth from Broome in one a couple of years ago. What an amazing service. Broome where i live has two PC 24's and two PC12's.

1- If I had the money to operate it, I'd buy this ACJ-319: ua-cam.com/video/ZtGzEUbwtcI/v-deo.html 2- If I didn't have the money to operate the ACJ-319, I'll buy the Falcon 900 LX: ua-cam.com/video/Dan_qQSDwJk/v-deo.html 3- If I didn't have the money to operate the Falcon 900 LX, I'd buy the Pilatus PC-24: ua-cam.com/video/H2CrKUc47rQ/v-deo.html&lc=UgxeZl-P_QTiaLR_E7Z4AaABAg 4- If I didn't even have the money to operate the Pilatus PC-24, I'd buy the King Air 350, the Piaggio P180, or even the DHC-6(twin otter):ua-cam.com/video/3i9HOJ0hFBg/v-deo.html

When I design an aircraft, I incorporate a range for the most distant of the airports that it's expected to fly into, with reduced passengers, but with still enough fuel to divert to nearby airports in the event of inclement weather. I know this hasn't been designed for the LA to Hawaii hop, for which I think I'd need close to 2,600 n.m., unless there were numerous islands on the way where I could refuel or divert. The London to NYC distance is around 3,000 n.m., but one would still need around 3,500 n.m to divert to other airports in the event of inclement weather. This most likely could still do the transatlantic hop with a refueling stop in Greenland, provided it has enough fuel to divert in the event of inclement weather. Finally, unless a private jet was more comfortable than a commercial airliner, I'd only use it for hops where I didn't have frequent commercial connectivity, so I would prefer slightly larger and more comfortable seats ( on which I don't have to sit upright, but can lean and twist my body towards the sides, recline my back, and vary the leg room (large seats that move on a rail and swivel around). I would also want a single divan or two opposing divans that can be joined together into a bed for a VIP configuration. A fridge, a microwave, a lavatory, tables, cup-holders, laptop and cellular phone holders, reading lights, air vents, and charging docks are also an absolute must. You should be able to work on your laptop and to also watch movies on it without bending your neck. The idea is, for the jet to be economical with the max number of passenger for short hops, but for it to have the capacity to fly across larger distances with fewer passenger, and to provide a more luxurious cabin in the VIP mode, where passengers would very rarely exceed 6 or 7. . The trapezoidal wing, the landing gear(right-triangular struts), the fat tire, and the APU seem based on my concept for another aircraft, but I would prefer an aircraft with a high-mounted, anhedral wing(a high-mounted anhedral wing generates more lift during take-off(WiG effect) and might even be more stable in cross-wind), like that on the Bae 146, for unpaved airstrips. An air-brake also helps when operating from difficult air strips. A low wing on unpaved airstrips could be fatal. I would prefer forward canards to improve take-off and vertical object clearing performance, but I think even a slightly larger horizontal stabilizer could achieve it, if the ailerons could significantly disrupt the flow over the horizontal stabilizer to make the nose lift. Even a raised nose-wheel for a higher angle-of-attack would improve take-off distance, but limit visibility. Now, the larger the wing, the broader the wing, and the straighter the wing, the shorter the take-off distance, the lower the stall-speed, the shorter the landing distance, the higher the glide-ratio, and the more economical the aircraft, but the harder it is to maneuver the aircraft in a storm and in cross-winds, and the higher the drag at high speeds, Short and broad wings provide higher lift for the same drag. Long wings are economical, but unsafe, so the best combination would be to spread the lift over multiple lift surface so no surface is unsafely large. One could have a small canard, a somewhat larger horizontal stabilizer, and a large main wing. The size of the canard and horizontal stabilizer would depend upon whether the main wing is placed fore or aft. In this arrangement, you'll have the main wing serving as the fulcrum around which the horizontal stabilizer pushes the nose down, whereas the canard pushes it up. By controlling the airflow over each surface via a fly-by-wire control surface, one could fly through storms and better handle cross winds. The ability to push the nose up and down via the fore canard or the aft horizontal stabilizer would also help raise the angle of attack for short take-off; lower it for steep descent; and use all the three surfaces in combination to lower the stall speed for smaller landing speed and a much shorter landing distance. Since the ailerons on these surfaces could also serve as spoilers, you might not even need thrust reversers during landing. Swept back anhedral wings could also push the vortices below and behind the aircraft to improve both lift and thrust. I think swept wings not only reduce drag, but also push all vortices behind the tail of the aircraft, especially with winglets, for added forward thrust. I know low-mounted wings have shorter take-off runs because of the ground-effect, and dihedral wings have better natural anti-roll abilities. With regards to engines, tail-mounted engines provide the best laminar flow, wing-mounted engines provide the best control at high altitude airports, whereas fuselage-mounted engines provide lift close to the center of gravity for better take-off performance(but these can be noisy in the cabin). Finally, the fuselage can be shaped as an airfoil to improve laminar efficiency and to provide extra lift with a proportionately more comfortable cabin. This would mean a fuselage taller and wider in the middle and narrower and shorter towards the edges to seat the owners in great comfort. Considering the congestion that the major cities are facing, I'll also favor a VTOL aircraft that swivels the wing or the engines for vertical or very short take-off and landing. Thrust vectoring requires very expensive engines and recurring replacement expenses, but swiveling wings and engines isn't as costly. These days, nobody operates aircraft from unpaved airstrips, but an aircraft designed for unpaved airstrips will land better on a road in an emergency, whereas the passengers might even survive a crash landing on flat ground. With modern leveling equipment and heavy machinery, it is also quite easy to hurriedly prepare an unpaved airstrip in an absolute emergency. VSTOL aircraft are even more useful. An aircraft that can float will provide the passengers with a higher probability of surviving a crash over the ocean or another body of water. However, all of these have to be specialized aircraft because with pervasive global wealth, proper airstrips are cropping up everywhere, so the market share of such aircraft is diminishing, unless congestion on roads makes VSTOL a necessity. I personally think that the ability to VSTOL, the ability to operate from roads and the ability to operate on snow is far more important than unpaved operation, whereas the ability to not immediately sink in water is also useful. For an amphibious variant of the aircraft, the airfoil fuselage, with multiple surfaces to raise and lower the nose, and with multiple surfaces for lift along the entire length aircraft would greatly improve the take-off and landing distances in stormy weather, even without thrust-vectoring or the use of compressed air along the the length of the aircraft for added lift. A boat hull would enable it to take off and land in large waves, where the airfoil fuselage would again help. One could provide small floats at the tips of the main wing to prevent the wings from dipping into waves. The floats could then retract and add to the length of the wing in flight. An air brake at the back of the fuselage could even serve as a rudder in heavy seas, which can be complimented with floats at the tips of the wing. A large tail would help turn the aircraft into the wind over water, to position it to face the wind during take-off. Turbo-props would provide better diffuse lift in stormy seas, reduced water-ingestion, better drying, and reduced rusting. Finally the choice of an aircraft is primarily that of affordability, and that pertains to the recurring operating costs, not the one-time capital expense. I would love to design, manufacture and sell these to earn myself trillions, but if I could afford it, I would still prefer an aircraft, at least, as large as the Falcon 900 LX(it's spacious and comfortable, can operate from 3,000ft airstrips on short hops, and isn't too uneconomical on fuel), and, preferably, as large as the ACJ 319 or the BBJ 737(which has multiple, large, wide-open living, working, social, and recreational spaces that you can walk around, and also has an on-board shower. Its fuel consumption is significantly higher, but since it is primarily an airliner, it can leverage scale to provide cheaper services, training, and parts, so the operating cost though higher, isn't really prohibitive. But, then, it can't operate from 3,000ft airstrips, so there are always trade-offs).

