In addition to the concerns about not being able to land with the gear up for a water landing, I can think of other emergency situations you might want to land gear up. Basically any soft surface - eg. sand, deep snow, deep mud, etc. I'd say the majority of emergency landings may be on non-hard surfaces. You may want to consider an override setting.
Somethings I don't want automated, one of those things is the canopy automatically opening
4 роки тому+3
Looks like a pretty weedy motor mainly for show and perhaps to free you up for other jobs while it opens/closes. I dare say the occupants will fasten it shut securely from inside.
Too much automation. No need for any fancy stuff between you and getting a canopy open or closed, similarly the landing gear. By all means add a screaming warning (if you wish) that the round things aren't down but don't leave it to a fancy interface. Just more to go wrong.
1991 was when I introduced the Berkut . I started the prototyping in 1986 but didn’t get into the actual build till 1989. Kits became available in 1992
Incredible Dave. Can you tell me or point me to the resources that explain the difference between the Berkut and LongEZ? The plane is beautiful. Im starting work on my license with the goal of ownership of one of these fine craft.
Yeah, I wondered what happens if he needs to do a wheels-up ditching and the computer won't let him because it can't tell the difference between land and water.
Now I'm curious how many manuals say ditch with gear down vs. gear up. Every filmed ditching I've ever seen was with gear up when the pilot had time to make a choice. In Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo B-25 pilot Capt. Ted Lawson had put his gear down to land on a Chinese beach hoping to take off again in the morning. All he had to do was catch a wave crest that had reared up in front of him with the wheels to violently crash the aircraft, hard enough to throw him through the cockpit window seat and all, severely injuring him. The scene in the film is very sanitized compared to the reality in the book. Lawson was in no condition to stand up and say, "I lost my ship. I lost my ship. I lost my ship."
Im also curios what manuals your talking about. One of the leading safety risks with seaplanes is a gear down water landing. It usually results in an upside down airplane and a likely unconscious pilot. Having gear down when landing on water is like landing with full brakes on, plus an anchor tied to your wheel...
Is it safe to have a gear automatic extension? What if you need to ditch or you have an engine failure and you need energy to reach a safe place to force landing?
Hurley put a jet on his carbon fiber long ez and it killed him, when putting that kind of power on a plane drastic redesigns are required and you need to ensure with simulation and testing that you have enough performance out of the composites... well he didn't and is dead now because of it, probably the heavy pods he added to the wings pulled too much on the wings and ripped them off .
@@Wingnut353 If you read the crash report, the investigators found problems with the wing manufacturing. There were some dry patches between the layers of fiber material.
Beautiful plane but I am a strong believer in KISS. Keep it simple stupid and this is not simple. There may come a need for me to land gear up on water. Electronics fail so do you have paper backups of your checklist? If you choose to have a computer always be able to override it!
I lost my checklist out of the door panel when I discovered the door was ajar at altitude. When I opened it enough to apply force to close it, bye-bye checklist.....
Sidney Mantissa I’m going to straighten this whole situation out right here. If you use paper you should have a backup copy within easy reach. If you are using electric systems, you should have a backup in easy reach. If you have a system that can control your vehicle without your input, you should have an overide. If you have a system that may fail, you should have a backup or a predetermined plan of action.
@Sidney Mantissa yeah whatever... /me makes electronic checklist and then prints it out, that's half the work right there. And I can throw the paper away when I get back so I don't have a mountain of papers to deal with, thats real KISS philospphy not you contorting to argue that paper checklists are gold which they are not. Also you just argued over a stupid paper... also just FYI a similar plane to this and pilot broke up and it killed him, probably due to the added pods on the wings since the wings tore off, which had > hundred pounds in them the leverage those pods had on the wings must have been quite extreme when pulling Gs. Doesn't matter what checklist he had... he's dead now because of terrible modifications to the design of an otherwise safe plane. This plane is probably pretty safe as it sticks close to the original designs.
