If I can fly the chopper in this game, does it mean I can do it in real life too?

I can fly anything - I just can't get it back on ground in one piece. :D

 

:megalol:

 

Landing.......Ppfffftttttt - Overrated :D

:megalol:

 

Landing.......Ppfffftttttt - Overrated :D

Aannd thats the motto in the 159th :D

Sig talk more then 1000 words :D...

Tricky weather, over-confidence, reckless behavior, advanced maneuvers... sure these will get you in trouble. However I maintain someone approaching a real Ka-50 with a solid sim background and the humility of a beginner student pilot will most likely complete a simple trip around the block. It might take 30 minutes tooling around at a partial hover for control, taxing around the airfield several times for control feeling, and flying it like a 747 but up, around, and down I would put money on.

 

 

I'm sorry but what you're saying there cannot happen.

Simulators as a hobby teach overconfidence. Because when we do something stupid or something that was just plain wrong we can restart it. How many people actually perform all of the tests as part of the KA-50's start-up procedure? Actually pay attention to the temperatures and what not during the start-up. I know I don't, because I know it ain't ever going to spike or cause me a problem.

 

Although you mention the humility of a beginner student pilot, this would be theoretical only. No body in their right mind would actually do that - unless they had been developing overconfidence from a "high" fidelity simulator.

 

Now I'm not saying that DCS is shoddy in terms of realism, it's not. However it is still a long way from reality.

 

But surely the biggest issue of whether or not someone could fly the Kamov after having learnt it in DCS is the airmanship side of things. How would someone interact with the tower, do you even know where the PTT is in the Shark? What do you do if there's another aircraft or helicopter coming at you.

 

What if another Kamov is ground taxying past you, what are you going to do about the effects of it's rotor wash?

 

There are far too many variables that you cannot learn from DCS.

 

You can learn procedures and as JimMack said switchology.

 

Perhaps I'm spoilt because I have a license, call me elitist or whatever, but without proper training you will not be able to fly anything safely, with good airmanship and within limits.

 

Flying is not some Godly act. It requires respect, education, concentration, humility but anyone can do it. It bugs me to hear flying spoken of as if there is some insurmountable gap between the elites and the rest.

 

So bearing in mind your knowledge that it requires respect, education, concentration and humility you still believe that someone with no actual experience can fly something straight off the bat?

 

Flying is not about physically controlling the thing. It is about command decision.

 

 

all I'm saying is that like anything else of course you would need to fly the real thing to gain the proper training and ability...HOWEVER

 

simulators especially new ones I believe really do assist in giving you many aspects of training...navigation both gps, vor...military also, weapons etc...

 

Doesn't instil that feeling of fear when you know you are lost, it's dark and you're running low on fuel. :helpsmilie:

 

Flight training teaches you not to make the big mistakes that will kill you. You always make mistakes because of human nature, the training weeds out the big ones and lets you make little ones that you can survive.

http://gizmodo.com/5511258/your-videogame-driving-skills-dont-apply-in-real-life

I'm sorry but what you're saying there cannot happen.

 

Well... my first flight was after only simulator experience and only 1 hour of some simple ground talk, mostly about non-airmanship stuff. So... not only can it happen, it did happen. I DID IT.

Simulators as a hobby teach overconfidence. Because when we do something stupid or something that was just plain wrong we can restart it. How many people actually perform all of the tests as part of the KA-50's start-up procedure? Actually pay attention to the temperatures and what not during the start-up. I know I don't, because I know it ain't ever going to spike or cause me a problem.

Hmm, I wasn't overconfident my first flight. It was somewhat intimidating. Are you really so convinced of a flight simmer's arrogance that you think his attitude won't change climbing into a real cockpit? To be really fair, those tests come up "OK" most of the time. Skipping them on one flight isn't going to make a big difference to the raw probability of success.

 

Although you mention the humility of a beginner student pilot, this would be theoretical only. No body in their right mind would actually do that - unless they had been developing overconfidence from a "high" fidelity simulator.

You criticize this theoretical question by saying it's not practical? You get the 2010 Missing the Point Award early because no one's going to surpass you for the rest of the year. The question wasn't "Is this a good idea?" or "Is anyone going to actually let me do this?" The question was exactly, in the theoretical, I attempt to fly a Ka-50 with simulator experience: "Can I fly it?" And I'm going to impose the criteria that >50% chance of success means a "Yes" answer and <50% chance means a "No" answer.

