Sundowner.pl

The FS2004 is ok, as long, as you buy the DodoSim Bell 206 Advanced, both together create best helicopter sim ever :smartass: Also you can buy the FSX which have the helicopters done way beter than 2004, and just wait for Dodo's on it, it will be even bether :thumbup:

Hehe, I remember when for the first time I tried auto rotation practices in Flight Simulator 2004 with Dodo Jet Ranger. For first few times - rookie mistake - dropping collective all the way down, stepping on pedal, and wondering why that fricking thing didn't wanted do 'glide'. It took me some time to realize that dropping the collective should be rather slow, just enough to maintain rotor rpm (and do not worry that it go to 85% at first), and maintain best speed (60kts), I was surprised how far I could fly like that:pilotfly:

First - with helicopters start with "cyclic" and "collective" words :smilewink: For Apache-like controls, here, I uploaded drawings: Apache.pdf Note that these are not exact ones.

I'm not sure about the Mi-14. It's extremely easy to get info on it, but: 1. not many nations are using it for ASW missions (Poland and Bulgaria, the rest has been scraped them or grounded) and only Poland have modified it to use more modern weaponry. 2. it is quite old, and won't be flying for long (27 years is their max life time... and many were made before 1984) 3. the only more often used version is the PS - Search and Rescue, but that would need a lot of changes in the game (but would be kinda cool to fly SAR missions, for downed fighter pilots in online game) The ASW missions would require a lot of changes in DCS, the whole sea environment would have to be made from scratch, to resemble at least the Jane's Dangerous Waters - and that would be a looooooot of work.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dwK1i9QE38c&NR=1 I love those videos.

Some are, some not. For helo-sim purposes its better not to have a centering springs.

Some one have to do it ! :lol:

Not really, take a look how the K-36 ad ACES-type seats work. First they launch you out of th cockpit using rocket motors, then a small stabilizing chute (or in case of K36 - 'chutes') is used to stabilize the seat in proper attitude for releasing the pilot, and main chute system to work - that's missing in Stanley/K-37 system. About Ka-52... not even Russia buy them, there is only one prototype, that was build, and is tested by Kamov money.

I was trying that few month ago in a Mi-14 - cold, on the ramp, couldn't move that fricking thing an inch. Was talking with an instructor pilot about that, and what he said is when all hydraulics are down in that chopper, well, enjoy the ride down, or if you have a chance, make use of that parachute, that you sit on it.

Without hydraulic power you can't move them at all... I tried :music_whistling:

No it's not. It can be used with 0 speed and 0 altitude. But only if your seat is really pointing up.

The problem is not that kind of ejection system don't work on other helicopters... it actually don't work at all :smilewink: Ok, here, how the Stanley system works - when you pull the handle, obstacles are cleared (in A-1 canopy is blown away, in Ka-50, the bolts in rotors are blown, and the top... plate of cockpit is open). Than a rocket is fired upward, connected with the seat by rope-like straps, when those are fully extended, the rocket fires, and pulls pilot out of the cockpit, when cleared it pull out the parachute and disconnect. The problem with this system is - it works like an ejection seat from the 50's. Today real Ejection seats reposition themself in flight, so the parachute can inflate in a safe attitude. The Stanley system don't do that, it just pull you out of the cockpit, and if top of your aircraft was to the side, you have very high chances of strangling into parachute cords, or make the parachute fold. And when you don't have much altitude (probably at least 100m), it wont inflate at all. This system works to slow, and is unsafe in any attitude then straight level flight, that's why it wasn't used since 1960's.

The first bullet will be more accurate, yes. but not the whole burst. In chin mounted cannon, the only force will make the nose go down (unless its a low recoil system like the M230 AWS - this won't move helicopter a bit). But the way Ka-50 have its mounted will make it go down and to the right, so I'm not buying that the Hokum cannon is more accurate then Mi-28. If so - the Havok turret is messed up, not its location. The other thing is - because of the nose wheel, there is no other place that gun can go on that helicopter anyway. Do I "don't like" it ? Not really, I have no point in that. It's not that it threats my country or something, I just see it as unpractical on today's battlefield. Especially looking on the other constructions - the Roivalk, Mongoose, Tiger, Apache, Viper (or whatever the AH-1Z will be called), Mi-35, Mi-28, etc. There were literally billions of whatever currency you want spend, by every country that produce attack helicopters, and no one came to the same conclusions the Kamov did, some were there, even more advanced - like Sikorsky, but scraped that way as... unpractical. Ka-50 for me is not 'bad', 'good' or 'innovative', it's just diferent, when DCS:BS will come, I'll fly that, but as soon I get my hands on the Apache, I will not touch it again.

Single pilot concept was tested by Sikorsky in early 80's on S-76 - project Shadow, even though it was more advanced than Ka-50 (full glass cockpit, helmet mounted displays, full FBW controls, etc.) it didn't proved useful. The problem is, because of the design of the whole K-37 system, it can be useful actually only in situation where you lost both engines, still have full control over the aircraft, but have to place to land in safe autorotation. If you lost control over the aircraft - it is not safe to use the seat. that's why a similiar system was anly designed for Cobra attack helicopter - it based on 'Stanley YANKEE' extraction system, used in A-1 Skyrider, that have the same work principle as the designed many decades later - K-37. But the use envelope was very narrow, and added additional weight, and lowered crew protection (no place for armor), and raised maintenance costs and hours. If its so great, why no one other than Russia bought Ka-50 family helicopter yet ? There were many occasions you know. You know what would be innovative ? A tiltrotor attack aircraft - no one made something like that yet - every other thing was already tested.

All F-16 two seaters which are playing training aircraft role have ASHM, that's not the important thing on that photo.

I wrote: "When firing ahead"... and actually thats the only way that gun fires anyway, 30* to the right is not much. Innovative ? Sorry I don't think so. Sikorsky S-69 was innovative, RAH-66 was innovative... and both have been ahead of its time. Ka-50 is just parts from few machines put together - an armored personal carrier, a strike aircraft, and navy helicopter. The only innovative thing there can be found is the 'ejection' seat. But that already was developed once for Cobra, and a capsule type egress system was once designed for H-21 Shawnee (long, long time ago), it was never fielded because it wasn't improving survivability, only causing additional maintnance costs. Have to note here, that K-37 didn't helped Boris Vorobyov, and Yeugeny Laryushin also didn't had much luck, although that seat was not mounted at the time of his tragic flight. Actually the K-37 seat have way to long response time to be useful in something that can change its attitude in a fraction of a second. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

This is a very good question. But the gun is not really meant to be an anti-infantry - for that you have the S-8 rockets, not against vehicles, for those the Vikhr is better (especially while it's cheap). The gun is also very high recoil one, and badly positioned. When firing ahead causing momentum in 2 axes (when all chin mounted cause only in one) making the bursts go all over the place. The fact is... this helicopter have no right to exist. Every task it can do, can be done better or cheaper by its Mil sisters - the Mi-35 and Mi-28. the only plus is the better efficiency in using engines power for producing lift... but put better engines on the Mils, and you have the same thing.

Oh yes, the F-16 have so tiny radar, so short range, so weak BVR armament, and its ECM suit is nonexistant... Bravo Sierra Actually, comparing Polish F-16C/D-52+ to our MiG-29As and ex-Gs is like comparing USAF F-22As with F-16As , absolutely no competition. Those Block 52+ Vipers have the best avionics suit available, short of the I, and E/Fs which are way to expensive for what they're capable of. The only true problem is... be bought not enough of them ( 48 ), we need at least twice as much.

... Yeah, we do need those in DCS, ASAP :smartass:

Well nobody tell you to not do that... it's just not a good idea :smilewink:

Just to clarify that statement there, they do suck up A2G space, or can suck it up. For example in case of AH-1W, AH-64A, Tiger etc. There is no special place to put A2A weaponry, so they are mounted where A2G stuff goes. But in case of Ah-64D and AH-1Z, there are specially designed wingtip mounts for A2A stuff, which can be used for that. But for example if someone in charge would think about sending a pair of those choppers as 'enemy helicopter hunters' - there could be more AAMs fitted, that would also suck the A2G mounts... or like in case of Netherlands and Dutch WAH-64Ds, that wingtip A2A mount is already used for other stuff (AMASE pods).

Umm.. aiming Apache turret is as easy as turning your head into the target - your observing the threat anyway, so as well you might squeeze the trigger :smilewink:

NOE is not the solution for everything :smilewink: There are times when one have to blow something up, and I don't think there will be unprotected targets anywhere and we have to remember, that Vikhr have to be guided all the way to target... and Patrot, Hawk and Roland missiles are faster :smilewink:

Well you won't be when you fly into territory of: - FIM-92 Stinger - MIM-23 Hawk - M1097 Avanger - MIM-104 Patriot - M6 Linebacker - Roland - M-163 VADS - Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard etc. You won't even know what hit you :smilewink: (remember - no RWR :smilewink: )

hmm... and what makes you say that ? It's like some weird Tibetan mantra. Some people forget that the Ka-50 by itself is two and a half ton heavier than the AH-64 :smilewink: And from what I remember Apache rotor spins way faster than Hokums, making it more responsive to sharp stick movements which in case of Ka-50 can result in blades collision. The only advantage the Ka-50 has over the AH-64 is the Vne, which is actually not an issue, since you need some space to achieve it.