AlphaOneSix

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.

The blades on the Ka-50 have a bit of sweep on the tips so it's just a bit quiter, but I'm not sure by how much versus the Ka-32.

Agreed, I deleted my posts on the subject.

Yeah a rotor brake start is for starting in high winds. If you start with the rotor brake off (which is normal operation) but in very high winds, the winds can cause the blades to flex and perhaps strike the tail boom as they slowly start to spin up. Once the blades are moving fast enough, centrifugal (centripetal? whatever) force will keep them from flexing too much. By starting with the rotor brake engaged, you go from low rotor RPM to high rotor RPM very quickly, avoiding the "danger zone" where blade flex could cause a problem. I don't know that it really stresses the aircraft so much that it causes any problems, and I kind of doubt that it does, but I always felt that it was a procedure that should only be used when actually necessary. That's the mechanic in me talking.

Never was a fan of rotor brake starts...

It's a trick! The poll was created using the older, pre-1988, naming convention, where the AH-1S could be any of The AH-1S versions, up to and including the Step 3 upgrade, called the AH-1S(MC) prior to 1988 but was then renamed to AH-1F. So with just a bit of naming convention gymnastics, you could say that the AH-1F is technically still an AH-1S, just the latest, most updated version of it. :D

As long as the circuit breakers are all on, the system is completely automatic for all but the left engine. Or at least I think it's the left engine, it may be the right engine...anyway, on the overhead anti-ice panel, all the switches will be either ON or AUTO except for one of the engines, which will be ON and OFF. That's the only one you need to turn to ON.

Well there you go. All of our birds are now ramp birds so I have no need to remember any clamshell info. :P

There is an airspeed limitation with the clamshell doors off. I can't remember it off the top of my head, but it's right around 100 knots (roughly 185 kph)

Well I'm running version <redacted> and I'm getting <redacted> fps on my <redacted> with my settings at <redacted>! You can just imagine how <redacted> I am!

I think the Mi-8MTV-2 should use 1988, the year that the Kazan factory started pumping them out.

ED and BST have been pretty clear from the beginning that you are pre-ordering a release version of their software, and that your pre-order entitles you to have access to the pre-release beta version of the game. You are specifically not paying for access to a beta. Although you may not see it that way, it is an important distinction. If this is a showstopper for you, it would have been more prudent to wait until the product is released, when a problem like this would be more legitimate.

Slow down a little bit.

I looked on both of our aircraft in the hangar and neither has a grounding strap in that location, so I don't know what it is supposed to be in-game. Here is an example of what I'm talking about, in this particular instance, it's a grounding strap on the copilot's collective:

For these particular engines, the limit is 97.5% with no time limit, 99% with a 1-hour time limit, and 101.15% (the absolute/governor limit) with a 30-minute time limit. EGT limits are 915C with no time limit, 955C with a 1-hour time limit, and 990C (again, this is the governed limit) for 30 minutes.

The one with more blades will be faster at the expense of lift capability. (Specifically, I'm comparing the Bell 212 and 412 here)

It could be a grounding strap. All of the grounding straps in the aircraft are secured with a screw that is painted red. There are hundreds of them all over the place inside the airframe. I don't remember if there is one at this location or not...I will have a look at work tomorrow.

Well the A-model has two, one on each wingtip. I don't know if they moved/deleted them from the D-model, I never asked nor did I examine the few I had access to that closely.

Temperature of the turbine blades is the single biggest limiting factor in turbine engine power production. Hopefully, one day we'll have ceramic blades or something that can withstand much higher temperatures, and then you will see much higher power output for a given size.

Fair enough. I'll add this, however. The reason it's nearly impossible to ruin the engines is not because the engines are made of magic, it's because they are limited by the governor (EEG) from getting too hot or spinning too fast. Turn off the governor and you can smoke those engines in no time. It's quite a different concept from Western aircraft.

Kamov doesn't make engines. :P

1. The engine operating time at take off power should not exceed 10% of the total operating time throughout the TBO, allowed time of continuous operation is 6 minutes. In case of necessity it is allowed to run the engine continuously for 15 minutes at takeoff power provided the summed operating time in these conditions does not exceed 1.25% of allowed operating time throughout the TBO (included in 10%). In case of failure (shut down) of one of the engines it is allowed to run the other engine at take off power for 30 minutes within 0.5% per TBO. 2. The engine contingency power is used only in case of failure of one of the engines. The engine operating time at contingency power should not exceed 0.1% of total operating time throughout the TBO. It is allowed to run the engine continuously at contingency power for 2.5 minutes without any limitations within the mentioned operating time. TBO time varies, but is typically 1500 hours. So, for example, if you run at contingency power for 1.5 hours before the end of the 1500 hour overhaul cycle, the engines need to be overhauled at that time. You could run at takeoff power for a combined total of 150 hours within a 1500 hour TBO cycle, but only 6 minutes at a time with a 5 minute "rest" in between each 6-minute window. Once you go past 6 minutes, you enter into the 1.25% zone, where you can only have 18.75 hours per 1500 hour TBO cycle. All of this is recorded manually by the flight engineer, whose responsibility includes tracking how long the engines are in each power regime. Also, HMU on a turbine engine stands for hydromechanical unit, and does not typically exist on an aircraft with a FADEC. FADEC-equipped aircraft usually have an FMU (fuel metering unit) instead. But the naming conventions vary by manufacturer, it seems.

Easiest fix would be to prevent movement of the controls at all until sufficient hydraulic pressure is built up. Obviously I'm not sure how the internals work in-game, just the real thing. It's possible to move the pedals without hydraulic pressure, but only with difficulty. As for the cyclic/collective, no way.

As side info, and not helpful insofar as fixing this bug is concerned... The pitch/roll channels on the (real) Mi-8 autopilot do depend on the copilot's (right) ADI to work.