barundus

The Kiowa Warrior is the Bell 406 (internal company designation). 407 is a derivative.

No, I didn't bother to note the conditions when I did my quick test. Agreed a substantial headwind will tend to "weathercock" the airframe into the prevailing wind, but will never totally overcome torque effects. A given wind may weathercock an airframe at a specific torque setting, but once that condition is changed (power change), that equilibrium condition will be changed as well, and there'd be a heading change if no anti-torque was applied. I just wanted to see what behavior is exhibited with power changes; my expectations were confirmed. Not a comprehensive test by any means. Also; I've no interest in re-hashing known issues. I was just trying to replicate the behavior in the posted vid. I couldn't. Something wonky there. Who knows? Going back to drinking and virtual flying...

I flew the Gaz last night just to verify. Definitely had torque effects immediately upon getting light on the skids, and lifting. Also power changes produced the expected yaws and required pedal input to maintain heading. No idea if there's a setting to turn that off. Also; watch the torque gauge during the vertical maneuvers. It goes all the way up to 95% or so on the initial liftoff, then he plays with it for a minute or two in climbs and descents. The torque gauge behavior doesn't correlate with what the aircraft is doing in terms of yaw, and also the climb/descent behavior

Ya, sumpin' ain't right in that vid. Massive torque (power) changes, and no anti-torque required on the pedals. I don't have that behavior in my setup. Weird.

How do I upvote you? :joystick:

Quote: "How about a workshop? The agenda would be:" Is this a joke?

@alec delorean: "real footage to see that realistic cyclic movements for normal operation are within 40% to 50% in each direction of the full axis range from the center." Can you link that? 'Cuz you crazy. I don't know your background or exposure to various systems, so my comments are only offered as counterpoint based on my own experiences. I guarantee you 90% of helicopter operations use no more than an inch or so of deflection of the cyclic from center. (Probably more like 98% for the civilian flight regime, although I'm just making an educated guess there), as they don't "normally" operate in maneuvering profiles beyond 30 deg angles of bank or so. Civilian operators don't like it when you get froggy with their expensive machines. Particularly in hydraulically assisted or fully hydraulic actuated systems, "fingertip" flying is the norm, with only the slightest of control pressure required to move the cyclic, and no more than fractions of an inch for most maneuvers required for normal flight (15-30 deg angles of bank). Large "combat" maneuvers may deflect the cyclic beyond an inch or maybe two of deflection. If I'd ever moved the cyclic "40% to 50%" of full travel, the aircraft would've been upside down. How this translates into sim flying using mechanicals that are far shorter than most actual flight controls obviously influences control motions as well. I'd assume with the wide variety and range of controls out there, some allowances and adjustments have to be made to derive what feels comfortable to the simmer.

Paladin; you'll have to forgive a bit of salt and vinegar. I'm an old salt, constantly presenting the other side of the coin to the young'uns who think they've got the answer. Thinking outside of the box definitely has it's place. Bosnia? Sounds like you've been around back in the day too. 74 hours/month back before the WoT would've been outrageous figures. But KW made it happen. Then 90+ hours/month for years afterwards. Great aircraft, and they certainly served us well. It's really too bad it was never modernized with contemporary electronics and optics. I still gnash my teeth at possibilities.

Yup. A couple units tried it, very early, when no-one knew WTF they were doing and liberties were taken (e.g. removing the 5200lb weight restriction back to 5500lbs for a deployment, and removing the MMS). Both of which had serious second-order effects. It wasn't done afterwards because it wasn't a good idea. (i.e. we flew those aircraft for the next 15 years at an OPTEMPO of around 90 hours/month, which wouldn't have been possible with f'ucked-up crossbeams and constant XMSN mount replacements at half their rated service life. Second - removing the capability to see and sense at night, and to shoot the only precision weapon system available to 58D, is just...dumb. Weight issues in the desert? I mean, Iraq is nearly at sea level. Sure it gets hot. So does Afghanistan. Kandahar is at 3800' MSL, J-Bad at 1800' MSL field elevation, and 4900' MSL field elevation at Bagram, etc. I flew in Iraq and Afghanistan just fine at all those locations with an MMS. Not arguing there isn't a good performance gain shedding the 300lb system weight of the MMS. But that gain isn't worth what you lose as a trade. And I'll bet you a dollar we killed a hell of a lot more shitheads with Hellfires than all the millions of rounds of .50 cal, and hundreds of thousands of 2.75" rockets fired combined. 3ID killed a shit-ton of armored vehicles on their push north in '03. Which would not have been possible without Hellfire. "The best recon tool is the cavalryman"? Won't argue that either. But I will debate that a cavalryman is a hell of a lot more effective when he knows how to employ his systems and doesn't subscribe to narrow-minded "Cowboy" mentality. Found a lot of IEDs in roadbeds using the TIS, at night. Found a lot of IED emplacers using the TIS, from 4 kms away. Bet you'd rather have an LRF/D able to locate a target grid at the push of a button, than guesstimate off a paper map. Just because we tried it doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Exactly right. The MMS could easily be removed for transport, but it was an entirely different thing to fly without it. The MMS payload featured some pretty gee-whiz vibration reducing systems. Removing the payload assembly had effects on the track and balance of the rotor system, and on the lifespan of the transmission mounts. To fly with the MMS removed, the rotor system would have to be re-tracked and balanced. A big PITA, and time consuming. Second, the TBO interval (time between overhaul) of the transmission mounts and crossbeams was radically shortened by flying without the MMS. To my knowledge, no unit ever flew for extended periods after the first one, because of the giant maintenance implications afterwards. Also, they were kind've dumb to remove them, as they lost the ability to shoot Hellfires. It was a cowboy decision, by an ill-informed commander. <edit> The transition phase training aircraft at Ft. Rucker had special inspections, and special equipment installed to allow flight without the MMS. They also had rubber-filled skid cross-tubes because of the constant touchdown autos and run-on landings training they used them for. The MMS and black boxes were removed from those aircraft because they took such a beating, and because it wasn't required for that phase of training. The aircraft without MMS were only used in that phase of training.