 

How would someone interact with the tower, do you even know where the PTT is in the Shark? What do you do if there's another aircraft or helicopter coming at you. What if another Kamov is ground taxying past you, what are you going to do about the effects of it's rotor wash?

Who said anything about doing a sortie in a busy environment by the book? The question was can I fly it, as in, can he make it physically fly around and put it down back where he started; man and machine against nature. In this scenario there is no tower, no other aircraft, no insurance companies, no angry military trying to get their borrowed whirlybird back.

 

Perhaps I'm spoiled because I have a license, call me elitist or whatever, but without proper training you will not be able to fly anything safely, with good airmanship and within limits.

No one said anything about the typical standards of aeronautical safety, legality, and comfort. These are not constraints of the original question. The question was could he (more likely than not) fly the thing.

 

So bearing in mind your knowledge that it requires respect, education, concentration and humility you still believe that someone with no actual experience can fly something straight off the bat?

Well, sim experience is experience but yes. My confidence in the completeness of one's ability is significantly lower but... yes. If I was some heartless (I don't care about anyone's safety) individual forced to bet $1000 on the success of such a theoretical flight, I would bet on the success outcome as being more likely than failure.

 

Flying is not about physically controlling the thing. It is about command decision.

Flying is about moving through the air and not touching the ground. Responsible, legal, accomplished flying is the things you said.

 

Doesn't instil that feeling of fear when you know you are lost, it's dark and you're running low on fuel. :helpsmilie:

 

For a 30 minute flight around the block started at 12:00... if the sun went down by 12:30 I have more worries than just the dark... it's the Apocalypse!

I'll pen you in as a special case :D

 

Aaaawwwww, so I never get to fly the real thing???? :cry: :D

Well, Al Qaeda thought they could fly after playing FSX and look how their landings turned out! (sorry, couldn't resist - please don't lock the thread).

 

Interestingly, a FAA rated version of x-plane (requires rated control hardware) can be logged as flight time. However, this is an adjunct to real flight time, not a pure substitute for it.

 

http://www.x-plane.com/pg_certified.html

Well, Al Qaeda thought they could fly after playing FSX...

First, they had real life lessons in a single engine propellor aircraft. Second, can't believe you brought that up......

Indeed, they went to a flight school to "learn basic flying". That's actually common knowledge & a bit shocked at the ignorance of the suggestion of FSX.

 

It wasn't even released yet dude. Hell, there was FS2004 before it ;)

 

Honestly, where sims will help out the most is your IFR rating. Everything else will give you the general idea.

 

An old friend was flying with another (not my friend's plane)...both licensed pilots. At any rate, the friend started to panic when an instrument (I forget which) started to act strangely. My friend simply held his hands up and said "leave her be, she's doing just fine".

 

In short, nothing can replace the feeling of the aircraft as well as your own senses.

In short, nothing can replace the feeling of the aircraft as well as your own senses.

Say wa???

As in NOT trusting your instruments above your gut feeling?

That's the worst thing you can do, even in clear sky's and good visibility its easy to get an false sense of orientation if your not using your instruments.

 

Believe, pilots have flown there fixed/rotary wing craft right into the deck in what can be considered as good weather conditions because they trusted there gut feeling more then there instruments.....

 

I don't know of any cases that prove the opposite.

 

Ontopic, flight simulators can for 100% be used as an replacement of the real aircraft.

Just depends on the simulator your using, for example, if you get in the full motion simulator at eurocopter and get your license in it you can fly the real thing straight away whitout an copilot or instructor.

and that's a FACT

 

If someone can learn enough from a average desktop simulator and pull off the same trick? Unlikely but expect the unexpected.

 

As for my personal experience

I went for a flight in a glider, few mins in the air, pilot and i been chatting abit about flight simulators and my hobby model flying, and he said he needed to orientate himself.

So he asked if i felt ok and take control for a minute or two, sure i said.

I flew the remaining 6 mins back to the field and handed over the control on the last leg before finals.

 

^^^^above happend when i was 12 or 13^^^^

 

Somewhat later in my life i had won a flight in a cessna, was at an airshow and they set up a challenge for people, it was

Land the aircraft (on a simulator) whithin an as short amount of time on the runway and win a real flight.

There was one pilot quicker then, and that was the TEST PILOT of the real aircraft.

