The NEW Embraer C-390 Will CHANGE The Entire Industry! Here's Why

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 117

  • @brenocostateixeira
    @brenocostateixeira หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Like the Osório tank, in the mid-80s. Considered at the time the best tank of the time, value for money, cheaper than its competitors, more capable than those in its category, passing all Saudi tests with flying colors, but never produced due to difficulties with suppliers. The KC 390 is different. He has already completed several missions in Brazil and in practice and in military exercises, in Brazil itself or in military exercises such as the presence of the USA. Sold to Portugal, Hungary and coveted by other countries, such as India and South Korea (and even the USA!) And hugs for you all! Love USA! From Brasil!

    • @flaverusSam
      @flaverusSam หลายเดือนก่อน

      mendigo carente.

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      ❤❤

  • @andradejurk
    @andradejurk หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Changes, new things, are part of life. Change is necessary...

  • @russellwilson6193
    @russellwilson6193 หลายเดือนก่อน +16

    I hope Philippine Air Force🇵🇭 should order this aircrafts, I'm sick and tired of C-130 Hercules

  • @john210869
    @john210869 หลายเดือนก่อน +18

    Kc 390 is the best

    • @GREENDUDe3
      @GREENDUDe3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      No kfc 390 is better

  • @AMADINHOS
    @AMADINHOS หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    All C390 could be easily converted to become a KC390.
    They are ready for that, just had to attach the combustible tanks.
    This plane is like a multi task one, just "attach" the accessories and it is ready, no need to buy a plane to execute different tasks

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Wow. Thanks for your information. I haven't thought about its flexibility like that.

  • @adeilsapereira7243
    @adeilsapereira7243 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    Aeronave é boa e é feita pela consagrada a Embraer ou seja é uma aeronave extremamente confiável

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      That's right.

  • @Mathewszinho
    @Mathewszinho หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    The Kc390's stall speed is 190 km/h. It can fly at low altitudes at low speeds (I'm speaking as someone who has seen it personally).

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Thanks for your information!

    • @GabrielFlores-sq8wc
      @GabrielFlores-sq8wc หลายเดือนก่อน

      E conssegue pousar e levantar voos em pistas extremamente curtas, mesmo carregado

  • @edl617
    @edl617 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    Bye bye to the C-130. The navy and Marine corps been having maintenance issues for years.

  • @AdrianoSilva-ds9vb
    @AdrianoSilva-ds9vb หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    Embraer.💪

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Amazing!

    • @FabioVoigtdaCosta
      @FabioVoigtdaCosta หลายเดือนก่อน

      Petista Tecnology 🦑 ❤

  • @murn20091
    @murn20091 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    The NEW Embraer C-390 Will CHANGE The Entire Industry! I have heard this from other youtube stations over the past 6 months or more still have not heard of many orders.

    • @pauloziliani260
      @pauloziliani260 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      US lobby is certainly not sleeping..

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      It's coming!

    • @proengproeng7045
      @proengproeng7045 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      the Kawasaki C-2 was launched in 2010 and only Japan bought it, the EMBRAER KC-390 was launched in 2019 and is already sold in 7 countries and negotiations with another 5, this seems like a success to me

  • @magalhaes4707
    @magalhaes4707 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Yes, it will replace the old one

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      That's right

  • @ThalineDaniele
    @ThalineDaniele หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    O Melhor Avião do Mundo na sua categoria.

  • @araujojr.8367
    @araujojr.8367 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    KC 390 é incrível!!

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yep!

  • @syq8888
    @syq8888 9 วันที่ผ่านมา

    It is a good fantastic aircraft. but not all nations with C-130 currently, require it. it not a "must have" fighter jet where it got to be the most lethal. it is a logistic requirement that nations can/may do with an upgraded C-130. its competition is not just C-130J but also requirement needs and alternatives. The market size maybe much smaller than anticipated.

  • @sonnymagalhaes9203
    @sonnymagalhaes9203 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    Amazing and beautiful aircraft. C-390 is the best in this category.

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Really beautiful.

    • @bricefleckenstein9666
      @bricefleckenstein9666 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      What category?
      Certainly not the "operate out of SHORT unimproved fields" category.

    • @sonnymagalhaes9203
      @sonnymagalhaes9203 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@bricefleckenstein9666 Category of medium-sized transport and cargo planes, my friend, (the same as the C-130J Hercules)... and brother, there are spectacular videos of it landing and taking off on dirt and gravel runways... (you should take a look).
      -> Apparently you haven't even seen the video we are commenting on, because if you had, you would see that at 4:55 and 10:21 there are some images of what you think he is incapable of doing.
      A little free lesson for you:
      -The minimum takeoff distance* of the Embraer C-390 Millennium varies according to the mission, being: 1,100 m for tactical missions, 1,300 m for normal takeoffs, 1,630 m for logistical transport.
      *A runway is considered short when it is less than 1,800 meters long, as it is suitable for aircraft weighing less than 90 tons. Larger aircraft need at least 2,400 meters of runway.
      -It would be good if you studied a little before contradicting something said by someone else.
      A big hug!

    • @bricefleckenstein9666
      @bricefleckenstein9666 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@sonnymagalhaes9203 1800 METERS? The C-130 routinely operated out of 1500 FOOT unimproved fields - aka LESS THAN 500 METERS - abet not at full load. THAT is short.
      1800 Meters is longer than SOME AIRPORTS have (hello Iowa City, Iowa and it's 1500 meter (appx) main runway - an airport I lived close to for almost a decade) and you can land some AIRLINERS on runways of that length - many of which exceed 90 tons.
      That's NOT short - more like medium.
      For a more relevant reference - the airstrip at Dien Bein Phu later became the main runway of the airport there - at right about 1800 meters.
      Perhaps YOU should do some study of the REAL WORLD instead of taking "blurbs" as absolute truth.
      I stand by my comment about the unimproved runways, the chance of FOD damage is VERY MUCH HIGHER than that for the Hercules, given the high-volume flow through those LOW MOUNTED turbofans.
      Run a C-390 out of unimproved fields, you're BEGGING to crash it when it FOD kills an engine or both.

    • @sonnymagalhaes9203
      @sonnymagalhaes9203 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@bricefleckenstein9666 Friend, don't argue with me... Use your current allegations with the FAA, AESA, CAAC, AFTAR, ANAC and "all aviation regulatory agencies" to change their rules and measures simply because you don't agree with them... or perhaps for them to create a new category for him (C-130) such as ultra, super, hyper, mega short landing, where he can reign alone...
      The data i mentioned are not my inventions, but rather STANDARDS and REGULATIONS of Civil and Military Aviation accepted and used throughout the world.
      Note that at no point did i say that the C-130 isn't included in this category or that it needs more runway for landings and takeoffs. I just said that he was surpassed!
      Even if the C-130 landed on 10 meters of runway, this does not remove the qualification achieved by the C-390 Millenium.
      In fact, the only thing that the C130 does that the C-390 does not, for obvious reasons, is land on an aircraft carrier. And this is a necessary requirement for all countries that have an aircraft carrier and want to land a C-390 on it... Oopsss. (I'm willing to bet you didn't even know that...)
      ---"Just so you don't forget: Short track = less than 1800 meters." ----
      ... and about the Turbofans, i just have to say that EMBRAER's engineers thought of something that yours didn't. Accept it, it hurts less.

  • @clebertonalves2161
    @clebertonalves2161 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    🇧🇷O KC 390 é simplesmente espetacular

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      That's right!

  • @Shannon-ij1pm
    @Shannon-ij1pm หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I wonder why the video bring up the Kawasaki C2? Since the C2 would be the C390's direct competition. Though the C2 does carry more, fly higher and fly farther.

    • @jairoguarezifilho5240
      @jairoguarezifilho5240 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      C-2 it is closer to the A-400 than the C-130 or the C-390. And therefore it is much more expensive to buy, to maintain and operate, with the cost of 2 C-2 you buy 3 C-390. Furthermore, Embraer's support and tradition are much greater than that of Kawazaki, when it comes to planes.

    • @GabrielFlores-sq8wc
      @GabrielFlores-sq8wc หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      O kc 390 pode carregar menas carga, mas voa mais rapido e mais longe, e sua manutenção é bem mais barata

    • @Shannon-ij1pm
      @Shannon-ij1pm หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@GabrielFlores-sq8wc Não discordo. Meu comentário foi mais sobre o vídeo não mencionar que o C2 é competição direta. O C390 não mudará toda a indústria se houver outros aviões que façam o mesmo papel.

  • @danielwagner22
    @danielwagner22 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Yes! Definitely!!!

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yes!!

  • @helltonmauroprofessor4009
    @helltonmauroprofessor4009 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    O KC 390 é o melhor em sua categoria
    E tem mais ele contém tecnologia de ponta inovadora e eficaz em todos os aspectos

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yep.

  • @nabilisur9566
    @nabilisur9566 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    Wow ! The new Embraer C-930 will change the entire industry as AIRBUS Defence and Space 😉👍.

    • @DrVictorVasconcelos
      @DrVictorVasconcelos หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      What do you mean? It's Boeing who wanted a partnership with Embraer, and it fell apart. Airbus chose Bombardier instead. There's very little chance of Embraer being sold given that it's a state company. Given Brazil's and France's proximity a partnership is not impossible, but Embraer just renewed a partnership with Sweden's SAAB last year.

    • @nabilisur9566
      @nabilisur9566 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      I mean, that C-390 will change the aviation industry looks like AIRBUS Defence and Space as A400m@@DrVictorVasconcelos! Like that.

  • @PeaceSquadron
    @PeaceSquadron หลายเดือนก่อน

    I love this channel's videos because they are so helpful!

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      I'm so glad!

  • @alvorecerdourado6490
    @alvorecerdourado6490 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Kc390 is the best indiscutible!

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      That's right!

  • @scottagamer
    @scottagamer หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    In 1977? Low, for where did you take this information?

  • @eddisonyoung8384
    @eddisonyoung8384 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Stopped watching when the robot pronounced 2009, "second thousand and nine". Say no to Skynet.

  • @rollyherrera623
    @rollyherrera623 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Very nice plane, but 2 engines? Redundancy?

    • @AndreCarneiro666
      @AndreCarneiro666 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yeah! Two engines already is for redundancy. It can fly with one engine.

    • @jamarplunkett3283
      @jamarplunkett3283 13 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@rollyherrera623 I was thinking the same thing. 4 engines has a higher chance of redundancy than 2.

  • @regisantos4928
    @regisantos4928 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    🌟 WOOOW ✈ EMBRAER KC-390 ✈ The BEST MULTI MISSION Of The WORLD 🌎 !! >>>>>>> # BE STRONG 💪 BRAZILL 🔥 ✈ !!!

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      ✈️✈️

  • @ehrobertoac
    @ehrobertoac หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    C-390 three times better than the old C-130

    • @bricefleckenstein9666
      @bricefleckenstein9666 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      It has more payload at full load, and more range, and is faster than the C-130
      It loses BADLY on short field performance - C-130 routinely operates out of 1500 foot fields (abed at less than full load), the C390 needs significanly longer fields and is more subject to FOD issues on unpaved fields.
      That's what the C-130 was specifically DESIGNED for, it had to accept tradeoffs for that short field performance.
      The C-390 is quite a bit closer overall to the old C-141, though more efficient, or it could be counted as a smaller variant on the C-17.

    • @FernandoSantos-bk9rh
      @FernandoSantos-bk9rh หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@bricefleckenstein9666 C390 Millennium pousa em chao de barro,eles tem um campo d3 aviacao,ruas de barro e eles pousa muuto bem lá👍

    • @AndreCarneiro666
      @AndreCarneiro666 หลายเดือนก่อน

      C390 was tested even on Antarctica. The performance is good enough even on unprepared takeoff/landing runways. All the features but the minimum takeoff distance are superior or similar when compared with C-130 even in the "J" variant.

    • @bricefleckenstein9666
      @bricefleckenstein9666 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@AndreCarneiro666 I VERY seriously doubt that claim about minimum takeoff distances.
      The OLDER Hercules varients were well known to operate out of fields as short as 1500 feet - NOTHING on the Embrayer website even claims CLOSE to that performance level for the C-390.

    • @AndreCarneiro666
      @AndreCarneiro666 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@bricefleckenstein9666 The minimum takeoff distance are in this brochure from Embraer's website. Is about 1500m. But the evaluations articles can variate between 1500m and 1700m. Someone can talk about 1800m. This is not so important considering the other benefits anyway.
      defense.embraer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/C-390-Millennium-Brochure-2023-English.pdf

  • @davidbeattie4294
    @davidbeattie4294 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

    Truly an excellent aircraft. Will it impact the tactical air transportation industry? This is very likely. Is it as useful as a Herc in demanding conditions? This remains to be proven. The Herc has remained the King for 70 years because it does so many things so well and it has a proven reliability. Embraer is a brilliant challenger but this is very tough market and the C390 will have to earn its stripes with battlefield performance.

    • @flaverusSam
      @flaverusSam หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      It flies faster, farther and higher than the C-130. It carries more cargo, has fewer engines to maintain, has more modern avionics and countermeasures and is cheaper. It performs more functions and has so far caused less embarrassment to world aviation than the F-35, which cost trillions of dollars, decades of development and yet everything that can go wrong happens to it. Honestly, there is no point in thinking about it, the entire military aeronautical industry knows who is the best between the two competitors. NATO, South Korea, India, Saudi Arabia and even the commander of the US Marines have said several times in public that the KC-390 NEEDS to replace their Hercules.

    • @regisantos4928
      @regisantos4928 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      ​@@flaverusSam👏 👏 IT'S TRUE !! # ✈ EMBRAER KC-390 : The BEST MULTI MISSION 🌎 of The PLANET !!

