How hard is it to fly?

[Stubbies2003]

On 9/6/2021 at 3:32 AM, Lurker said:

This is why I can't get into the F18C. It's just too much heads down and managing systems instead of actually, well flying.

 

Bummer for you.  Both the 18 and the 16 are great 4th gen fighters.  Love flying both and employing weapons.

[Hook47]

On 9/20/2021 at 6:27 PM, Rogue Trooper said:

Is it possible to switch off the AH-64s AP channels quickly?

 

Or are they just woven into the fabrique of the airframe?

 

Being a Soviet airframe flyer, I see where your coming from with this question. The 64 doesn't have AP channels like the Hind or Hip, it's a more interegrated stability solution. Like kgillers3 said, you can turn off force trim or cancel one of the hold modes, but you cannot turn off individual stability channels like the roll, pitch and yaw channels like you can on the Hind, Hip or Shark. 

[Steel Jaw]

On 10/10/2021 at 8:21 AM, Hook47 said:

you cannot turn off individual stability channels like the roll, pitch and yaw channels like you can on the Hind, Hip or Shark. 

 

Cant imagine any situation where you would want to.

[fastfed]

fly by wire, computer assisted, will be the easiest to fly, like the ka50 im sure

Edited October 13, 2021 by fastfed

[shagrat]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb fastfed:

fly by wire, computer controller, will be the easiest to fly, like the ka50 im sure

Definitely not, as the Ka-50 has a coaxial rotor that does not require pedal input to counter torque. The AH-64 has a normal setup, more like the Huey, but likely with less need to constantly correct and adjust all input axis, due to the stabilization system.

I am very curious how it will feel in DCS.

[MRTX]

Lul, why do people even stress themselves out with how "hard" it is to fly a helo in DCS. Just practice a little bit, and you'll see that its like riding a bike. The only thing that makes it harder than flying a fixed wing, is that you have to rely more on rudder input, and minding your engine rpm in older helicopters. Sure, your first takeoffs and landings will probably be a mess, but think about how it went when you first tried to fly fixed wings. 

[Rogue Trooper]

On 10/11/2021 at 4:24 PM, Mower said:

 

Cant imagine any situation where you would want to.

I can think of many situations where I will want to switch off all automated pilot assists.

But let us see how she handles first and foremost, perhaps raw man input is not required on the heavy 64D...  

Edited October 21, 2021 by Rogue Trooper

[Rogue Trooper]

1 hour ago, kgillers3 said:

Fmc release button on cyclic does that. Only thing that remains on is force trim. 
 

are you indicating a power increase with it off? There is no noticeable performance improvement with sas off. 
 

Attitude hold and force trim release yeah you gotta be careful but if you fly it normal it shouldn’t do anything wonky in game but you don’t have to fly with that anyways

how it flys without the stuff in game. Flight model 

 

No I am indicating improved roll and pitch manoeuvrability beyond the safe limits. moving faster and into more dangerous flight envelopes that may be far more beneficial when flying in the deadly Peer to Peer warfare DCS offers.

FMC sounds like it may be my best friend.

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Rogue Trooper

[Rogue Trooper]

I cannot wait to find out.

Limitations of an airframe is what makes it all worth while and interesting. it is what defines the sublime from the average.

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Rogue Trooper

[Rogue Trooper]

Well the KA-50 with no APs is my reference point.... these reference points are virtually impossible to replicate in "our" weight class.

It was designed from the wheels up as a fighter chopper. So off course here is my reference, lighter and faster with a whole hunk a punch.

But with out a doubt it does not have the optics of the apache both visually or in the X-ray band! it cannot organise targets like the 64D.

Even more critically the KA-50 does not have the fabulous defensive suite that the 64D has.

How do you compare the fabulous KA-50s roll against the 64D roll?

does the KA-50 pitch faster?

Edited October 22, 2021 by Rogue Trooper

[Rogue Trooper]

The Apache is a better war machine, for me there is no doubt.

But how does it roll or pitch when we need it it roll into a dive because a man launched missile was released of our 4 o'clock ?

in the KA-50 I can get out of most missile and heavy gun fire with just manoeuvring, if there was a medal for bringing back the most amount of decoy flairs.... I won it!