So i won the flight, and here again they let me fly for a bit which wasnt all to hard, making an 2 minute turn and flying trough your own turbulence wasnt something i managed to do, though it was a nice challenge.

 

^^^was about 14 orso^^

 

Few years later i was having an internship at an helicopter operator.

Was there as an mechanic and learning how to maintain the damn things.

Sure enough there where some tests flight's and i got to fly an Aero Spatial

As 355 Twinstar.

Flew it straight and lvl quite well, and turning was ok but not perfect.

 

^^^^that was when i was 16 or 17^^^^

 

So WITHOUT even having flown an realistic simulator which you can control like the real thing. I say it is pretty damn well possible some of the guys that are flying the shark in there homepit can take it for a spin in real and get back safely.

 

Whether they will follow all applicable communication protocols and the like is a different story.

 

ps, the helicopter i flew was the one in the picture. (no not in the stadium:))

don't remember the registrations of the other 2 aircraft though.

I'm sorry but what you're saying there cannot happen.

Simulators as a hobby teach overconfidence. Because when we do something stupid or something that was just plain wrong we can restart it. How many people actually perform all of the tests as part of the KA-50's start-up procedure? Actually pay attention to the temperatures and what not during the start-up. I know I don't, because I know it ain't ever going to spike or cause me a problem.

 

 

NOT TRUE....every time I die in Blackshark I actually purposely tilt back in my chair and fall to the ground sometimes injuring myself with a cut and bruise or more severely...just to simulate the real thing

 

 

PS Falcon1906 is da man...I nominate him for president of ED

Edited April 8, 2010 by Downey Jr.

Aye Falcon, my own point is that while possible, it is not sufficiently likely. For example, even if it holds true for 95% of people you're still looking at possibly losing an airframe and possibly a pilot every one in 20 starts, which is not acceptable.

 

Ka-52 is a slightly different thing - it's a twinseater so you can hedge your bets with an instructor and thereby ensure that things don't go to hell.

Say wa???

As in NOT trusting your instruments above your gut feeling?

That's the worst thing you can do, even in clear sky's and good visibility its easy to get an false sense of orientation if your not using your instruments.

 

Believe, pilots have flown there fixed/rotary wing craft right into the deck in what can be considered as good weather conditions because they trusted there gut feeling more then there instruments.....

 

I don't know of any cases that prove the opposite.

 

I didn't say "your gut", you did.

 

What a sim like DCS and FSX can't do is replace what you feel, hear, smell, etc while inside an aircraft. My example above with my friend wasn't a "gut feeling", it is what he knew/noticed about the aircraft's attitude.

 

Why do you think airline simulators look like this?

 

 

Once again, the biggest thing sims like FSX (and the like) help you learn (as opposed to actual flying) is IFR.

 

Honestly, there is a LOT more to flying than just yanking around a joystick. Talk to any glider (sailplane) pilot who don't depend on an engine, they're the perfect source to tell you that a huge part of piloting is attitude.

 

Otherwise, everyone here who can take off and land your BS would be a pilot.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Booger

Honestly, there is a LOT more to flying than just yanking around a joystick. Talk to any glider (sailplane) pilot who don't depend on an engine, they're the perfect source to tell you that a huge part of piloting is attitude.

 

That said, the sim tests I mentioned were for gliders in the UK, using the Condor simulator. But also as I mentioned - they still needed about 5 flights before they felt they could release the student on a solo.

Honestly, there is a LOT more to flying than just yanking around a joystick. Talk to any glider (sailplane) pilot who don't depend on an engine, they're the perfect source to tell you that a huge part of piloting is attitude.

 

Otherwise, everyone here who can take off and land your BS would be a pilot.

 

I don't think ANY of us on this forum community would ever think its just yanking around a joystick...but could we make an educated case on how to fly a glider? yeah I think so...hitting wind thermals on what surfaces, mountains, how to glide and gain/lose altitude etc. at least we have the idea down right?

 

and your analogy of everyone would then be a pilot if they could fly BS is flawed... seeing as what it actually takes to become a pilot requires years and dedication from your life.

 

case in point I was seriously thinking about being a pilot rather than going fully into the music business, could I have been a pilot? I think so on some level, I'm a good student and obviously I love flight sims since I was 4-6 years old. but many things including location of schools, life etc...made me stick with music.

