Sundowner.pl

You had anti-armor assets, like Hellfires and TOW. Non of which is really accessible to us, unless SOP will be to fly alongside the Ka-50s. Let's back up a bit. "HYDRA" is a family of weapons, which main component is the Mk.66 rocket motor. Now what a "HYDRA" will do depends on warhead that was screwed on top of that rocket. The M151 Warhead is High Explosive - Fragmentation. The Mk.5 is High Explosive Anti Tank. Then comes the fuses options for the M151, and a proximity fuse, detonating few yards from the tank, would make the warhead useless against hard target, but we don't really have any choice in fuses, and the M151 is preseted with point detonating one. Which means, that a 10 pound warhead is smacking the hull of a tank, and detonating on it's surface. This on a tank we have, won't penetrate the armor, but the shockwave and vibration do damage. The shockwave propagating in homogeneous steel armor of T-55 or T-72 tank will make it fracture on the inside and spit out fragments of steel, with potential of wounding the crew (although the T-72 later got protective screens, don't know which variant is in the game). Now the vibrations will mess with sights, and some other equipment on all tanks. This warhead will not destroy a tank, but continuous pounding will disable it. Now the HEAT warhead of Mk.5 is pretty weak, but enough for its copper jet to penetrate the engine cover setting the vehicle on fire. PS. I think it's a good practice to give examples, here are some numbers to think about: the Mk.5 HEAT FFAR could penetrate ~5 inches of steel. The DU round of GAU-8 Avenger cannon on A-10, can penetrate ~2 inches... and in DCS we still fire it at tanks setting them on fire ?

This was never the case. The problem with FFARs is their natural inaccuracy - especially used from helicopters, which is remedied by volume of fire, the first - M3 system was mostly utilized in ripple fire, firing few pairs almost at once. Then the newer rocket motor came (Mk.40)and things got a bit better. But the control panels stayed very simple, although the ones used by USAF and VNAF allowed to disable single pods, the ones on Army and Navy helicopters by default fired stores on both bomb racks simultaneously. There was a way to remedy that though. US Navy tricked the system setting intervalometers on the launchers seperately - one launcher to #1 position - second to #8 position, since there were 14 positions, and only 7 tubes - the system send a signal to launch a pair - one launcher fired the loaded tube - the second one - since the #8-14 were wired to nothing other than the ground - were simply cycling settings - then when one launcher went dry, the other recycled to the #1 position and could fire its load. This was done, because a lot of WP and flachette rounds were used, and those are not really much useful when fired in pairs. Now when there was need to fire HE rounds which were loaded to the second launcher - pilot would hit the "reset" button - which remotely set both launchers intervalometers to position #1 and rockets would be launched in pars again. At this point we can't mess around with launcher intervalometer, don't think this will be ever possible with DCS: Huey, same as different loads for selected tubes, or choosing fuses.

Now here's the real question: how well the armor zones of tanks are simulated in DCS ? Because you CAN destroy T-55 or T-72 using FFAR. I used 14 (fourteen) Mk.5 HEAT tipped hydras to take out the T-55, shooting at its back. Around twice as much to take out the T-72 (I lost count). One Mk.5 into the engine cover should do the trick setting the vehicle on fire, but they act like sponge, taking rounds until a certain number of "hit points" is reached. Probably could kill it with Willie Pete too :music_whistling:

Unfortunately on the stretched body of UH-1H you can't mount that weapon system because of center of gravity limitations. The switch is there because it's a common panel (one of few of this type). Actually you could wire any weapon system to the relay and trigger it by selecting the 40mm and pressing weapons trigger. One of such examples would be countermeasures flares - although the XM130 system which I hope is being made has separate switch on the pedestal for firing the countermeasures. What I would do is rewire it to trigger stores on racks separately. Then for example flying with XM18 minigun pod (or XM14 .50-cal) on one rack, and 7-tube FFAR launcher on the other, could be triggered independently. the XM26 unfortunately is also out of the question, it was basically one entity wit the UH-1B helicopters that were modified to use TOW missiles, there were never any provisions to use TOW on the "long" Hueys. What can be done though is incorporating the dual purpose M247 warhead, which was much more capable then the Mk.5 HEAT we have right now. It was a 17-pound high explosive - fragmentation warhead, cut in half, with front of M72 LAW anti tank rocket strapped in front. The same weight and ballistics as the M151 "10 pound" HE warhead, 70% of it's performance on unarmored targets, but additionally 11 inches of hardened steel penetration - enough to penetrate turret roof, or engine cover of any tank in game.