FMC sounds about right and will be one of the first buttons I programme.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Rogue Trooper

[Brass2-1]

@kgillers3 thanks for spending so much time explaining. Can’t wait for release day. 

[Rogue Trooper]

On 10/22/2021 at 1:11 PM, Brass2-1 said:

@kgillers3 thanks for spending so much time explaining. Can’t wait for release day. 

Agreed, I cannot wait too.

[JetCat]

Based on the Hind experience:

As long as one is not trying to make a hoover VTOL landing with all the wobbling and tail-rotor-activities and the vortex-ring state always lurking when trying to make the slightest VTOL descent..................... But instead landing the helicopter like it was a small PPL propeller airplane coming in to a runway with 40-60 knots, flaring, touching down with 30-50 knots and braking it to a halt with the wheels on the runway, it will be manageable to control.

The landings will be the biggest problem if the vortex ring state is simulated, which means crash and death awaits as soon as even the smallest descent rate while hoovering happens.

If the Apache has no vortex ring state simulated well flying and landing this heli will be absolutely easy and without any problems at all. But there is a 14 day trial version so we will see how it behaves and flies.

[Whirley]

On 10/22/2021 at 2:48 AM, Rogue Trooper said:

Well the KA-50 with no APs is my reference point.... these reference points are virtually impossible to replicate in "our" weight class.

It was designed from the wheels up as a fighter chopper. So off course here is my reference, lighter and faster with a whole hunk a punch.

...

 

I am not sure which one you meant to be lighter. But I find it interesting to note that according to the Ka-50 manual and Wikipedia the Ka-50 is heavier than the AH-64. Which is something I did not expect myself.

Ka-50

Empty 7,700 kg (16,976 lb)
Max takeoff 10,800 kg (23,810 lb)
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/dfc/DCS BS2 Flight Manual EN.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50#Specifications_(Ka-50)

 

AH-64

Empty 5,165 kg (11,387 lb)
Max takeoff 10,433 kg (23,000 lb)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Specifications_(AH-64A/D)

Edited November 14, 2021 by Whirley

[LooseSeal]

2 hours ago, Whirley said:

I am not sure which one you meant to be lighter. But I find it interesting to note that according to the Ka-50 manual and Wikipedia the Ka-50 is heavier than the AH-64. Which is something I did not expect myself.

It would have seemed about right to me. In terms of how they look, the Ka-50 is a rather chunky beast with a big, thick tail boom while the Apache is somewhat more... spindlier and conservative in its architecture. I'm also not sure, but I think the Ka-50 has more of an all-surrounding armour around the cockpit.

And this is just pure guesswork, but something tells me Russian construction materials (for the armour, for example) may well be heavier and more steel-based, while the US may prioritise lighter, more composite materials.

[AlphaOneSix]

2 hours ago, LooseSeal said:

And this is just pure guesswork, but something tells me Russian construction materials (for the armour, for example) may well be heavier and more steel-based, while the US may prioritise lighter, more composite materials.

Nope they are both aluminum. The structures on both are composed of the same materials, but the components on Russian helicopters tend to be heavier. Not heavier materials, just more beefy. In my experience, Russian components are "overbuilt" while Western components are built to much more exacting tolerances and are therefore light but also more expensive.

On 10/21/2021 at 8:48 PM, Rogue Trooper said:

It was designed from the wheels up as a fighter chopper.

I don't believe this is true, assuming you mean that it was supposed to be primarily an air-to-air platform. This is what NATO and the US thought initially when they first saw them, but it turns out that was never the case, and it was meant primarily to attack ground targets.

[Remco]

7 hours ago, Whirley said:

AH-64

Empty 5,165 kg (11,387 lb)
Max takeoff 10,433 kg (23,000 lb)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Specifications_(AH-64A/D)

 

Oh the old days when the Apache wasn't stuffed full of avionics. Gotta love Wikipedia just casually putting that slash between the A and D and pretending they're the same aircraft.

For clarity, that's A model empty weight, VERY optimistic for a D. Longbow empty weight is 13,420lb to 14,070lb depending on with or w/o FCR.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Remco

[bies]

10 hours ago, Whirley said:

I am not sure which one you meant to be lighter. But I find it interesting to note that according to the Ka-50 manual and Wikipedia the Ka-50 is heavier than the AH-64. Which is something I did not expect myself.

