Gunnars Driver

Well, I try the best I can to contribute to the forum. Im not going to get pissed off. I will continue, and you’re welcome to contribute with what you can. :) Unfriendly posts etc that you may post will just be ignored from me. Its not my ego driving me, only pure interest for the matter, and thinki’n I can contribute. I have one question though; why getting pissed and why do I feel a bit of unfriendliness? My meaning was not to piss anyone off, although one might be if one had decided that the idea of cyclic displacement = bank angle, and nit ready to adopt any alternate reality.

Reference litterature /sources for what I state: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/helicopter_flying_handbook/media/hfh_ch09.pdf Page 9-11, Turns. http://www.helitraining.co.nz/Modules/LSDocumentManager/DocumentDownload.aspx?DocumentId=22 Cyclic stick - Lateral stick controls... https://books.google.se/books?id=VYAGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=control+disc+tilt+angle++bank+angle&source=bl&ots=mhdq3wLg0N&sig=ACfU3U2vOzTtu47En1qjP0T2oEVtp1dIaQ&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU78OGu-PgAhVSxIsKHTodCqgQ6AEwDXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=control%20disc%20tilt%20angle%20%20bank%20angle&f=false S.133 ( same basics as above) http://www.danubewings.com/helicopter-turns/ Yes, the tell the same story... This is written by Ray W Prouty: says the same but also in detail why some helos have the stick slighty to the left or slightly to the right during sustained turn. R.W. Prouty is very known in the subject helicopter aerodynamics. I got all his books(by my work) and I also followed his magazine articles. I dont think anyone in the bussiness have a doubt of his knowledge, or articles or books. https://www.rotorandwing.com/2017/11/24/ray-prouty-archives-crosscoupling/ R.W.Prouty again, details about cyclic stick during turns with a little more info again then the other, page 93-94, single control turns: https://books.google.se/books?id=rxryAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=ray+prouty+cyclic+lateral&source=bl&ots=p-D6omsdZm&sig=ACfU3U0V2JVUyYMzPtIBRY71RkVptAZWZA&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCv661rOTgAhXSo4sKHWrYD0MQ6AEwA3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=ray%20prouty%20cyclic%20lateral&f=false I hope this is enough valid sources to be accepted.

Its not a war :) When you start making statements, you should read at least a few posts back so your comment is on topic and not a statement on a completely different thing. This is from OP: Yes it is, thats my point. If the rate or sensivity is like a real SA-342: I dont know. I newer flew the Gazelle IRL and I dont have the module. But, from my experience and professional knowledge I can tell some parts about it. I did see some other recent posts in threads about people thinking that the sidewards stick position correlates to a specific bank angle, which of course is completely wrong. One of the posters claim to be a real Gazelle pilot. I can help by telling how it really works. One problem is that people compare the SA-342 flight caracteristic with other modules which is a double fault: -The other module will not be perfect, it will have flaws. -The worst part: you can not really compare helos with different types of rotor systems. The teetering rotor( like Huey, Jet ranger and Robinson) will have a slow, delayed response because of the principles. The fully articled rotor( Gazelle, mi-8) will be quicker with much less lag but there is a big difference between types, because of the hinge of the rotor blade( the further out the quicker), and also how the rotor head is built. Still, they are not as quick as the rigid rotor heads( Bo105, Lynx). I have time in all types of rotor heads. I know you cannot fly a DCS Huey and then complain about the Gazelle module based on what you learnt in the Huey. I know there is a huge( really !!) difference between a Huey and a Bo105 when it comes to characteristics. Like this: Above post, again, wrong. My answer: Here you have lost the track. We are not talking about the autopilot capabillities. Yes, in ATT mode a autopilot can( as I sad multiple times before). But the autopilot can not return the helo to wings level without using the cyclic in opposite direction. Period. We are talking about the basic helicopter, think A/P off. Because if it was on it has to perform the same stick movements as you have to do if it is off. Yes, either you did not read everything, or I didnt write so you could understand me( English isnt my native...). Hope this post made it less unclear ? What the DCS community do not need is people claiming to be real pilots and posting rubbish that might ( worst case) impose the modules flight characteristics. In this matter, I think it would be better the more people having the right idea of how it works, no matter real pilot, pilot claim or not. :)

