Gazelle Flight Dynamics... Again.

[Hawkeye60]

The idea of havng a live event with one of the french guys sounds like fun, but I doupt that this would be possible at all, cause we also have the responsibility to protect our sources, cause as stated before, some of the sources are active pilots that do fight in not so pleasent wars too.

Maybe in the future, the department I am talking too at the moment, could open up and do an interview. I can ask them but the first question will be like, what is this for and what questions do the people of the community have, plus in that case it is a real department of the army, not just a single pilot.

 

Maybe I could arrange a live event where some people of the community could be invited into the comms chat and this could be published as livefeed throught twich or so. This depends on the availability of the pilots. I can imagine that one of them might be willing to do such, but that would have to be planned and there would be some questions that are no goes, for example names, or missions the pilot has been active in or where he fought in general, stuff like that. So for such an event, if the pilot is willing to do such, this would require some planning.

 

For a different helicopter that I am working on I know that this livefeed and interview would defenately be possible, cause as soon the pilot, I am working with in that project, hears about that idea he is more then happy to go for it, I can imagine, plus, he is a good friend of mine.

 

BaD CrC, thanks for the inspiration for some cool marketing events possible to get closer ties to the community in the future again after all this silence.

 

Maybe the best question asked that day, wins a price. Have to see.

 

Ok, back to work, need to get something finished so it can go into coding. __________________

This is a wonderful idea!

Perhaps you could just submit questions to a pilot and post the answers as a text file. No live feed at all. This way, we could ask a few questions and you could choose what to submit to the pilot.

The names and locations shall remain private!

 

Thank you!

Give my regards to Blinky! (I've missed him!):D

 

Hawkeye

[FragBum]

This is a wonderful idea!

Perhaps you could just submit questions to a pilot and post the answers as a text file. No live feed at all. This way, we could ask a few questions and you could choose what to submit to the pilot.

The names and locations shall remain private!

 

Thank you!

Give my regards to Blinky! (I've missed him!):D

 

Hawkeye

 

Preferred method, seems we have a bad rep with the way some members treat actual Gazelle pilots, I'm sorry I just don't think a rinse and repeat with yet another pilot is in any way constructive.

 

Some observations form a V-PIT pilot. So I'll start with these.

 

As I understand it, in reality the Gazelle can not fly upside down. Maybe and I believe there is a photo in this (as well as directions to preform a roll in a Gazelle from a pilot) or a related thread of an actual Gazelle rolling through inverted.

 

I've seen the videos showing actual inverted flight and in that circumstance it appears to be either a "bug"or an exception or out of range condition not caught in the FM. Still trying to get into this mode. Research of course. :music_whistling:

 

Ground effect, well with the Gazelle loaded with crew and 70% fuel etc the Gazelle is borderline over weight AFAIK, when the fuel level gets down to 30% better still 20% ground effect appears to be modelled, more so at 2 to 3%. :) It may well be that at heavier loads the Gazelle is predominantly under-powered. That's how it feels.

 

Correcting attitude coming out of turns, well this seems variable and more dependent on SAS (AP?) to me the Gazelle SAS seems to to attempt to hold the attitude you set handy if you want to aim missiles of guns at a specific target. The same as with SAS off and just flying the Gazelle it seems to have a greater degree of control albeit you need to provide the necessary control inputs. In other words the Gazelle in the correct conditions is a versatile and agile platform. I do think however at 150Kph it should with SAS off always windmill into direction of flight. I didn't really realise it but I just corrected and continued on flying.

 

The spinning thing I think I can get into this and maybe it's unrealistic after a point maybe something not caught in processing. But this shouldn't be confused with the ability to turn or even spin to a degree given it is an agile bird.

 

The express elevator down. Well I generally try to fly within the envelope but you can drop at an extraordinary rate and seemingly just stop and fly horizontal. I have been in an L39 doing a "strike run" and the G forces where awesome and prolonged, the pilot said he was being gentle with me. Stick time in that was awesome too. ;)

 

Don't get me wrong I actually do enjoy flying the Gazelle and when lightly loaded with SAS turned off hovering feels very similar to the R44. In my very limited limited experience, just the way the Gazelle tries to get it's own way and the way it (V-SIM and rift) responds to corrections.

