Sundowner.pl

Ericoh, we're talking about M158A1 rocket pod... its 7 2mm thick tubes, with two clamps in the middle... there is simply nothing to push against ! The frontal area of that rocket pod where exhaust gases are pushing is 3,16e^-3 m^2... that's less than a shoe polish can. Those are gases, low in mass, dispersed, and deccelerating rapidly after leaving the nozzle. Anyway: Kiowa: UH-1N: Apache: http://youtu.be/uz4yxYJ1gvk?t=54s Tiger: Bell 407AH: Now Mk40s. UH-1B:

As far as armament goes ? Nobody said we'll get anything more than what we already have. maybe the XM60E1 pilot sight, maybe M130 countermeasures, maybe M23 pintle mounts for Slick, maybe the radio altimeter... and that's it, nobody said anything about properly modeling the FFARs. And there is a lot to do to get them accurate - so far those are hand-me-downs from the A-10C with same bizarre choices in warheads: the Mk5 which was pretty unique (only Navy had them), already outdated, and not fielded during Vietnam conflict, and no M247, which replaced it and was widely spread throughout late 70's and 80's, and still in US Army and National Guard inventory.

The funny thing is, since the whole thing is from the "la-la-land" it's hard to apply real life knowledge to this. Because we have Mk66 rocket motor, that was made to work with LWL launchers like the M260 and M261 (and LAU-68, etc.). Now, the Mk66 have a retainer groove, and the LWL launchers have a retainer that is overridden by the rocket kick at ignition - the retainer releases the rocket after a force is applied from 170-600 lbs. Now the problem is, that we don't have the LWL launchers, we have the M158 and M159 - those don't have such retainers, and the rocket is pretty "loose" inside of the tube. Not only that, but the rocket could stick quite a bit out, because the Mk66 rocket motor is 2.4 inches longer than the Mk40, and the visual model on DCS huey is of M158/M159 launchers loaded with rockets with those shorter Mk40 motors. You see the whole thing doesn't add up.

Are negligible, its dispersed, slow, and low in mass. Plus most of the propellant is burned while the rocket is in the tube.

There is no locking mechanism per say - only friction. There should be no recoil, but a vibration caused by the imperfection of engine nozzle (the thrust vector is offset slightly from the rocket axis). There is also slight change of center of gravity height. Nothing else, it is also strange to me that those rockets rock the airframe around like that. But on the other hand you can't physically fit Mk.66 rocket motor to a tube of M158 or M159 launcher either (not to expect it to reliably firing), so I treat the FFARs as pure fantasy item on the DCS: Huey. http://youtu.be/qyBPsl3mxNA?t=1m6s

Be aware, that such shallow and slow approach puts you into the "avoid" area of H-V diagram: If you loose power on that approach, you will not make it to the landing spot. I've actually had such occurrence two days ago - I'm flying one mission I made, and constantly change - what I did, was to remove all of the targets from Sukhumi airport... but forgot to remove a single BRDM. Few flights later I'm landing at the Sukhumi airport, and suddenly I'm thrown into the co-pilot seat, and lost all power. I'm keeping the approach speed at 50-60kts pretty well into the landing spot, and approach angle is close to 30° so I still had plenty of room for autorotative landing... although the helicopter was shot to pieces on the ground :music_whistling:

Is your parts catalog also in 9 volumes, each as big and heavy as manhole cover, or is that only the Mi-14 thing ? :smilewink:

I'm well acquainted with that checklist, others too, and you have to remember there were a lot of changes between UH-1H and UH-1N, that make the charts and data off by 10-45%, making it unusable. Check the dash-10 manual for UH-1H posted elsewhere for relevant information. If on the other hand you're just interested in such document just for curiosity sake, here's something that will make you wave fists at ED, for making helicopters succumb to the "Pinto effect" instead of more realistic crash effect: FORT WOLTERS, TEXAS File No. 1-403-2 STUDENT HANDOUT HELICOPTER ACCIDENT PREVENTION "HOW TO CRASH A HELICOPTER"

Problem is - you have only one hydraulic system on the UH-1H. That check list is for twin-engine UH-1N TwinHuey.

There is no effect I know about that would make the co-axial rotor less susceptible to VRS. What does matter is the rotor disc loading, and those also are almost identical in both cases (30 kg/m^2 +/- 0.2), therefore my guess is that - yes, the VRS in both helicopters should be rather similar.