4 роки тому
What is the maximum altitude that posturing peacocks can fly?
In the midst of all of the negative comments, I see the airplane and I get it. I think you did a fantastic job! I'd love to go fly with you then hear about how you did all of these nonstandard modifications. As for water landings, which people have brought up, I'm sure the pilot's mission for this aircraft somewhat negates the necessity of flying over large bodies of water. It's not a large craft with much baggage space. I somewhat doubt he'll be flying over a body of water even as large as the Great Salt Lake in Utah. My overall opinion: It's an "experimental" aircraft that the designer and builder simply wanted to have fun with. He used it as an opportunity to install complex computer hardware with software he most likely programmed himself. If the plane kills him, so be it. I, for one, doubt that outcome.
Actually, not always. Camouflage is often just fashionable. I see toddlers wearing it sometimes. Is this a military plane? Have you ever had a near miss in the air? Not fun.
Chris Gonzales ha ha ha. I didn't say it was functional... I have had some traffic "sneak" up on me... Pucker factor for sure. I certainly would have no use for a camo ga plane. I just thought your comment was funny given the obvious use of camouflage. Fly safe!
What happens when someone hacks the cell phone and opens the canopy mid flight. Any part of an aircraft linked to a malware magnet (aka a cell phone) seems like a really really bad idea.
I haven't really heard anyone say anything about the landing gear retracting outwards yet, but I do like the voice thing inside and out the aircraft, and telling it to do things with your phone instead of pressing buttons, pulling levers, turning knobs and flicking switches. I brought this up you see, because although the outward retracting landing gear makes the aircraft look its best, it can cause problems after taking off and before landing.
@@CocoEspada I mean the gear folds out into the wing instead of into the fuselage. If you've seen a Spitfire taking off and landing, then you should understand me.
I was waiting for someone smart like you in America to build a proper electronic system for private aircraft and you have finally done it I had enough of these multimillion-dollar companies like Cessna building bullshit electronics and aircraft that are not at all user-friendly or useful this is what we needed to keep up with the modern day and age and help us with flying safety and usefulness and practicality and efficiency and I thank you for that finally other companies will pay attention to what you have done and hopefully they will get their act and gear together
Many years ago I’d go to Santa Monica airport and talk to Dave about the plane..I’d watch the progress of 1 being built there as well..Seemed like the ultimate plane of its type..If I wasn’t married & on a budget I’d of bought one..
While I love tech gizmos with all sorts of cute buttons! When I heard the landing gear actions description. A big red alert started sounding in my head! By all means automatize everything possible. But please leave the space for the "monkey behind the wheel" to override MANUALY. I immediately imagined a forced landing on water... LOL 😂😂
I love this. It's super nerdy and the gadgets are well thought out. However, I do think it's a bit strange that he has all these gadgets, but still has a carburetted engine. Surely fuel injection and electronic ignition would be an obvious choice on something like this?
A shame the public has lost interest in mostly everything from private boats to planes. This is due to culture and society swinging away from adventure and possibilities and letting things such as this bird as only for the super rich and wealthy when it should by right be available for any American citizen or any person for that matter who can be able to afford it at reasonable prices. The only way this will change is encouragement to the current and future generations to appreciate these, and want to fly, drive or man them, and raising the wage of the majority of citizens thus being able to reach a goal of getting them, instead of living paycheck by paycheck. Also the creation of more mass production planes to the point the prices can drop to reasonable levels. I know kits are usually not that expensive but the average person likely would be unable to build one. Seeing one of these built as full production models would be much easier to acquire and likely be safer.
With out the Pilot in to even out the weight they are very back heavy. The nose is lowered to to shift the weight forward so you don't get the plane tipping backwards and the prop hitting the ground.