แม่อย่าไปเชื่อคนไม่มีอำนาจจริงก็จะทำได้ทะเลาะกันชิบหายลามทุ่ง

this is the best flying machine ever made...

Pilots are some of the most clever individuals, like a modern day Howard Hughes.

Con partenavia e cessna è normale decollare ed atterrare sulla pista in erba anche con aliante fai retta ad un pirla fattolo più volts maximus

You guys should work with the Microsoft Flight Simulator team, and get this beauty on there. That would be epic!

„E bikes for vacation“ for when you want to feel like caravanning after you bought a plane.

Great commercial guys. Very buttery landing.

¡QUÉ POTENCIA!

If I ever win the lottery I'll take two!

I think color grading could have been significantly better, but it was fantastic to see regardless.

I like how they casually tell you how great having a toilet in the front is so great !! Like with should be thankful! lol no I don’t want anyone slamming the toilet behind me while I fly 😂

Здравей Марта аз определям за къде ще лета просто не вярвам на ушите си Какво интервю ми представяш,но Майн коментар ок2014😊😊😊😊

Smooth as butter. Can’t wait to fly one. This is the ultimate AUV - Aero Utility Vehicle - it can land on any surface and you can load up you dirt bikes and take them with you. How can you not fall in love with this aircraft.

I could easily do that with a 747 on MSFS.

The air-to-air footage taken just behind the engine proofs that’s not real. Every camera would be blown away by these two guys

It was actual footage shot in 2023. I remember seeing -JFL based out of Pukaki.

Как вы сняли это? Точнее где был оператор? Это же не коптер.

Hey man I can do a simulation on my laptop also, but i would not pay several million dollars for it.

Honest and hard working Swiss company with Swiss values : underestimate their new product performance and increase them later on as they discover their assessments were too restrictive vs U.S. company overselling their product and never achieve what they used to promise. (McDonell Douglas with their MD-11 on the subject on range/payload)

Glentanner airstrip near Mount Cook in New Zealand

Nice views

only plane with a mud flap :)))

When you look at the car while ac is landing you see it’s Flight Sim Footage

Just to clear the confusion: this is obviously a real landing.

Я думал что тут будет живая посадка, а тут кадры из флайтсима.

Ich finde, man hätte im Titel (oder zumindest an irgendeiner anderen Stelle) darauf hinweisen müssen, dass es sich hierbei nicht um eine echte Landung handelt, sondern um eine Computersimulation.

From Brazil.

From Brazil.

❤️❤️

Do you reckon the pilots had that music going in their heads?

Flight Sim Footage?

Where is this?

If you made a dollar every second from the moment you were born you'd be a millionaire in 13 days. But you could live to 100 and while some lizards are multi-billionaires, if you never spent a penny of that you'd have less than 4 billion at the end

This plane is extremely noisy. It strongly impacts the hovered territories, 10 km around. It is a scourge for populations. Have a look to Google comments about base 709 in Cognac, and you will be edified.

I'm just a poor lad and will never be able to afford one of these beautiful jets ! The only thing i don't like about it is , i'm 6' 2" tall but i still would love to have one , what a beautiful aircraft !

I had noticed the nozzle design before and had been wondering if it was a functional design feature or just cosmetic. Very interesting video.

Can it do a cobra then?

Wow it's great. Didn't know about this feature

Powerful engines. Sloooow wing…….

I don’t understand is p, TOGA should be higher engine power than cruise flight ?why exhaust speed otherwise? Back pressure?

Must of been running on the light side.

Didn't have much space left did he. 😮