Swift.

AH-1Z does have a cyclic, its just on the side for both cockpits. Rather than being central for the aft cockpit and on the side for the front cockpit like the OG cobras had. The description of the control linkages seems very similar to apache to me. With direct hydraulic connections from the cyclic to the rotor actuators, with augmenting SCAS hydraulic actuators working independently of the main and tail rotor actuators, within a certain % of the total control throw to dampen turbulence and tailor helicopter response to pilot input. The fail mode of these actuators appears to just be a direct hydraulic connection, still augmented by a 'power steering' type system to lighten controls. And a loss of that assisting system will result in a direct hydraulic connection with much heavier control response. The only way to fully lose control over the helicopter would be to lose complete pressure in both hydraulic circuits. Hence why the Immediate Action for Dual Hyd failure is Land Immediately (if you don't land on the thing below you, you will crash). As for AH-1Z vs DCS Apache. I will admit that from the outside they might appear to be very similar helicopters. But I would argue the difference in ergonomics and flight performance between the two would put it more akin to a comparison between F16 and F18, if not F18 to A10 or something similar. AH1Z stands out to me because of the identical(ish) cockpits, meaning its currently used with the guy in the front flying more than the guy in the back. But both cockpits retain full control over either the flight or the TSS if they choose. Its also a fair bit faster than apache, and has a more modern feeling avionics set (in my opinion). Also, lets not forget AH1Z can carry AIM-9. And its Instrument Rated!(with TACAN). So yes, whilst it does lose certain things like the longbow and IDM. In my opinion it still outshines in other areas. Its not necessarily a better or worse helicopter. Its just different and interesting.

Im pretty confident there is enough information for a Zulu to be modelled. The stuff I can think of as missing would be specifics about how the aircraft 'feels' to fly. But thats always the case with any aircraft. Whether Bell will grant a license if ED ever decide to make a Zulu is another matter.

I've seen a strong left rolling moment when pushing over into negative G. Is that what you're describing?

No one calls it superbug. It has better slow speed performance (including a slower landing speed), on account of the larger LEX for sure. But those same larger LEX cause problems at speed. More wing is more drag. Not sure where you are getting your gouge from though, sounds like an interesting source...

Super hornet is slower than legacy. In fact I'm not even sure if it can go supersonic with more than a centerline on.

When I say first post, I mean my post at the start of the thread. I thought I had accurately captured this effect a while ago, but if you are seeing something different that would be interesting .

Does the video in the first post still represent the issue you are seeing?

I meant for the helicopter in general. I would fly a DCS AH1Z even if it only had an M60 mounted on the chin!

The Zulus avionics are so fantastic, it's a shame they didn't go with a 25mm cannon or something to match the rest of the MEUs cannons.

I don't think you mean to attribute that quote to me, but for the person who said it. His issue is not an attribute of the WIPness of the module but rather a misunderstanding of how the helicopter works.

The neutral position of the pedals doesnt correlate to neutral thrust from the tail rotor. It is biased slightly so that you can get more nose left motion than nose right. The effect of this is as you observed, the helicopter will rotate if you unlock the tail wheel with the pedals 'centred'. This is not 'fantasy' as you said, its just how the helicopter is, remember helicopters aren't like fixed wing aircraft: they are instead gloriously asymmetric.

Would you be able to check you don't have force feedback enabled. It's under misc or general settings iirc.

Correct, it can't do VHF or UHF homing.

Except that a tanker might not always have the free airspace to avoid the clouds. Think about those monster tanker stacks that we've seen in the past. And beside, everyone knows tankers will find and cloud they can just to mess with the receivers.

I can't personally say I've experienced anything like that. I have noticed the ground effect being pretty punchy, but that would be vertical movements more than lateral. Do you have a track or recording we can look at, to get a better idea of the situation?

I don't think anyone knows anything about a Cobra in the pipeline, my impression of its avionics are from the hours of Google Fu I've been doing.

