Flamin_Squirrel

Got a track? I expect there are things you can do to make things easier for yourself.

That's because it basically is the same as from a P-47!

To be sure of zero slip you really need an aerodynamic indicator, like a yaw vane or even a bit of string tied to the canopy. For the ball to work perfectly, there has to be symmetrical thrust / drag - which of course helicopters don't have. See example below: string centred in forward flight, ball is deflected left slightly.

I'm aware of all of that. That was my point.

Try moving the master volume knob away from "MIN". Shouldn't work, but seems to.

You might be right. Lots of forces at play. Just doesn't seem intuitively right to me that it can be, level, constant heading, ball in the middle, and be in trim if it's not heading straight ahead.

Shouldn't the FPM (in a zero wind condition) by definition be straight ahead for there to be zero aerodynamic slip? As you point out in the first paragraph, the ball is perfect when you've got symmetric thrust/drag, but helicopters don't. I suspect the reason the ball is still used is because while not perfect, it's a very simple device, and it's close enough (and the FPM can't be used as it's influenced by wind).

Not in power hydraulic systems they're not - they're always (at least I'm yet to encounter an exception) positive displacement. Aircraft usually use piston pumps too, which vary volume to provide constant pressure, meaning pump output can compensate for changes in RPM (within reason).

It is possible to recover if you load the rotor by pulling back on the cyclic. Not easy though (especially if you're trimmed forward) I'll give you that.

Based on what bradmick's said it's likely excessive rotor drag that's the only thing wrong. So while the speed at which rotor RPM drops may reduce, the result of you letting it drop will not. Therefore you shouldn't concern yourself about losing power/hydraulics - it's a red herring.

Don't let the nose drop. Pulling back on the cyclic will load the rotor bring RPM back up. Turning works too, but increases descent rate, so less ideal. It's not easy though that's for sure.

I think you might be underestimating the importance of keeping rotor RPM up - 75% is extremely low. It's also necessary for hydraulics, it prevents the rotor blades from coning up/bending, and most importantly without it you won't be able to arrest your descent at the end of the auto anyway. Lowering the collective in the event of power loss must be IMMEDIATE. If you let rotor RPM drop below 90% you're probably too slow.

The Apache does seem a little squirrely - but hovering is unlikely to ever be easy for newcomers in their first heli and will always take practice. "Just git gud" is a blunt way of saying there aren't any short cuts, which is true to an extent. That said, there are tips that can help. Probably the best one is understanding that maintaining the attitude of the helicopter is key. To be able to hover means your eyes have to be very sensitive to detecting correcting changes in the helicopter's attitude. Find a wide flat area, lift off the ground and try to hold an attitude. If you start to drift don't panic, just readjust the attitude a little to try and correct and hold it again. See what happens, and repeat. AVOID LARGE CORRECTIONS!

Fair enough! I find it distracting during the day, but I like the idea of using it at night. The slave trick is indeed handy. Question though, I'd assumed having the PMD as ACQ would have been more important for coordination? Guess it depends on the scenario?

Not talking about removing IHADS completely, just the TADS overlay.

Agree Joker, seems like it might be a bug?

I do! I had a pro-flight trainer collective, didn't rate it. The Vipril one is fantastic though.

Pedals are well worth it for helicopters. Get the best you feel comfortable paying for. You do generally get what you pay for. I have a collective too, and I enjoy it, but consider it no where near as important - a throttle will work fine.

Good question. It seems to pop up even if the NVS mode switch is off, which doesn't make sense to me. Bug?

Vortex ring requires low (air) speed and high rate of descent (and power applied). Make your approaches shallow, like a fixed wing, and you'll be much less likely to end up in that situation. Also, make your approaches into wind. It makes a big difference.

Absolutely. This has been quite embarrassing for me, as I've just shown what can happen when well meaning training material isn't worded as quite as well as it should be, combines with misinterpretation, leading to completely getting the wrong end of the stick. And I shouldn't have, as while I'm not multi-engine trained, I'm not a complete layman either. As Bremspropeller said, this isn't the most complex scenario in the world, but if you mess up the initial conditions you can easily come to the wrong conclusion. Out of interest, what did you find in DCS that's not right?

Yes you’re right, nothing wrong with the image. Each side can be imagined to have an “up” and “down” force, which just happens to be shown by the curved arrow. Because the up and down forces are not the same distance from the C of G, that leads to the resulting force shown by the arrows I drew. Good grief I’m out of practice with this. Thanks for your patience.

I conceded on the first page I might be wrong. But you just expected me to take your word for it. Or at least, despite being the most aggressive in asserting my stupidity, beyond linking documents, you also seemed the least interested in explaining why. Anyway, Krupi and those who mentioned the C of G I think have the answer as to why I was probably wrong. It also makes me suspect that the image you showed above (typical of what you’d see in a text book) is actually inaccurate, leading to much (my!) confusion. The purple resulting torque arrows are shown rotating around the engine, but should they not be shown about the C of G (as I’ve scribbled on below)? I never intended this topic to degenerate, my mind just doesn’t work with half the picture. The fact my book shows the same (inaccurate? thoughts?) image, and describes torque being negated with both engines running, threw me.

There ARE two pivot points. You cannot get away from that. If you're saying that can be resolved into a single co-ordinate system then sure I'm sure it can, but you've not done that in your example.

You don't know my background. Given that you seem to think the centre point of wherea torque acts is irrelevant, I'm not sure why you think anyone should take you seriously.