This, I was thinking the same and then we never used it because if you want any real money you work on turbines.

Your school must have sucked

@@letskeepearthgreen oof

B Ndahi further proving my theory that most new skills can be taught by the use of youtube despite shushan wabbajacks leadership of the platform... (also shushan is to be read in the voice of mister bean in that spy movie called ummm... i forget) Edit: @Anmol reminded me that its Johnny English.

You are now ready for your PhD bro.

He explains it all very well doesn't he

Yeah he's awsome

@@nathanb3273 hes saying we need more videos of him cos hes damn good at presentation

@@merxellus1456 yeah I got that but thanks 👍

Yeah I want to hear elementary technical descriptions from a guy Id take a course and have a drink with... Spot on....more plz mate

Agreed, this was a good portion of groundschool presented digestibly in 6 minutes. Impressive.

Yeah...couldn't quite get the air oil inversion thing but rest was great. Not too dumbed down.

@@2hedz77 1:56 Google Christian inverted oil system, look at images. Instead of just having one oil pickup in the bottom of the engine that feeds the oil pump, which provides lubricating oil to the engine, it adds a second pick up, to the top of the engine. When you fly "negative G's" (being thrown out of seat), oil goes to the top of the engine. A flip flop tube (reacts to gravity) diverts the oil pump pickup source from bottom of engine, to the top of the engine, so the oil pump has a constant supply of oil. Airplane goes right side up (positive G's), the flip flop tube flips back to select the bottom pickup. There is also an air oil separator that keeps the engine vent from burping oil overboard while allowing crank case gases to vent. Pressure would build in crankcase without a vent. Reason some compression gases blow by pistons into crank case. Without this separator you would lose all oil eventually. You probably know this, but you can be upside down and still be pulling positive G's where the oil is in the bottom of the engine. That's like at the top of the loop you have centrifical Force still providing positive G's, even if you're upside down with one G gravity. However whenever you have negative G's, say your inverted and level, then the oil pickup flips to the top of the engine, which is now at the bottom (where all the oil is).

I totally agree with you. Just enough physics/engineering to maintain the interest of nerds like me, but simple enough to keep my those like my wife from swtching channels.

What was refreshing was it wasn't dumbed down too much.

Agree totally with you '

besides that they compared them to fighter jets badly, fighter jets can pull even more with modern vectored thrusters, but they don't do that due to safety regulation in peace times

"Most KZfaq videos" doesn't really mean anything. If you see mostly poorly researched and incorrect videos then you're subscribed to the wrong channels. KZfaq is an open platform, you can always find good content if you can be bothered. Try complimenting the video without disregarding literally everything else on the platform out of ignorance.

@@Markus-zb5zd no

@@BlueZirnitra I think you took his statement way to seriously.

He was lile O O 0

O O o

It flew over a nudist beach.

O O o

⁰o⁰

people who know nothing about aviation don't need to know that. People who do know about aviation already know that

@@Draculapin Oh, so learning new things is bad? Well, I hope that attitude has served you well in life.

​@@laihela this video is clearly entry level aviation for general public so there's really no need to brag about all your knowledge in the comment section

I for one appreciated this more in depth answer. Thank you Laihela

@laihela I also appreciated the more in depth answer. As someone fascinated by mechanics and physics who does not know much about aviation, i found the clarification interesting. I always appreciate the opportunity to learn new things. Thank you!

Voice is a good part of it, and also because he knows his stuff he's speaking with comfort and that makes everything he says much motr interesting

I think we've all become weary of presenters or promotional representatives and are always happy to hear information from someone with practical or first hand experience.

I kept trying to figure out his accent

Logged in just to thumbs up this comment

Remember a woman skyjumping naked and the camera zoomed in on her vulva. Those lips was flapping like crazy. In the comments Someone made the joke: "Red bull gives you wings." LOL! I swallowed my coffee wrong when I read it. Still cracks me up when I think about that joke.

Nope, just motor and propellers 😄

There's not much leeway between too much drag and not enough lift anyway.