And one of these days, the computer has a glitch and you forget to lower the landing gears and then what? Or if you come in low and had to abort a landing, but the computer locks your gear down, then what? Or what if you forgot to set your altimeter and you are landing at an airstrip 150 feet above sea level so the computer does not warn you and you forgot to lower the landing gears? Or you set the altimeter and take off from a higher elevation airport and want to land at an airport at a lower elevation? A computer does not have any flexibility to function outside of known programming parameters, so I hope you have manual overrides for everything it controls.
Rutan designed the Long EZ when he ran a business called Rutan Aircraft Factory, or RAF. This refined design named 'Berkut' after an eagle was designed and built by Dave Ronneberg with the help of some damn fine people around him. It was a kit instead of plans built like the EZ.
Automatic gear is all well and good till you need to ditch it in a lake. Though I suppose shutting the master off beforehand may prevent that system from engaging.
Yes ditching in water might be an issue but I think some of the people here have selective hearing--he mentions that the computer knows what phase of flight the aircraft is in. Therefore if the engine quits inflight then you would imagine the computer could see that and have a sub program for that scenario
You shot your own argument when you said "You would IMAGINE the computer could see that and have a sub program for that scenario." Try this simple test which always confounded owners of PCs right back from the early days. On starting up an IBM PC (and clones thereof) with the keyboard disconnected you would get a fault message about it followed by "Press F1 to continue". Hmmm...you would imagine the PROGRAMMER might have written a sub programme for that involving "Plug the keyboard back in". An emergency isn't the time to find out what might need to be added to the MK2 version.
Strawman argument. Modern commuter aircraft are stuffed full of automation because it's often the only way, or the cheaper way, to build the aircraft in that configuration. Even then they have backup systems and long and complex manuals to go through when a fault occurs to try to get the damn thing back on the ground in as few pieces as possible. Accident reports are littered with automation v pilots helping them to the crash site. Just because you can do something such as automation doesn't mean you need to if there's a good, reliable method already in use and working fine. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Retired engineer here in electrical, mechanical and computing fields. Oh and I do hold a pilot's licence. Won my right to fly many, many years ago via a Royal Air force flying scholarship.
During WWII a training base had so many wheels-up landings that the base commander finally put up a big billboard at the end of the runway that just said *WHEELS!*
Mr. Ruffy, I guess they need to add another feature that detects water and lowers pontoons instead of wheels . . . and Hs Hs.......I'll wager that the big billboard actually helped. I remember WWII but I was too young to hang around airports in San Diego but I remember the anti-aircraft guns and war ships in the harbor. Serious business, WWII.
The unsinkable claim was hyperbole of the design that could remain afloat with 4 flooded watertight compartments they always knew there was a limit. The iceberg flooded 6.
@@Jayda08 bluetooth is short range... but cell phones are not, and by attaching bluetooth you are attaching a cellphone. Is foul play likely? No, but at the same time... you are attaching a system to your plane that is not designed for reliability and that can cause instability in the plane software itself indirectly.
The *least* remarkable features of this aircraft are the talking computers. And WTF is up with thinking that closing your canopy from your phone is, somehow, a good idea. smh
In addition to the concerns about not being able to land with the gear up for a water landing, I can think of other emergency situations you might want to land gear up. Basically any soft surface - eg. sand, deep snow, deep mud, etc. I'd say the majority of emergency landings may be on non-hard surfaces. You may want to consider an override setting.
Somethings I don't want automated, one of those things is the canopy automatically opening
Looks like a pretty weedy motor mainly for show and perhaps to free you up for other jobs while it opens/closes. I dare say the occupants will fasten it shut securely from inside.
Too much automation. No need for any fancy stuff between you and getting a canopy open or closed, similarly the landing gear. By all means add a screaming warning (if you wish) that the round things aren't down but don't leave it to a fancy interface. Just more to go wrong.
Wow! You gotta be proud about this Berkut. Nice work.
I totally agree about water landings. Flying around the Chesapeake Bay and along the coast the gear override could kill you.
Gear down is recommended in the poh for water landings in an EZ. They stay upright and float.
1991 was when I introduced the Berkut . I started the prototyping in 1986 but didn’t get into the actual build till 1989. Kits became available in 1992
Incredible Dave. Can you tell me or point me to the resources that explain the difference between the Berkut and LongEZ? The plane is beautiful. Im starting work on my license with the goal of ownership of one of these fine craft.
Hope these home-brew computers never behave like "HAL" from 2001 Space Odessa. "Gear Down Now! I'm sorry Dave, I can't allow that."
Yeah, I wondered what happens if he needs to do a wheels-up ditching and the computer won't let him because it can't tell the difference between land and water.
Actually most aircraft manuals tell you to ditch with gear down in water. The gear is designed to take the impact, the fuselage is not.
Now I'm curious how many manuals say ditch with gear down vs. gear up. Every filmed ditching I've ever seen was with gear up when the pilot had time to make a choice. In Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo B-25 pilot Capt. Ted Lawson had put his gear down to land on a Chinese beach hoping to take off again in the morning. All he had to do was catch a wave crest that had reared up in front of him with the wheels to violently crash the aircraft, hard enough to throw him through the cockpit window seat and all, severely injuring him. The scene in the film is very sanitized compared to the reality in the book. Lawson was in no condition to stand up and say, "I lost my ship. I lost my ship. I lost my ship."
That is false and we are sure you got that from nowhere.
Im also curios what manuals your talking about. One of the leading safety risks with seaplanes is a gear down water landing. It usually results in an upside down airplane and a likely unconscious pilot.
Having gear down when landing on water is like landing with full brakes on, plus an anchor tied to your wheel...
What if you have to make a water landing?
Custos Libertas john denver??
Computer won't allow you to fly over water..... : -)
Another scenario is partial extension. What happens if only 2 of 3 gear extend...?
Pull out the circuit breaker, perhaps?
Easy just tail slip it.
I met these guys at KOSH summer of 2017. Very friendly.
- I appreciate the idea.. I'd still like final override on gear Down.. maybe on the 3rd attempt.. the buzzer and stick shaker go off...
Is it safe to have a gear automatic extension? What if you need to ditch or you have an engine failure and you need energy to reach a safe place to force landing?
Anyway very nice aircraft!
it just needs a jet engine
natural 9 I thought it had one from the thumbnail !
My wet dream is a turboprop (counter rotating double prop). I have had this plane on my bucket list from first 90'ies. It's beautiful.
@@henrikcarlsen1881 me and you are alike!😮
Hurley put a jet on his carbon fiber long ez and it killed him, when putting that kind of power on a plane drastic redesigns are required and you need to ensure with simulation and testing that you have enough performance out of the composites... well he didn't and is dead now because of it, probably the heavy pods he added to the wings pulled too much on the wings and ripped them off .
@@Wingnut353 If you read the crash report, the investigators found problems with the wing manufacturing. There were some dry patches between the layers of fiber material.
Beautiful plane but I am a strong believer in KISS. Keep it simple stupid and this is not simple. There may come a need for me to land gear up on water. Electronics fail so do you have paper backups of your checklist? If you choose to have a computer always be able to override it!
I lost my checklist out of the door panel when I discovered the door was ajar at altitude. When I opened it enough to apply force to close it, bye-bye checklist.....
Curt D
It’s when simple fails you that you consider options otherwise. Frankly the part of simple came if the actual design was open source.
Sidney Mantissa I’m going to straighten this whole situation out right here. If you use paper you should have a backup copy within easy reach. If you are using electric systems, you should have a backup in easy reach. If you have a system that can control your vehicle without your input, you should have an overide. If you have a system that may fail, you should have a backup or a predetermined plan of action.