Yes, you should, and I have, but with one small hickup: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105884

I couldn't help myself, and the flight tester in me won, I flipped out the Maintenance Test Flight Manual for UH-1 and started going through procedures. There are few issues, but I want to write about the emergency governor - the test is to roll the throttle to idle, turn on the emergency governor, and then roll it back to red line looking for the RPM light to light up at 6800 +/-100 rpm N2. The problem is - it won't go up past ~6300 N2. Unless we pull on the collective - only then it rises.

Don't forget the rotor down-wash ;) But that's something for ED to chew on, not Belsimtek.

I only shoot couple from hover, I've mostly fired them in shallow dives, but I haven't noticed them weather-vane, which they should do: (45kts sideways flight) As for angular accuracy... seems ok-ish for Mk.66 (which can't be fired from the M158 launcher mind you ;) )

I would add finding a good airport to practice from - I choose Kutaisi, as the area is mostly flat, what helps with patterns, as those are flown at 500 and 300 feet AGL, so I can go entire pattern steady on baro. There are also both ILS and NDB, which help with the landing patterns - turning into base leg when crossing perpendicular to NDB. And align the final both visually and with ILS. ILS is not very helpful in vertical plane since our approaches are much steeper than those of fixed wing.

No it doesn't, there is rather poor navaid coverage over Georgia, you would have to get there using Kutaisi VOR/DME, or in our case Kutaisi VOR and Batumi NDB (or Gali NDB, depands from what direction are you flying), since we have no DME equipment in the Huey. http://skyvector.com/?ll=42.176825,42.482713889&chart=302&zoom=3

I wonder if ever the DCS will have the real frequencies for navigation and ATCs :music_whistling: Then we would simply look at the real world flight charts and get everything we need.

Note that there were no HEAT warheads for 2.75" FFARS in Vietnam - the Mk.5 was then only in US Navy ordnance, and in Army stateside, and Europe. Anyway Mk.5 was at this time already very weak round. That tank was attacked with M151 10-pound HE rounds. That and few other instances from that war forced the introduction of M247 dual purpose round that I'm writing about here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105763 It was a nice round that had the front end of M72 LAW and half of the 17-pound HE-FRAG warhead. Still the penetration wouldn't be enough for T-62, T-72, T-80 or T-90 front armor, but would penetrate T-55 all around, and those other tanks from the top and rear. It have 5.5 times better penetration than the Warthog gun... think about that.

Taken from one of the official Bell documents, true for all long body, single engine (dash 11 and dash 13) Hueys: One PSI torque equals about 200 pounds of weight lift capacity. Approximately ¾ PSI of torque is lost for every 1000 foot gain in altitude. For every 3 degree C rise in OAT, about 1 to 1.5 PSI torque is lost. Approximately 5 PSI more torque is required for OGE hovering as compared to IGE hovering. About 17.5 pounds per hour, per PSI of torque is normal cruise power fuel consumption. Do not attempt a battery start if the static voltage is 21 VDC or lower. At a given power there is about 1000 pound load difference in OGE versus IGE hovering ability. With about a 15 degree decrease in Oat, the following will happen: Auto revs will decrease about 1 turn (10rpm) Flight idle can decrease about 1 – 1.5 % N1. The beep range will lower on both ends The RPM warning box settings can change DC voltage will change slightly Maximum N1 available changes The bleed band range can change [*]In high wind conditions, land with the right side of the helicopter into wind to keep the low flapping blade away from the tail boom at low rotor RPM.

"Everything else" is 1980's model spec ;) Composite main rotor blades are 1985+ so its fine. Especially as those CMRBs are not affecting much of the flight characteristics - looking at the brochure - 6% better hover performance, and 5% reduction of fuel flow. Now, the question of their inertia (weight) - I don't have data for those main rotor blades, but the newest, carbon blades are 20% lighter than the original metal ones. Are the 1980s CMRBs as light ? I doubt it. Will have to look for some info on that.

