23 years later and we don't have anything better than this. If only it came in a pre-made kit form that you just need to slot together. Like an IKEA flat pack kit plane.
@Alex Taylor Your wrong very about knockoffs and fast build kits. Nothing is wrong with fast build kit, a very good thing for this design, aviation, builders and pilots.
🎵🎵 Papa don't preach ...I'm in trouble deep...Papa don't preach ..I'm in trouble deep...I made up my mind....I'm keepin' my baaabbyy...Gonna keep ma baabbyy...Keep da bbaabbyy...!!!!...🎵🎵🎵!!!
I was in high school when I first saw this airplane, I'd love to see this kit brought back to market. Or at the least the plans be made available. Beautiful airplane!
It's tragic that the featured test pilot in this video, Rick Fessenden, perished a couple of years later in this same prototype at an airshow in California in August 1995.
@@johnfisher747 I understand that he also flew jets, as a commercial airline pilot, and, before that, as a US Navy pilot. But no mention of his Berkut having a turbine engine. It was said to be "factory built." Where did you see that? www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1995/november/01/pilot-briefing-(4) www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-08-13-me-34787-story.html
No. I was at the air show it crashed. Hot day. They speculated the pilot blacked out in high g maneuver. Flew it into the ground. Unfortunately that killed the kit company. I came very close to buying one.
3:05 "2 -3 short years" Should have made a "fast-build" kit with more completed parts (like the Velocity), Great Airplane, but no wonder why the company was an economic disaster.. P.S. With the speed range of this aircraft, it would be more efficient with a variable pitch prop...
The pilot was performing low-altitude aerobatics in an airshow. There's speculation that he blacked out during the 8g+ maneuver. Several other Berkuts have crashed, but none due to any fundamental issue with the design of the airplane.
@@ZakWilson try pushing while inverted and see how well an upside-down high lift canard Airfoil works to get your nose up... Good design for what it is but hardly ideal for aerobatics or anything resembling them.
@@bryanhauschild4376 if it had a clamshell construction with joggles, so in answer to your question yes that type could. just buy an rv 8 with a short build kit and be done with it.
Very nice video, thank you. Actual cockpit sounds and radio traffic would have been better than the music. It would have shown off quietness of the design. Good job none-the-less.
@@elmobrandao9849 If you did make a swept canard, you would have to shift the root of the canard forward to keep the came Center of Effort for the lifting surface.
@@cluelessbeekeeping1322 ... maybe they can call Beechcraft and ask them how they did it for the "Starship Carnard"...What do they got to lose...???... It's a "Experimental ", you can do what you want to do to make your own life easier and more importantly dangerous...😜😜😜😂😂😂😆😆😳😳🇺🇸🇺🇸!!!..
@@elmobrandao9849 ...maybe you can call Beechcraft and ask them how they did it for the "Starship Carnard"...What do they got to lose...???... It's a "Experimental ", you can do what you want to do to make your own life easier and more importantly dangerous...😜😜😜😂😂😂😆😆😳😳🇺🇸🇺🇸!!!.
what blows me away is sooooo many kit planes today use the same booooring piper super cub design, why don't more kits today look like a Go 229 an SR-71 or the flying pancake?? I would LUV a dual rotax, dual person ultralight kit designed after polands PZL-230F Skorpion.
I respect the old classic designs because they are well proven, and so many love them, but if I ever were to buy an ultralight or kit built, for me it would be slick and sporty looking, like This Craft. I use to always want a Mitchell A-10 Silver Eagle, but I suppose they disappeared with the rest of the original ultralights.
Different airplanes have different missions. A canard design like this would not be able to get out of the tight spots that a Super Cub, Zenith CH-801, Feisler Storch, or DH-2 can.
@@daveriley6310 you mean 5240 right? cause what you said is off..... hey wait, that also means that you cant join the mile high club at 35000 feet, cause that'd be the five mile club... you guys are making all of this up! knots, fiddle faddle. next thing your going to tell me is that australia is real.
There are no blue prints for this specific aircraft. This was a molded composite design that arrived in large sections. The original Long-EZ canard is available as an open source effort. See: "Open-EZ plans".
