Jump to content

mcfleck

Members
  • Posts

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry Bradmick, but in this point I do not agree with you. The more horizontal flow will give you more lift with the same angle of incidence as your effective angle of attack is increased (due to less induced flow as you rightly said). What you basically achieve is that the vortices at the blade tips get smaller and thus more of the air that is moved is used to create lift instead of drag. The total ammount of drag and thus torque does not change significantly due to more horizontal flow (always assuming you keep your collective position constant all the time). The vert stab is definitely taking over a large portion of yaw stability at a certain speed unless the aircraft designers have screwed up. It is usually designed as an airfoil in order to create "sideways" lift additionally to the weather vane effect. As you certainly know lift increases quadratically with the increasing speed. Combine that with the rather large lever arm of your tail boom and there you go. If it would not be like that (the vert stab compensating the main rotor torque), the designers would have just created an additional parasite drag area. Flying SAS OFF you will also notice that you need significantly less left pedal going with 70 kts. Btw. That is exactly what you use in the EP for a Tail rotor drive failure or stuck pedals (at least in the 3 Helicopters I am rated in), that says you have to keep your airspeed above 70 kts and so on... It says that because you effectively barley need any tail rotor thrust above this speeds. Not having flown the Apache, the intricacies of this particular AC might be special here and there, but it should still kind of follow basic aerodynamic concepts and logic. Sure the Apache's vert stab is way smaller than the ones I am referring to... Please correct me if I made wrong assumptions regarding the AH64 in this context. Would be an interesting chat and discussion I guess. Having said all that the conventional tail rotor in general may require up to 15 % of your total torque. The Apache values of course may vary. The flight school I went through had at least one Overtorque incident where the pretty heavy AC climbed out of a confined area, the student pilot was not aware of the wind direction, had to add sudden left pedal input in order to maintain heading and exceeded the TQ limit. TLDR: Whatever the explanation for the "freed up power/torque" you are willing to accept, the effect is there and also works the other way around while getting slower. So be aware of the possible increased power requirements during the descend/landing.
  2. Operating at MGW, you have to set yourself up for a rolling takeoff /level acceleration within ground effect in order to get above ETL. Once you have 30-40 kts, either aim for roughly 45-50kts which should be in the ball park for the best climb angle (steeper climb, but relatively slow) or around 65-70 kts for your best rate of climb (shallower climb, but will get you faster to the desired altitude) You can do all of it practically without touching the collective even once after setting the required power for the takeoff (i. e. Max continuous TQ of about 100%) until you reach your cruising altitude. You will observe, that your required total TQ will drop slightly above ETL as your vert. Stab is starting to work more and more efficiently, which reduces the power requirement for the tail rotor and thus reduces the total TQ, freeing up power that you could additionally use in your main rotor). Best practice for landing in these kind of situations is performing a rolling landing.
  3. As propagation of sound is massively influenced by the general wind direction and speed, it can and will be used in order to mask your presence when possible. Additionally being in a dead hover over an hostile/unknown terrain is not necessarily the preferred option for this kind of situation. You would burn way more fuel, make more noise and make yourself an easy target. If you are cruising (flying a little pattern) at 45 kts or even better at 65 kts you might mitigate a lot of these problems.
  4. Well the author... In post 28 and 30. Unless he changed his mind. Don't get me wrong. If he manages to become an official 3rd party developer would be an amazing addition and I would definitely buy the module. But developing a full fledged module is a completely different animal than developing a mod. Just getting all the licenses and documents from the manufacturer is a close to impossible task considering the fact that this helicopter is still in use by the Russians and they were extremely restrictive in the past in regards to releasing documents. There were a couple of projects that wanted to develop a full module and were halted in the process or being released as a mod instead (Tu 22/23 completely stopped, SU57 released as a great mod and maybe others I missed). Maybe I sound too pessimistic, but at this point I am just managing my expectations and eagerly waiting for everything that is to come. I would love to be surprised...
  5. It is not about the cockpit, which is absolutely stunning in my opinion. As the OP already mentioned in this thread you will have to own at least the current Black Shark module. No mod can simply access the ED internal weapons SDK and create new stuff from scratch (as far as I am aware). So you will need to base this mod on a module that uses a similar weapon system. That would be the Black Shark.
  6. Medium Range and Long Range SAM. Did not really care too much about what exactly goes in the specific categories and where you would draw the line between those two. I think an SA-15 is an example for a MR SAM and an SA-11 and 10 are good examples for LR SAM. SR SAM is typically something that uses heatseaking missiles like an SA-13.
  7. Interested as well. Unfortunately the invitation link is not valid anymore. Could you please provide it once again?
  8. I think the key word is "during this process I apply more and more aft cyclic". You are not supposed to do that. Try to keep your aft cyclic constant and have a constant declarative attitude. By applying more and more aft cyclic you increase the deceleration. Compare it to a car: you can either apply some force on the brake pedal and keep it constant until you stop and maybe even release it slightly at very slow speeds to prevent the head nod... Or you can apply more and more force on the pedal the slower you go. What will happen in the latter case? The declaration is getting stronger the slower you go. Generally speaking your aerodynamics change once you drop below approx 30 kts. and all sorts of things happen. Luckily the transverse flow is not simulated, because that would mean a pretty noticeable tendency to drift to the right (additional to the simulated translating tendency to the right). I was told that your perceived speed looking out of your side window should be as fast as a brisk walk all the way through your approach. I have to admit that it is quite hard to estimate that without using VR though This procedure here describes perfectly how you would learn it in a flight school: /index.php?/topic/296437-AH-64D-Flight-School-(w/-Track-Files)#entry4941039
  9. What I am doing for ages now and what works pretty ok is: Create a copy of your default.lua file and rename it to the specific name of your hardware. Sounds crazy, but it works. An example of all sorts of possible names can be found in the KA50 input folder if you own the module. Basically for the Thrustmaster Warthog you will have to change the name to: Throttle - HOTAS Warthog.lua DCS then recognizes the specific file name in the controls setup. That way your changes will stay after an update, because this file will not get overwritten.
  10. Thanks horus, it worked perfectly that way. Unfortunately we can't bind the LRFD button as it is not a clickable switch in the cockpit. But now I am finally able to see something on the TADS video feed in the back.
  11. I tried it and it didn't work. Basically you would have to copy the corresponding lines from the cpg to the pilot input lua file. I copied the FLIR/TV switches, the FOV 4-way hat and the LRFD trigger. Unfortunately it didn't work that way. So we will have to work for George becoming slightly more competent
  12. I don't have any stick time in the apache, but some hours in another helicopter and from my experience helos do not necessarily crab. That is primarily depending on the wind conditions. With calm winds our ground track indicator (kind of a 2D FPV) was ALWAYS aligned with the heading bug which is basically the AC nose. Also very noticeable on an approach where you keep the AC aerodynamically in trim above 50 ft AGL and align with the rwy direction below 50ft. In no wind situation you end up being aligned with the runwayin aerodynamic trim. With a 20 kt crosswind (or higher) you might end with a huge difference between those two. I had approaches with roughly 30 degrees differece between aerodynamic trim and rwy alignment... DCS does not simulate all the effects of helicopter aerodynamics and that might be a reason why it seems a bit off (I am looking at you, transverse flow effect) TLDR: In general: Zero wind: aerodynamic trim and nose-tail trim should be roughly the same, may vary slightly at higher speeds, but that depends on the specific AC High crosswind: Deviations between those two may be rather large left or right, depending on the wind direction
  13. There is no such thing as a "correct time frame" for DCS aircraft. The range goes from WW2 planes over Korea, Cold War up to relatively modern planes. There are several types in each category and in my opinion by no means the F18 is more capable than a F16 for example. They both have their strengths in similar but different areas. And by the way the most modern Plane in DCS is the JF17... Maybe you can try the cold war server or ddcs cold war. It sounds like you would probably enjoy it there a bit more. I for my part love all the tools you have at your disposal. The DL Contacts in the JHMCS are nice but the system has its limits. It displays only up to 7 contacts simultaneously and by default prioritizes the friendly contacts over hostile ones. Additionally it is lacking in precision due to the DL update rate... I love the Hornet as it is and it is by no means an "OP" plane not fitting in the DCS eco system.
  14. It would probably be helpful if you mention which version of liberation you are using.
  15. Make sure that ALL hostile ground units guarding the corresponding base are dead. Only then your forces will automatically capture the base within the turn. If you have CA you can also additionally command a unit directly to the center of the base in order to make sure your units will capture it.
×
×
  • Create New...