Ka-50

Empty 7,700 kg (16,976 lb)
Max takeoff 10,800 kg (23,810 lb)
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/dfc/DCS BS2 Flight Manual EN.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50#Specifications_(Ka-50)

 

AH-64

Empty 5,165 kg (11,387 lb)
Max takeoff 10,433 kg (23,000 lb)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Specifications_(AH-64A/D)

 

As Ranco said this mass is for 1980s / Desert Storm AH-64A, not AH-64D Longbow Apache.

In the interviews Apache pilots say AH-64D is considerably heavier, less maneuverable and has less excess power than AH-64A which they called"sport variant".

[Hummingbird]

Regarding the maneuverability of the 'copter, other than the P/W ratio, doesn't the disc loading also play an important role much the same as wing loading does for fixed wing aircraft?

[Rogue Trooper]

On 11/14/2021 at 2:57 PM, AlphaOneSix said:

Nope they are both aluminum. The structures on both are composed of the same materials, but the components on Russian helicopters tend to be heavier. Not heavier materials, just more beefy. In my experience, Russian components are "overbuilt" while Western components are built to much more exacting tolerances and are therefore light but also more expensive.

I don't believe this is true, assuming you mean that it was supposed to be primarily an air-to-air platform. This is what NATO and the US thought initially when they first saw them, but it turns out that was never the case, and it was meant primarily to attack ground targets.

Russian electronic kit, at this point in time, is also heavier. 

Russian kit does not benefit from global economics and globalisation of computer systems on an individual user basis, This massive investment in computer hardware and software applications simply propels western military electronic miniaturization in this time period.

Russian electronic circuits weigh so much more and achieve so much less. 

In some ways, democratic financial systems offered so much more to the population and that drove their own defensive weapons to superior advancement.

It is something a communist system will never be able to do....... unless it is Chinese!

obvie!

Edited November 15, 2021 by Rogue Trooper

[Rogue Trooper]

But the designers accounted for this, It is all about the centre of gravity below the contra rotating 6 blades that makes the KA-50 a thing of loveliness.

The power the pair of 3 contra rotating blades endows to the foot pedals is just something to behold. Foot Pedal Authority is just a thing in the KA-50... Yaw is just a seriously big axis in this machine!

However, The AH-64D is massive warfare awareness weapon ......... Massive!

A dog to get in to position for a firing solution when surrounded with Radar guided missile vehicles, no let me rephrase that..... Russian optical and Radar guided missile vehicles.... the very best ground to air defensive systems that can be fielded in modern warfare!

I reckon the Apache has it.... I reckon the machine has got the lot to do the job.... the pilot is a different story mind!

Edited November 15, 2021 by Rogue Trooper

[Remco]

50 minutes ago, Rogue Trooper said:

I reckon the machine has got the lot to do the job.... the pilot is a different story mind!

 

Well this is why we get two of them 

[Rogue Trooper]

On 11/14/2021 at 10:05 AM, Whirley said:

I am not sure which one you meant to be lighter. But I find it interesting to note that according to the Ka-50 manual and Wikipedia the Ka-50 is heavier than the AH-64. Which is something I did not expect myself.

Ka-50

Empty 7,700 kg (16,976 lb)
Max takeoff 10,800 kg (23,810 lb)
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/dfc/DCS BS2 Flight Manual EN.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50#Specifications_(Ka-50)

 

AH-64

Empty 5,165 kg (11,387 lb)
Max takeoff 10,433 kg (23,000 lb)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache#Specifications_(AH-64A/D)

 

Yeah it will be excellent if the Apache D turns out to be more manoeuvrable than the Kamov due to its light weight. 5,165Kg sounds incredibly light in comparison to the Kamov.

Of course we have 6 blades in the Kamov main rotor and no tail rotor bleeding energy from lift..... The Apache D has very weak engines of course, but apart from that it would be very cool if DCS BS3 and DCS AH-64 D school me proper on my wayward opinions. 

[pii]

On 9/3/2021 at 3:50 PM, VFGiPJP said:

Even easier than Ka-50? Dang, glad I did not buy that one -- yet.

The Ka-50 is awesome