Apache AH64D Video UnTethered - Mike Mas

[LowOnCash]

Hey guys just completed nice video on the DCS Apache AH64 helicopter where I discuss some needed parameters to becoming an expert pilot on the ground as well as address a few system errors which make the Apache challenging to hover and fly. I hope you enjoy the film - Mike Mas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDbZMUJCxpY

Edited October 9, 2022 by LowOnCash

[Raptor9]

This was interesting to watch, however I do want to clarify a few items.

1) Respectfully, recommending to players that they do not use force trim in the DCS AH-64D is the opposite of what they should be doing. Depressing the Force Trim Release switch isn't simply a method for the pilot to make the flying easier, it's how the AH-64 pilot communicates to the Flight Management Computer the pilot's intent for maneuvering. 95% of the time in which I am moving the controls, I'm pressing the force trim and then releasing when I'm done moving them. The force trim in the AH-64D is not meant to be treated as an optional device that the pilot can decide not to use. I mean, they don't have to, but it interacts with many aspects of the FMC in which the behavior of the AH-64D is affected, and not using the FMC will undoubtedly cause more issues with expectations of behavior.

2) I am unsure what the meaning is that hovering in ground effect is not "experiencing a true hover". From a pilot's perspective in a 7-ton AH-64D, the only difference between an IGE hover and an OGE hover is that the OGE hover requires more engine power to maintain altitude from the increased induced flow through the rotor system. Personally, I find it easier to practice hovering close to the ground in DCS because you can detect the deviations of the helicopter's position when you are closer to the ground, and since small movements will be more apparent. The control touch required to hover a helicopter is just as difficult at 80 feet as it is at 5 feet, but in the simulator it can be more difficult detecting deviations when hovering at 80 feet since you are limited to visual feedback, due to the lack of detections of inertial movements from the inner ear and proprioceptive feedback.

3) While there are some needed improvements to the AH-64D's autorotational behavior, and these will undoubtedly occur as the flight model is refined, there seems to be a misunderstanding in how much inertia the AH-64's rotor system should have. Some helicopters like the UH-1 Huey have a "high inertia" rotor system in which the rotors have enough momentum to keep their RPMs from slowing when exposed to drag during an autorotational deceleration, allowing you to maintain a momentary hover at the bottom of an autorotation. However, the AH-64 has a "low inertia" rotor system in which the rotors can spool down quite rapidly at the bottom of an autorotational descent to landing when the collective is increased to decelerate and cushion the descent for touchdown. Attempting to hover at the bottom of an autorotation in a real AH-64 would be foolhardy, as it should be in DCS: AH-64D.

Additionally, a turn at the bottom of an autorotation to perform a tail-up flare would be tantamount to an airshow stunt, or something only performed in DCS, so I just want to clarify that such an attempt in real-life wouldn't ever be intentionally attempted during an autorotation, as it would most likely result in death to the crew. I wasn't sure if that was intended as a DCS-only challenge, or as a comment about something that should easily be performed in real-life, but it's not a thing for the AH-64D.

However, overall, thank you for the feedback. I hope you'll appreciate the continued improvements to the flight model that will occur throughout the Early Access process.

Respectfully,
Raptor

[Swift.]

6 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

3) While there are some needed improvements to the AH-64D's autorotational behavior, and these will undoubtedly occur as the flight model is refined, there seems to be a misunderstanding in how much inertia the AH-64's rotor system should have. Some helicopters like the UH-1 Huey have a "high inertia" rotor system in which the rotors have enough momentum to keep their RPMs from slowing when exposed to drag during an autorotational deceleration, allowing you to maintain a momentary hover at the bottom of an autorotation. However, the AH-64 has a "low inertia" rotor system in which the rotors can spool down quite rapidly at the bottom of an autorotational descent to landing when the collective is increased to decelerate and cushion the descent for touchdown. Attempting to hover at the bottom of an autorotation in a real AH-64 would be foolhardy, as it should be in DCS: AH-64D.

Interesting thing I recently found out about autorotation in DCS. I think 99% of the problems people are having are because the collective SAS is trying to pull pitch when you start sinking. So even though your physical control is bottomed out, the SAS will actually be pulling some 15-20% of the collective. Its poor technique but if you disengage the FMC (or just the collective channel if you fancy) you can actually get something approaching a controllable auto. Even so far as being able to overspeed the rotor (something impossible with the SAS still engaged).

