Sundowner.pl

Weta43 then you did noticed, how the pedestal looks did you ? :smilewink: There are no flat, empty spaces on the real one, if a space is not used, there is a blank panel mounted in that place, otherwise there would be a hole and the side drilled mounting rails visible.

Modeled UH-1 should have the NVG nav lights kit installed - you have the additional knob on the overhead panel to set their brightness for NVG flight, although in current beta it's not operational. Not all of the Hueys in 80s and 90s received that kit -some were flying with normal lights, but modified - sprayed with paint, or taped over, to either reduce its brightness or reduce the angles from which those were visible (to not light up the interior of aircraft and blind its crew). Until 1997, when all aircraft such hastily modified had to meet FAA standards, and all paint and tapes were removed from the lights. Which wasn't the best idea, and only a month later an instruction was published how to modify Huey nav lights that would meet FAA standards, and not blind its crew - the lights were painted over to almost (1/8" below) half of their height.

Yes you can do CAD model then export it into a 3D Studio... but you can model in 3D studio using exact dimensions to begin with, and Solidworks or Inventor for commercial work cost a lot (had to stop using Solidworks after 10 years because my student licence run out and that thing is bloody expensive even for non-commercial work). Plus exporting from CAD files into 3dsm files create a lot of trash, that has to be dealt with manually. Both CAD modeling and low-poly 3dsm modeling need a certain "flow" of the model to render correctly and not be over-complicated, but from my experience, unless we're dealing with a cube, it will not translate between the two types of models, and I did a lot of trial and error years ago with Solidworks 2003 - where complex shapes were hard to achieve, and importing 3D Studio Max models, were next to useless. The only advantage CAD programs can give a game developer is automatic creation of damage models. But on the other hand for one software licence you can buy a good freehand 3D scanner, so... :music_whistling:

Set a mission in editor on air base that have level ground all around. Check with ruler far a reference point between 1700 and 3500 ft from the runway threshold. Now fly a pattern at 300ft AGL and steady 60 kts. When you line up with the runway, and maintaining 300ft and 60 kts, check the height above the dash at witch the runway threshold is when you overfly your reference point. Now fly the pattern and when the runway threshold is at the right height, begin your (GENTLE!) descent, by lowering the collective, adjusting with cyclic to maintain 60 kts, and aim to hit the runway threshold. When you pass 100ft AGL raise the nose do deaccelerate, this will also make you go long, and with practice will put you at 0kts, at 4ft AGL above the runway numbers. Depending on what will be the distance between runway threshold, and your reference point - the approach angle will be between 10° and 5°. Quite shallow for a helicopter, but too steep to make use of the PAPI/VASI lights or ILS.

MAK have no accident report on that helicopter, but here's the full video: http://www.avsimrus.com/f/accidents-88/mil-8t-amur-ra-24438-full-32179.html?action=viewonline It looks like they run out of right pedal with heavy machine at high altitude, when they eventually rotated downwind all bets were off.

It is rarely the case where manufacturer have CAD models available for 50+ year old design. In case of Bell, they should, but not all of it, because a lot of the air-frame is similar to the Bell 412 some can be extracted from its files etc. But using CAD parts and assembly files is the least efficient way one can do a game model. More efficient way is simply scan the parts and whole machine with 3D scanner that a dev studio can buy or rent. Then you have a 3D representation you can import directly to the 3D modeling program of your choice, and use the scan model as template to build low poly model around it. This is how Elizabeth was modeled for Bioshock Infinite. For helicopters like Sikorsky S-61 or S-58 there is really only that way, or building a mesh on any available 3-way drawings, and then push the vertices one-by-one in accordance with A LOT of detailed, scaled pictures, like this one I made for a modeler some time ago:

Actually it's about damn time that someone would take a 3D scanner to the hangar, and utilize technology we (engineers) are playing with for years, instead of using over, and over the same inaccurate 3-way views and drawings made in the 1960s. No, it won't make the model for the artist, but will give him much more accurate reference points. BTW doing a CAD model, and low-polygon 3D model for a game isn't really that different.

While we are on the elevator, can you comment on the power setting to speed correlation, as explained in the RAAF Basic Operator Technique Manual : Do I understand this correctly, that to change the airspeed in that "stable" range of 60-100 kts, we would pull the collective, to get certain torque, push the cyclic, to accelerate keeping the VSI at zero - then throughout the acceleration maneuver I would start pulling the nose back up, as the speed builds up until a stable speed is achieved with 0° pitch attitude ? Because I'm not so sure I see that in current flight model.

My guess is that there is some issue between pilot control and the blade pitch actuator, as if there was no stabilizer bar and dampener in between. We'll have to wait for the update that will have the stabilizer bar simulated, to draw conclusions.

The MA-4A bomb rack on UH-1 could accept anything that could be mounted on a bomb rack and weighed 750lbs or less. This include gun pods: As for particularly UH-1H variant carrying gun pods - one thing has to be made clear here: US used the Hotel variant purely as Slick. Only Australians, South Vietnamese and later Philippines were using them as gunships, and neither of them had access to XM18 or XM14 gun pods (or in one instance, even rocket launchers - that's why in the Apocalypse Now you see Huey carrying and "firing" French SNEB 68mm FFARs). So far I've only seen Argentines using gun pod on the Hotel Huey, FN Herstal 7.62mm:

Now what I did not know about when writing above post was, that someone could actually intentionally wire both the feeder clutch, and gun drive independently, which would make it work similar like the M61A1 Vulcan, and that's how the M21 on RAAF gunships behaved ! There is a 0.3s time period after firing on which the gun is still rotating, but not feed any ammo.

Unfortunately it is not, but since we don't know what is exactly worked on, and what bugs are known, and unknown, input from customers like us is rather meaningless. Belsimtek have pretty big testing team, I'm leaving up to them finding errors and bugs in this module... unless there is something I'm certain they would miss - like emergency gov. on the ground not spooling engine all the way, or DC voltmeter not reading the battery voltage with the battery switch in OFF position.

That would be useful. Unfortunately at this moment with ships lighting aids off, and the safety netting raised, landing on their helipads is more risky than it should be.

Exactly. Yes your right, I got confused going through the TACAN receiver manual, since that one receives in that band it will show on the HSI course to that navaid, typical VOR/DME setup on the other hand is not set up like that and can't home on the UHF frequency.

Actually you can... but not with our radio. We would need one that could receive DME signal, then you use this table to set up VOR/DME frequency (which will show up DME, and course to transmitter, but no VOR radial will be available): use it for good :P

What I'm writing about is actually the DME frequency on which a TACAN or VORTAC is sending, so you can't set a VOR radial, but use the DME as NDB. TACAN is using UHF frequencies that are outside of our NAV radio to use exactly as VOR. ...or maybe I need another cup off coffee...

Hang on... how well is the Tacan simulated in DCS ? You should be able to use Tacan as VOR. For example the Batumi Tacan 16X, should be received as VOR/DME 107.9 MHz. Will try those out in an hour or so... ...or 135.9 MHz ... dammit, where are my books!

Brown-out and white-out are not simulated though, r-alt would be most useful there.

Don't know, together with the Mk.66 rocket motor, that warhead was the HYDRA 70 project. Never intended as anti-tank though - mostly anti-personnel, and lightly armored targets. The lethal area is bigger than that of the 17-pound M229, so you won't see it in COIN operations either. Plus it is used primarily by Apache.

Eventually I will replace the whole gimbal inside, but at this time I used all the components as a testing rig - I wanted to test if we really have to invest in costly precision ball bearings. So I dissasambled the whole gimbal and played a bit with a drill and files, to fit cheap automotive ball bearings: Those cost me around $0.50 a piece. I've also removed springs, and I'm currently waiting for a custom made set that is 30% of the original strength. Also replaced the central axis with one made out of brass going through two 7mm ball bearings originally from airsoft gun (6mm ones would be better). Also smoothed out all contacting surfaces and where parts work with each other - put some Teflon tape. So far, so good, the stick smoothed out nicely. Next: longer arm, to achieve 10" deflection at the handle on both axis. I will be also doing a collective and side panel for the pedestal and overhead controls.

The Mk.5 HEAT warhead had performance only slightly better then the PG-7 rocket propelled grenade, anything that can protect from the old RPG-7 (which Bradley ERA do) can also protect from the Mk.5 warhead. M247 on the other hand is a different matter, the first hit would be deflected, but the double action of its warhead can potentially strip Bradley from it's ERA panels on the attacked side. It won't work on the Russian "Kontakt-5" ERA the same way - that one will shrug off any FFAR warhead with exception of M261 - as this one can strip a T-90 of it's ERA by simple volume of penetrating jets - 9 munitions per rocket. Won't do jack all against the tank itself though, need a follow-up with at least the M247 and at the right spot. Plus we can't use the M261 on UH-1H - that warhead has programmable fuse, and this require different type of launcher (either M260 or M261) and on-board computer. So Mk.5 or M247 straight into engine cover should be pretty much only viable option for us - helicopter guerrilla fighters :megalol: Although, probably the easiest way to take out a tank with the Huey would be...

Hehe, Bell was a bit weird like that and the Master Caution on Huey, Kiowa and most Cobras have to be reset by the separate reset/test switch. They became more civilized with the Whiskey Cobra where the light is reset by pressing it. You might be interested in a fact that Hughes was the first to use such Master Caution light/reset switch in helicopter with the OH-6A Cause :smilewink:

High speed, aft cyclic, pulled collective, rpm drops, retreating blade stalls and flaps fully down to the stops, and doesn't clear the tail boom. Not a cause, just one of the factors.

I don't think a G load is what you should be worry about in a helicopter, what barrier you will encounter first is retreating blade stall, and this can be very painful in the Huey (main rotor blade impacting tail boom). For more lengthy discussion on the subject I would recommend reading this thread on PPRuNe Forum: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/447900-helicopter-g-limits-manoeuvering-speed-r22-takeoff-w-gs.html

Nobody claims you can loop a Huey... you can't go fast enough :D