Lock Shkval Forward

[heloguy]

Is there a way to lock the Shkval view forward?  I recently lost my hud due to ground fire on a mission, and wondered after the fact if I could have used the Shkval as a makeshift gunsight if it had been locked forward.  I can't seem to find a function in the manual that does this.

[Volk.]

On the left panel near the collective head, there's the K-041, then the Helmet sight switch and then one showing AT/TS. Default on AT gives automatic tracking. Flipping that down boresights your Shkval at a position where your cannon is ranged at 1.1km. I'm hazy if lasing now updates elevation. There is also the black knob near it titled "Cannon" that can be set to fix, but I think that only boresights your cannon, not necessarily your Shkval.

 

ps.

If you just lose the HUD, you're usually still able to use the Helmet sight/slewing hat to aim the Shkval, meaning the cannon still aims for you, so you might not need to go full boresight.

Typically if you lose the Shkval, then you lose the lasers as well, meaning that boresighted and looking through the HUD, you'll need to estimate bullet drop.

[heloguy]

Awesome, thanks.  I knew there was a way, I just forgot how over the years.

[zerO_crash]

When in TS-mode, the firing solution will be updated when using the laser. It will work just as in AT-mode, but won't slew the cannon. In other words, you get a firing solution, but the pointing of the cannon (boresighted) is your job. Pointing of the cannon is then done by pointing the whole helicopter.
 

As to the cannon-settings knob, that only controls how the cannon behaves, as opposed to the AT/TS-switch which controls the K-041 Rubin firing computer. In other words, setting the AT/TS-mode to AT and cannon to FIX, means that you will get automatic firing solutions and tracking for all other weapons (missiles, rockets, bombs, cannons, etc...) except the cannon, which will remain fixed. If you however set the AT/TS-mode to TS and the cannon-mode selector to "MOV", it will set the whole targeting computer as for a manual firing solution, meaning you will need to point the whole helicopter for firing all the weapons, cannon included.

[heloguy]

Thanks man.  I find the Ka-50 to be a bit unstable longitudinally with the gun fixed forward, but being able to flex to this is a great option when you have a sight failure.

[zerO_crash]

There is an issue with Ka50, a bug that has been there since introduction of BS2. The bug being that there are recoil counter-effects built into the autopilot. When you use rockets for example, ED wanted to create recoil when firing them, and thus the AP of the Ka50 would counter them with opposite input. The problem is that the recoil effects were never implemented in e.g. the rockets because they don't have any IRL. The tubes are open at the rear. Thus, the AP is countering a recoil effect yhst doesn't exist. The cannon however does have recoil, but because of faulty AP programming in that, it behaves the way it does. The current fix is to use FD-AP as it doesn't have the countering-force in the AP implemented. 
 

It was promised to get fixed with BS3, at which point it will behave properly. Otherwise it's s really stable helicopter, but the cannon is enormous, in size and recoil. Try practicing with lower rate of fire, it's really stable.

[jubuttib]

On 9/7/2021 at 1:27 PM, zerO_crash said:

but the cannon is enormous, in size and recoil.

Very much so: The 30x165mm round it shoots is ballistically very similar to the 30x173mm round used by the GAU-8 on the A-10C. Same projectile mass, about 3% lower muzzle velocity. Rate of fire is obviously lower, but it's still a hefty push, roughly equivalent to about 800-1 200 pounds of thrust (depending on the firing rate, don't know where the Ka-50 falls on the 2A42's quoted 550 to 800 rounds/min "high" rate range).

[bmbpdk]

On 9/7/2021 at 12:27 PM, zerO_crash said:

There is an issue with Ka50, a bug that has been there since introduction of BS2. The bug being that there are recoil counter-effects built into the autopilot. When you use rockets for example, ED wanted to create recoil when firing them, and thus the AP of the Ka50 would counter them with opposite input. The problem is that the recoil effects were never implemented in e.g. the rockets because they don't have any IRL. The tubes are open at the rear.

That is recoil myths/mistakes/mechanics 1on1, lack of knowledge on their subject i guess.
But hey, as long as they are good at coding.

Fun fact:
According to the book "Gator on the Rise" by Mr. Alexander Mladenov ISBN: 978-1-911096-45-0, page 19:
"... But it also had a major shortcoming related to it´s very powerful recoil force, reaching 6.5 tonnes"
They also mention that it was  "...able to score accurate hits at targets at 4,000m distance"

[M1Combat]

"They also mention that it was  "...able to score accurate hits at targets at 4,000m distance""

That has been accurate in my experience with the DCS Shark.  With the AP rounds anyhow...  The HE rounds aren't quite as accurate.

 

 

"The bug being that there are recoil counter-effects built into the autopilot. When you use rockets for example, ED wanted to create recoil when firing them, and thus the AP of the Ka50 would counter them with opposite input. The problem is that the recoil effects were never implemented in e.g. the rockets because they don't have any IRL. The tubes are open at the rear."

This is interesting...  Clearly it would be correct to not have "recoil" in an open tubed rocket launcher (see a shoulder launched TOW for example...) BUT...

What about friction?  Just simple friction.

When you see a rocket being slid into a rocket tube...  especially the larger ones...  the person tends to have to push on it quite firmly to get it seated all the way into the launcher.  Wouldn't there be just as much force required to overcome the friction and move it in the other direction?  If so...  Wouldn't THAT force be what we might be mistaking for AP corrections programmed in to counteract this non-existent recoil?  By that I mean...  maybe the AP isn't actually doing that...  but maybe they've built the friction forces and subsequent airframe movement based on the force applied as the rocket slides forwards out of the tube?  Roughly the same force the loading personnel would have used to push it into the tube?

[jubuttib]

On 12/8/2021 at 7:06 PM, M1Combat said:

 

What about friction?  Just simple friction.

When you see a rocket being slid into a rocket tube...  especially the larger ones...  the person tends to have to push on it quite firmly to get it seated all the way into the launcher.  Wouldn't there be just as much force required to overcome the friction and move it in the other direction?  If so...  Wouldn't THAT force be what we might be mistaking for AP corrections programmed in to counteract this non-existent recoil?  By that I mean...  maybe the AP isn't actually doing that...  but maybe they've built the friction forces and subsequent airframe movement based on the force applied as the rocket slides forwards out of the tube?  Roughly the same force the loading personnel would have used to push it into the tube?

Interesting idea, though it would be opposite direction of a recoil force of course (basically a loosely mounted rocket engine attached to the heli). If the rocket pods are below the CoG of the helicopter, you'd expect the nose to pull up when firing, and if they're above it the nose would pull down.

Not going to take any kind of guess as to whether they implemented any of this tho.

[M1Combat]

You're right it would be the opposite direction of a recoil force...  About the same direction of movement that's currently being attributed to errant AP recoil correction :)...  which was my point :).

 

Regarding airframe movement on something other than the rudder axis...  The whole system is a LOT more damped and/or stable on the other axes.  Less from a moment arm perspective more from a centripetal force perspective.