@Sidney Mantissa yeah whatever... /me makes electronic checklist and then prints it out, that's half the work right there. And I can throw the paper away when I get back so I don't have a mountain of papers to deal with, thats real KISS philospphy not you contorting to argue that paper checklists are gold which they are not. Also you just argued over a stupid paper... also just FYI a similar plane to this and pilot broke up and it killed him, probably due to the added pods on the wings since the wings tore off, which had > hundred pounds in them the leverage those pods had on the wings must have been quite extreme when pulling Gs. Doesn't matter what checklist he had... he's dead now because of terrible modifications to the design of an otherwise safe plane. This plane is probably pretty safe as it sticks close to the original designs.
What is the maximum altitude that posturing peacocks can fly?
In the midst of all of the negative comments, I see the airplane and I get it. I think you did a fantastic job! I'd love to go fly with you then hear about how you did all of these nonstandard modifications.
As for water landings, which people have brought up, I'm sure the pilot's mission for this aircraft somewhat negates the necessity of flying over large bodies of water. It's not a large craft with much baggage space. I somewhat doubt he'll be flying over a body of water even as large as the Great Salt Lake in Utah.
My overall opinion: It's an "experimental" aircraft that the designer and builder simply wanted to have fun with. He used it as an opportunity to install complex computer hardware with software he most likely programmed himself. If the plane kills him, so be it. I, for one, doubt that outcome.
I thought this was a good idea until I read the UA-cam comments
But what if you are forced into a water landing, gear being forced down seems like a bad idra
Gear down is recommended in the poh for water landings in an EZ. They stay upright and float.
Beautiful but is that paint scheme a little hard to see against terrain?
i am fairly certain that is the point of camouflage.
Actually, not always. Camouflage is often just fashionable. I see toddlers wearing it sometimes. Is this a military plane? Have you ever had a near miss in the air? Not fun.
Chris Gonzales ha ha ha. I didn't say it was functional... I have had some traffic "sneak" up on me... Pucker factor for sure. I certainly would have no use for a camo ga plane. I just thought your comment was funny given the obvious use of camouflage. Fly safe!
It is pretty freakin funny. You were right to point it out.
What kind of computer is in the barricade 360
What happens when someone hacks the cell phone and opens the canopy mid flight. Any part of an aircraft linked to a malware magnet (aka a cell phone) seems like a really really bad idea.
I haven't really heard anyone say anything about the landing gear retracting outwards yet, but I do like the voice thing inside and out the aircraft, and telling it to do things with your phone instead of pressing buttons, pulling levers, turning knobs and flicking switches. I brought this up you see, because although the outward retracting landing gear makes the aircraft look its best, it can cause problems after taking off and before landing.
The eff you mean retracting outward? You mean extending?
@@CocoEspada I mean the gear folds out into the wing instead of into the fuselage.
If you've seen a Spitfire taking off and landing, then you should understand me.
What kind of computer did you put into the airplane
So cool and such an awesome aircraft !
What's the glide ratio? It appears to be equivalent of a greased log but I've been surprised before
Surprisingly it's somewhere around 19:1. Berkuts and other EZ variants have outstanding glide ratios.
Note that Long EZ and derivatives have no tail cone so that drag is eliminated... basically you are half way to a delta wing...
What about wanting to land gear up, such as during an emergency water landing?
Should be called the Berkut Rutan 360... give credit where credit is due. Riding high.
I was waiting for someone smart like you in America to build a proper electronic system for private aircraft and you have finally done it I had enough of these multimillion-dollar companies like Cessna building bullshit electronics and aircraft that are not at all user-friendly or useful this is what we needed to keep up with the modern day and age and help us with flying safety and usefulness and practicality and efficiency and I thank you for that finally other companies will pay attention to what you have done and hopefully they will get their act and gear together
what's the fuel cost and how far can you fly? =) and what's the app u are using =D
Many years ago I’d go to Santa Monica airport and talk to Dave about the plane..I’d watch the progress of 1 being built there as well..Seemed like the ultimate plane of its type..If I wasn’t married & on a budget I’d of bought one..
While I love tech gizmos with all sorts of cute buttons! When I heard the landing gear actions description. A big red alert started sounding in my head! By all means automatize everything possible. But please leave the space for the "monkey behind the wheel" to override MANUALY.