 

:thumbup:

[MAD_MIKE]

@BaD CrC:

......

 

Ok, back to work, need to get something finished so it can go into coding.

 

:pilotfly:

[paradoxbox]

Not trying to get on anyone's nerves here, but is any progress being made on this flight model?

 

I like the helicopter itself but as others have mentioned it's got some glaring issues. It's been a pretty long time since release but I haven't seen much in the way of changes to the flight model.

 

Willing to wait patiently but would like to see some occasional progress even if small and in bits and pieces over time.

 

Any news?

[grunf]

Not trying to get on anyone's nerves here, but is any progress being made on this flight model?

 

I like the helicopter itself but as others have mentioned it's got some glaring issues. It's been a pretty long time since release but I haven't seen much in the way of changes to the flight model.

 

Willing to wait patiently but would like to see some occasional progress even if small and in bits and pieces over time.

 

Any news?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3241081&postcount=1

[paradoxbox]

Thank you, that is good news.

[River]

Will the flight model stay this way or are they working on an update ?

[swatstar98]

Will the flight model stay this way or are they working on an update ?

They are working, and has been said several times.

[nessuno0505]

I know polychop Is working and that's ok, but my question Is: to date, Is the Flight model of the Gazelle still the same as at the beginning of this topic?

[The Falcon]

Is it so difficult to make a correct flight model for a helicopter?

[SilentGun]

Is it so difficult to make a correct flight model for a helicopter?

 

Well i agree with the idea of the Gazelle flight model not being fluid like other helicopter models, but this statement is just bold... How many flight models have you coded for flight sims?

[The Falcon]

Well i agree with the idea of the Gazelle flight model not being fluid like other helicopter models, but this statement is just bold... How many flight models have you coded for flight sims?

Well I could answer; how hard is it to ask pilots for advice on how a helicopter should fly?

[Fri13]

Well I could answer; how hard is it to ask pilots for advice on how a helicopter should fly?

 

Very hard. That is why we are in this situation as they had real pilots feedback. And now they need to rework FM.

[cromhunt]

If i use comparaison with cars and cars simulations.If I suppose most of us have already drive a car.Now how many among us are able to give a good advice for a particular model?Or simply how many can explain the difference to drive between a real GT car and a real DTM car.Surely nobody.But we are able to talk about that in a simulator.As like we do it here.

And it is useless.

[ghost84]

Or simply how many can explain the difference to drive between a real GT car and a real DTM car.Surely nobody.But we are able to talk about that in a simulator.As like we do it here.

And it is useless.

Negative. The law of physics applies to both of them. You can judge from your limited car experience that there must something be wrong, when for example the DTM car doesn't slowly lose speed when you move your foot away from the accelerator (at a level road, without braking).

The same applies to fundamental behaviour of helicopters and airplanes.

[BaD CrC]

Generally speaking, coding an helicopter FM is an order of magnitude more complex than a fixed wing. Imagine coding one big fix wing versus 2 or 4 (or 6 for the Ka50) rotating ones constantly changing Aoa and flexing. Add to that a propeller that pushes sideway (tail rotor). This adds some interesting consequences: vortex ring state, settling with power, loss of tail rotor effectiveness, dynamic rollover, retreating blade stall, in ground effect, effective transitional lift,... And of course a permanent unstability and 4 controls (cyclic, collective, thrust, rudder) that are intricately correlated. Things that FW pilots don't really need to worry about. Also the reason why there are so few (serious) choppers developments in flight sim. Very complex and people are a bit reluctant to spend weeks just to learn how to hover when you can be a maverick in a few days shooting missiles at migs.

 

Some explanations of Polychop here:

 

[FBV]_CmYg8WPDrw[/FBV]

Edited December 2, 2019 by BaD CrC

[swatstar98]

Generally speaking, coding an helicopter FM is an order of magnitude more complex than a fixed wing. Imagine coding one big fix wing versus 2 or 4 (or 6 for the Ka50) rotating ones constantly changing Aoa and flexing. Add to that a propeller that pushes sideway (tail rotor). This adds some interesting consequences: vortex ring state, settling with power, loss of tail rotor effectiveness, dynamic rollover, retreating blade stall, in ground effect, effective transitional lift,... And of course a permanent unstability and 4 controls (cyclic, collective, thrust, rudder) that are intricately correlated. Things that FW pilots don't really need to worry about. Also the reason why there are so few (serious) choppers developments in flight sim. Very complex and people are a bit reluctant to spend weeks just to learn how to hover when you can be a maverick in a few days shooting missiles at migs.

