Zorrin

Of course. You misinterpreted my post, which I will agree could've been better worded. But the fundamental fact is you cannot start a turbine engine with the FADEC engaged. Simply not possible. Acutally an R22 comes standard from the factory with a governor. However, during the start-up procedure you are required to "split the needles" (by chopping the throttle you reduce the engine RPM and are making sure that the rotor rpm doesn't drop with the engine RPM) on and only after you have checked the clutch mechanism rotates freely without the engine then you can wind up the throttle and engage the governor. I can't remember the exact figure for RPM before switching the governor on as I haven't flown a 22 for quite some time, after that the governor is indeed switched on and it can be forgotten about. However, in a governor failure situation you would have to manually adjust the throttle with the collective. Take the Bell 206, as an example of turbine heli. Has a twist throttle on the collective. You are required during start-up of the non-FADEC equipped versions to adjust the throttle to keep the temperature below something like a max of c900ish degrees C. Once started you can engage the governonr. And I beg to differ about it being a "flawed argument". You wouldn't get into a car and drive it if you knew there was no way you could control the throttle. Whether it was autonomous or not. By its very nature anything mechanical will break. Anything man-made will break. So by that token, I obviously no sweet f**k all about the KA50 and its systems. What kind of redudancies are there on the KA50?

Every helicopter will have a throttle. How else do you get the engine RPM high enough to get going anywhere? Yes can be governed to automatically adjust itself as this makes life easier, but you cannot start a heli with the governonr on... You wouldn't drive a car without a throttle would you? Why would you want to step into something that flies without that fundamental control!

Well what is the time it takes the gun on an AH64 to traverse left 90 degrees? And what is the time it takes a KA50 to do a pure pedal turn left 90 degrees? Surely that is the only difference. Instead of a turret turning, you turn the entire airframe. This is easier because you are operating single pilot. Sure if there's some chappie in the front taking care of wepaons then it's a nifty little thing to have a turret. By the same token of your arguements about the gun placement on the KA50 then every single fighter aircraft has the gun in the wrong place. It should be mounted to my left shoulder and look everywhere I look. Becuase it's much easier to co-ordinate a gun as well as my aircraft/heli/airframe than it is just to manipulate the thing I've strapped to my back....... Throughout history, when has there ever been a fully articulated gun on a production single seater? I'm 99.9% certain, that there isn't. Surely history will teach us a few lessons.............

Which is exactly why you can't beat the good ol' Mk I Eyeball, some lines and a paper chart!

That's a good thing if you are turning it into a collective. I'm still wondering how I'll modify my Cougar so that I can still use one throttle quadrant for fixed and rotary flight...

Especially when it ricochets off that Shilka and pops some poor blighter in his Ka-50! Golden BB!!!!

That crash was a quick stop gone wrong. And a fine example of pilot error. He crashed because he came in too fast and ballsed up his quick stop. At this point the rear landing gear left leg gets caught and tangled up. He is already well out of position because he ballsed up his approach. And we all know the key to a good landing, is a good approach. So he's now hanging in a kind of limbo. An odd position as he is now starting to pull the power, the fact that half of it was over the water is irrelevant. It crashed because he got the leg stuck and as he tried to escape, he didn't know the leg was stuck, so consequently the application of power did what he expected. Generated more lift. Only because the leg is stuck in the guard rail the rear of it isn't able to lift clear, the blades are still generating the same lift as the frong blades. But because the leg is trapped it is stopping it from lifting. Consequently the front disc is not impeded, hence the front lifts and you are creating asymmetric lift and eventually it rolls because only one leg is stuck. At least that's the prognosis I've made from having seen that video a few times, and for what it's worth also the prognosis of several high-time CPL(H) holders.

Will DCS and its Advanced Flight Models include realistic simulation of weather? And more specifically the interaction between machine and nature with regard to things like wake vortex? Will we feel the bumps as we pass through another aircraft's wake? Will wake vortex be an issue if you are following a larger aircraft? Will a crosswind affect the wake of an aircraft on a take-off roll that you have to think carefully about which side of the runway you as the wingnut line up on? How much of an impact on the engine and its operations will things like OAT have? Etc etc etc.. Apologies if it's already bee asked!

I understand the gearbox side. And agree that a gearbox for a coaxial will indeed, in principal have fewer parts, as you only have a single exit shaft. What I meant was the actual rotor system becomes a hell of a lot more complex. What about the complexities of the rotor heads? They have to be rigid rotors right? Otherwise you'd have blade flapping... And then it gets nasty. How does the shaft split the power and then have it contra-rotate? What about the extra swashplates? Surely this extra engineering makes it a lot more complicated. And overall does this 'extra safety' actually cost a lot more in maintenance? I would say it does, because surely if the entire system was that much easier, would it not be the norm? Or does that just stem down to what we know as the norm in the West and perhaps a refusal to accept something of Eastern origin?

sobek difficult to say whether it's more "damage-able" than conventional. Let's face it, if you lose a rotor blade on the contra-rotating you are just as stuffed as if you lose one on a conventional layout. I guess "survivabilty" all comes down to where you take the hits..... I wouldn't want to get shot at in a helicopter. They don't even fly, they just vibrate so badly the earth rejects them. But the complexity of one shaft driving two rotors in opposite directions seems to me, more complicated than having two shafts in different directions out of the gearbox. The more mecahnical parts you have the higher the chances of a failure. When we get the Apache module we can find out just which one flies the best minus a few working parts here and there!