    • @bricefleckenstein9666
      @bricefleckenstein9666 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@flaverusSam The C-390 FAILS BADLY vs the C-130 as an actual TACTICAL transport in many situations, far worse short-field performance.
      Try getting it to even LAND on a 1500 foot field when EMPTY, where the C-130 routinely made OPERATIONAL missions (abet not at full weight load) on those fields.
      It's also not all that much better on it's electronics vs the current PRODUCTION version of the C-130, the J model.
      I won't count the PROVEN ability of even the older C-130 models to operate from a carrier (1962 in trials of a KC-130 on the Forestall demonstrated THAT, though it was marginal enough that it wasn't used for actual operations after that, too many limitations caused by using such a large aircraft on a carrier).

    • @telrfilho
      @telrfilho หลายเดือนก่อน

      Ta louco​@@bricefleckenstein9666

    • @AndreCarneiro666
      @AndreCarneiro666 หลายเดือนก่อน

      C390 was tested even on Antarctica. The performance is good enough even on unprepared takeoff/landing runways. All the features but the minimum takeoff distance are superior or similar when compared with C-130 even in the "J" variant.

  • @VinicioBr
    @VinicioBr หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Nem tudo tem que ser americano, para ser bom.

  • @palacete
    @palacete หลายเดือนก่อน

    🎉

  • @Papi1960R
    @Papi1960R หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Since it was "new" over a decade ago, this is just a silly enthusiast video.

    • @airtonpereiralima2974
      @airtonpereiralima2974 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Até bobo como vc, tá aqui para adimirar..

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Sad when hearing that!

    • @GabrielFlores-sq8wc
      @GabrielFlores-sq8wc หลายเดือนก่อน

      Bobo foi o ato que tua mãe e pai fizeram e te geraram , um sumples preservativo teria evitado muita coisa

    • @carmenvalmalaartaraz8260
      @carmenvalmalaartaraz8260 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@FLIGAVIAbut is true, it was certified many years ago and they have only delivered 9 to customers and doesn't have many orders.

    • @carlosalbertosousa4774
      @carlosalbertosousa4774 29 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Raiva, ???

  • @oqueaconteceu...
    @oqueaconteceu... หลายเดือนก่อน

    A Boeing perdeu essa corrida a anos!
    até eles desenvolverem outra já passaram 20 anos!

  • @ubenisjunior1670
    @ubenisjunior1670 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    👏👏👏👏👏😮❤🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      ✈️✈️

  • @jacobs2162
    @jacobs2162 หลายเดือนก่อน

    No

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  หลายเดือนก่อน

      Why?

  • @meertenwelleman4600
    @meertenwelleman4600 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Isn't it much smaller than the C-130?

    • @meertenwelleman4600
      @meertenwelleman4600 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Apparently it is a bit larger.

    • @MrGustbruiz
      @MrGustbruiz หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      looks like but is bigger than C130

    • @meertenwelleman4600
      @meertenwelleman4600 22 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Yes, I discovered this when I checked the dimensions. Ofcourse the aircraft was closely monitored by the airforces that ordered it. Thanks.

  • @maxcorder2211
    @maxcorder2211 27 วันที่ผ่านมา

    If you are going to compare it to the C-130, then use American numbers for each aircraft. Speed in mph, Altitude in ft, Cargo capacity in lbs, Cost in dollars. Etc.

    • @FLIGAVIA
      @FLIGAVIA  27 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Thank you

    • @felixgatewood4815
      @felixgatewood4815 15 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Don't be lazy, you should know how to convert performance measurements.

    • @caravaggio31
      @caravaggio31 12 วันที่ผ่านมา

      When you compare products from other countries with those from the US, do you usually make the same conversions?
      By the way, the Anglo world is the only one that uses these shitty 'miles', you're the ones who should adapt yourselves to the rest of the planet.

  • @YetiTube-w1o
    @YetiTube-w1o หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Embraer fajnie wyglada, ale nie jest to jakis przelomowy samolot. Bazuje na Boeingu i ma byc jego tansza alternatywa. Czesto do celow militarnych samoloty surbosmiglowe lepiej sie sprawdzaja.

    • @AndreCarneiro666
      @AndreCarneiro666 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It has nothing to do with Boeing. It's completely different projects, pal.

  • @Taffeyboy
    @Taffeyboy หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Never happen. Too small.

    • @calibre12brazil5
      @calibre12brazil5 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      Vc entende de aviões igual as merda que sai da sua boca de gay

    • @thomasprogli3372
      @thomasprogli3372 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      I am sure they can extend the fuselage if a country wants to pay for the development. The USA or the EU just need to order 100 pc.

    • @carmenvalmalaartaraz8260
      @carmenvalmalaartaraz8260 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      Its actually bigger than the hercules.

    • @Taffeyboy
      @Taffeyboy หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@carmenvalmalaartaraz8260 I stand corrected.

    • @carmenvalmalaartaraz8260
      @carmenvalmalaartaraz8260 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@Taffeyboy I know it looks smaller, maybe the big cockpit windows are to blame.