 

Some explanations of Polychop here:

 

 

I corrected your post, the link was between the FB marks and no between YT marks. :thumbup::joystick:

[BaD CrC]

Thanks!

[Harlikwin]

Is it so difficult to make a correct flight model for a helicopter?

 

Um... look up the term dunning kruger bro...

[The Falcon]

Um... look up the term dunning kruger bro...

maybe you're right, in any case i hope the pilots' feedback can help them especially for things like helicopters and ww2 airplanes

[Holbeach]

maybe you're right, in any case i hope the pilots' feedback can help them especially for things like helicopters and ww2 airplanes

 

 

French airforce Pilots feedback has been recieved regularly, since the module came out, all stating it's exactly like the real thing.

Commercial pilot feedback has also been recieved, stating the oposite.

 

 

Who do you want to believe?

 

 

Demonstrating flying the machine inverted, or without a cyclic, had no effect on the argument.

 

 

You don't need to be a pilot to understand the physics involved in aircraft flight.

 

 

..

[rrohde]

FYou don't need to be a pilot to understand the physics involved in aircraft flight...

 

Understanding physics involved is not the same as being able to develop an verifiable, accurate, professional flight model and then evaluate it.

 

@Harlekwin - I never knew about this Dunning Kruger principle; how enlightening this is. :thumbup:

[CHPL]

One thing is for sure.

 

The real Gazelle has a unique flight model that can't be compared with the Huey. :smartass:

 

I also asked a french army pilot about the collective behavior in forwarding flight which is very unusual and get the same answer. It is as correct as a simulator can be.

 

So I am a commercial pilot, but never flown a Gazell in real life, and even if I find the flight module unusual and in some cases extreme, I have no reason to doubt it in his core.

 

The only thing I can't believe in DCS is, the Gazell seems to overcome the inertness of his mass. This leads to unbelievable und impossible maneuvers by very aggressive control inputs and to very abrupt reactions during hover to even the smallest inputs. :joystick:

[Sephyrius]

 

Demonstrating flying the machine inverted, or without a cyclic, had no effect on the argument.

..

 

Funny thing is, with the current "if you're not a military pilot of that exact model your argument is moot" going on we'd might as well argue that if you're not that AND have flown inverted you have no reason to doubt it. :doh:

 

My viggen flew just fine after losing a wing the other day, but hey, what do I know.

 

Edit: Nothing personal, I just meant in general.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Sephyrius

[Oldahpilot]

Flight model

 

I have to say that in my opinion the flight model is pretty good, the in game controls axis settings benefit from some serious tweaking thought to tame the beast. I'd advise getting the joystick between the knees if at all possible, that's where it is in the real aircraft after all. I've set my axis fine tune to 50% in the Y axis for roll and 80% for pitch., that seems to be more of a representation of the real control reactions when using a short throw joystick rather than a real floor mounted cyclic.

 

My experience in the real gazelle is limited to less than a thousand hours so I'm no expert and that was a lot of years ago! I moved on to Lynx which was child's play to handle compared to the gazelle. The gazelle was a real feel aircraft, ie......you think about changing direction and it's done, real on the edge handling, often described as balancing a bowling ball on a golf ball.....always trying to fall off in one direction or another.

 

For those new to rotary aircraft please bear in mind that students in the real aircraft are introduced to the three controls one at a time, then using two at a time, with an instructor ready to catch it when it falls. After a couple of hours your using all three controls trying to maintain a hover in a 'hover square' measuring 30m. First solo would be after 8 hours of take off....hover....fly the circuit. .....approach. ....hover and land. So don't be too hard on yourself or the developers if it takes time to master.

 

We had a saying in the British Army, .....After 50 hours you think you'll never know it all.....After 500 hours you think you know it all....and after 5000 hours you KNOW you'll never know it all!

 

Happy flying