Sundowner.pl

@Malleus - Exactly, but in high&hot situations like, let say Afghanistan ( ;) ) if you want to land somewhere to drop/pick up troops, rearm, refuel etc, while slowing down, you will experience huge lift loss, as the wings do not generate any, but disturb the MR air flow, and actually you don't have as much lift in hover as Mi-8, while being 1.5 ton heavier (!)... the same problem have the V-22 Osprey. Then you can't fly rearward too fast, that also limits your downwind flight envelope, and you can forget about doing maneuvers like "rearward departure" that S-70 and AH-64 do so gracefully.

It is not a fact, and it may be far from truth, but there is almost two years of difference after Sikorsky started working on S-66 and S-67 (1964), and Mill started their work on V-24 (1966). Both were build on exactly the same concept - use as much parts from existing transport helicopter as possible, build a narrow fuselage, with tandem cockpit and area for small number of troops, and have wings for unloading the main rotor in forward flight, and armament. It was a time when KGB and CIA flourished... so I wouldn't be surprised if the concept was "borrowed" in not really legal way ;) At least Americans got their self into an conflict where concepts of true attack helicopters (Cobras) and gunships (Huey's and everything else that could carry rockets and machine guns) were tested, and never came back to the S-67 idea. Unfortunately the Soviets couldn't at the time test their concepts and were stuck with the Hind, that really wasn't an attack helicopter, nor an transport. Not to mention, that most of those helicopters still today can't fly or fight at night. The only time when they could prove their worth were Iraq - Iran conflict, where the Hinds and SeaCobras fought each other (using mostly anti tank - wire guided missiles) although the outcome was somewhat a tie (or 10:1 for Iran - by their books ;) ), Iran apparently never really cared about those fights and never armed Cobras with a-a armament, that was at their disposal at the time. Mi-24 is a good looking aircraft, but nothing more. Cobras were always more capable in combat - since the AH-1T, Cobras became all-weather helicopters, while the Mi-24 have to wait almost until today (Mi-35, South African SuperHinds, and other modern modernizations), everything else was a better troops transport. Not really my favored... it is really low on my list.

Exactly, not to mention that the HIND itself may be considerate a ripoff of American concept - the old Sikorsky Blackhawk helicopter. Its "multipurpose" is not really and advantage, since it was designed around an Mi-8 power system it was never designed to be nimble, and flown aggressively - till the Mi-35 which have few subsystems of Mi-28. The truth is - the MH-60L DAP can carry more weapons, and more troops, further, and is more maneuverable. That "wing" thing on HIND is cumbersome everywhere except forward flight.

:megalol:

Well there is a whole sub forum for Russian speakers, so consider this poll as "Where do you from if you're not from Russia" :smilewink:

Because the isn't any. Throttle == Collective in FSX setup. The real throttle might be a propeller or engine #2 throttle, depending if or where, maker of the a/c you're flying included that control in his work.

Kosi, are you sure, you're in the right place ? I mean... there are 6 wings... but those are called blades, and are rotating, not fixed. The Aircraft is black - not red, and have red stars - not black crosses :pilotfly::harhar:

They probably will, I see most of the people only check few places on this forum... just like me. I never go to the Community Area... unless something catch me eye, or someone direct me here :smilewink:

No, you're wrong, check the Bell 206 from DodoSim, which most of the HoverControl users fly, it uses the twist handle ! Basically the twist handle is a throttle... but not quite :) On governor equipped helicopters, by twisting the handle, you can change the RPM of engine/s, for example to practice autorotations (it does not control rotor rpm !). But you don't have full control of them, because for fine tuning the engines RPMs to optimal, the governor is used, you just twist it to max, and live it there. Now when the governor fails, all you have is your wrist on the throttle to adjust engine/s power, for rotor RPM to remain in the green zone. The same goes for helicopters that are not equipped with the governor - mostly piston, like the Schweizer 300, and older Robinsons R22. You have to manually adjust engines to maintain optimal rotor RPMs. Most bigger aircrafts, like the UH-60 have the throttles separate, for non-disruptive use by the second crew member, or have it doubled, like in Mi-8 family which have both twist handles and levers.

Well the USAF really needed the KC-777, unfortunately Boeing is overloaded with orders from civilian market and couldn't make them in time, so they offered the KC-767... outcome was obvious from the start.

What's the use of supercruise without any weapons ? Anyway, all jets that have 1:1 thrust ratio and are designed to go supersonic, will supercruise without stores. Su-27 do that, F-14 did that and F-16 do that too. But non of them is F-22A which can supercruise loaded with weapons, and throw them further than anything else. So supercruise when talking about <5th gen. fighters like Gripens and Vipers - is pointless, totally unrelated with real life. And BTW delta is an delta, physics didn't change since the 70's :smilewink:

Here's Reload and Bat-Man videos, both also made by Cygan... unfortunately he still have problems with posting here, and admins are not really helpful :music_whistling:

A friend who is an Crew Chief on Hinds made this, and few other videos you can find on Youtube.... but he had to remove them from the net when his superiors find out about them. He had some unpleasantries with them because of those great videos. He's registered here, I'll let him know to write something about it ;) And hope he put a picture of his THL (Polish flight helmet) :pilotfly:

Hehe, well the list can go on: - Contract for purchasing Swedish RBS-15 Antiship missiles (although Harpoons were already in use). - British AS90 howitzer turrets for our "Krab" class mobile howitzer. - Italian MU90 Impact torpedo.