Offcourse a autopilot/stab system in a properly selected mode can return the helo to wings level. I have flown 99% of my latest flown >3000 hrs in ATTITUDE MODE( both in Super Puma and NH90). When using ATT the reference is aircraft pitch and bank values. When releasing the stick the helo returns to the referens attitude.ä wich can be reset to what you wish with a button in cyclic. I did touch this subject in the former posts, and I also stated this: When autopilot or stab syst in work they will have to move the stick in the same manner the pilot would have to do. Autopilot cannot change the relationship between the cyclic stick and rotor system ( Im not screaming, just trying to make one important statement be seen :) In every turn, the sum of G-forces is straight down to the floor( perpendicular to the floor). The Huey teetering rotor is acting like the helo is hinged under the rotor in a loose joint between the rotor and the mast. It can dangle freely. It will automatically go to the position where it I described above. This is G-independent from just anove zero G to max achievable G. Less then the lower G limit will cause mast bump, and then you are dead. If you are riding a bicycle and do a turn, in each turn you have the correct bank for having the G force straight down in the bicycle bank. If tou dont; you crash ! This means at in each clean turn with the helo the G force acts straight down, and the helo can not know whats really level according to earth. It cant. You cant either if you shut your eyes. I did write this in the former posts also. The pull back in cyclic is not like I read your text. It is because of two things( actually its the same but easier to understand divided to two: - If the helo is banked only there will be no turn. The bank togheter with pull back is what makes a turn. - If cyclic not pulled back tje helo will loose altitude. The leaning rotordisc will loose lift upwards( seen from the worlds perspective), so pull back is needed to keep altitude. Both two statements is exactly the same as with aircrafts.

I dont know if I can find any flight test data for the Mi-8/17 family. Because this thread isnt about the Mi-8 I wont be mining the whole net for this. Anyway, from this post: ...we can draw the conclusion that something is'nt right. While a stab system might be able to perform small adjustments without you seeing it on the stick the selection of autopilot or stab system ON or OFF can not change the law of physics. If the stick is around center for a continuous level turn and needing opposite throw to get back to level flight in one mode, it will need this in the other mode as well. So, we can draw the conclusion that it is not right. You might wanna look at this video: There are some turns, I didn't look at the whole video( family weekend activities…) but if you for example look at the right turn at 18:45 to 19:24 you can see the stick going right to initiate the turn and then back to around center* and a bit back pressure to make helo turn and keep height( stick towards the camera) and when the turn is complete stick goes to the opposite direction when rolling out and then back to around center. [Edit]There's a lot of turns I think and there is another one at around the 26 minute mark that also shows the behavior [End edit] The main thing, that the cyclic stick is used to give the helo a rolling rate when put to the right or left and that the amount of displacement from trimmed flight will set the rolling rate is very easy to proof. I guess I can find around 100 such statments on the net, including governmental sites like USA -FAA and so on. I don't know if this will be enough for anyone to believe it though. *) As I written about before the center position of the stick depends on the main rotor turning direction but it also depends on for example the tail rotor position giving different moment to the fuselage depending on the mounting height(compare the Bell206 and AS350 with the mi-8 for example. In turns there often is a slight deviation on the stick from the trimmed position, but this is small compared to the throw needed to get the helo into or out of a banked turn. I don't wanna bash another pilot helping out for fine DCS modules either. The main thing, If I ask some of my quite experienced colleagues I think I don't get the right answer from every one about stick center during turning flight. While all of them did hear about it in basic traning, they dont remember and the like most pilots fly with the ass feeling( not like an as :) ) so they just might not exactly know where the stick is. Im quite sure that the one helping out in most cases use a PC joystick and that it is not easy to develope the exakt right feeling with a much shorter stick.( I did a little bit of this with the Bo105 development). I did find some posts of AlexanderT and one of them referred to a experienced Mi-8 pilot but I think this was translated from russian. It would be very nice to have a talk/mess or post dialogue to someone that still flies the Mi-8. Because I think after my questions this person will need to test and try after the issue is bringed to mind. We ha one example around one year ago where somébody claming that the DCS Huey didnt work as it should when flying with the governor off. While we couldnt test it on a Huey one ED Forum memeber could test it on a AW139 on ground and there was the proof that I was right, concering frozen fuel flows. If I remember it wright this AW139 pilot was a bit amazed cause I think he also thought it would be the other way around. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196588&highlight=Torque&page=31 From that thread we can see that one Huey pilot(if really…?) and one AW139 pilot( I think we had some private mess and I'm quite sure he is a AW139 pilot for real) had another belief of how it worked than it actually worked. What we learn from that thread is, if we havent really been looking active with the right awareness in the mind, we might have wrong despite actually knoving a lot about the subject.