I am not trying to cause trouble ,this is not the model type that John Denver died in is it ?..he was an experienced pilot and things just went wrong., I guess I still don't know what really caused the crash .? can anyone answer ..?...This talks about the changes made to this design just what are they if any one knows ..? that made for Big Improvements..?
John had a long ez there is a video on CZcams... search it up. The long ez was built by a guy who did things a little different, John was on one of his first flights and didn’t know where the fuel switch was... a variety of errors, nothing to do with the original design of the plane
John was drunk, flying a plane he had no experience with. The plane didn't kill John Denver, he killed the plane and died in the process. The Berkut is longer, wider, and takes a larger engine and has retractable landing gears. and built better. This video claims a 10 +/- g load. I don't believe that was ever tested, If you have a test wing load of 10 g then the -g load is going to be around -8g to -8.5g. they will never match.
@@kvnkaveman ... That's like saying a Lambo can go 220 mph...Sure, but how long...???.. Just a matter of time before the engine gets hot and blows...Maybe a few seconds, but, not continuously and not too many times...Cheers 🍻!!!!
I don't understand how on a 55 gallon fuel tank and burning 10.3 gallons per hour that you can fly non-stop from LA to Houston, Texas which is about 1379 miles. There is no way the Berkut can make a non-stop flight of 1379 miles on one 55 gallon tank.
With "aux tanks" it holds 74 gallons, so 6.7 hours plus reserves. Cruise at 200kn, which is 230mph gives 1537 sm range,. not including ascent. 6.7hours is longer than my bladder can hold out, so it's long enough!
The plane CAN cruise at 200 Kts, but it doesn't HAVE to. Slower speeds are more fuel-efficient. Of course it would take longer, but avoiding a fuel stop saves a lot of time. Also you commonly have favorable tailwinds from west to east which helps range.
To obtain maximum range, one has to fly at maximum L/D speed. Which is usually near Vy. The Long EZ this best-range speed is 100kts. Where it's fuel burn is far less than 10gph, like, under 5gph.
@@g.zoltan The Raptor is flying, nowhere near what was promised but it is flying. How long do you think it takes to develop and build an airplane from scratch, a month or Two? Synergy has been working on the box tail for over 10 maybe 12 years now and it still hasn't flown.
I can use my arm , but I can not lift with my right shoulder. I should have been more explicit. I could not build one. But I am looking at the factory built highlander stol.
There is a list of 8 features a plane must meet to be LSA. The berkut covrs 3 (single engine, 2 seat, unpressurized). However it is too heavy, much too fast in cruise, too fast in stall, has a CS prop and...as you said...retracts.
From my understanding is this aircraft is noticeable “stiffer” than a standard long-ez. This is due to the carbon fiber cloth vs e-glass fiberglass used in the spars/wings, Think stiff suspension in sport cars, you feel every bump.
if fuselarge or only aircraft body must more sits like 4 or 6 man capacity of siting then aircraft makes greater efficient or valuable for its commercial usage... So plz making design for commercial purpose of this aircraft....
These planes were never meant for commercial purpose. They are for private use and are considered experimental so cannot be used for commercial purposes.
The golden eagle comes from the Polovtsian word "burkit, berkut" (eagle). Polovtsy are ancient nomadic tribes living on the territory of Ukraine. Russians simply borrowed the word golden eagle from Ukrainians.)
Prince of Kiev, Yuri Dolgoruky founded Moscow. ))) There's nothing to add! Yuri I Vladimirovich (Russian: Юрий Владимирович), known under his soubriquet Yuri Dolgorukiy (Russian: Юрий Долгорукий, literally "Yuri the Long-Armed"; also known in various accounts as Gyurgi, Dyurgi, or George I of Rus), (c. 1099 - 15 May 1157) was a Rurikid prince and founder of the city of Moscow. He reigned as Velikiy Kniaz (Grand Prince) of Kiev from September 1149 to April 1151 and then again from March 1155 to May 1157. Yuri played a key role in the transition of political power from Kiev to Suzdal following the death of his elder brother Mstislav the Great in 1132.
The "Berkut" name is due to it being agile and large like the Berkut Eagle of Russia. :) Its based on the Rutan designed Long EZ a totally 'merican design. :)
What? You "build" the wings, they don't come ready to bolt on? So it's basically just blueprints and the materials to manufacture all the parts in the "kit." Just 2-3 years to build. Ridiculous. Hope nobody bought this.
experimental airplanes have to be built. When you buy a kit you get parts, you have to assemble those parts. Look at the Sling kits, same thing you get all the aluminum pieces you have to put them all together to make a plane.