Man after my own heart! AH-1Z circa 2008, thank you very much. The avionics are so advanced and slick, its lovely. You do lose some niceties that apache has though, like no FCR and no IDM. I'd still take that trade though, for a faster, lighter, more modern aircraft (and its got TACAN!) edit: And Sidewinders, combat rated fuel tanks, a really nice AFCS system, and some really cool navigational features to aide with seaborne stuff!

I'd love all the Cobra variants, but if we could only have one it would have to be the Zulu. If we didn't I'd just be annoyed everytime I look at a lovely little AH1T or AH1J or something. I think the Zulu is definitely feasible, I've personally researched everything other than the specifics about how the SCAS handles. But I imagine a process similar to Apache using the SME feedback would have to be employed there. The advantage to the Zulu, in my eyes, is that you also get a massive chunk of a UH-1Y out of it. Seeing as they have nearly identical avionics, bar the UH-1Y having an additional ARC-210 (and the control head in the cabin), and the difference in sensor turrets between the two. And I guess you could argue the weapon pages are different on account of the cobra having 7 stations and the Huey having 4. I think the biggest obstacle to an AH-1Z would be the sell-ability of it. For most people it would just appear too similar to the apache. But then again, ED did bring out a Viper only a couple of years after a Hornet, and the level of difference is similar if not greater for the Cobra.

Did it describe which SAM was doing the threatening? SA-2s and SA-3s would allow that kind of flight.

Ok thanks, that looks like an interesting read I'll be sure to check it out. In the meantime I did some research about what the threat picture looked like in OIF (assuming you are talking about the first part, going off of the description of SAMs). It seems that there were spatterings of SA-2/3/6/8s, A great number of SA-7s and a tremendous number of Air Defence guns. Now you'll have to forgive me for applying my theorycrafting is such liberal strokes here: Taking what we know about those RF SAM systems, you could imagine that aircraft operating below ~150ft or so would be relatively safe from most of those systems. However, those AD guns will prove lethal for anyone caught out low and slow like that, so whilst the FW guys just started climbing above the SAM threat. RW couldn't do that. So instead I imagine a RW pilot in that situation would probably strive to be below the SAM WEZs and fast enough to avoid the worst of the gunfire. So as you said, 100kts. And to my point that its threat driven not doctrine drive. You also see the same tactics being applied to Apaches in OIF, namely in the Karbala Gap attack made famous by the film 'Apache Warrior'. And finally, an AH-1W Manoeuvres Description Guide from 2003 describes terrain flight, as a term used to describe any helicopter flight structured to counter a "sophisticated threat environment". Going on to describe the use of terrain, vegetation, and man-made objects to degrade the enemy's ability to detect a helicopter. And finally describing NOE as flights below 50 ft AGL and less than 40 KIAS. That same guide describes Masking and Unmasking within that AH-1W, which describes vertical or horizontal "pogo" (as you would put it). So to conclude. As I said, the mode of flight is dependant on the threat being presented. Not on whether its a Cobra or Apache, or whether its Marine vs Army. Different helicopters placed in the same environment will behave basically the same.

I can't find Hammer From the Sky on Google, is that a novel? I'm seeing a fiction piece by Don Pendleton called Sky Hammer, is that what you mean?

Im very interested to hear where you learnt this from. Seeing as every source I can find indicates that the tactics you employ depend on the threat: An Apache pogoing around in Afghanistan will get slapped just as hard as a cobra moving around fast under a SAM umbrella.

I will just say on this front, tyres are currently the best thing to use for marking out FARP spots. If they become tangible, we'll lose the only markers we have.

Don't confuse doctrine of the era with doctrine of the airframe. A lot of the Tow Cobra tactics from the 70-80s are based around low and very slowly for high threat environments. 100kts tooling around is how to get smacked by a radar SAM. But it's fantastically effective against AAA, tanks, small arms etc.

I would have thought the same. I know probably more about AH1Z than I do about apache, but on that helicopter its an RLG gyro in the EGI assembly, and it definitely mentions drifting of the INS when GPS data is not available.