For stab systems/autopilots they have one thing common IRL: They have to use the sticks exactly as the pilot have to. If you are using SAS or ATT mode or similar( stabilisation modes that makes the helo more easy to fly) and release the stick you will se the stick moving in the same maner you had to do to stabilize it. The stick is mechanically connected to the rotor system. This is also the same for the automatic flight modes( ALT: keeping set altitude, Heading: keeping heading etc.) so you will see the stick move. If turning the heading knob making the helo turn will make thecstick do exactly as you would have to do. From you post it looks like DCS Mi-8 simulation of the stick when autopilot is on is not correct.

No problem, just did'nt know exactly what to answer :) Did it answer the q's ?

Im not sure I understand what the question is. I leave the a) and b) out ti begin with. If we describe ”trimmed flight” first, then all other control positions is non trimmed flight. First, the basics from helicopter stability most be understood( must read and understand my link in former post). Second, because of the fact that a helicopter is ’statically stable but dynamically unstable’ we must understand that a really trimmed control position only exist in that fraction of a second just when the force trim release/mag brake button was pressed. Immediatly after the cylic should be needed to be moved to the new position where it has to be for sustained flight in the desired way( straight and level or turning etc). This is the reason why helicopter pilots continously move the cyclic in flight. One might think that the movement of the stick comes from nervousity or parkinsson but thats only partly true :). (Look at youtube for reference of cyclic movement during flight). You can not release the cyclic for any longer period even if perfectly trimmed because that cyclic position no longer correlates to trimmed position. The helo will start to raise or lower the nose and it will start to bank right or left. How quickly this happens is depending on the type of rotor system and helicopter size etc. For a real cyclic the trim always moves the stick. A FFB gamingstick might do the same( never seen one). Normal gaming joysticks can’t move the center giving a few options to the developer of the module how to simulate this. Either make the model not needing the cyclic hold forward for forward flight. This seems to be the case in the DCS Gazelle. Or make it possible to simulate the trim movement by moving the joystick center to correlate with the stick position where the stick is when pushing the mag brake / force trim release button. This is the case of the DCS Huey. It doenst stretch the joystick ”other side” making the joystick no longer able to use the full range. Power changes like when dumping the pitch which need bigger corrections can put the gamer in a position where the actual cyclic range is not enough if not trim resetted( this happens on the DCS Huey.)

No, that is nit the case. All helicopters should have the same ”cyclic in center” behaviour* during a stable turn. When in forward speed and in a turn, the sum of all G-forces is perpedicular to the helicopter floor. If you shut your eyes, you cant really know that hou are banking left or right or going wings level. This is a fact, not an opinion. This also means that the helo ”can not feel” what is horizontal or what is wings level**. Because the helo can not know whats horizontal it of course can not roll back by itself. Logical if you think about it. This also leads to the conclusion that if the helo can not detect the difference between horizontal flight or in a banked turn it also will have about the same stick position for horizontal flight and a banked turn. From wikipedia(for reference check): ”The helicopter is statically stable because each oscillation will take it through its original position, but it is dynamically unstable because the amplitude of the oscillations progressively increases” The ones here that actually did fly real helos understand this. A helicopter is not stable and it will not go back nice and easy to the original position if you release a cyclic that is trimmed for level flight. ( if you have a stab system like SAS or ATT it can, but as we talk the basics of flight controls we should consider the stab system -OFF. If it was on, it anyway have to use the same stick inputs we are talking about to keep it in a banked turn or bring it wings level). This is info about helo stability: I did not read it but it looks like a good start to learn from: http://helicopterblog.com/?p=986 If you dont already know( know you know not think you know) you need to read it begore it is any idea to continue. *) As said before, stick is most often a bit displaced sidewards during forward flight( left or rigt depending on rotor direction). **) Without a gyro feeding an stabilisation system/autopilot. If you have a flight control system with attitude mode you can get into a turn by not pressing the force trim release/mag brake and when your turn is done, you release the stick and it will automatically bring the helo back to the set attitude(could be wings level or another bank angle). Still, to maintain a steady bank angle you need to recenter the stick and the ”autopilot” need to use opposite stick to bring the helo back to wings level.