I wouldn't say it was blindly. For example when we took the German Leo2A4 tanks, at the same time Americans offered their M1A1s, the costs were equal, yet we took the German tanks (for us a good deal). Then when we were buying lightweight transport aircraft, we chose the CASA, while the C-27J Spartan was highly promoted by Lockheed-Martin (that wasn't so good - C-27J would better suit our needs). Again with the "Gawron" corvette class vessel, we chose to spend hell'a lots of money for building it for ourself rather than took another ships from the US Navy reserve... this one is a bit of a tie. Polish Navy spend a lot of money for the last 7 years on Gawron project, and the hull isn't even ready. Yet taking ex-USN vessels is not really for us, since most of them are Oceanic class - like the FFG-7s that we took, that are used only on Atlantic (not Baltic sea) as escorts in international groups. By the way, there is more to the story about purchasing our Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates than it seems, every thing's confidential, but let me tell you that it is not a good idea to sent politicians to take something while dealing with different things (FFGs in Polish Navy are by a pure mistake). Then the multi role fighter chose, was the only possible - the Gripen was not really what we needed (good fighter and good bomb truck with ability to perform CAS and SEAD strikes), and the Mirage 2000 was already out of production and most expensive. And don't forget since our "national helicopter program" is chasing its tail at kindergarten level, we are currently buying dozen+ of brand new Mi-171s and used Mi-24Ps directly from Russia, just to keep everything from falling apart.

It's actually an MRTT class Aircraft - aerial tanker is only one of its roles. It will be used as troop and cargo transport for expedition forces and anywhere outside our current cargo fleet range (including An-26, CASA and soon-to-have Hercules aircraft). Poland is already in two international hevy lift groups - with both Ruslan and Globemaster III aircrafts available at our disposal, but they have limited hours per country, and are often used by other members, so we have to rely on our own or American aircrafts for most of the time. You know its really difficult to liberate other country's, without sufficient range of our aircrafts ;) As for American vs European... Boeing 767 was already in service in Polish Airlines, and its service is already here, buying Airbus would mean additional money, or difficulties with maintenance (need to fly it to France for checkouts, that can be done on-site with Boeings).

yeah, I heard about those, but that was on the F-104, there were several clamps with the holes for barrels put on a spiral, so every barrel was on a bit deferent angle. But since late Vietnam conflict, when very often jets were used for a fighter escort in one mission, and CAS in other it wasn't useful anymore, because in CAP you would need the accuracy. Then times changed even more with the F-16 and F-15 with quite accurate targeting systems. I once asked a Netherlands Falcon Keeper if they got those things, and he even didn't know what that was :smilewink: The M61 design didn't change much over the years, so you could put those clamps on it, but what's the point ?

The 'dispersement' is a myth. Any cannon that have a moving barrel will be inaccurate in some degree, it doesn't matter if the barrel is rotating or going back and forward, there will be a 'shotgun pattern'. Plus in case of Gatling guns there is a problem of gun stability. In case of GAU-8 in A-10, the barrels are mounted on a bearing in 2/3 of the length that prevent them from oscillating, making it the most accurate Gatling gun platform so far. Plus while the barrels spin there is also the gyroscopic precession and few other factors. Plus remember that the GAU-12 for F-35, was reduced from 5, to 4 barrels (re designated as GAU-22/A), making it more accurate.

Not so long ago HH-60 crashed in Afghanistan killing 6 crew memebers, and it wasn't fired upon. Accidents will happen no matter what. Overcompensation is also not a good thing, like Merlins and Super Stalions, having 3 engines, rarely have to come back on two of them, but had few crashed, just because of other things (mainly tail rotor flying off).

Autorotation have little to do with composite rotor blades, it's purely aerodynamics into the point of flaring, when the rotor inertia play its small part. The Osprey should autorotate, but it won't result in a great* landing... good landing at most :smilewink: *Great landing - one after which the aircraft can be used again

PRK is early 80's, and LASIK is 1990.

The Chinook is a very good example, but not only for its problems during development, but also from the engineering point of view. many have doubts about the powertrain, and link between both rotors. Well in Chinook, and Sea Knight there is a similar system, designed decades ago, and it works. I'm only wondering what are the procedures, in case of both engines simultaneous shut down in level flight, the wings do not produce enough lift for a glider landing, and the nacelles with rotors need some time to change position for autorotation.

Not yet. In our life time, the UAVs will perform only the mission people would be totally bored or to dangerous - Recon, SEAD, Strike. Everything needing shorter response time, like CAS and A2A combat, will be performed by crewed aircraft, because it simpler, cheaper, more reliable and... there is always someone to blame in case of SHTF.

I don't think so. The Ka-52 was made by the Kamov own money, because no one else would buy a single-seat attack helicopter. Russian military don't want it, it's for export only.

They do - yes, but not in combat operations, probably to reduce the chances of accidents due to pilots fatigue. The same goes to French ad Russian Navy (yet those two carriers are rarely leaving ports/docks) Apples and oranges is exactly what it is, hover landing is totally different then typical angled deck approach and can't be compared.