## 5 Results  
The presentation of the research results began with determining the mean reference position errors from the RTK-OTF solution. Figure 2 shows the results of the mean reference flight position errors. The mean errors were resolved as in Equation (6), and these values are the resultant mean errors for the XYZ coordinates. The RTK-OTF solution used precise GPS and GLONASS phase observations at the L1/L2 frequencies. Analyzing the obtained results, the resultant aeroplane position's mean errors were from 0.005 m to 0.063 m. Over 52% of the mean error results were less than 0.02 m. In turn, over 84% of the results of the mean error were less than 0.03 m.  
In the next step, the measurement weights, i.e., the values of the coefficients \((a,b,c,d,e,f)\) used in Equation (4), are shown. The weighting factors' values were calculated based on Equation(5). In Figure 3, the values of the coefficients \((a,b,c,d,e,f)\) for measuring the weights \((a=c=e=\frac{1}{m_{g}}=P_{g};b=d=f=\frac{1}{m_{g}}=P_{r})\) are shown. For the solution of the PPP GPS position, the measurement weight was from 0.111 to 0.200. On the other hand, for the PPP GLONASS position solution, the measuring balance results were from 0.143 to 0.200. You can see that the measurement weights were not the same as the numbers of the GPS and GLONASS satellites, which also varied during the experiment. Moreover, Figure 4 shows the results of the coefficient values \((a,b,c,d,e,f)\) for measuring weights \((a=c=e=\frac{1}{C_{g}^{2}}=P_{g};b=d=f=\frac{1}{C_{f}^{2}}=P_{r})\). In this case, the coefficient values \((a=c=e)\) for the GPS PPP solution ranged from 0.012 to 0.037. For the PPP GLONASS solution, the values of the coefficients varied from 0.008 to 0.014. Figure 2: Mean errors of aircraft position from the RTK-OTF solution. The next test results concerned the distribution of corrections \((V_{g,x},V_{g,y},V_{g,z},V_{r,x},V_{r,y},V_{r,z})\) for the XYZ components. Figures 5-7 show the correction values as a function of the experiment's duration. The dispersion along the \(X\)-axis is from \(-0.903\) m to \(+0.675\) m. When analyzing the dispersion of corrections in the function of measuring weights, it can be noticed that the corrections \(V_{g,x}\) range from \(+0.204\) m to \(+0.675\) m. In turn, respectively, the distribution of corrections \(V_{r,x}\) from the minimum and maximum values is from \(-0.903\) m to \(-0.362\) m. For the Y component, the spread of corrections is from \(-2.162\) m to \(+1.644\) m. In the case of corrections \(V_{g,y}\), their values are from \(+1.007\) m to \(+1.644\) m. For corrections \(V_{r,y}\), their values are from \(-2.162\) m. to \(-0.856\) m. The distribution of corrections along the \(Z\)-axis is very interesting. When we compare the results of corrections between Figures 5-7, we can see at once that the distributions in Figure 7 are an order of magnitude smaller than in Figures 5 and 6. That causes the scatter of the Z coordinate obtained results as the smallest around the expected value. Especially when we look at the distribution of corrections in Figure 7, it can be concluded that their dispersion is from \(-0.284\) m to \(+0.201\) m. It can be concluded that the dispersion of corrections in Figure 7 is not a good approximation of the Z coordinate. Figure 4: Value of the weights \((a=c=e=\frac{1}{C_{s}^{2}}=P_{g};b=d=f=\frac{1}{C_{s}^{2}}=P_{r})\) for the adjustment scheme. be seen that we deal with the results that best correspond to the expected values of the Z components. The \(V_{g,z}\) corrections distribution is from +0.097 m to +0.201 m and \(V_{r,z}\) corrections from \(-0.284\) m to +0.026 m, respectively. Then, in Figures 8-10, the results of the calculated mean errors \((\sigma_{x},\sigma_{y},\sigma_{z})\) are presented separately for the resultant XYZ coordinates of the aircraft position.