For the DCS Gazelle question, yes if I understand the q correct. For the FFS Mi-171 I think its easy to se, just because they don't fly the mi-8 like a lady in that clip. I actually can not see a solution to how the rotor system with controls could make the stick be needed to kept deflected during the turn, or more exakt I can not se how the cyclic stick could be kept deflected during a forward speed bank without the helo continue to roll. If the mi-8 is modelled like that what happens if you do a for example 150km/h( I guess its km/h on the airspeed) and keep the cyclic maximum to the left or right ? It should continue to roll infinite, and not stop at a level of bank. Cyclic deflection should be seen as a roll rate funktion. 100% deflection, 100% roll rate, and 40% = 40% roll rate.

For the Mi-8 flight: No, that behavior doesnt seem possible. I cant swear of it tough but Id say it is less than 1% chance being possible. The cyclic stick if held left or right of center will make the helo to roll continous. I actually went by another nations mi-8 flight like 15years ago, on the 3rd crew seat but of course I didnt think about cyclic i puts that day. [Edit]Didnt find any clear view of the Mi-8, nut this is from a Mi-171 Full flight simulator, and at 1:00 minute there is a left turn, after achieving bank the stick is centered to keep the bank, and at 1:24 there is a roll out to wings level, using opposite cyclic deflection. (Mi-171 is a civil version of the Mi-17, which is a more modern version of the mi-8): [End Edit] For the DCS Gazelle the first things that comes to mind is that the cylic doesnt need to be further forward the faster you fly. This behaviour is not possiblewith normal mechanical flight controls, the aerodynamic forces on the rotor ( togheter with gyroscopic precession) will set the laws so you need to have the cylic futher forward the faster you fly. It would only be possible to construct a behaviour like this with a Fly By Wire-system( which the Gazelle does not have). I fly the only operative helo with FBW and it also has the stick movement further with speed. To make life harder for the ones that might think of protesting; Here is the US Army test of the SA-342: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a016921.pdf Page 17: The DCS Gazelle cyclic is not correct in position vs airspeed.

No problem, discussion’s welcome :) No, I dont comment on the actual characteristics of the DCS Gazelle. I never did, and I hope its clear, reading my posts. I might comment the part of the real SA342 where I know enough about how it works, to be sure I`m not wrong. I comment other comments that just can not be true: first one, a few weeks ago, another thread: And in this thread: The idea of for example putting the cyclic x mm to the left and after finding it in a 30 degree bank is fundamentally wrong, regardless of helo type. The idea that recenter the stick would take the helo out of bank in to wings level is also wrong. This isnt the case for aircrafts either. In most helos, the cyclic is a bit displaced during forward flight wings level( to the left for conterclockwise rotors and right for clockwise), after putting a helo in a bank, when recentering the stick it will go back to this position( slight displaced) to keep the bank. This means, in a continous right turn the stick might be a bit to the left( counterclock turning rotors) and in left turn it will be slighly tomthe right( clockwise rotors). Look at the right turn at 8:00, right turn, stick to the left.