Now a bit on the up-turned exhaust, and why it's not present on many helicopters. Every piece of technology has its drawbacks. If we take the exhaust gases and start to direct them somewhere off the turbine axis, or start mixing it with outside air, there is a pressure buildup aft of the engine power turbine, this in effect create two problems: 1 - reduces power; 2 - increases temperature - this poses additional performance limits, and shortens component lifespan. The whole setup also weight a bit more than usual. So now if we take a look at the German Hueys - those are utility helicopters, that are not deployed for combat, but also work as Search And Rescue platforms, and training for mountain flying in the Alps... Those are roles where you need lighter aircraft, more power, longer life - so no IR protection kit.

No, Dornier's Hueys ar license build UH-1H, the D on the end of designation was a German idea, don't know if it suppose to mean Deutchland, or Dornier, but it confuses the hell out of people ! :P

It's actually quite funny, the up-turned exhaust supposed to be an interim solution to the new threat of Striela and Striela-2, and after decades of study, research and development... many helicopters are getting up-turned exhausts now - the AH-64, MH-60, OH-58. The biggest effect of this exhaust duct is the limited amount of exhaust gases interacting with the tail boom - heating it up. There are better designs available today though, like the DAVIS CBT (not up-turned).

Eight Ball, that's true, you can't play around with those features outside of scripted mission in TKOH, plus there are many other issues with it. It's better in FSX with Acceleration pack, as you have access to the winch at all times, all one have to do is put "liftable" objects that will snap to the cable when poked with it. Yet it is not a true replacement for SAR4. But I see problems with hoisting, or long-lining in simulations at this point in time. Advances in flight modeling, plus lack of stereoscopic and peripheral vision make such flying really tough. Honestly I would leave such features for an update, for better times when we'll see if the commercial Occulus Rift, and similar hardware will help us out here.

- Ms Flight Simulator X: Acceleration - Take On: Helicopters :smilewink:

1800shp will be enough ? :smilewink:

Lets call it "the Pinto effect" :lol:

Hahaha, I have so much laughs out of the damage modeling at crash landings with this thing. It is so rare occurrence in real life, for the helicopter to turn into a fireball at hard touchdown. Here's a video of a high speed run on landing... of course its a NOTAR bird, so something must go wrong here: Now play this and guess at which point such landing in DCS helicopter would erupt in a fireball:

Landing either tail low, or skids level, with moderate to low descend speed, and roughly aligned with your course, then you should be fine up to and sometimes above 60kts. What will get you in run-on landing is ground with uneven friction - many Robbies were lost to this. With DCS: Huey run-on landings on tarmac are fine, on the grass... well, only did few in combat, so can't really tell if those are too forgiving or not.

Someone was mentioning that this mission is still work in progress and needs adjustment. I haven't run it for two weeks now so don't remember details, but think I remember there were barely any wind, and wind in mountains is a pretty big thing. I don't think DCS is simulating the ascending and descending winds on the slopes, higher speeds in the saddles, etc. With correct environment modeling and mission execution we wouldn't have much problems there, as you would be most likely above ETL, whiles till sitting on the ground :)

Going bellow min RPM puts you close to rotor blades stall, plus because of the rotor coning under high load and low speed - the "area of rotor disc" is shrinking - giving you less lift, plus drop in main rotor RPM, means also loosing rpm on the tail rotor, which also then looses its effectiveness. AVOID. When your RPMs are dropping to the 6100 N2 (that's when the warning is going off), adjust with governor beep switch - give yourself more room. If this is not enough, emergency (manual) governor have more room for adjustment, but beware, that switching it to manual in mid flight with the throttle still at auto/full position may over-speed the rotor (another no-no).

You've calculated ground speed, helicopter doesn't care about ground speed, as far as there is air between skids and pavement ;) In 800fpm descent at 45° (and no wind!) your airspeed vector is 11.2 kts, you're riding the ETL. 30kts ground speed is the speed with which you're entering the maneuver, then it goes down, all the way to zero at 4ft height above the landing spot.

Actually the USAF "steep approach" at 45° is more likely as it has stated to not exceed 800fpm in descent. The 30° was doable on earlier FM, although hard to maintain, and pinpointing the landing spot, now it's a bit easier. The thing is though - if you loose power during that descent* you will make it to that landing spot in auto-rotation. With 5-15° - you won't. * engine failures are most likely to occur during power changes - during descents, climbs or high bank - altitude steady turns.

The start-up sequence in this Huey manual is basically a copy of one in the dash-10 document for the real thing, with some of the optional equipment thrown out. Of course the yellow text is where the DCS:Huey is diverging with the real thing.

The question that should be asked here is: Is there a person who HAVE TO start the engine by clicking an in-cockpit button with a mouse ? Because it is more convenient to have the starter button as keyboard key or HOTAS button when we start dealing with hot starts - this button NEEDS to be pressed down, while we turn off the fuel valve - because we can't just throttle down - because the idle cutoff is INOP, as its switch is now the starter... :doh: