AlphaOneSix

Finally something positive in the news... Ten Signs The F-35 Fighter Program Is Becoming A Smashing Success

There is no difference (regarding the powertrain) between the MTV1 and MTV2. Perhaps you are referring to the older TV2-117 powered Mi-8's, which had starter-generators mounted on the engines. EDIT: Alright, now that I have my ducks in a row... All Mi-8/17 helicopters with the TV3-117 engines have air starters on the engines that are started with bleed air from the APU. Electrical power in flight is provided by two AC generators mounted on the main gearbox (and from there it is transformed/rectified for all aircraft systems). The Mi-8MTV-1 and Mi-8MTV-2 are both powered by TV3-117 engines. Older Mi-8 helicopters equipped with TV2-117 engines had starter-generators mounted on the engines instead of an air starter. The engines are started by battery power through the starter-generators. In flight, DC power for the helicopter is provided by the two engine-mounted starter generators, and AC power is provided by a single AC generator mounted on the main gearbox. The main helicopters in this family are the Mi-8T and Mi-8P.

No. None*. *Okay there is one time. When practicing autorotations, the throttle is rolled to idle in-flight to simulate a dual engine failure. The throttle is brought back to full right at the completion of the autorotation, hopefully well before contacting the ground.

https://aviationweather.gov/adds/dataserver EDIT: By the way, I just googled "metars raw" and it was the second link.

This is as close as I could get to an explanation from a quick Google search: I have found very detailed descriptions of how this mechanical changeover works on a Kaman, but not for Kamov. I could assume that it's roughly similar, but I don't know that for sure. Just search for "kaman yaw reverser" and you should be able to find a good description of it.

Mast bumping is only an issue on two-bladed, teetering rotor systems (semi-rigid rotor system). Rigid (BO105, EC135, Bell 412, etc.) and fully-articulated rotor systems (anything with more than two rotor blades that's not rigid) are immune to mast bumping.

While there is no torque TO the rotors, there is still a torque effect FROM the rotors. So differential torque can still be used to control yaw, although, as noted, the effect is backwards from a pilot control perspective, and the torque effect is less pronounced than it is when in powered flight. Due to the lower torque, the rudders are used to assist in yaw control at low power settings and in autorotations, but they are not the sole source for yaw control.

Differential collective inputs still work without engine power (although it's backwards). But the torque, as you might guess, it quite a bit lower. The fins in the back are there just to assist and are not the sole yaw control in an autorotation.

While correct in powered flight, Kamov helicopters have some doohicky that reverses this without engine power, so that the pedals work as expected during an autorotative descent without power. Try it again with the engines running and see if it still does it. Or maybe actually try it in powered flight if you can without it being too distracting. Kamov designs its coaxial aircraft so that in an autorotation, left pedal input still turns the nose left. On a "normal" coaxial rotor system, in an autorotation, left pedal input would actually turn the nose to the right, because the torque is backwards. In other words, in powered flight, torque is transmitted from the main gearbox to the rotor system, but in an autorotation, torque is transmitted from the rotor system to the main gearbox, so that pedals input on a coaxial aircraft would be backwards (right pedal to go nose left). Kamov does something (not sure exactly what) so that when the rotors are not powered by the aircraft, the pedal input is reversed. I do not know if ED modeled this effect, but like I say, I'd try it again under power and see if you get the same result.

I think yours just don't work...make sure to make an entry on the aircraft's discrepancy log so that maintenance can get to work on it.

Thanks!

I keep taking heat for that comment, I should point out that I'm referring to flying real airplanes. All pilots flying real airplanes fly with their heels on the floor unless they are taxiing and actively using toe brakes. Although I'd welcome evidence to the contrary.

Yep, that's what I'm looking for, thanks.

Well, even in aircraft with toe brakes, the feet are only completely on the pedals when using the brakes...in flight the heels are on the floor. I kind of get the feeling that while there are some really great pedal setups out there for sims, none of them are actually realistic when compared to what is actually used in a real aircraft.

How well do the MFG Crosswinds work with your heels on the floor? I've been considering a pedal purchase, but I fly (IRL) with my heels on the floor (like all pilots) and I do not care at all for pedals that require me to put my entire foot on the pedal. SO basically I'm interested in pedals that would work with that requirement in mind.

Depends on the version of the hydraulic boosters, but it's correct in this version. RA-60B

On the Mi-8, you can, in theory, move the controls without hydraulic pressure. I've seen it tried numerous times, but never seen it done successfully.

You can move the tail rotor pedals without power, but you have to basically stand on them. In order to move the cyclic or collective it requires two people and is very difficult. I have never seen one person able to do it alone.

I know this is in reply to an old post, but the answer is no, the airframes were not modified for the inclusion of the miniguns. There is some additional equipment installed, but nothing altered.

Only 160th SOAR paints their aircraft black. The rest of the U.S. Army helicopters are dark green. I don't know about the helmets, they usually come dark green as well, but a lot of times they are allowed to be painted by the individual.

The document in post #66 was used to defend the argument made in post #63. Fri13's argument was that the decision to not arm U.S. helicopter with air-to-air missiles was a political one. GGTharos and I disagree. Fri13 posted the document in question in defense of his argument, and GGTharos doesn't think it defends his argument at all. I think that sums up the last several posts...

The restriction only applied to USMC AH-1W's.

Cite sources, please.

I think 50 hours is a reasonable goal to strive for as a private pilot, even though I'm a bit below that myself. If you're planning to be instrument rated and maintain it, I would call 50 hours the minimum, unless you're okay doing occasional refresher training with an instrument instructor. There is no currency requirement for a private pilot to be PIC during VFR without passengers, other than the 2 year flight review requirement. In order to carry passengers, you must have had 3 takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days. If you intend to carry passengers at night, you need 3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop at night. You don't need an instrument check ride every 6 months, as long as you remain current you don't ever need one. Of course, to be considered current for instrument flight, you must perform and log at least 6 instrument approaches within the preceding 6 months (plus at least one hold and tracking a course).

I don't specifically have a take on the EGT isue with the UH-1H module. Mostly because I rarely fly the UH-1H. The vast majority of my effort goes into the Mi-8, which is what I know the most about in real life. Also, the testers really don't, as a rule, have much more insight than anyone else. We have access to report bugs and see what's in the bug list, but we don't necessarily have any idea what the devs are really working on at any given time or how they are prioritizing their work.