Well, I am a pilot, since close to 30 years. Both aircrafts of different types but mainly helicopters. I have around 200hrs Bell 206( teetering rotor like the Huey), around 2000 on Bo105 and also a bit more than 2K on the As332 Super puma an now active on NH90, around 1000hrs so far. Im instructor on all profiles we fly, Im a maintanence test pilot on NH90( and was for long time on AS332 and Bo105). Have a few other types also, not important to this thread. There are some basics that is known to all real helo pilots, disregarding on the helicopter type. When someone clearly states things that just can not be true, I think its the time to make sure the module malers dont get lured in the wrong direction. Very well then, it is very different to control a helo with teetering rotor with a bell hiller stabilization bar like the Huey and some other helos that have fully articulated rotors like the SA342. ( I dont have the SA342 module yet, due to some of the flight model issues heard of). The Huey is litterally hanging under the rotor center like in a center mounted joint. When cyclic is centered the rotor only provides a lifting force in line of the rotor mast. If cyclic is moved the rotor will tilt in the same direction causing the force to the mast to no longer be in line with the mast. This force will move the upper part of the rotor mast in the same direction as the controls was moved as long as the control is not recentered. If in forward flight this will give the helo a bank angle that increases as long as the stick is hold at this position. Remember, displaced stick causes a constant rotor tilt angle from the rotor mast and thereby a constant rolling rate. When in hover the perceived center stick position is determined of center of gravity only( if no wind). If the helo is back heavy it will tend to hang tail low and because the rotor is perpendicular to the mast if stick is in ”normal center position” the rotor would also lean backwards making the helo move backwards. Stick will be needed to move forward until the rotor is horizontal. This is the reason why the stick is not in the marked middle position in the DCS Huey.( the tail rotor causes drift sidewards to the right, this causes the need to have the cyclic a small bit to the left to give the rotor a left tilt = left force to counter the tail rotor.) The teetering rotor has a built in slow reaction for cyclic input: first stick is moved, then the rotor tilts, and after this the rotor makes the rotor mast/helo react slow. In hover, the huey ”hangs” under the middle of the rotor and there is less need for quick corrections than with a fully articulated rotor like the SA342 has. Stick position in hover will also depend on wind. The rotor will be needed to be tilted against the wind direction to counter the wind drift, this also changes the stick position at hover. The following part is the same for all types of helis/rotor systems: In forward flight, stick need to be forward to keep the speed, but in roll axis it will be close to center. When stick is moved sidewards there is a rolling moment on the helo as long as stick is still hold in that position. For a turn, when bank angle is reached, the stick need to be centered. For rolling back to wings level the stick need to be moved in the other direction and held until the wings is level again and then the stick can be recentered. Id did post a link recently in the same Question of a Bo105, where tou could clearly see the stick vs helo movements. The part below is the post which is not right. The Huey is a very well built DCS module but it is not the same thing as flying the real huey because it doesnt work like the real one in every aspect. Its very good though. Its has way better collective stick feeling than one of the Bell 412 Full flight simulators I did fly some years ago( and they where real, you actually could count the flight time as flight time( civilians do, I think). Still the Huey isnt perfect( again, very good) so you can not take every behaviour as a proof for the real Huey characteristics. And, because the very different rotor system you cant use this to draw conclusions of how the SA342 should fly and react to inputs. For the part below, how many hours do you have in a real helicopter? And how many in the Huey? How would you be able to judge correct behaviour if you did not fly the Huey, or not a helo at all? I have the experience to know how some stuff work, and to know the wider possibilities of for example the teetering rotor system of the Huey. I have some hours in the Huey, I was not type rated on the Huey but I flew a number of flights as left pilot and then got some hours at the controls, I also wanted a few hours in the log book before my employer stopped flying it so I managed to get a couple of hours in ”dual command” with a huey flight instructor, so then I also could try autorotation and other stuff. Still, its > 15 years ago so I cant remember the feeling in detail. I could maybe judge the feeling in flight charecteristics quite close but to say whats is exactly right we need a pilot that flew the huey a lot and also not burnes the memory afterwards with a lot of hours in other helos. ( Not that it would need a lot of tweaking, but for reference to the statement below.) I dont have the KA-50. The small cyclic, in forward speed you most often use a very smal part of the stick range. The stick is around 50 cm (-ish) above the floor and you most often do corrections that are a few millimeters. If you use a regular PC joystick this would transfere to very small stick movements due to the very much shorter stick. Maybe a correct beaviour is made unflyable if you use a shorter stick than IRL. QUOTE=DmitriKozlowsky;3811764]That is not right. Even in DCS. Deflection of cyclic places certain attitude of helicopter. If cyclic is re-centered, so would attitude. Its just that in DCS: Gazelle, the deflection is very small, and most overreact, requiring counter cyclic motion UH-1H and KA-50 modules have correct cyclic behavior.