 

hell everyone with computers and usb/firewire can record their own music, but does everyone succeed or do great? some do and some don't but the majority DESPITE being awesome songwriters/bands never get signed and make money...just like many could be great pilots and don't become pilots.

Well... my first flight was after only simulator experience and only 1 hour of some simple ground talk, mostly about non-airmanship stuff. So... not only can it happen, it did happen. I DID IT.

 

With or without an instructor... I suspect the latter. I can to this day describe the feeling of sheer terror and excitement that surrounded my first solo flight. It's like the first time you had sex, only it lasts a lot longer and is a helluva lot better and scarier, even when you don't wrap it up. Your point is moot you had the safety net of someone who DID not want to die that day.

 

 

Hmm, I wasn't overconfident my first flight. It was somewhat intimidating. Are you really so convinced of a flight simmer's arrogance that you think his attitude won't change climbing into a real cockpit? To be really fair, those tests come up "OK" most of the time. Skipping them on one flight isn't going to make a big difference to the raw probability of success.

Yes I am convinced, because I have seen it. I have seen a so-called simmer stroll into my flying school several years ago proclaiming to know how to do it. He couldn't start the engine. Plus you had the safety net of an instructor who like most of us has the desire to remain alive for as long as possible.

 

You criticize this theoretical question by saying it's not practical? You get the 2010 Missing the Point Award early because no one's going to surpass you for the rest of the year. The question wasn't "Is this a good idea?" or "Is anyone going to actually let me do this?" The question was exactly, in the theoretical, I attempt to fly a Ka-50 with simulator experience: "Can I fly it?" And I'm going to impose the criteria that >50% chance of success means a "Yes" answer and <50% chance means a "No" answer.

Not quite... I fully understand that we are entirely talking about a hypothetical situation. What you're missing is that I don't think, that even theoretically, this is possible. And seriously would you take a 50% chance of survival? Of course I have more chance of being killed on the way to the airport. But we're looking at this objectively. Is it theoretically possible that someone could do this without killing themselves? Nope. A snowball in hell has more chance.

 

Who said anything about doing a sortie in a busy environment by the book? The question was can I fly it, as in, can he make it physically fly around and put it down back where he started; man and machine against nature. In this scenario there is no tower, no other aircraft, no insurance companies, no angry military trying to get their borrowed whirlybird back.

Well if we're going to take our 'hardcore' simmer attitude into the real world, why on Earth would we not do this by the book? That's the whole point of DCS:BS right, we're doing it by the book. So unless you're saying let's play Real Life BS in 'Game Mode'... I think what you're asking is: is this possible? No it's not. You are never going to get this perfect situation where there's no tower and nothing else in the way. See this is the problem. We have to transpose this hypothetical situation into the real world. The question is simply if you can fly the thing in a sim can you fly it in the real world. No. Real world factors play too much of a role. Have you ever dealt with real world factors affecting the operation of an aircraft, as aircraft commander?

 

Sure my experience is limited. I have flown a handful of SEPS, King Air 200 and Citation Mustangs and while I will say FS X had some help in getting me to understand the Garmin G1000 it in no way helped to fly the thing. It helped to manage the navigation system only. And even then, the real thing was a little different to the simulator version. We're talking about the consequences of using a piece of commercial software, that is designed to make money, and then transposing this to a real aircraft. Ultimately, let's face it, none of us outside of ED really know how much of the Shark is perfectly in tune with the real world counterpart - especially given the lack of production of this type.

 

 

No one said anything about the typical standards of aeronautical safety, legality, and comfort. These are not constraints of the original question. The question was could he (more likely than not) fly the thing.

The answer is still no. Without that safety net of an instructor it would 99% of the time end in something horrible. Have you not seen the video of the chap who bought a Schweizer 300 and wanted to fly it before he'd had a lesson? Yeah you guessed it, helicopter was written off. Idiot survived but is prime candidate for a Darwin Award next time he tries something of this nature.

 

Well, sim experience is experience but yes. My confidence in the completeness of one's ability is significantly lower but... yes. If I was some heartless (I don't care about anyone's safety) individual forced to bet $1000 on the success of such a theoretical flight, I would bet on the success outcome as being more likely than failure.