Arm chair , you a idiot!!! Stick with what you know...Rocking arm chairs...All "Experimental planes" have to be built as per the "51% rule"...Some manufacturers will build the most difficult and tedious parts for you...But, you need to build the rest...or buy a million dollars Certified airplane... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canard_aircraft
I guess, Its biggest cons is instability in stall since weight of balance is at backside of the aircraft. This mean; aircraft won't pitch itself nosedown during stall.
The idea with canards is that the small front wing stalls before the big rear wing. When that happens, the front wing loses lift and ‘falls’ downwards like you expect a ‘normal’ wing would. This reduces the angle of attack of the rear wing, ensuring the larger ‘main’ wing never stalls. When the small front wing stalls and drops, normal airflow is quickly restored over that smaller wing, and normal flight resumes.
In addition to Matthew Hyde's comment - the idea with canards is the efficiency gained from the fact that both wings' lift vectors point in the same direction. On a "conventional" airplane, the tail is generating lift "down" - wasting energy.
It should be evident to anyone with some intelligence that the music is original to this 1993 video. I doubt anyone has any of the original recording masters to be able to demux the music from the video without losing all the audio altogether. The mute button is on the bottom left - just a suggestion!
23 years later and we don't have anything better than this. If only it came in a pre-made kit form that you just need to slot together. Like an IKEA flat pack kit plane.
look at velocity aircraft they have great kits
@Alex Taylor Your wrong very about knockoffs and fast build kits. Nothing is wrong with fast build kit, a very good thing for this design, aviation, builders and pilots.
The Raptor
@@thatdutchguy2882 prototype not ready yet :(
@@pdapdp7913 I'll wait xD.
Hats off to BURT RUTAN great creator of magnificent flying machines
Aha! I have finally identified the weird aircraft that I have been seeing flying around lately in my neighborhood. Looks like a nice little plane!
Are you sure it wasn't the Long EZ?
Wow, the thing flies in absolute silence. When it flies over, all you hear is Muzak!
Was there ever a successor to this?
This seems like the Long EZ’s ultimate form!
Love the cheesy 80s music !
🎵🎵 Papa don't preach ...I'm in trouble deep...Papa don't preach ..I'm in trouble deep...I made up my mind....I'm keepin' my baaabbyy...Gonna keep ma baabbyy...Keep da bbaabbyy...!!!!...🎵🎵🎵!!!
What a slick looking airplane. Nice
A wonderful aircraft and a great video.
I was in high school when I first saw this airplane, I'd love to see this kit brought back to market. Or at the least the plans be made available. Beautiful airplane!
The Raptor
ThatDutchguy is the raptor acrobatic?
You can download the plans for the OpenEZ...not Berkut performance, but a Long EZ clone.
@@xpeterson aerobatic, pretty sure if you try acrobats in a plane you will die, and destroy the plane.
@@kvnkaveman 🤣😂
Thanks for showing my video!
Hi Andrew! Good to hear from you.
It was good to see Rick again.
It's tragic that the featured test pilot in this video, Rick Fessenden, perished a couple of years later in this same prototype at an airshow in California in August 1995.
In the news reports I can find online they described the plane he was flying as jet powered. Did it get a jet installed at some point?
@@johnfisher747 I understand that he also flew jets, as a commercial airline pilot, and, before that, as a US Navy pilot. But no mention of his Berkut having a turbine engine. It was said to be "factory built." Where did you see that?
www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1995/november/01/pilot-briefing-(4)
www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-08-13-me-34787-story.html
No. I was at the air show it crashed. Hot day. They speculated the pilot blacked out in high g maneuver. Flew it into the ground. Unfortunately that killed the kit company. I came very close to buying one.
The 80s called they want video back!!!
Wonderful Airplane!
Still beautiful
very fantastic aircraft! it run with propeler and it fly like a reaction aircraft!faboulus
3:05 "2 -3 short years" Should have made a "fast-build" kit with more completed parts (like the Velocity), Great Airplane, but no wonder why the company was an economic disaster..
P.S. With the speed range of this aircraft, it would be more efficient with a variable pitch prop...
At +/- 10g capable it would make for some fun flying ! Who needs a multi million dollar F-16 to have some fun .
dukedurell this airplane and the pilot were killed in santa paula, ca in 1995...
The pilot was performing low-altitude aerobatics in an airshow. There's speculation that he blacked out during the 8g+ maneuver. Several other Berkuts have crashed, but none due to any fundamental issue with the design of the airplane.
@@ZakWilson try pushing while inverted and see how well an upside-down high lift canard Airfoil works to get your nose up... Good design for what it is but hardly ideal for aerobatics or anything resembling them.
2-3 short years, they talking about a new kind of year? it was a nice plane but it needed to be clam shell construction so it is 2-3 short months.
Are you saying it can be built in 3 months?
@@bryanhauschild4376 if it had a clamshell construction with joggles, so in answer to your question yes that type could. just buy an rv 8 with a short build kit and be done with it.
@@lifeingeneral9111 I think that would be doing most of the work for you, of course it would be a lot more expensive.
Forward opening canopies would be an improvement, making for easier entry.
The designers probably wanted it to look like a jet fighter, which opens like that for ejecting.
I am from South Africa and would like to find out if there are any for sale and what would the price be
Quest Kodiak 100
Would be awesome if someone would design a side x side seating version!
There is a staggered seating arrangement called (appropriately enough) a staggered EZ
Kits already available....
www.velocityaircraft.com/
Wouldn't that just complicate the build and hurt the airflow compared to the sleek long ez seating?
Very nice video, thank you. Actual cockpit sounds and radio traffic would have been better than the music. It would have shown off quietness of the design. Good job none-the-less.
I checked no one makes a LSA front canard aircraft
Is it possible to make it with a swept canard?
If you want to be a test pilot, sure!
@@cluelessbeekeeping1322 Yay!!!
@@elmobrandao9849 If you did make a swept canard, you would have to shift the root of the canard forward to keep the came Center of Effort for the lifting surface.
@@cluelessbeekeeping1322 ... maybe they can call Beechcraft and ask them how they did it for the "Starship Carnard"...What do they got to lose...???... It's a "Experimental ", you can do what you want to do to make your own life easier and more importantly dangerous...😜😜😜😂😂😂😆😆😳😳🇺🇸🇺🇸!!!..
@@elmobrandao9849 ...maybe you can call Beechcraft and ask them how they did it for the "Starship Carnard"...What do they got to lose...???... It's a "Experimental ", you can do what you want to do to make your own life easier and more importantly dangerous...😜😜😜😂😂😂😆😆😳😳🇺🇸🇺🇸!!!.
what blows me away is sooooo many kit planes today use the same booooring piper super cub design, why don't more kits today look like a Go 229 an SR-71 or the flying pancake?? I would LUV a dual rotax, dual person ultralight kit designed after polands PZL-230F Skorpion.
I respect the old classic designs because they are well proven, and so many love them, but if I ever were to buy an ultralight or kit built, for me it would be slick and sporty looking, like This Craft. I use to always want a Mitchell A-10 Silver Eagle, but I suppose they disappeared with the rest of the original ultralights.
In the US you can not have retractable gear. If you could build this fixed gear light enough, it would be perfect.
Different airplanes have different missions. A canard design like this would not be able to get out of the tight spots that a Super Cub, Zenith CH-801, Feisler Storch, or DH-2 can.
@@marcusrussell8660 the velocity rg and velocity twin models would beg to differ
Perfect 👌
Bravo.
Did they solve the problem of the critical airfoil having problems flying in rain?
Yes. The Roncz canard airfoil is "rain proofed" :)
That problem was solved in 1985.
are they still in business? Is there anyone out there building the Berkuts?
Is this Berkut better than the Long EZ and is it the ultimate plane of this type of canard?
What happened to KNOTS istead of miles per hour?
one knot is 1.25 mph?
One knot is one nautical mile per our. One nautical mile is one minute of lattitude, or 6076.12 feet. 6076.12 / 5280 = just a hair over 1.15
Too many Air Force pilots, not enough Naval Aviators!
@@lukewarmwater6412 One knot is approx. 1.15 mph (statute mile or 5,280 feet. Edited - I originally had a typo saying 5,289 feet).
