Leaderboard

Well, since there are so many polls around:doh: I'd love to make my own one :hehe: So here it goes... Please tell us with which program was the beginning of your long adventure with Eagle Dynamics flight simulators.

:doh: All the detail in this sim and they culdent come up with a better sandbag wall.

Not bad keep it up ;)

I don't know. Will probably be dead before it comes out....:music_whistling:

Flanker 1.0 fill my heart :)

Yes, techically it must be rifled to be a recoilless rifle, but as Wikipedia says: " Technically, only devices that use a rifled barrel are recoilless rifles. Smoothbore variants (those devoid of rifling) are termed recoilless guns. This distinction is often lost, and both are often called recoilless rifles." Yes, a rocket launcher is not techincally a recoilless rifle. It has a smooth barrel, it uses fins, and often have a rocket engine which continues firing after it has left the barrel. But it uses the same principle as a recoilless rifle, i.e. that it's open in the back so that the gases can escape backwards without having to be slowed by something (though some work by the principle of firing something else than just gas out the back to counter the force). It's usually not very safe to stand right behind such a gun :) It's having to slow the gases which causes recoil on the gun. And having shock absorbers doesn't remove the recoil, it just spreads it out over a little longer time, so that it's not such a high sudden force. Another disadvantage of a recoilless rifle is that it's hard to propel the projectile to very high speeds. The buildup of gas pressure is one of the ways to give it high speed, and if you just let that escape out the back then it won't have as high a velocity.

You were not talking to me, you were talking to someone else about me, I think that's very clear from your post. If that is not what you intended, perhaps you should edit your post to make your meaning more clear.

*sigh* You got it wrong man. If you see the weapon moving it is subjected to recoil, hence it is in fact not recoilless. Recoilless rifles are another kind of design, recoilless doesn't mean less recoil but no recoil, although some recoil is still felt. Just search wikipedia for recoilless rifle :) There are different types of weapons that can be called recoilless, but regular guns and rifles that use damping are not among them.

Like Yellonet says, if the weapon absorbs the recoil, it's not recoilless. In order to be recoilless, you must vent gases in the opposite direction that the projectile is being fired in such a manner that the forces equalize and the weapon itself absorbs no (or very little) recoil.

hitman, the absorber you talk about is in fact no absorber. it just stores the kinetic energy until the bullet has left the barrel, then it transfers it to the person holding the gun. it is in fact a semi-automatic design, not a recoilless.

How cruel. How can you make such assumptions about me (while not 100% wrong, it does sting to hear that you think I have no practical experience)? I am an FAA certified Airframe and Powerplant mechanic. I have 6 years of experience as an AH-64A mechanic, and two years of experience as an Mi-17 mechanic. I have also worked on the Bell 412, Bell 407, and AS332L1 Super Puma. I am currently an Mi-17 crew chief. I work daily with mechanics and pilots who have worked on and flown virtually every Western helicopter that is currently in service, as well as a few that are no longer in service. While this practical experience isn't perfect, it helps a great deal in my ability to understand how different aircraft operate, especially in regard to the design philosophy differences between American, European, and Russian helicopters. I am indeed also good at searching the web. The Internet has a great deal of information if you know how to separate the good from the bad. I like to think that my real life experiences help me differentiate between the two. I have a NASA document on my computer titled "Review of the Transmissions of the Soviet Helicopters", which is rather old, but covers the important parts rather well. I got it from the Internet a long time ago, I'm sure it is still out there somewhere. It's NASA Technical Memorandum 103634 from December 1990. And while I am a beta tester, I am sad to say that I have spent the majority of my time writing checklists and proofreading the manual, and only a small amount of time actually flying in-game (lots of ramp work, though!). It's hard to play from my laptop in Afghanistan. ;) But I'll be home in a few days and I'll be hopping right back into the virtual cockpit and helping out where I can.

Of course it began with Flanker 2.5 in spring 2001. AFAIR, 22th of may the day when I bought this sim.

Hey Cosmonaut... I've been laying low. Put up my FC on the back burner for a while and ventured into FPS, a multitude of them. Now, I've dusted clean FC and getting back on the sattle again. I will have to refresh my fighting abilities one more time. I've been looking forward for Black Shark like all of us here. Soon enough, we will own a piece of this master piece !!! Thanks for the welcome...