I think this will sum it up nicely: :D

I know we can land on ships, I've done that already - still there are some problems with it - as the helicopter is sliding on the deck side to side, and creeping forward. But that's DCS problem, not Huey. Now what I meant is how deep into over-water operation do you want to go, because landing on a ship is one thing, but start-up, shut down, and flying without visibility of the shore is a different matter - for that there are few systems that are needed: 1. Rotor brake - to slow down the rotor quickly. As the deck is pitching and rolling there is a danger of hitting something with slow moving blades. 2. Radio altimeter. 3. Navigation system - since all we can see is water, we need something to navigate other than a compass and stopwatch. There are few options here: - LORAN - INS - GPS - Doppler Any of the above needs a different kind of equipment that is not yet in the DCS: Huey, be that a different radio set, HSI, or a new panel. Now If this would be my project, and a decision would be made to "go offshore", I would put in an HSI (ID-2103/A), and a Doppler navigation system (AN/ASN-128 ). It's least amount of codding and modeling work, and can work independently from the DCS core engine. Yet giving pilots all the tools needed to navigate over water. So the question is: do you want us to fly away from the shore? ;)

Now me personally - I would go crazy with options here, where we could have few different launchers (LAU-59, M158, M260, M261, M200) at least 3 different rocket engines (CRV7-C17, Mk66, Mk.40), few different warheads and two different fuses (point and proximity) and ability to play with launcher intervalometers... But that's not what I want to write about. I wan't to ask about the HEAT warhead - is this the final choice to go with ? Because the Mk.5 HEAT warhead was pretty dated in the 60's, its pretty much useless today. Will we get the newer dual purpose HE-HEAT M247 warhead ? That's a neat one-size-fits-all for DCS environment. Although to take out a modern MBT one would still have to hit the engine cover, because with only 11 inches of penetration, there's not much to work with. Still better than the Mk.5 though.

Same thing with bridges - can't fly underneath them.

Hog_driver111th meant the hydraulic rotor brake: Could be useful, but not essential. [edit]That one above is of course the newer one, mostly seen on civilian 205A-1s. The Kiwis, are using the older style on their UH-1H: Now the question is how seriously are we approaching to the idea of using that helicopter on ships in DCS ?

M130 dispenser ? If so, then I'm awaiting the AN/APR-39 RWR, and AN/APN-209 radar altimeter, and my minimalistic criteria for on board equipment will be met :thumbup:

No, the clutch disengages transmission from the engine when you split the rpm needles, there is no power going to the rotors when you roll down engine throttle to idle while flying. Unless it's modeled incorrectly.

Too high pitch angle, resulting in tail strike, that bend the "stinger", and damaged tail rotor. The rest is history :) If you want to learn something from this flying Huey - avoid pitch up above 12° at low level, and if you catch something with the tail rotor - have throttle mapped somewhere under your fingers, to cut it immediately. Search around for SA-330B c/n 1403, for more discussions on the topic, it's an oooold video ;)

Well their "steep" approaches look like this: :thumbup: Although it's less eventful than the the 30° one, much lower average descent rate, better visibility (although still through the chin bubble), but also require a lot of power.

Actually, while I'm going through the training material for flying Hueys, the USAF one (the one with 30° normal landing approach), gives a little more room. The limit to stay away from is 800fpm. I'd have to dig around at home, but I remember Nick Lappos (Army Cobra pilot in Vietnam, test pilot/project manager for Sikorsky, Gulfstream, Bell) was stating that VRS can be expected at 0 relative horizontal windspeed, and rate of descent equal to the prop-wash speed - usually around 750fpm (2500fpm for Osprey) + of course a lot of power. When I get back from work, I'll dig around for his stuff. [edit] Oh, look, here's one: Slow day at work, have time for net browsing :D

There is no simple answer, it depands on the helicopter weight, altitude and temperature: This chart s from manual stated as a source for DCS: Huey, so should be adequate. You start from the bottom of the chart. Take your gross weight, let's say 8000 lbs, move to the right from that value, till you cross the diagonal line listed as "50 (OGE)" for skid height, from the point you cross it, move up to your temperature - let's assume it's +10°C - when you cross it, move left to your height - this is the highest you can hover, with this load and at that temperature. For our example its around 10600ft (3180m). PS. Yeah... you don't need that bottom portion for HOGE, there's second gross weight scale at the bottom of the height-temperature diagram especialy for HOGE, but it won't hurt to do some extra work :D