I immediately imagined a forced landing on water... LOL 😂😂
The customization is too cool
I love this. It's super nerdy and the gadgets are well thought out. However, I do think it's a bit strange that he has all these gadgets, but still has a carburetted engine. Surely fuel injection and electronic ignition would be an obvious choice on something like this?
What's the VNE on a Berkut?
That aircraft looks soooooooooooooo cool :)
A shame the public has lost interest in mostly everything from private boats to planes. This is due to culture and society swinging away from adventure and possibilities and letting things such as this bird as only for the super rich and wealthy when it should by right be available for any American citizen or any person for that matter who can be able to afford it at reasonable prices. The only way this will change is encouragement to the current and future generations to appreciate these, and want to fly, drive or man them, and raising the wage of the majority of citizens thus being able to reach a goal of getting them, instead of living paycheck by paycheck. Also the creation of more mass production planes to the point the prices can drop to reasonable levels. I know kits are usually not that expensive but the average person likely would be unable to build one. Seeing one of these built as full production models would be much easier to acquire and likely be safer.
How about a turboprop engine...?
Much like Honda Jet, mount (2) of our EDFPS's on each side of engine cowling for proof of concept purposes. Nice job.
anyone have a site for connecting with the kit manufacturer?
Nice work
why has the gear a "kneeling"option? is it because there no pressure holding the nose gear up?
Bruch Pilot maybe to help get in and out?
The nose gear retracts partly to make it easier to get in the cockpit.
With out the Pilot in to even out the weight they are very back heavy. The nose is lowered to to shift the weight forward so you don't get the plane tipping backwards and the prop hitting the ground.
What power plant does it have?
And one of these days, the computer has a glitch and you forget to lower the landing gears and then what? Or if you come in low and had to abort a landing, but the computer locks your gear down, then what? Or what if you forgot to set your altimeter and you are landing at an airstrip 150 feet above sea level so the computer does not warn you and you forgot to lower the landing gears? Or you set the altimeter and take off from a higher elevation airport and want to land at an airport at a lower elevation? A computer does not have any flexibility to function outside of known programming parameters, so I hope you have manual overrides for everything it controls.
Amazing work
But does it fly
It looks like a really fun airplane. I like everything about it except the paint job. Love all the gadgets on it.
I'm still looking for the "Unchecked Aggression" in this video..🤷🏻♂️
It's a reference to the ' aggressor ' paint scheme on this ac inspired by air combat maneuver training equipment.
Thought it was a Rutan/Scaled Composits design. Pretty cool.
Rutan designed the Long EZ when he ran a business called Rutan Aircraft Factory, or RAF. This refined design named 'Berkut' after an eagle was designed and built by Dave Ronneberg with the help of some damn fine people around him. It was a kit instead of plans built like the EZ.
Beautiful Bird!
didnt john denver get killed in a plane like this?
@@nikolabakich9709 that was caused by pilot error
Beautiful plane but no thanks on the computer
Automatic gear is all well and good till you need to ditch it in a lake. Though I suppose shutting the master off beforehand may prevent that system from engaging.
This is so wonderfully silly.
Yes ditching in water might be an issue but I think some of the people here have selective hearing--he mentions that the computer knows what phase of flight the aircraft is in. Therefore if the engine quits inflight then you would imagine the computer could see that and have a sub program for that scenario
You shot your own argument when you said "You would IMAGINE the computer could see that and have a sub program for that scenario."
Try this simple test which always confounded owners of PCs right back from the early days.
On starting up an IBM PC (and clones thereof) with the keyboard disconnected you would get a fault message about it followed by "Press F1 to continue".
Hmmm...you would imagine the PROGRAMMER might have written a sub programme for that involving "Plug the keyboard back in".
An emergency isn't the time to find out what might need to be added to the MK2 version.
That’s great. Now what if you need to ditch but your engine is still running? Like, you are on fire? Structural damage? Cabin filling with smoke?