:megalol: Isn't it Doda? Man, media and herself assure us Poles about her high IQ (just like Sharon Stone who's perfect face to me by the way) but I just can't believe it. I know she's not for solving the ridles - it's a walking love machine. And her music... Do you know what is Disco Polo genre? Well, she plays something like tunined, lifted disco polo and spends more funds for video clips (example). Sorry for OT - I couldn't resist to say it. Carry on guys.

Shamandgg... Fighter Bomber was also my first Flight Simulator ¡¡¡. The Tornado, ufff, in an Amstrad CPC 6128.

Well to be honest I don't think the premise of the question lacks conciderence of the big picture design choice. Large caliber autocannons are a good weapon of choice against soft or medium targets for all platforms, be it helicopters or IFVs. For the KA-50, beeing a gunship without WSO and with a unique aerodynamic concept, a fully turret based gun sollution is a non-possibility. Even if it utilized a highly sophisticated FCS to automaticaly slave the gun on sensor highlighted targets, fully calculating balistics, you would still end up with big impact on weight, drag and accuracy. The M230 is concidered an area weapon for a reason. Even then, the pilot still has to controll the sensors themself, as he does presently with the Shkval. The procedure would not differ much from the relativly complex launch of a Vikhr. The "fixed" cannon actually is a lot quicker and more intuitive to use for a single pilot, especialy in unlike situations you took as an example ( who would take on any sudden appearence of a surface thread by trying to get a cannon solution anyway?), where the simple reticle gives you a very good option to quickly engage targets. And as seen in the producer's notes; the BS is able to engage from long range with the help of the aircraft's sensors used to confirm and paint the target aswell. The decision to give the BS a more or less fixed, long barreled 30mm is simply based on practical reality and good experience with similar concepts on the Mi 24 family. Don't make the mistake to compare it to the Apache, Hind or Tiger. Those have been designed for (or evolved to ) a broader aspect of war. The KA-50 is not a multyrole platform for asymetric warfare including FAC, Reccon etc. It's a force amassment tool to deliver punch to a point. Or better spoken: Because of some drawbacks of the single seat approach ( like the cannon and sensor suit ) the BS does not perform as good as those in some areas.

SOLO FLIGHT yes! Nobody complain about poor fps those days ;)

If anyone remembers ZX Spectrum? This is where I firstly touched a game that tried to simulate something, lol... but it was terrible. I think first thing that got me into flying more on a personal computer was my cousins ATARI and SOLO FLIGHT. My very first two flight sims on very first PC (PC AT) were Fighter Bomber and MS Flight Simulator 4.0 - actually these were my very first two PC games.

I like Poles:thumbup:. ... especially Polish girls :)

You might want to take a closer look at his post :D

The KA 50 has counter rotating main roters that cansel the tork. There is no tail roter needed to counter the tork of the main roters. Watch some of the videos and look at the tail. :book: Reading is not only fun it is fundimentel.

hahaha! :megalol: me too :smartass:

LOMAC for me, thanks to the dad, who discovered it for me! And then I shot him down... (in LOMAC), he wasn't talking to me for couple of weeks :D

Japanese Man 1: RUN! IT'S GODZILLA! Japanese Man 2: It looks like Godzilla, but due to international copyright laws - it's not. Japanese Man 1: STILL! WE SHOULD RUN LIKE IT IS GODZILLA! Japanese Man 2: Though it isn't. [Winks at Camera]

Many guys prob. me too will be there. It is not so far for mee and some guys from SVK SQuad are from CZ.

I started with LOMAC :baby:

What unknown factor? Do you even know what an EFP is? The maverick, hellfire, nearly any RPG out there is pretty much a HEAT warhead - there are some versions of the TOW which fire an EFP into the TOP of their target where the armor is fairly thin. It does so from a distance of maybe two meters. No, it really isn't classified all that much, and yeah, the documentation is out there. Look up 'HEAT warhead' ... practically the same on principle, different operation in actuality as mentioned above. That's so wrong it's not even funny. An EFP has penetration more or less equivalent to its diameter in RHA. Tank armor is MUCH thicker in RHA than that. Because 30mm of penetration isn't enough - and that's if the EFP is 'full caliber'. Further, 30mm EFP is pretty useless when you can use 30mm frag against personnel or API vs. light skinned vehicles and APCs. As for the pictures - yes, there are plenty of them, and you'll be very hard pressed to find an actual front armor penetration ... just about all of them are side or rear penetrations.