Gunnars Driver

If the stick doesnt center, thats good. Then you shouldnt use the synthetic trimming on the huey that changes the center to present stick position. Do not use that. Rember, the stick center for trimmed flight will be mote forward the faster you fly. Move the hand supported by the knee more forward the faster you fly. Also, I think it could be that you need some training to adopt the muscle memory. It is a different feeling to have the stick beween the legs compated to the desktop.

Try mounting the stick and sit so you can use your right knee as a support for the right hand and lower part of the right arm. The lover part of the hand when holding the stick and the lower part of the arm should have support from the right leg/knee. This is how I do it IRL, specially for extra demanding operations like hoisting, slingload and mountain landings, and I’m quite sure its the trick needed for anyone.

Both of this still is the same: Wind in degrees is shown from where it is blowing. - In the weather chart case - The arrow comes from northwest 303 degrees, and points to southeast 123 degrees. Arrow should point down right. In the TAF/METAR case, 303 degrees is the value. Description of wind is Worldwide via ICAO: It really does’nt matter where. For a few countrys, winds is given in meter per second instead of knots. When flying into these places, if not used to this just double the m/s and you have knots. The only real difference about winds is the reference. Meteorological repoerts is given in direkction “True” when written text like TAF/METAR etc. When spoken on the radio from tower the wind reference is Magnetic.

Exactly. Wind 303 degrees means the wind is blowing from 303 degrees. If you show the wind with an arrow it should point towards 123 degrees.

I was would think the Huey is to wide to use for vertical reference on right pilot side, and it at least would call for a bubble window or pilot door removed. I think the most conversions on the Huey is making the left pilot position possible as aircraft commander(main pilot side) and also a bubble window. DCS being a military game, it doesnt really match vertical reference jobs and the civilian mods for sling load.

Do you mean that you can se the slingload via a mirror outside a window? You can not see the slingload direct.

Range was guestimated from map/map reading skillz. There was no range measuring system at all, no laser range finder etc. For pre planned firing positions, not a problem. For improvised, taking a bit margin, most often not a problem. Knowing the approximate range was of interest for the window needed from detection/classification of a target+firing sequence. There was also other means of finding out the window needed

Callouts for copilot: 1) Nice landing Sir! 2) I’ll buy the first round! 3) I’ll take the ugly one! :-)

Pedal turns only or collective to reduce swinging isnt anything like real life slign load flying. Easiest way to reduce swinging is a normal coordinated turn, say 30 degree bank. Also doable but possible to make it worse is to follow the swing with cyclic. Properly done it can reduce smaller swing without the need for a turn, but improper it will increase the swing.

For the rotor braking: I never heard of any helo where it is allowed to use the collective to increase drag to stop the rotor. All types I have flown have had a note ”not allowed to use the collective to brake the rotor. In smaller helos the rotor brake is an option that you have to pay extra when buying. These helos, in most cases only have a brake to stop the rotor after engines shut down, and not for keeping the rotor stopped during engine start. The ones I haw flown that has the ability to use the rotor brake for engine start has two modes, one for braking and one for starting the engine. There is a big difference in hydraulic power for braking vs keeping it stopped (somewhere around 5 times more hydraulic pressure for keeping it stopped). The normal braking power is not enough to keep it still during engine start, and if it starts to slip this could very quick end up in a overheated rotor brake or fire. These rotorbrakes also is built to be able to be left in braking position to stop the rotor from turnning by wind or when towing the helos. The super puma we always left in braking position and there was added a funktion for inhibitation of start if the brake not was in released position.

This doesnt apply to all twin engine helos, actually it is not that common at all. I would say it is rare. Seaking is very old, so I’d say thats the reason for having this. We had an extra option on the superpumas I flew, where we could disconnect one engine via a clutch to be able to start one engine and run it for extended time without turning the rotor. This option was disconnected early after the went into service, so IRL never used. Most twin engine helos doesnt have a possibility to disconnect any engine from the MGB/rotor drive.

You’re in a way correct but N2 is only valid for free turbine engines. :-) N1 is the speed of the compressor/compressor driving turbine. N2 is the speed of the free turbine, driving the main gearbox/rotor. Some(mostly older) turbine engines is single spool where there is only one shaft combining both the compressor and the turbine. In these engines theres really no N2 rpm, as all parts of the engine is spinning with the same speed. To be able to perform the engine start there is a clutch. For the Gazelle engine there is, as Ramsay say, a centrifugal clutch. Theres also (of course) a freewheeling unit to be able to autorotate without driving the engine with the rotor.

Yup. A good idea should be to get as close to the manufacturer when it comes to flight manuals. Possibly even in the manufacturers language if possible. I can think of the Mi-17 original manual but in English. It wouldn't be that impossible that they know what they are writing about but in the translation there will be a way for them to express themselves that makes other people interpret some text different than what the manufacturer did mean.