The inertia in the rotorsystem makes the initial increase in pitch give immediate response. There is no delay IRL, but the mass of the helo makes the response to seem slow in the beginning, specially small changes in collective. The engine governor is helped by a ”droop compensator” or anticipator. Wiring from the collective is connected to the fuel control/GOV to help knowing that the collective is raised and a demand of increased torque will come. There was a few helos that didnt have the droop compensator (or by other reasons had slow engine response) SA330 was one of them( at least the UK Armed forces), and there was some crashes because of the slow response of the engines. Still, att hover, the first response from increased pitch was good, cause of inertia.

The description above is not how cyclic works on real helicopters. Period. I sincerely hope that the guys making these modules don't listen to stuff like this. You clearly don't fly real helicopters or aircrafts.

Yup!

For some helos there is some info about VRS in the flight manual, but not closely enough data for building a flight model. For one helo I flew before the manufacturer did not at all admit that it could get into VRS. I think they opened up for this later though. For VRS you dont need flight test data to make a good enough flight model. I did get the formula for calculating the critical rare of descend speeds for entering VRS in my work. I have them somewhere. Basically, the rotor downwash sets the frames: the heavier the same helo is the higher descend rate ro reach vrs. The smaller the rotor is, for the same weight, the higher descend rate. There is descend rates values that describes in percent of the downwash when reaching for example disturbed air that causes movements in pitch, roll and yaw and also when reaching settling with power and VRS. I dont remember the details so I wont trow any number from memory. I think I can find the data, anyhow.

Well, for the continued development of the flight model I see the risk of trying too much as we have seen examples of. One example might be LTE/ Loss of tail rotor effectiveness. Not all types are prone to it, and the ones that are in all cases I know of arent really that sensitive. One type that can get into it, where flown at least 10K hrs at my home base during my time and it never happened. If you look at the wind directions relative to aircraft where it is possible to get into it, there have been very many times it could have happened becasue by theory the heli was in the ”risk-of-window”. It never happened during this years, and I never heard of any LTE before I entered either. When constructing the flight model, if you read discussions here it might render the idea that you enter this every time you are inside that window in DCS, despite maybe the risk is 1 on tousand in real life. The ”risk-of-window that the manufacturer or operator use in training is far wider than the actual window, and also a lot of other factors need to hit right on their target. If properly modelled, perhaps with a slump generator that allows a ”feature” ( for example LTE) to only happen 1/100 or 1/1000 I guess the DCS community will complain and say ”This flight model is wrong cause it wont get LTE” so it isnt easy. To get close to IRL you need to know your stuff really well and also need to be able to stand up against the ones that claims to know but really doesnt. [Edit]I havent seen LTE overdone in any model, just an example of where it might happen.

I only have the Huey and I havent flown it that much. I dont have that much time playing around and I mostly follow my gaming friends choise of what to fly( and 50% of what we do is racing games). The huey had a strange behaviour when I got it, around two years ago where it wouldnt stop descending clise to ground, even in autos where the helo cant build VRS. I think that behavior dissapeared by a update. I wouldnt even call that something close to VRS or settling with power, just a bad flight model. After that update I never encountered VRS so, it might be there but if it is I avoid by flying like I did the other 5K plus hours( except those minutes VRS-traning long time ago. I dont know really. The flight behaviour of the Huey is very good. There is some parts that clearly need to be fixed to be like the real Huey, but it is not important for me. I like it, I can fly it with my experience and I dont need to ’learn to fly the model’. I have seen full flight sims that actually flies worse. For the over-do it parts I ment other issues than VRS, for example engine catching fire due to using a little to much power. That wont happen, ever.