But the down side of using contra-rotating rotors is from a maintenance side... Becomes more costly, and also if a teeny little bit of it breaks you are more stuffed. I don't think the issue of removing the tail rotor is one for ease of control. Yes at first you find it difficult keeping up with everything, but it pretty soon becomes second nature. So yes it'll be easier to fly from the first time heli pilot point of view, but for the front line pilots that are flying Ka-50s, well they'll have learnt on a conventional chopper so they will already be well in the groove of that.

A cake would "typically" be something like a Victoria Sponge or Black Forest Gateau. Whereas a Pie generally contains pastry, now I'm not so hot on modern Pie-baking techniques but I'm pretty sure you can make a Pie with and without puff pastry. And generally, is a savoury dish. There are of course exceptions to the rule when you add fruit, i.e. Apple Pie. So therefore you can say that a Pie is like a Cake, and that ultimately there is no real difference other than in the pronounciation and the number of letters. However, it is not like cake if you cover the top with pasty. In conclusion you could argue that a Cake is covered in something such as icing, whereas in a Pie the "coating" will usually always be the pastry. And of course this was written using the un-clear English guidelines.

I had to click on Less than an hour. As much as I am looking forward to it I won't have the freedom from work to go digging trenches with my rotor blades and that's even the case being self employed! I will however enjoy every shred of over-torquing and gearbox destruction!

Well as a rule fixed-wing is easier to fly than rotary-wing. Purely from a fact of stability. You can let go of everything in an aircraft and it won't just drop out of the sky. You can't really do that in a heli. You probably can with the much larger machines but you take an R22 and let go of everything - well you have an appointment with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.... The real challenge will be the systems, rather than physically controlling it. IMO anyway...

I find the helis in FSX to be far to unrealistic. I mean who's ever heard of a JetRanger being harder to hover than an R22!

From his "ability" to fly the Schweizer I'd have said he has NO time in Helis at all. Every car handles differently, as does every aircraft. However the fundamentals are the same. You pull the lever and depending on where the Heli was built it'll either swing to the left or the right. Now if he had any time in helis he'd have known that... He certainly didn't have a full license and at most 10 hours instruction. The only reason he got it into the air was because he didn't know how to stop it. You can see when it just starts spinning he's pulling in more collective and no pedal....

Just think at 16,666 (±1) odd rounds per seconds.... it would cost an absolute fortune! How much does a shell/bullet for that thing cost? It's preposterous and it'll never work! Well at least I can't see anyone signing up to buy a few thousand of them anyway....

Mine change randomly... but here's a good un!

Grid has the same engine as Dirt... At least that's what I was lead to believe....

Get a copy of http://www.amazon.co.uk/Air-Pilots-Manual-Navigation-Instrument/dp/1840373229/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219338192&sr=1-2 That will help you understand the intricacies of IFR for GA a little better!

And your point is?

You set it up in NAV2, that's why it didn't work. In the 172 on FSX as per that screenshot you HAVE to use NAV1. VOR 2 does NOT have a glideslope receiver, VOR 1 does. Why don't you try just starting on the runway, tuning in the ils to NAV 1 and setting the runway heading on the OBS. Then go into slew mode "y" is the default key. Raise your alt by 1,000ft or so and then go backwards for say 6 or 7 miles. You should find that the localiser bar (the vertical one) is central - you are after all lined up with the runway. You should now see the glideslope bar is at full deflection to the top. You would also notice that the red/white flags next to NAV and GS should have GONE. I'll probably have FS X running again by next week. I'd be happy to do a multiplayer plane-share and show you if you are still getting stuck.

Well it really is just a case of tuning in the NAV radio and making sure you have the right radial dialled into the VOR using the OBS nob. The ILS consists of two radio transmitters that are on the airfield. One is lined up with the runway at the FAR end from your touchdown point - this is the localiser - the other is to one side (or somewhere else, but relatively close to the runway) and provides the glideslop. They're constantly transmiting their signal along a very tight and narrow beam. The idea being that if you are flying straight down the beam you are on track with the ILS. The only way to tell if you are "picking" it up is to ident it and if you look at the screenshot posted earlier. See the White Lines that form a cross in the middle? well you should also see two red/white flags next to the letter GS and NAV. If those flags are NOT visible, you are picking something up. On the audio panel select NAV1/NAV2 which ever radio has the ILS frequenecy in it. If you can hear morse code bleeping then you have it - as long as the morse is the same as the ident you are expecting. You then need to make sure you are able to receive the glideslope and localiser information correctly. Picture the runway you are landing on, and then imagine a cone expanding from the threshold. You need to get your plane into that cone for the ILS to "work". Again, apologies if I'm teaching to suck eggs...

Given the history of Friendly Fire... I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard....