Sundowner.pl

Quote the whole thing, because he doesn't talk about horizontal, but vertical. 48 Mk4 rockets from XM3 subsystem - that's 1008 lb of ballast thrown overboard. In a helicopter that has 3000lb of total useful weight - that's considerable amount.

And only the newer ones, I can't use it on my HTC that has Android 2.3.3

Thankfully its only a placeholder until the M60E1 sight is modeled. In the mean time, I personally shoot without that sight, just lining up targets with the altimeter-VSI-clock gauges line, and its stack height above the dash. Little Bird style :smilewink: It would be fun to have ability to write on the windshield :music_whistling:

FFARs have short range, are inaccurate and have weak warhead, to penetrate front or side armor, you need at least 5" of diameter to fit shape charge big enough. We should be able to kill tanks, but with some cunning - having the right warheads (M247, although Mk5 somewhat would do), and having right tanks damage modeling - allowing to put a warhead on the engine cover. Right now it registers such hit, as an rear armor hit, and removes hitpoints, so with enough rockets, we can kill a tank, but it's ridiculous. Not only that, take the White Phosphorus warhead rocket, and shoot at anything, and be amazed as the rocket flies through, until it hits ground - then and only then its set off... producing a signaling smoke flare :doh: The whole rocket system I'm guessing is taken straight from Lock On, and is actually laughable now when we have to use it as primary armament.

Not at this time.. I'm flying Cessna.

Actually it's a 100kts, because it's a roof mounted pitot tube, it's 90 for nose mounted. Still off though, as all the power settings above 60kts, probably because of what I wrote about the attitude for cruise flight being off. If you want specific data for power setting in HOGE, here's an example: 9000lb, 2000ft OGE hover, with 20°C FAT should be 38 PSI torque. For +20°C FAT that difference is smallest I've seen, and -2 PSI across the board - both for altitude and gross weight. This isn't something we should point out, this is in maintenance flight checklist - document which each flight tester should receive from developer, because it's best possible way of testing if this thing fly by the numbers. And those errors would be noticed less than an hour from releasing new dev build. Apparently this is not the case.

This is not how I roll. If something feels wrong to me I research it, then test it multiple times, to rule out any external causes, or "game engine hickups" - THEN I write about it. That's few hours of work. Changing the topic a bit, I don't work today, so I took the Huey for a test ride, to check the VRS behavior as the Wolle was asking about before ED testers started demanding to do their job for them. After about 30 descents from hover, with various mid-level loads I find out that the VRS threshold is around -1200fpm in the version we have. Any vertical descent slower than that can be easily arrested by pulling collective (provided we have the power, if we don't then we deal with settling with power). But once we go near or cross the -1200fpm, the helicopter fall through, and pulling the collective won't change the situation... although I didn't notice for it to aggravate it either. Now the question is: does the -1200fpm right or not? When we look at what Nick Lappos wrote about the VRS, as the vertical speed of descent being equal to rotor downwash, and therefore dependent on the disc load, we can deduct, that ~25kg/m^2 rotor of Huey will have that speed 1.8 times greater than that of 14kg/m^2 rotor of Robinson R22. Now, thanks to the magic of internet we know that R22 enters VRS at about 700-800fpm at gross weight. So taking the averages we get around -1230fpm with Huey at 8500lb load... so I'll say we're pretty darn close.

Like the rotor blades start turning at 20%, and not 15% N1 rpm ? Those are the ones I found out simply by flying the thing, without even looking for errors. I'm beta tester for A2A, not for Belsimtek.

Sorry guys, but the M257 works... but not how it supposed to, as is apparently the norm with the whole armament system currently. Fired form DCS: Huey the flares will ignite at 19 seconds from launch, and will burn for another 117, then disappear. The M257 illumination warhead works as follows: - after the rocket burnout at 1.05-1.1 seconds (for Mk66 motor), a delay charge is ignited; - delay charge burn for 9 seconds, then a separation charge disconnects the flare assembly from the rocket engine, secondary delay charge is ignited as the drogue chute is deployed; - secondary delay burn for 2 seconds, after that the drogue chute is blown, main chute deployed and the candle lit; - the candle burn for 120 seconds, of which 100 is in high intensity. So we should have roughly 12 seconds from trigger pull to illumination, the modeled rocket takes much longer, probably making it go out further, and lower, so when employed from low altitude, you don't see its effect. The flare candle is also very dim for its power - barely visible with in-game NVGs.

I'm only using data for CMRBs and dash-13B engine... did you change your mind on the subject of rotor blades ? Because it would explain a lot:

- Following the ball in turn over 45° in bank result in an uncoordinated turn, even though the ball says differently; - 2ft hover power setting doesn't correspond to 90kts cruise power setting; - any by the book power setting doesn't correspond to their right airspeed, or climb/descent performance; - HIGE and HOGE charts are off, depending on gross weight - from 10% to 50%.

I've already shown one thing that is wrong, and in return I get hate posts for not doing testers job for them ? The hell ? No, I'm being reminded over and over again, that I pre-purchased the product, and got its early development stage as a bonus.

You know that vectors from both forces will be directed forward, not back right ? Yes and no. As I posted earlier, you can't fire Mk66 rocket engine from M158A1 launcher pod - there is no igniter connection, if there would be, then yes, the ignition arm would be in the way... actually it would be blocking the nozzle, increasing internal pressure in combustion chamber, resulting in explosion. Now for Mk4 and Mk40 rocket engine, for which that particular launcher was designed for - no, it's not in the way, since the gases are directed around it.

What is the action, and what is the reaction here ? THINK A lot of expanding gases are produced in compartment with one exit - those gases are released by that exit - it's a lot of mass going one direction - this is the action. The reaction is the projectile in which this action is taking place, being moved by equal force the opposite way. Where's the helicopter, or even the launcher in this ? It's a ROCKET, the RECOIL is what's acting on the PROJECTILE, not launcher or helicopter. Are we really going to continue through 4th page of discussion about a failure in basic physics ?

Really ? Let's do a quick reality check here. We, the customers: - don't have the current development build; - don't know what errors were already found by the testers team; - don't know what errors were already addressed; - don't know what's on the "to do" list. From what we know, anything we post there could be already found out, researched, and done.

Umm... I try to actually stay away from this, I'm the customer, I shouldn't be the one to do the beta testing here, that's what the extensive testers team is for, right ? Actually I'm rarely finding myself in VRS, and to be honest VRS is pretty dividing topic in the pilots and aerospace engineers community, as there are a lot of cases that are either misdiagnosed for being VRS when it's settling with power, and settling with power when it's VRS, and some don't even care to draw any line there at all :smilewink: I'm not going to judge DCS:Huey VRS simulation at this stage, the earlier one, was clearly off, now it's closer to what we suppose to see, although it's hard to throw specific numbers here, as there are not many studies on this subject that would give definite answers and clear mathematical models for this phenomenon.

Here's an experiment for you: Climb to an altitude, accelerate to 90kts, then maintaining that altitude rise your nose to 0° pitch. And watch how the airspeed plummets and stabilize at 60 kts. This is not what suppose to happen. Between 60 and 100 kts, you can maintain 0° pitch, with stable airspeed and stable altitude - because of the variable horizontal stabilizer in the back. Here's a scan from RAAF manual, I was posting elsewhere, that talk about this: This is only one thing from many that are still off with the Huey FM.

Nevertheless the FM is still off.

Froogle, the Huey actually has a stability augmentation mechanism, although it's not electric like the SCAS on Cobra or TwinHuey. It's mechanical - the stabilizer bar act as stability augmentation system of sorts. As for the first impressions video, personally can't see anything wrong with your point of view and conclusions, although would rather like to see you there not abusing the trim, I found it to be trying to kill me more often than help, might be the source of your problems with both take-off and landing.

Fun mission, got A,C,B in the first go. Now what I wander, and would like the IP to tell me during the mission is what are the criteria for scoring, and what to do better - was the rotation too slow, was the direction not held steady enough, etc. ? PS. I practice my hover on those circles on aprons at Sukhumi airport, so the area in this mission was HUGE :smartass: And BTW, we need those Hovercontrol hover circles: it's fun to practice on those.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1748415&postcount=22 ;)

It's an option. New Zealand Air Force UH-1Hs has them fitted for example.

Well for one: the performance is still a bit off.

The shake is caused by shifting CofG, and the angular force applied by the rocket - it starts to spin inside the launcher, and the slight off-axis thrust vector make it transfer some force to the sides of launcher tube. Here's my question - how much mass was dumped by firing 32 rockets, changing the CofG ? I would hazard a guess, that if you dropped a 160-480 kg load (were they S-5 or S-8 rockets?) you would see the same shift in CofG, making the helicopter lighter - less power required, so it will reduce torque - moving the nose sideways and rise the nose - which in result will drop the forward speed. Here's the problem, that launcher is an M158A1, it was designed to work with rockets with Mk4 and Mk40 rocket motors, those are of different design having four distinct nozzles, and fins stowed behind them - separating them, those fins are held together by a piece of plastic with conductive material which is pushed against those studs you see on the aft end of the launch tubes. When the Mk4/40 rocket launches, the gases are funneled around those studs, so the don't transfer any force directly (friction, boundary effect). Now in game you made the launcher shoot Mk66 rocket motor Hydra 70 rockets, if you try to load them into that launcher that stud will go well inside the exhaust nozzle blocking it, leading to rocket explosion at ignition*. Plus the rocket is not retained in those launchers tubes, by any other means than the spring loaded fins pushing against the inside of the tube. * - you can't actually ignite the Mk.66 rocket inside of the M158 or M159 launchers - the igniter contact is on the rocket circumference, not only centrally in the back where the only igniter contact is on those old launchers.

Would be relevant if we would see any difference between first fired rocket, and the last - but we don't. Now I took the Mk66 rocket motor data, and did some worst case scenario numbers crunching on it, giving its specific impulse, acceleration, amount of propellant - the highest number you could achieve of the gases transmitting all of their kinetic energy on the launcher is 5,7N... in real world it's way less - as the propellant is not transferred in 100% to gas in the specified burn time, the exhaust gases disperse more than in the nozzle cone angle, etc. etc. So I'm estimating that number is at least 4 times greater than achievable in reality. And still 5,7N is 2550 times less than that of both minigun firing. So no, those exhaust gases can't react with a force enough to change that helicopter's pitch.