No, thats not true at all. Maybe you ment to be ironic ? In my basic military training we got teatched to know how it felt by putting the helo in VRS( at safe altitude, of course). The main idea was to be able to recognize it early and to have done the exit at least once. I done it with two different types, and it really took some tries both times to be able to hot the sweet spot to enter VRS. It isnt easy even when you are aiming for it. It takes to be very exact in airspeed 0 , or grounds speed = windspeed and direction to get a hit. We did not stay in VRS that long, but vibrations and a bit unstable/twitchy in pitch and roll and heading and the VSI starting to point downwards. I also have two collegues that crashed a helo because of VRS, and they still here(we lost another crewmember though, which was very sad :-( . If we see how some other features or behavior is modelled on some other modules on DCS, I know for sure that some of these are quite overworked in DCS. They wouldnt happen at all, or they wouldnt happen that quick or with that severity. I see there is a risk that the VRS could be overdone in this case. Not maybe how it behaves when in VRS, but how easy it is to accidentally or intentionally enter it. [Edit]Just remembered this:

There’s another reason why you would’nt try to look inside with the NVGs in cockpit. The cockpit and instrument lighting in a NVG-compatible A/C is adapted to a specific range of wavelength and the NVG has filters mounted that sort out these specific wavelengts. The cockpit and instrument/screen lighting will therefore not be amplified by the NVGs and will come out very dark and unreadable, even if the focus would be adjusted properly for looking inside. There are different lightings in NVG compatible aircrafts, from green only light for all lighting, to NVG compatible four color MFD screens. For each type the correct filters are used. All systems have one thing common: the NVG can not use this lighting to see things. This is a small demo about this, from my night flight this evening: The instrument lighting is set to NVG, the MFD screens and instruments are very easy to see with the naked eye under the NVG, but the NVG cannot even see that the screens are on. Its also impossible to see the analog stand by instruments through the NVG, despite the fact that we where over a city and all city lighting( not NVG compatible) illuminates inside the cockpit and helps NVG to see things.

The SA-342 has a fully articulated rotor. The flapping hinge can be seen quite close to the rotor mast, making the rolling moment of the rotorblade less and demanding more deflection before giving a quick roll to this helo compared to ones with the flapping hinge longer away from the rotor mast. This means that there will be a higher time lag between stick input and rolling power. The amount of lag, I really cant tell but it should be less than teetering rotors like UH-1 and B206 and R22/44 and more than helos where the flapping hinge is positioned longer out. The fact that you have found a time lag is good. The rest is solely a tuning of the lag, if needed. This is not right, if you have analyzed it correctly. I dont have the SA-342 DCS so I cant help with that analyze. The collective response should come a.s.a.p, but the weight of the helo will cause a acceleration making it take some time from applied power to full climb. This is not the same as engine slow command. If the problem was engine slow command the initial climb would still come a.s.a.p but the rotor speed would decay until the engine has responded and regained the rpm. =The response from collective comes from rotor speed only, not from engine response.

On the B206 I did use a little friction on cyclic if I remember it wright. On the BO105 I did use friction on collective to make it stay in place( nog more friction than needed for that). The BO105 I flew had a Force trim release on cyclic, in principle it did act as a mag brake release but mechanically built otherwise I think. It was not standard on the BO I learned when helping with data about the BO for DCS. Of the 2000h I have on the BO, i guess > 1000 is with the force trim release button pressed. Yes, the trim button on UH-1 in DCS Moves the center joystick to actual pos, but it also takes away the possybility to use ful range of cyclic which may cost some DCS users the UH-1 they fly at the moment.

Very good ansver! Just adding a little Collective stick will normally use either adjustable friktion or mag brake = Quite easy to build if needed. Cyclics are without stick forces in most cases and below floor most* helos have springs and or rubber bands that give a syntetic stick force and centering of the stick with the possibility to move the centered position via mag brake and/or electrical trim motors acting on the springs/rubber bands. This is the part where you’d really like the stick to work like this to effectively be able to simulate real flight. At hover the cyclic in most cases are quite close to the aft limit (around 25%-ish) and at fast forward flight its around 75%-ish. *) Bell206 dont, but fricktion can be adjusted. I guess the R22/R44 doesnt as well.

The cyclic is hidden sometimes, so not a 100% view. Not a SA342 but a clear view of cyclic. Note the stick position during right turn from around 7:50: constant right turn but stick well left of centre, touching left knee( very common in the Bo105). The Main rotor turns anti clockwise so stick to the left instead right of centre when not rolling the helo.