bradmick

Again you’re listening to a recording. Betty’s voice is authentic. She sounds exactly like she’s supposed to.

As i've stated elsewhere, yes.

It's not so much the tail rotor as it's the main rotor applying to much torque which then requires the tail rotor produce to much thrust to balance things out. It's a known issue that's been around since the launch of the module.

If the amount of main rotor torque, and as a by product the amount of sideslip, wasn’t so overdone (around 2.4 times) this wouldn’t be an issue. This is the result of a long standing (since the module was released) issue with the fm that is yet to be resolved.

Exaggerates it a lot.

I have literally explained how system works in both the real Apache and dcs in this thread as well as countless others. I’ve said the same thing more times than I can count. Keep going with the conjecture though, because it definitely resolves things and doesn’t muddy the waters or confuse people at all.

AlphaOneSix wins.

The tail rotor also slows down with the main rotor. The transmission is the central connection for both. The purpose of the chop button is to electronically idle the engines and near instantaneously remove the majority of rotor torque from the airframe it he event of a loss of tail rotor thrust (i.e. a severance or breakage of the tail rotor drive shaft, or in the event the tail rotor decides to separate from the helicopter). I’ve always briefed that if we’re in a violent enough spin that neither crewmember can get to the power levers, the chop button is to be used to reduce the spin, with the proviso that the collective needs to be rapidly going down and then the power levers brought to idle by the non flying pilot.

Yeah, all of this is known...well known.

The Apache has plenty of directional stability in real life. The helicopter is very, very stable. The statement of it lacking directional stability is incorrect. In reality the helicopter also isn’t “twitchy”, but it is responsive to inputs. A little goes a long way with regards to flight control inputs. So I do agree that the idea of “aim small, miss small” is important when flying the Apache.

Are you sure George has hover power available? There are cases where hovering isn’t an option, perhaps George is trying to prevent entering a condition the helicopter can’t support, I.e. an OGE hover where OGE power isn’t available.

What I said was with the ford trim pressed, SAS is off, because the SAS servo (the servo on top of the main servo) in the flight control itself is being commanded to center. You absolutely have CAS with the force trim held. You do not have CAS or SAS with the FMC off, which is when you get the input lag. You don’t get the input lag with the force trim held because you still have CAS. Thinking it like this: Level 0 is no FMC, which means no SCAS (purely mechanical input only) and force trim mag brakes. In this level there is significant control input delay. Level 1 is FMC on and the force trim held which gives you CAS. This level is mechanical inputs augmented by digital inputs to remove input lag. This also disables all hold modes until the force trim switch is released. Level 2 is FMC on and the force trim not held which gives you SCAS (SAS + CAS). This level is mechanical inputs augmented by digital inputs to remove input lag. You get atmospheric upset damping, heading hold, and rate damping. Level 3 is FMC on, the force trim not held which gives you SCAS (SAS + CAS) and a hold mode enables. This level is mechanical inputs augmented by digital inputs to remove control lag. This also gives you attitude(position, velocity, attitude), altitude (radar/barometric), heading hold/turn coordination.

No, there is no change in feel, because the CAS is still active, you are the SAS when the force trim is held interrupted. The aircraft still responds the same thanks to the CAS, that’s its purpose. The only difference is you have to do the turn coord and atmospheric upset damping.

Shutting off the FMC completely disables the SCAS for the helicopter, you get only the control authority granted by the push/pull rods connected to the flight controls with the added bonus of there being a significant lag. When the hold modes are off, you have Pitch, Yaw, Roll and Collective SAS which provides rate damping, atmospheric upset damping and turn coordination above 40 knots. The CAS is providing the instant response to input, without the CAS the helicopter has a delay when inputs are made. It flies like a giant TH-67 (Bell 206). There's a pretty appreciable lag with the FMC out. The SAS makes for an insanely stable platform. If you trim the helicopter correctly, and without hold modes, and assuming the winds are light, the helicopter will hold very steady. The SAS does a really great job. I can easily go long stretches without the hold modes on with finger tip pressure on the controls, this is at a hover and in forward flight. With the hold modes on, I can remove my hands entirely from the flight controls and she'll fly herself for a really long time without me having to touch the flight controls at all. I've demonstrated this more times than I can count. Another thing about the SAS and the hold modes is that there is no "hunting" or "seeking" when the hold modes are turned on. Even if you have say 2 to 3 knots of velocity at a hover and you turn on the attitude hold, the system will smoothly apply an input opposite of the velocity vector and stop dead center at 0. It won't overshoot at all. In doing that though, you've probably robbed the flight control of all of it's SAS authority and will get a SAS SATURATE message in short order. In forward flight the capture for altitude and attitude are immediate and there's no drift either. They are insanely steady. I would also say, that the 64A DASE is not the FMC. I never had the pleasure of flying A models, but I know enough A model dudes that have spoken at length about how much better the FMC is. They rarely used the holds in the A model because the DASE was so bad. That's anectodal, but they were flying A models before I was born and close to as long as I'd been alive...so i'm inclined to believe them. Either way, I wouldn't use the A Model as a point of reference because there were significant changes/differences to the brains behind the flight controls.

As an actual 64 pilot I drop my seat down low for comfort. I raise the seat to the design eye position, and then I drop the seat down thereafter to make operating the collective easier, and to prioritize comfort. The helicopter is massively uncomfortable by default, you learn to work with limited visibility by leveraging manual stabilator and the pnvs during daylight hours.

Another great F10 map feature too…

This would be a great F10 map feature…

No, the hold modes are rock solid in the helicopter. No drift whatsoever and they don’t “hunt” for zero. They go there and stay there without issue.

The rad alt doesn’t have anything to do with the flight path vector, velocity vector or acceleration cue. The Flight path vector is a full 3D representation of the current aircraft’s velocity. Typically the FPV is controlled via collective, but when you accelerate or decelerate you can also push or pull the FPV because you’re imparting some form of vertical velocity when you pitch forward or aft with the cyclic. It goes back to normal when you adjust the collective to “balance” the forces acting on the helicopter.

It’s a bug. The apu and engines have no issues starting at higher altitudes in the real aircraft, this is a dcs-ism.

No, you need to trim and not wait for the SAS saturation advisory. Waiting until the advisory presents means the aircraft is likely already doing weird things input wise that you’re having to fight against. Be a pilot, do pilot stuff and proactively trim. If you need to make large maneuvers and inputs, hold the trim interrupted, and release it when you’re back to level. This is the way, regardless of your physical hardware.

Well, there isn’t an aircraft designed that’ll take that sort of damage and shrug it off. You’re talking about high caliber systems. The goal is to avoid getting shot, because you’re likely not going to survive the encounter….which makes practicing autorotations moot.

No, because the md500 doesn’t have the command augmentation system. And yes, there is a gyro effect, but it’s used to ensure the blade deflects at the correct location to get the desired output. To roll right, the input is put in at the tail, to roll left the input is put in at the nose, because those inputs will manifest 90 degrees later in the plane of rotation. But there is no large and noticeable pendulum effect, because the CAS makes the input you make immediate.

You can’t apply the flight characteristics of the Huey to the Apache. The Huey has no SCAS, but hydraulically boosted mechanical flight controls directly connected to the swash plate. There is a natural control lag that exists in the Huey. The Apaches command augmentation system is designed to do away with that control lag, which means when you make an input the output is functionally immediate. The real Apache responds at the speed of thought. It took pilots coming over from the old TH-67 a little while to get used to the immediate response the Apaches flight controls have, because the 67 had the same rotor head type (semi rigid underslung) and flight control scheme of the Huey.