Alec, The vid you linked is an OH58A+ or C. Very different drive train and rotor head. (underslung vs semi-rigid). That's not to say the control motions aren't similar. They're both hydraulic assist, but the A/C doesn't have a SAS system as does the D. D is actually less "twitchy" than A/C, but far more agile.

The MFDs in the KW are color capable, but the MCPUs (Master Controller Processor Units) which drove them did not have color outputs.

Uhhh. Okay, the "two weeks" statement from my previous post about my next vids is a tongue-in-cheek attempt at internet humor. I assumed the "in two weeks" phrase is almost a standing DCS joke for "it'll be done when you see it". To clarify and avoid confusion and consternation; when I said "in two weeks" last week, it was a joke. It's still two weeks away. It'll still be "in two weeks" two weeks from now.

Folks - thanks for your patience! I've been delaying a new series of vids until the displays and FM are more "complete". I plan to do a comprehensive series of explanatory vids to delve deep into the various sub-systems, menus, and techniques of employment. No sense in doing anything now, until the systems are more in a final state. PC's working hard! <I'm just as anxious as you to experience the final product> Two weeks!

See the "Pilot Display Unit" thread an example of the PDU that was installed in the old days.

The weapons symbology in the MMS was designed predicated on a 50ft stationary hover. No other ballistics calculations are performed by the aircraft. So for running/diving fire profiles for the ballistic weapons (gun; rocket), the symbology is not good for targeting. The gun/rocket symbology will provide some aiming information, provided the left-seater is observing the intended target with the MMS. However the ballistic solution will not be correct if the aircraft is moving and not level. The KW was designed with the Fulda Gap scenario in mind; observe and shoot the oncoming Russian horde from behind a mask position. The software was never designed to accommodate dynamic firing profiles. The Hellfire/Stinger symbology are reliant on the MMS and NAV system to provide steering and range information for the missiles. For guided weapons you just have to point in the right direction. The workaround firing technique used to aim the gun/rockets was a ballistic reference mark (grease pencil mark) on the windscreen to provide a general reference where the rounds would fall. Each pilot would have a different mark, and aiming was entirely reliant on the skill and training of the pilot.

Maybe I can add a little bit to the discussion, and alleviate some miss-perception. Stinger was fielded on KW through the "E" version - that is FIM-92 RMP Blk I. Blk II did not exist in the time that ATAS hardware was removed from 58Ds in the 2003-2005 timeframe. Had the requirement still existed through 2017, I'm sure the Blk II could have been integrated, but as stated above it did not exist in those days. In the same vein, the GAU-19B was tested and qualified on the KW, but never fielded. Whether that affects the argument about balance; I'll leave it up to you guys to discuss. In terms of pure "fielded systems only" realism, I think this answers that aspect.

Loved the ODA. Big benefit to keeping your head up and outside when flying NVGs

KW did have a sophisticated HUD; the "PDU" (Pilot Display Unit). Was a two-pane unit, capable of displaying full weapons symbology. Attached to the frame at the top of the windscreen and hung down. Was a bit bulky. It was NVG compatible, but we were restricted from using them at night because there was a tendency to knock your NVGs off when it was mounted. Consequently, they just sat in the arms room. Hardpoints and wiring were removed from all aircraft in 2004 as part of a weight-reduction initiative.

True statement, but it was a fully developed and functional weapon system the KW used for many years.

Yes, it was tested and qualified. The GAU-19B was intended to be fielded to the OH58F, the upgrade to OH58D. Same airframe, hardpoints, etc. Only difference to 58F was a new cockpit suite, new sensor, and lightened/modernized components. The weapon was tested on the 58D because no 58Fs were available yet. As for application though - aside from looking cool, providing better reliability, and a somewhat more precise beaten-zone, the GAU19D provided no increase in firepower or capability. It fired the same .50cal ammunition, and used the same ammo-handling system, so carried the same amount of rounds. So no difference in application/firepower.

To simplify your build, you can exclude the "Remote ICS (#1)" switch. That was removed years ago. Also, the "RPM Trim (#8) is not something you'd utilize in-mission. The only time you mess with that is on startup to set the Nr at 100%. #5 "Heading Hold" wasn't used that often IRL. With the AI autopilot, it may not be worth the effort to model for the game. #4 "Searchlight Control" will only be useful if you plan to manipulate the Landing Light/NVG Searchlight a lot during mission. Used every day IRL; not sure how useful it'll be for DCS.

Hey folks, I'll work on vid 5 in the series soon. Releases will start to slow down because I'll reach the point where showing alpha builds of the screens, menus, etc will be counterproductive, as there are still features that aren't implemented. Talking in depth about something that is yet to be fully fleshed-out or already identified as needing correction would just add confusion or false expectations. With that said, I'll definitely continue to provide content for stuff I feel you might find value in.

The force trim in KW is the mag-brake type. Very few (almost none) pilots flew with the force trim engaged. The aircraft has a SCAS system which smooths unwanted or uncommanded control inputs (e.g. wind gusts), with up to 10% authority over the controls. Most pilots prefered to fly with the fine control touch afforded by leaving FT off. FT was used primarily while the aircraft was on the ground to hold the cyclic in place. See this thread. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=251704&page=20