Trial and error works every time. Today we call it machine learning and let computer algorithms do it.

@@marcusm5127 Right... but that' doesn't quite capture the reason I'm so amazed. The Wright Brothers' "Wright Flyer" performed the world's first powered sustained flight in december 1903. The designs for the Supermarine Spitfire and Curtiss P-40 Warhawk were designed in the 1931-1936 period, so around 30 years after that first flight. If you look at the design of those airplanes and compare them to the current Red Bull planes, you will see there is hardly any difference. So, in around 30 years, they came to a design that in the following 80 years - the era of the information revolution - hardly needed to change to come to an affordable, reliable and manueverable airplane. Let's all take a moment and thank people like R.J. Mitchell and Don R. Berlin.

@@KryzMasta better thank lilienthal. the wright brothers planes where super unstable.

Jan Eymers ? I’m not thanking the Wright Brothers. Did you actually read what I wrote?

Flankers are built to withstand 15Gs but are usually limited to 9 due to saftey reasons so technically it can pull up faster. The plane wouldn't fall apart, but it would drastically reduce the life expectancy of the airframe without a major overhaul. Another thing Flankers can do is supermanueverability. Flankers have always been able to pull extreme AoA manuevers due to their inherent instability, but newer versions such as the Su-30 and Su-35 are capable of post-stall manuevers because of their engines, which has thrust vector controls. This allows them to control the aircraft even with no airflow over the wings.

@@TheNicestPig yeah ik, that's why I mentioned sukhoi jets, even the su27, without a pair of add on canards still work wonders

*climbs at the speed these planes go on deck*

You aren’t wrong

Just finished mine last month! Taking my written tommorow and my O&Ps in a few weeks! Wish me luck :)

@@davecrupel2817 Goodluck!! Got my A&P already :)

I'm learning German. I got most of what you said.

eric duncanson I took German in middle school (I’m 30 now), never learned it... here is my go without google I swear lol...; “Very interesting, I love these videos. And please can I.............. the....... air race” lol

Your translation is mostly right. The second Part is a german " speak art ". It means that i am can't wait until the time to next race. My english is not so great. :-))

The race plane would pull a real version of Red Tails and destroy it lol jk

@@abramo7700 but the ww2 fighter would have guns

So what will the stuntplane do, crash into the plane Kamikaze style? Pull a WW1 and shoot out of the cockpit with a pistol?

Oh, sooo civilian race prop vs something like big bad fucking jet aka me-262 or Bf-109 K-4 thats over 250kph faster than this plane. That masacre would be even worse than Battle of France and Invasion of Poland combined .

the racepilot would pull a colonell100 move, jump at the enemys canope & kill the pilot with his bipod knife!

Wow...

I dont think they are more advanced , a decent f1 car costs around 100 million to build and mantain

@@NoobWithEpix - Yupp and they can't attain 265 Mph or 12 G there's a lot of technology in an aerobatic airframe and in the engine just to keep fluids flowing properly under those G loads

Pablo Gonzalez Not as advanced, these planes are standardised, whilst F1 cars are continually honed to gain infinitesimally small advantages, they're an engineering masterpiece.

@@Jester123ish - Standardized engines make sense they use constant speed props anyways, all airframes are speed limited and they already operate close to top design speed the sport is about technique but a Zivko Edge is significantly different in design from an MSX-R they just look the same. There's nothing low tech about an airframe rated to +/-14G and 265 mph that's more G than an F-35 and practically all other fighter jets

I’m sure the weight of the added equipment would far outweigh the drag it decreases

@@joebelderok it also wouldnt reduce that much drag because there is simply no space left in the fuselage and the shape would have to be different

They are going 400 miles an hour. The cross wind component is marginal. It matters a bit for getting through gates, they will lead a tiny, tiny bit. But that's it.

They really want you to like them and buy their stuff

I am so disappointed about that. Really enjoyed it when I went, only got to go once unfortunately.