You see the real problem with this entire hypothetical situation is: Real pilots will disagree, because we have been through training made the silly mistakes. Have had the fear that comes with total responsibility. Yes this is probably a very elitist statement, but that is something that a pure simmer cannot understand. Do you know what it's like to be legally responsible for the lives of three other people or even that of 300? The fact their longevity rests entirely upon the decisions you make in the next thirty seconds? For sure you can go out and be reckless on your own. But when you f**k up and know that the souls on board are your responsibility then perhaps you can actually see the viewpoint that is being presented.

 

Flying is about moving through the air and not touching the ground. Responsible, legal, accomplished flying is the things you said.

Flying has always, and will always, be about command decision. Physically controlling the craft is one thing - in fact it's the easy part of fixed wing flying. And I still stand by my laurels, just because you can hover a Kamov in DCS does not mean you can do it in real life, unless you have the relevant real life experience. I can hover helicopters, I can fly them happily. I am not however licensed. I have never flown a helicopter solo. I can happily throw the Kamov around like there's no tomorrow. But I would not feel confident enough in my abilities to take one up and survive the experience. There are just too many variables.

 

And this brings us back to what flying really is. Command decision. Simulators do not teach you command decision. Experience teaches you command decision, and it is command decision that gets you home alive.

What's flawed is the suggestion that my message was: piloting is based on "gut feelings".

 

I've been flying gliders since I was 15 lol. If you think that a desktop flight sim can replace learning (or being familiar with) the attitude of an actual aircraft or the environment you're operating in, you are sadly mistaken.

 

There is no pause button for bathroom breaks, no slew mode and there sure's hell aren't any labels hovering over traffic. Do I honestly need to mention preflights?

 

Will a flight sim give you the basic idea of just flying an aircraft? What did I say two posts ago?

 

Honestly, where sims will help out the most is your IFR rating. Everything else will give you the general idea.

Again, the most a desktop flight sim can offer is assisting you to learn IFR.

 

"The most", not "only".

 

Edits to add:

 

I can sit my 5 year old son in front of the XBox and watch him win at a grand prix game but most certainly wouldn't expect him to do very well sitting on my lap as he's steering my truck down a dirt road...even if he had "the general idea".

Edited April 8, 2010 by Booger

I don't say that desktop flight simulators don't teach arrogance and wrong attitudes about flying but I say that it isn't automatically so. I thinks there's no one who hasn't crashed (without enemy help) the KA-50 in DCS at least once while trying to fly safely and putting some effort to staying alive. When you think about that, it should teach a lot of humility about flying a real aircraft.

 

This same thought process really changed my way of driving a car. Or more exactly my mental strategy about driving a car. I noticed while playing RBR that crashing was really easy even if you tried to stay well clear of your limits. I could stay on the road while going to my limits if I could stay focused, but that would happen only for a really short time. Any prolonged driving session would require me to back down in big way and really put some mental effort to my driving. And if you have ever tried to drive around in GTA without bumping anyone while speeding you would know that it's impossible. You would have to slow down at every street corner and when near other cars as that's the only way to avoid a crash. Only on a clear street it's somewhat safe to go over the speed limit. When you consider this it's pretty clear that avoiding an accident takes a lot of effort as theres so many things that you can screw up. And a simulator gamer has a practical proof about it.

 

While I'm not a very slow driver as I only enjoy driving a car to it's limits, I still drive rather slow. I try to match my driving speed to situation, my driving skills, wakefulness, etc. so as to give myself room to screw up and still get away with it. I really picked up this habit only after I realized how much I crash in racing simulators and how prone to human errors I was. I was pretty good at statistics and propabilities at school (engineering) and I can say that I understand them quite well and how easily you can become part of them.

 

Actually, I would say that arrogance isn't something you pick up from a simulator game but that you have tendency for as a part of your personality (being young or stupid, or both). As I have stated, simulators provide data, and it's responsibility of the user to take heed of the lessons it provides and the ones it doesn't. Only an arrogant or stupid person would consider a game to provide something that it doesn't without putting some thought on the matter first.

 

Some random thoughts on previous comments:

 

Is it not flying if there is someone watching out for you while he is not actually doing anything?

 

What is considered flying ability? What is considered driving ability? In Finland we have some 16 year old kids who are rally drivers, hold no drivers license, can beat 99% of licenced drivers on a rally course and who would be dangerous on public roads as they don't necessarily know all the stuff regarding traffic rules, etc.

 

Not being able to start the engine = doesn't have flying skill? I have had a car that needed some skill to get it running. Does driving skill make people able to start an unfamiliar car? Or flying skill start an engine of an unfamiliar aircraft?