Most probably not. You got it :-) I think the OP had misunderstood the funktion of the anti ice panel, section lights in particular.

Very good for this thread that you controbute ! :thumbup: Not important for the thread but anyway: Because the sections of the rotors dont heat full time, some ice will form on the sections between the cycles, thereby its formally a deicing system by western definition. That doesnt mean it isnt good though. To keep all part of the blades heated all timewould cost a lot more electrical power ( more fuel used, heavier alternators and so on). In western modern helos the common idea is to use deicing on the main rotor but to use anti icing on the tail rotor.

@Fragbum: yup !

I didnt check it out in a real mi-8 but in the original manual. This is the test of MRB: This is the test of tail blades: It doesnt mention the secton check for the tail blades.

Ok, didnt read about the mi-8 deice until now. No, its not rightly understood by you. I found this: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=127156&d=1447323413 The knob you turn should be just for checking the Amphs on each sub system. You select which sub system to see the current draw on the meter to the right. When you put the anti ice system on, it automatically cycles between the heating elements on the blades. You cannot select what to deice by that knob. So the indication of deice will be for the main rotor blades, but you can understand wich part of the tail blade deicing by looking at the section indication. All clear ?

Anti ice system: continous working, preventing ice build up. On helos, most often on tail rotor because tge tail eotor is more sensitive to ice( loss of directional control, spinning around -> crasch) Deice system: system that work in cycles. Let the ice form, then deice. Most often on main rotor, because of heavy power demand. Usually cycles between blades, of pair of blades( opposite, for less unbalance). Id guess the mi-8 uses the same as above. If so, deice = main rotor, anti ice tail rotor.

And the R44 teetering rotor should have some mass, making it hangin’ a little better. Not like a Huey, but :) (Theres another factor that helps: a few long blades with less cord needs less power to be driven, and the other way around will stop less quick).

For reference: Easy to here the chop off off the throttle.

R44?

Theres a very big difference depending on the rotor inertia. Two bladed helos with semirigid rotors tend to have quite high inertia. To make a helo with teetering rotor less prone to mast bumping I think that a heavy rotor with lot of gyro effect is needed. So, for the Bell 206 you can hover at 10 meters and with the correct collective management still land safely without bending the helo if engine quits( done this lot of times in B206). While not trained on the Huey, I know it has a lot of more mass making it even more forgiving. On the opposite, the schweizer 300 has a very low inertia rotor. You should’nt be much more than one meter above ground and you have to act immediatly and use all collective stick movement if engine quits. Still the landing wont be very firm. (Done this also lot of times). Helikopters with fully articulated rotors ( or rigid like the Bo105) are much lighter and Id say, if hovering and loosing the engine(-s) more then 1.5-2m height, the arrival wont be soft and you need to react within half of a second. I only have the Huey, and I think its somewhere in the ballpark around the real one( yes I did autos from hover with it, not advanced ones, just normal hover). But I think again, if you didnt do it IRL and you try to think you know from another DCS module how a helo should react, you might be extremely out. Think that doing a engine out from hover with a Huey is like catching a shuttlecock/feather ball, then doing the same with a Schweizer 300 is like catching a 10kg kettlebell. For the Gazelle, it would be like a 2 or 4 kilo kettlebell. Its extremely different, if you see what I mean. For much heavier helos the mass of the rotor system isnt that much more compared to the engine power needed to turn the rotors in a hover. The rotors would stop very quickly if you loose both engines at the same time. Dont know the blade weight for the mi-8 but you could think that you have much less time to react compared to the huey.

. I’d say the Gazelle has a fully articulated rotorhead. Semi rigid is two bladed, like Huey, Jetranger and Robinsons. Its just called semi rigid, they are not “almost” rigid like the Bo.

In the MBB Bo105 (and Westland Lynx) the blade ability to change pitch is still there. So, there is a normal swash plate and pitch links for changing of pitch on the blades. The rotor head is one solid piece of titanium, so there are no lead-lag or flapping joints. The blades will still need to flap and move leed-lag wise, but this movement takes place in the inner part of the blade, made to flex. In the video you linked you could get the idea that the helicopter Red Bull uses is very different from other Bo105. Well, the rotor head is not changed or modified. They might have added some extra equipment that other Bo105 might had from before. For example the ‘bulls balls’ on the inner part of the rotor blade is vibration dampers that is optional. Also, the change of CG mentioned might just be to put the battery in the nose compartment. The ones I flew already had all those options and had the envelope -1G to +3.5. I think the “secret” part of this mods arent that secret actually. Sounds cool on youtube though :) This was 1986: This is also long time ago; No ‘mods’: