วีดีโอ

Pinned for you. Thanks for watching.

Yay I am famous because you commented back and you have over 1,000 subs 😮 😊🎉

Thank you very much!

@@AmberWavesAviation 🇫🇷🤝🇺🇸

Thanks!

Wow, thank you. Your kind words and viewership are extremely appreciated!

Yeah. It's like a duck's legs folding up. My favorite.

Harsh

Thanks for watching!

Thank you, I appreciate the support!

@@AmberWavesAviation Of course

@@fighterbomberMiG27 After watching some of your videos, I had to sub back. Fantastic views and informative.

Thanks for watching!

Went and watched your fly along videos. It was great to get a different perspective. Subscribed.

@ I am glad you liked my fly alongs. I definitely need to upload more. And, thank you for subscribing.

I dont do any live streaming at the moment, but I am looking into doing some streams in the spring once I learn a little more on how to do that and acquiring the necessary equipment.

Thanks!

Thank you! You can see it fly by. I didn't notice it.

Thank you!

Gamin autoland??

*Denali is a Clean-Sheet Design* - Genius

@@Ford_Raptor_R_720hp_V8 Clean-sheet just as the Aviat Husky. Which accidentally has the same length - to the inch - as the Super Cub - with tail, body and undercarriage indistinguishible from the latter. Differences in wingspan and wing area in the decimals. Pardon my skeptiscism regarding the Denali.

When you design an aircraft for a specific mission or flight envelope around a specific engine or power plant, PHYSICS, not the engineers, determines the look. I'm a physicist and aerospace engineer with a specialty in aerodynamics and computational fluid dynamics. An aircraft has to be a certain size and shape to carry a given payload within a certain speed envelope while achieving a specified efficiency with the powerplant the airframe is designed around. Very specific airfoil shapes will deliver the required performance. You start with the "mission" or target payload and then the speed and attitude desired. Choose an engine that can deliver that altitude and speed given its performance envelope and then design the aircraft around the engine with wings and control surfaces that are optimized for altitude and speed desired while offering the best stability at the slow portions of flight. So, it's physics, not an artist who is in control. The only design choice they could have made to look different is to have pursued a high-wing design.

Shame on Pilatus for the PC-24 then? Hawker/Beech have been building world class Corporate Jet Aircraft for decades. Still no answer for Beech's King Air 250/350......No Aircraft manufacturer will even try competing with that Aircraft. It owns that market. It is legendary and groundbreaking design, just like Beech Aircraft has been known for since the Model 18, the Bonanza, and on and on....

The K35 Bonanza was manufactured in 1959.