 

Doesn't car driving provide you with some fear and respect of reality? Do you really need to fly in order to understand that mistakes might cost lives?

 

What kind of deadly mistakes there are that you need to learn about through actually flying instead of classroom teaching and simulators?

 

Would it be sufficient to say that you might be able to fly with flight sim experience alone but it would be stupid and irresponsible to try it without proper education and supervision?

"Do you know what it's like to be legally responsible for the lives of three other people"

 

Most people on this forum will know Exactly how this feels! Or even more - to be responsible for the Childs Life in the back seat or anyone coming towards you on the same road.

 

Anyone with a car licence knows what this feels like.

 

Rfactor turns me into a foaming at the mouth, hell or death driver who crashes all the time. Sitting im my car turns me into a serious, responsible driver.

 

I think for most people sitting in a real life helicopter would produce the same results.

Not quite... I fully understand that we are entirely talking about a hypothetical situation. What you're missing is that I don't think, that even theoretically, this is possible. And seriously would you take a 50% chance of survival?

 

Do your sentences ever talk to one another? First you acknowledge this is a hypothetical situation of academic interest absolutely independent of concepts of risk, prudence, or legality... and then you immediately fall back to talking about risk?

 

why on Earth would we not do this by the book? You are never going to get this perfect situation where there's no tower and nothing else in the way.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theoretical

 

Physically controlling the craft is one thing

right... also the thing this entire thread is about. The stuff you go into detail about is not.

 

There are aircraft that don't have provision for more than one person that were used for training. Plenty of people have solo'd on their first flight. Many early aviators taught themselves how to fly without the concept of instructors.

 

I should perhaps clarify my position. Just because one can wrangle the virtual Ka-50 around DCS without snapping it in half does not give you more-likely-than-not odds of flying the real thing. The real thing is going to be harder than the virtual thing for the most part. However, if you are a very accomplished virtual Ka-50 pilot with the in-depth knowledge that accompanies a devotee of the study sim, you are more-likely-than-not going to accomplish a theoretical basic flight that focuses solely on airmanship.

 

I guess I'm really answering the question "Just because I only have experience in sim, can I not fly the real thing?"

 

I mean, I guess some airheads have tried to fly, boasted their skills and done poorly. These anecdotal examples are precisely the people that do not even qualify as candidates for the original question as input.

 

When I wanted to learn to sail I read books for a year and it occupied many of my waking and semi-conscious thoughts. When I was first presented with a sailboat... I went motherflippin' sailing. The first time I went skiing I ditched the half-hour bunny slopes class and went on a blue-square (intermediate, I was unaware of the grading system). Scared the heck out of me and it was rather a good example of straightline motion... but I did it in one piece and standing up. Maybe I'm some magical, unique individual but I doubt it. The human being is not a creature to be underestimated. There are sim-only pilots out there that outclass me, despite me having an actual certificate.

So you now want to compare the dawn of aviation with a complex helicopter?

 

Sure plenty of people taught themselves, and plenty of these people ended up dead or injured. Hardly helps reinforce your point does it?

 

Either way let's just agree to disagree before this goes round in circles as we're getting to the stage of splitting hairs.

 

This is afterall the internet, and therefore I am entitled to be an opinionated a$$ and disagree with everything you say.

lol - Its true though - noone will ever be in a situation there they can get into a KA-50 and fly it around. (not unless they want to vanish for a long long time once the authorities find them)

 

This will never be resolved.

 

Personally - im just going to pretend that if i did find myself in a real Shark! I would be able to fly it.

Edited April 9, 2010 by talisman

Tbh, I think the biggest issue to not getting in the situation of getting to fly a Ka-50 IRL is that there's damn few of them and there's not being new ones built. If it was as widely constructed as the Hind, f.ex, it wouldn't be impossible - just a matter of time. (There are quite a few Hinds in civilian hands.)

If it was as widely constructed as the Hind, f.ex, it wouldn't be impossible - just a matter of time. (There are quite a few Hinds in civilian hands.)

 

Ironically the MI-24 is an aircraft that i CAN actually play around with. As part of my playtime i get to play with all sorts of ex USSR hardware.

 

The Hind i refer to was used in east Germany to patrol the Berlin wall.

 

I was sat in an MI-24 last week, did you know that they use some of the same panels as the Ka-50? I didnt, but they do!