@@daveriley6310 you mean 5240 right? cause what you said is off..... hey wait, that also means that you cant join the mile high club at 35000 feet, cause that'd be the five mile club... you guys are making all of this up! knots, fiddle faddle. next thing your going to tell me is that australia is real.
この機体どこかのハリウッド映画でつかわれませんでしたかね❤
How much will the kit cost with out an engine??
Japanese J7W1
lol 2 to 3 years. hahahah short. does it come in a jet version?
how would one go about getting the blue print to build the plane can any one help me i want to build
me too !!!
...www.kitplanes.com/buyers-guide/berkut/
@@bradxvIII ...www.kitplanes.com/buyers-guide/berkut/
There are no blue prints for this specific aircraft. This was a molded composite design that arrived in large sections.
The original Long-EZ canard is available as an open source effort. See: "Open-EZ plans".
How do I get one that I can fly right now? Anyone Have one for sale
I am not trying to cause trouble ,this is not the model type that John Denver died in is it ?..he was an experienced pilot and things just went wrong., I guess I still don't know what really caused the crash .? can anyone answer ..?...This talks about the changes made to this design just what are they if any one knows ..? that made for Big Improvements..?
John had a long ez there is a video on CZcams... search it up. The long ez was built by a guy who did things a little different, John was on one of his first flights and didn’t know where the fuel switch was... a variety of errors, nothing to do with the original design of the plane
John was drunk, flying a plane he had no experience with. The plane didn't kill John Denver, he killed the plane and died in the process. The Berkut is longer, wider, and takes a larger engine and has retractable landing gears. and built better. This video claims a 10 +/- g load. I don't believe that was ever tested, If you have a test wing load of 10 g then the -g load is going to be around -8g to -8.5g. they will never match.
@@kvnkaveman ... That's like saying a Lambo can go 220 mph...Sure, but how long...???.. Just a matter of time before the engine gets hot and blows...Maybe a few seconds, but, not continuously and not too many times...Cheers 🍻!!!!
I don't understand how on a 55 gallon fuel tank and burning 10.3 gallons per hour that you can fly non-stop from LA to Houston, Texas which is about 1379 miles. There is no way the Berkut can make a non-stop flight of 1379 miles on one 55 gallon tank.
It said tanks, plural, but I see your point, still wanna get/ build one, though
With "aux tanks" it holds 74 gallons, so 6.7 hours plus reserves. Cruise at 200kn, which is 230mph gives 1537 sm range,. not including ascent. 6.7hours is longer than my bladder can hold out, so it's long enough!
The plane CAN cruise at 200 Kts, but it doesn't HAVE to. Slower speeds are more fuel-efficient. Of course it would take longer, but avoiding a fuel stop saves a lot of time. Also you commonly have favorable tailwinds from west to east which helps range.
To obtain maximum range, one has to fly at maximum L/D speed. Which is usually near Vy. The Long EZ this best-range speed is 100kts. Where it's fuel burn is far less than 10gph, like, under 5gph.
Where is this now??
The Raptor has 4 seats.
2 years later and the prototype is still nowhere near completion...
@@g.zoltan The Raptor is flying, nowhere near what was promised but it is flying. How long do you think it takes to develop and build an airplane from scratch, a month or Two? Synergy has been working on the box tail for over 10 maybe 12 years now and it still hasn't flown.
@@kvnkaveman I've followed the project in the second half, and my impressions aren't good, everything he does seems inredibly botched.
@@kvnkaveman .....was flying
I don't want to build one, I want to buy one. As a disabled veteran I have little use of my right arm.
Sorry to say it - this plane is controlled by a sidestick on the right side.
I can use my arm , but I can not lift with my right shoulder. I should have been more explicit. I could not build one. But I am looking at the factory built highlander stol.
This plane is not light sport due to it’s retractable gear.
The side stick is on the right side. My right arm is shot also.
There is a list of 8 features a plane must meet to be LSA. The berkut covrs 3 (single engine, 2 seat, unpressurized). However it is too heavy, much too fast in cruise, too fast in stall, has a CS prop and...as you said...retracts.
From my understanding is this aircraft is noticeable “stiffer” than a standard long-ez. This is due to the carbon fiber cloth vs e-glass fiberglass used in the spars/wings,
Think stiff suspension in sport cars, you feel every bump.
Would be great if the guys at DarkAero would produce a kit like this.
if fuselarge or only aircraft body must more sits like 4 or 6 man capacity of siting then aircraft makes greater efficient or valuable for its commercial usage... So plz making design for commercial purpose of this aircraft....
These planes were never meant for commercial purpose. They are for private use and are considered experimental so cannot be used for commercial purposes.
Berkut on russian is - Golden eagle
The golden eagle comes from the Polovtsian word "burkit, berkut" (eagle). Polovtsy are ancient nomadic tribes living on the territory of Ukraine. Russians simply borrowed the word golden eagle from Ukrainians.)
ahahahah, ukrop, you are even here ))) There is no "ancient Ukraines", calm down
Prince of Kiev, Yuri Dolgoruky founded Moscow. )))
There's nothing to add!
Yuri I Vladimirovich (Russian: Юрий Владимирович), known under his soubriquet Yuri Dolgorukiy (Russian: Юрий Долгорукий, literally "Yuri the Long-Armed"; also known in various accounts as Gyurgi, Dyurgi, or George I of Rus), (c. 1099 - 15 May 1157) was a Rurikid prince and founder of the city of Moscow. He reigned as Velikiy Kniaz (Grand Prince) of Kiev from September 1149 to April 1151 and then again from March 1155 to May 1157. Yuri played a key role in the transition of political power from Kiev to Suzdal following the death of his elder brother Mstislav the Great in 1132.
Ok, where's Ukraine here? No any such country then.
Your understanding is very important to us. Thank you
🤔 a Jet powered Berkut but with a bit longer nose
yea I know a little bet behind the power curve but what the hell. I just need to go kick my buddy ass to get his going.
Very nice desing aerodinamique like F16 fither I want one
Old porno music,
Are these still out there?
There is a lot of money to be made here.
better than a C152 / C150
Ładny;)
Why Russian name ? Is it Russian design brought in in early nineties ?
The "Berkut" name is due to it being agile and large like the Berkut Eagle of Russia. :) Its based on the Rutan designed Long EZ a totally 'merican design. :)
What? You "build" the wings, they don't come ready to bolt on? So it's basically just blueprints and the materials to manufacture all the parts in the "kit." Just 2-3 years to build. Ridiculous. Hope nobody bought this.
experimental airplanes have to be built. When you buy a kit you get parts, you have to assemble those parts. Look at the Sling kits, same thing you get all the aluminum pieces you have to put them all together to make a plane.
Arm chair , you a idiot!!! Stick with what you know...Rocking arm chairs...All "Experimental planes" have to be built as per the "51% rule"...Some manufacturers will build the most difficult and tedious parts for you...But, you need to build the rest...or buy a million dollars Certified airplane...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canard_aircraft
Another Velocity??
$$$$...?
Kyushu j7w1
Me ha encantado ver este video. Yo he volado con mi marido que se construyo el único LONG-EZ, que se ha hecho en España en los años 1990.
I guess, Its biggest cons is instability in stall since weight of balance is at backside of the aircraft. This mean; aircraft won't pitch itself nosedown during stall.
The idea with canards is that the small front wing stalls before the big rear wing. When that happens, the front wing loses lift and ‘falls’ downwards like you expect a ‘normal’ wing would. This reduces the angle of attack of the rear wing, ensuring the larger ‘main’ wing never stalls. When the small front wing stalls and drops, normal airflow is quickly restored over that smaller wing, and normal flight resumes.
In addition to Matthew Hyde's comment - the idea with canards is the efficiency gained from the fact that both wings' lift vectors point in the same direction. On a "conventional" airplane, the tail is generating lift "down" - wasting energy.
The canard does that!
100% wrong/incorrect assumption. Stop spreading missinformation and lies.
Looks like someone needs to watch the velocity videos.... they show the canard stall.
terrible music , get rid of it! just a suggestion!
It should be evident to anyone with some intelligence that the music is original to this 1993 video. I doubt anyone has any of the original recording masters to be able to demux the music from the video without losing all the audio altogether. The mute button is on the bottom left - just a suggestion!
Yawn...
A cheap copy of a professional commercial. Like tools made in china or something.