AlphaOneSix

How is it that I am using -9s but you guys are still using -6s? :P You must be a Hawk guy (station 282).

Well, real NVG's don't have a brightness/sensitivity adjustment.

You can't really see it, or at least that what I remember when we shot some off of an AH-64 (m-1 chaff cartridge from an M130 dispenser). Well, you could see a cloud, but that was more from the pyrotechnics rather than the actual fibers. The fibers themselves are quite small.

Does everyone here need to re-read "The Mythical Man-Month"?

The rotor de-ice system is the one that really draws the amps, but at any rate, as long as both generators are operating, there won't be any difference with all the anti-ice stuff on or off. The generators do not put a noticeable load on the main gearbox, no matter how much power is demanded of them. In other words, you can have every single electrical component in the aircraft running, or none of them, and there is no noticeable difference in engine or rotor rpm. The generators will drop offline at 88% Nr, but that's only because of under-voltage protection and has nothing to do with the electrical load. What confuses me is that the airspeed indicator was noted to have failed as well? I have not checked this myself, but if that's the case, it's a bug. The only electrical component on the airspeed indicator is the light. The indicator itself operates solely on static and ram air pressure from the pitot tubes.

When in AUTO, all of the de-ice systems are automatic, regardless of the left engine switch position. In other words, if icing is detected, all of the other systems will activate automatically, even if the left engine is still in the OFF position. The left engine just won't de-ice automatically, since that could cause a dual engine failure if there is a significant buildup of ice on the engine inlets.

One of our pilots just soldered the headphone wires into the back of the helmet. He cut the wires just short of the earpieces and plugged the headphone jack into an iPod nano or something. I actually modded the aircraft to hook my iPod directly into the ICS, but that got me in trouble. Spoilsports. Anyway I can't remember exactly where he soldered in the wires...I think it was at the back left where the CEPs plug in, assuming yours has the CEP plug.

Well this is probably going to offend somebody, but please trust that being offensive is not my intent. A lot of people (most?) who join the U.S. Army to fly helicopters do so because they want to fly helicopters, not because they want to blow things up. I wouldn't cite being in combat as a detractor, since every utility pilot I've ever met was more than willing to fly into a combat situation. Cavalry is a big draw, and most of those units fly OH-58Ds, so that's pretty popular. Most flying is, of course, training back at home station, so being able to take all of your stuff to the field in your helicopter, and then live in your helicopter during down time, is also a very nice perk. I never quite finished my flight packet before I got out of the Army, and that's my bad, but after working on Apaches for 6 years, I had no intention of attempting to fly them if I ever got to flight school.

Flight time. Historically, AH-64 pilots get less flight time than any other airframe. I just spoke with a UH-60 pilot in October. He graduated flight school in March, so he's only been flying for about 7 months, and he's already racked up 300 hours.

It only lasted a few months during 1995. I'm not sure exactly why they allowed it, and I'm not sure why they decided against it after only a couple of months. I actually don't know if it was Army-wide or only happened in the 101st. We're using the M134D from Dillon Aero, they now only fire 3000 rounds per minute. ("only", ha!) And yes, I unloaded it by firing it. That's the preferred method!

I was not a pilot in the military, I was just a lowly mechanic/crew-chief. I was fortunate enough to be around at a time when Apaches were briefly allowed to be flown by a single pilot, and I got several hours of front seat time, as well as quite a bit of time in the simulator. Still, I was not a pilot. But hey, Nightmare is stuck in the snow and not flying...meanwhile, it is sunny for me and for training today I put 6,400 rounds through an M134 out the side of a helicopter. Some days it's not so bad to be a crew chief. :D

It's moving somewhere around 25mph (40km/hr) at the spot where the "whistle" is being generated.

Here are the other two threads I did before I gave up due to time constraints... Airframe Rotor System

It's the swashplate drive link. EDIT: Added a picture with the offending part circled in yellow.

What ShuRugal said, except it's so you can descend faster without overspending the rotors, not the engines.

I was specifically referring to human resources. They only have 4 developers. Unless they were to do some serious hiring, they simply cannot support their consumer product, plus support their military contracts, and also develop a new product for DCS. Now if the two could be integrated (DCS/SB), as Ssnake mentioned in his post on the topic on the SB.com forums, then there is hope....unfortunately it seems that ED has declined such an offer.

This should be interesting! :) I'm following the thread on SB.com as well. My answer, as with most things, is "it depends." But anyway, making a DCS module is something that I don't believe is possible given eSimGames limited resources. And besides, if you think non-collideable trees are a problem *now*...

All three of those things (collective, condition levers, and throttle) are physically connected to a single rod on the engine. The N1 rod. The N1 rod has physical stops where it connects to the fuel control on the engine. You can't have all three all the way "up", there is not that much travel in the N1 rod. Something has to give, and it's the throttle. In reality, the throttle would not come down (counter-clockwise) unless you let it come down...but you would have to pick one...either stop raising the collective, or let the throttle come down. The condition lever is locked in a detent and can't move on it's own. In-game, it let's you continue to raise the collective, so the throttle comes down. Something has to give because the N1 rod can't move any higher. So when you lower the collective, you just come off the stop, and then you can roll the throttle back up. It's not spring loaded (in fact it's usually got friction on it to keep it from turning on it's own without a bit of force) so the throttle can't move on it's own as you come back down, the only reason it moved on the way up is because you're hitting the stop and *something* has to move. But as mentioned above, for all normal phases of flight, the condition levers should be in the middle detent.

Well, the bulb itself is always the same brightness. Turning the cover opens and shuts an aperture over the bulb, making more or less light visible...if that makes sense.

1. AP disengage button on the cyclic 2. Yes, light intensity. In reality, it's a "cat's eye" cover, the more you turn it, the more it "opens up" and vice versa when turning the other way. 3. Direction. If you turn the roll knob left, the aircraft will roll left, yaw knob left, nose left, pitch knob left, nose down. Each number on the knob corresponds to 1 degree. I.e. if you turn the roll knob left from the 0 to the 1 you should roll left 1 degree. 4. Yes.

No, not usually.

Helicopters with more rotor blades are generally going to be quieter than those with fewer. Also, the tail rotor accounts for a significant amount of noise at relatively close distances, and the EC135's fenestron tail almost completely gets rid of that noise.

Yes! I have it backwards. I originally wrote "R22" then something snapped in my head and I went the wrong way with disc loading and then I went with the V22. I've changed my original post. to reflect my mistake. Thanks. Also, anything by Nick Lappos is like the gospel, that guys knows more about helicopter aerodynamics than anyone else I know. He used to post a lot on pprune.org.

I think that's a fair statement. I don't know if it's an oversight or just a simplification. Also, I am not an engineer. The formula is correct, but the "half" that I use for the "safe zone" is not scientific, as far as I know, it's just something I've seen over and over again from people much smarter than I am.

The UH-1 has pretty heavy disc loading, which is what make it fairly resistant to vortex ring state. The FAA, and most online sources, will state that any decent rate above 300 ft/min is inviting vortex ring state (in addition to the requirements of having some power applied and near zero airspeed). However, this is a tremendously conservative number. The rate of descent required in order to enter vortex ring state is actually pretty easy to calculate, and I will show you all how to do it so you don't have to look it up. It all starts with the velocity of the rotor downwash. In order to enter vortex ring state, you have to descend at a rate that is somewhat close to the velocity of your rotor downwash. To be on the safe side , you can expect that below roughly .5 times your rotor downwash velocity, you've got practically zero chance of entering vortex ring state. Once you start descending vertically faster than half of your rotor downwash velocity, the danger of getting into VRS increases. Once the two are equal (i.e. the downward velocity of your helicopter is equal to the downward velocity of the air that the main rotor is pushing), you are in big trouble for sure. Okay, so how to figure out your rotor's downwash velocity? Here is the fomula: downwash velocity (ft/sec) = √((Acft weight in lb.)/(2*air density in slugs per cubic feet*rotor disc area in square feet)) Okay, so let's plug in the numbers: First, for air density, we'll use the ISA value for air density at sea level, but note that lower air density results in faster downwash, which makes VRS even harder to get into. The ISA value a sea level for air density is .002378 slugs/cubic foot. Next, let's figure rotor disc area. The UH-1H has a rotor diameter of 48 ft. That will give you a rotor disc area of 1810 square feet. Next comes aircraft weight, I saved it for last because it's the tricky one. Note that the heavier the helicopter, the faster you must descend to get into VRS. Seems counter-intuitive at first, but it's true. If you're heavier, you need faster downwash to counteract the force of gravity, so you need to descend faster to reach that same velocity. For our purposes, let's assume a slick UH-1H with a crew of four and full of fuel, but no cargo or passengers. I'm going to call that 7600 lb. but anyone is free to play with that number. Okay so plugging these numbers into the formula: downwash velocity (ft/sec) = √((7600)/(2*.002378*1810)) downwash velocity (ft/sec) = 29.7 Convert that to ft/min and you get 1783 feet per minute. So to ABSOLUTELY enter VRS, the UH-1H in my example would need to be descending vertically with near zero airspeed with at least 20% power applied at 1783 feet per minute. Divide that in half to get our "safe zone" and you can be pretty certain that VRS will not be a problem as long as you descend at less than basically 900 feet per minute. A far cry from the 300 ft/min used in most examples. To get anywhere near VRS at 300 ft/min, you need to be in an aircraft with low disc loading, like an R22, for example. UH-1H disc loading is around 5.25 lb/sq ft, while the R22 is 2.6 lb/sq ft. I'll let you guys fiddle around with plugging in different numbers as you see fit, but you get my drift. It is obviously ABSOLUTELY possible to get into VRS in a Huey, but you have to be descending probably beyond 1000 ft/min. to do so. EDIT: Got high vs. low disc-loading backwards, now fixed.