yeah thanks for your sharing

😂😂😂 Airbus c400 is the best, kc390 is for poor countries

@@frederickdouglass7140 Is the C-17 Globemaster III superior to the Air Bus C-400? It depends on the application. The C-400 is another category of aircraft. The time is for more rational, economical aircraft, without unnecessary excesses. The era of megalomania for flying colossi is long gone. In practice, the KC-390 does everything an A-400 does, however, with extremely lower acquisition and maintenance costs. The choice for the KC-390 is not passionate, it is rational.

@@frederickdouglass7140 In fact, I must emphasize: what a comment, but devoid of arguments, yours. Stupid, I would say. Debate with solid and intelligent arguments and not with prejudices and fallacies. Your comment really is an X-ray of your intellect, of your inability to interact at a high level.

@@frederickdouglass7140 The A400M from Airbus, you mean. The German air force did not even accept delivery at first given the bad quality product it is.

Yeah thanks for your feedback ✈️

Thanks for your support ✈️✈️✈️ have a nice day

right

Thanks for your comment❤

that's right! thanks for your feedback

✈️✈️✈️

i agree

Embraer can produce in USA, problem is Lockheed lobby.

A lei americana não permite aquisição de vetores militares se não forem construídos no país.

thanks for your comment

thanks for your sharing

thanks for feedback

A questão de 4 motores é devido a baixa confiabilidade dos antigos motores. Na época que o C130 foi projetado, os aviões militares e civis que precisavam efetuar missões longas, tinham 4 motores. Hoje isso não é mais necessário, devido a confiabilidade dos motores.

yep that's great aircraft

thanks for your support, have a nice day!

yep that's a great aircraft

many thanks for your support! have a nice day!

fact

yeah thanks for feedback

Me dê 3 exemplos de coisas que o C-130 faz e o KC-390 não faz, e te darei 10 exemplos de coisas que o KC-390 faz e o C-130 não faz.

@@fabriciooliveira6886let’s see environmental factors impacts those engines. Can it withstand sand, birds and battlefield conditions?

And just to think, the C-130J has more of a civilized flush latrine near the aft ramp. There was a day when the "Honey Bucket" was little more than a green plastic "Home Depot" bucket with a toilet seat. I can remember a day when if you needed to go you could not be shy about it since you would have an audience, doing the sitting or standing thing. One reason I was thankful I stated out on the C-141B. While primitive, the C-141B always had an enclosed lavatory next to the avionics bay. The C-17 when I started on that, is even more luxurious, almost airline style with acres of grey plastic and a urinal funnel. I forget if the C-141 had that. It's been so long since................ Just my take.

Embraer has a second manufacturing unit solely for military aircraft. This unit can manufacture up to 16 KC390 aircraft per year and the Gripen fighters and the Super Tucano light attack aircraft are also built.

@@alessandropenteado It's located in Gaviao Peixoto town and there is an airport builded by Embraer.

thanks for your comment

true

Gulfstream G750, Airbus A220.

@@k9killer221 Yep, the E2 series is more fuel efficiency (even though both use P&W turbofan engine) because is designed with advanced aerodynamics and state of the art avionics. It has significantly lower maintenance costs due to the extended intervals between maintenance checks and the use of fewer parts. It is known for its quieter cabins, which enhances passenger comfort along with spacious overhead bins, and ergonomic seating. For the airline, it offers shorter runway performance and quicker turnarounds, which is beneficial to maximize aircraft utilization. The Praetor 600 competes well in the super-midsize category, but it is important to note that the Gulfstream G700/G750 series operates in the ultra-long-range category, thus serving a different market.

thanks for feedback

Right. The C-130 is meant to be used CLOSE to battle areas with NO runways. The props are less subject to sand, birds, and debris than jets. The C-390 seems like a lite version of the C-17 to me.

Está falando de um MBT?? Se for isso, não, ele não pode carregar um MBT, pois excede a capacidade máxima de 26 toneladas assim como no C-130. Mas ele pode transportar blindados de transporte de tropas como o LMV 4X4, Guarani 6x6, Boxer 8x8, Striker 8x8, veículos IFV como o Bradley, M113, entre outros.

Competing with legalized corruption (Lobbying) in the USA is not easy. Even if the c-130 was 10 times more inferior than the kc-390, still, through the Lobby they manage to make it a better choice for some who will profit a lot.