Sometimes the zamwakydoo stuff can get you killed.
Like electric windows in an automobile for instance.
This Is cool as hell
The electronic assistants on every plane.
Playing Maverick and Goose
Very very nice…
What a beauty
What’s with the helmets lol..
Very nice.
Just couldn't commit to one country's paint scheme, eh? I've always liked the EZ- a clean and fast aircraft to be certain.
That's a awesome idea..
This is cool. But id like to see a jet model.
I want one.
Lol, these comments amuse me. Do you realize how much your commuter flights are automated? Ever heard of overrides? Are you people even pilots?
Strawman argument. Modern commuter aircraft are stuffed full of automation because it's often the only way, or the cheaper way, to build the aircraft in that configuration. Even then they have backup systems and long and complex manuals to go through when a fault occurs to try to get the damn thing back on the ground in as few pieces as possible.
Accident reports are littered with automation v pilots helping them to the crash site.
Just because you can do something such as automation doesn't mean you need to if there's a good, reliable method already in use and working fine. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Retired engineer here in electrical, mechanical and computing fields. Oh and I do hold a pilot's licence. Won my right to fly many, many years ago via a Royal Air force flying scholarship.
Each to their own I guess but gimmicks are really just that!
Somebody built that plane backwards.
Oh. It's Russian.
Its derived from an American design ;-) you know from back when we werent' scared to do things.
Novel idea. Don't get complacent.
That checklist and gear down feature justifies the expense of the electronics. Safety first = priceless.
nemo227 no think about the gear think what about trying to land o water etc.
During WWII a training base had so many wheels-up landings that the base commander finally put up a big billboard at the end of the runway that just said *WHEELS!*
Mr. Ruffy, I guess they need to add another feature that detects water and lowers pontoons instead of wheels . . .
and Hs Hs.......I'll wager that the big billboard actually helped. I remember WWII but I was too young to hang around airports in San Diego but I remember the anti-aircraft guns and war ships in the harbor. Serious business, WWII.
Theoretically, the Titanic was unsinkable.
The unsinkable claim was hyperbole of the design that could remain afloat with 4 flooded watertight compartments they always knew there was a limit. The iceberg flooded 6.
Till someone hacked the system 😨
It a Great Plane BUT app's are HACKABLE it may not have Access to Everthing But Enough to cause Huge Issues . Not in my Equipment .
@@Jayda08 bluetooth is short range... but cell phones are not, and by attaching bluetooth you are attaching a cellphone. Is foul play likely? No, but at the same time... you are attaching a system to your plane that is not designed for reliability and that can cause instability in the plane software itself indirectly.
Berkut what? This is a Long Ez designed by Burt Rutan
Berkut is a better Long EZ. It's longer, wider, put together better.
Looks like a j7w1
The *least* remarkable features of this aircraft are the talking computers. And WTF is up with thinking that closing your canopy from your phone is, somehow, a good idea. smh
the guy has way too much money and time to be worrying about equiping a berkut with an app and automation........
Man that gear down “feature” sounds horrible.
That thing looks likea nightmare
Do some reading on the Long-Ez, which they are based off. Pretty amazing little birds!
No video of it flying.......👎🏻
It would be even better if the canards weren't fixed.
It will be better a lot faster with micro jet
Yeah, but does it have Butt Warmers?!?!?
"automatically"... don't get me wrong but that might just kill you one day.
I'd rather make a LongEZ with retractable landing gear. (And a slightly swept canard... Because reasons!)
The app crap is not to good bud hope you dont have to get out fast. But nice build!
Saaweeeet!
sweeeeet ride :)
WOW
CLICK BAIT THUMBNAIL.
So its heavy and you cant get out easy . why not just use your fingers instead of the phone. K.I.S.S. look it up it may save your life someday.
This guy is unsafe...
CFI CFII MEI here
$$$
beautiful machine. And Republican proof lol. Well done.