@@lynda6338 🤣🤣🤣🤣

thanks for your feedback

thanks for your feedback

thanks for sharing your thoughts

thanks for sharing your thoughts

thanks for your sharing

thanks for your feedback

Yeah ✈️

The cray is free. RIP C-130.

thanks for your comment

thanks for your feedback

yep thanks for your feedback

thanks for comment

thanks for sharing your thoughts

Well sir, it seems to me that you don't understand much about the subject. You may like the C-130, but we have to be honest, the KC-390 is a more modern aircraft with more advanced avionics systems, fly-by-wire flight control, and much more. In terms of capacity, the KC-390 also wins, being able to carry up to 26 tons of cargo with a cruising speed of 470, while the most common version of the C-130J can only transport 19 tons with a cruising speed of 348 knots. With the KC-390, you will have Technology and Modernity, Cargo Capacity and Performance, Operational Efficiency, Flexibility and Versatility, and you will have many benefits such as Updated Technology, Lower Operating Costs, Greater Cargo Capacity, Speed, and Range. So I don't see any reason to buy the C-130.

@@FGZINN09 Well, the C-130 and all variants are meant to act as a medium cargo aircraft for troop and equipment transportation, The C-130J is made to land on underdeveloped and short dirt runways and is combat proven. Many countries need an aircraft that can preform well under high pressure situations and in almost any weather condition. The C-130 J is an extended version of the C-130H which is still capable of serving at least another 10 years even though they were made in the 60s. The KC-390 is not combat proven, never been in deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq and especially never been used for low fly by scenarios with a 105mm howitzer and 40mm rattling guns. The reason the C-130 has low capacity of cargo weight is because if the aircraft were any heavier then the aircraft would not preform short runway landings and take offs. You definitely do not understand the reasoning behind the C-130J, I will only accept the KC-390 if I see it preform for over 60 years without leaving or being retired out of service, and the standards to beat the C-130J is to fly in and out of combat zones in severe weather conditions with a runway that is literally made of dust and pot holes. And do you not understand the fact why Turbo Props even exist? Mate, do more research on flight ability and why certain aircraft stayed in service even if its been in service since the 1960s.. Cone back in 60 years ad lets see if the ORIGINAL KC-390 is still in service and can still last in 50 degree celsius weather in sandstorms

@@FGZINN09 but sir the latest model of c130j has also a fy by wire system upgraded avionics and a liquide crystal display. And turbo props has a lot of advantage it can land in dirt's air tripe or and develope runways more rugged compare to jets and also economical easy to maintained the fact that many countries today still using the old model c130h,c130t, and the latest edition of the long history of c130 the j model. And vary versitile to there's a tanker version capable of air to air refueling. There's is a gunship version th Ac130 ghost rider the latest version from the ac130 spooky variant c130 is proven in combat tested. Reliable. And the airframe is proven versitilty you can make it depending of the specification of the user country.

@@EloyjaAbs-qm1iq Not going to lie. As an aviation enthusiast, I can't say that the C-130J is bad or ugly, because I would be lying. Even so, our KC-390 still wins in several aspects, such as cargo capacity, range, and maximum speed. Embraer did a great job in terms of operational flexibility. Although I thought the KC-390 was good at this, the C-130J performed a bit better in short and unprepared runway operations: C-130J: Excellent capabilities on short and unprepared runways. KC-390: Capable of operating on semi-prepared runways, but with some limitations compared to the C-130J. Overall, countries are looking for a good aircraft with a good price. And, speaking of price, Embraer did extremely well. The KC-390 has everything the C-130J offers and is still better in several aspects, with a lower price. It's clear why we are growing so much and why many countries have their eyes on Embraer's aircraft.

thanks for your feedback

One of the requirements of the Brazilian Air Force was the ability to operate on unpaved or gravel runways. It's a plane for jungles. If you look, there are a lot of images and movies with de C-390 operating in these conditions.

It's already replacing!

The c130 is a old concept.

Watch 7:48

​@@celsotorgozanardi9091 yes is old and b52?

Just make an armed version of the KC-390. Or any other transport plane. You see, the C-130 is at the end of its honorable service life.

Welcome to the new era, and this one have only one name KC-390. Thank you C-130 for all your service so far, but have a lot of museum around the word barking for your presence.

If EMBRAER made a best product way no show and talk about?

Stupid opinion from Americans who think the world is a backgroud of USA. !

@@arleyn.dasilva6064 And here's your sign...

✈️✈️✈️

Youre uninformed www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2020/04/25/boeing-embraer-deal-collapses/

American being American...

@@rezeile27 20 year aeronautical engineer, military aviation vet, warbird maintainer and life long aviation nerd being a nerd. This new cargo hopper may very well prove to have an excellent service life. To presume a new turbo fan will render the C130 pointless is well…… laughable.