[Raptor9]

Just now, Swift. said:

 I think 99% of the problems people are having are because the collective SAS is trying to pull pitch when you start sinking.

Possibly.

Whenever I am analyzing behavior from an aerodynamics aspect, I disengage all FMC channels to isolate the SCAS from any aerodynamic effects.

[bradmick]

A successful autoration in an Apache will see the rotor RPM at a point where the rotor system is incapable of lifting the helicotper off the ground again. As @Raptor9 stated, the rotor is extremely low inertia, a fact that catches real aviators off guard a lot when dual engin failures are trained in the simulator. The rotor will bleed off extremely fast if the collective isn't reduced immediately on recognition of the failure. 

It would also be helpful of content creators would stop saying 'don't use the force trim' without first qualifying the statement with 'unless the FMC SCAS channels are selected off". Because it completely ignores how massively important to the aircraft and the flight controls the force trim is. So if you're going to try and teach 'stick and rudder' flying, then say "turn off the FMC SCAS channels on the ENG, UTIL page because now the force trim no longer matters to the FMC." The exact reason why the Force Trim is important has been covered in exacting detail across the forums. Just requires a little research.

The use of close in cues cannot be understated for learning fine motor control for the hover. OGE hovers are the absolutely worst place to learn to hover because you won't have enough close in detail to sense relative motion of the aircraft over the ground. I'm a big fan of a steady head position and scanning 'near rocks' (within say, 5 to 15 feet from the aircaft) and 'far rocks' (> 15ft to the horizon) in the hover. The steady head position is super important becuase now you've eliminated at least one variable in trying to figure out if the movement is the aircraft or your head.

Just my thoughts.

Edited October 9, 2022 by bradmick

[LowOnCash]

Double post - Sorry

Edited October 10, 2022 by LowOnCash

[LowOnCash]

Thanks for all the replies guys - I appreciate the comments and different views. Certainly the video is not to find fault with the DCS Apache but only to improve an already capable model.

Trims - All trims and automation should be disabled since these features only prolong and mask the true feeling of the helicopter. I only recommend tail rotor trim for new pilots initially so they can provide more attention to cyclic control. As everyone knows, there is no such thing as a trimmed tail rotor, therefore there is no purpose nor advantage to offset the tail rotor since gusts, wind change, power, ground effect, speed, etc., etc. are constantly changing tail rotor trim.

Ground Effect - Concerning hovering in and out of ground effect there is world of difference. In “ground effect” means just that, the ground (somewhat level surface) creates an equally high pressure area under the disk which in turn stabilizes the helicopter, requiring less cyclic input from the pilot.
When hovering out of ground effect, the rotor system loses this equal high pressure stability,  requiring the pilot to not only keep the disk level, but to remain in one position. Don't take my word for it, hover at 6 feet then go up to 30 feet and you'll instantly see it takes 3-4 times more effort to keep the disk level and the machine in one spot out of ground effect. Certainly out of ground effect hovering is extremely important, since few rescues are accomplished at 5 -15 feet.

Autorotations - Regarding autorotations the DCS Apache lacks proper kinetic energy to perform a standard autorotation when compared to the full size Apache. I'm not implying the sim heli should sit in hover or lift back up, but certainly regardless of inertia when an autorotation is performed to spec, the pilot will be able to stop all descent of the helicopter and perform a somewhat soft landing. Another minor error in autorotation is the DCS Apache loses close to 50% of its cyclic control. With the main rotor at 100% or better, there should only be minimal loss of cyclic control during an auto.

180 Degree Autos - Regarding the 180 degree autorotation in the film - there is absolutely no difference performing a autorotation forward or backwards. The only difference is the power lost to turn the machine 180 degrees. Once any helicopter rotates 180 degrees, the reverse flair and landing are performed exactly the same as a forward auto. A full size Apache can perform a rearward autorotation easier than the sim model for the simple reason it has more kinetic energy which means more power for the tail rotor to turn the heli 180 degrees more quickly.

Best Regards - Mike

 

[bradmick]

With regards to point number 1, in the Apache there is such a thing as a "trimmed tail rotor". The helicopter has a heading hold feature which is always active (enabled) when the aircraft is off the weight-on-wheels (squat) switch. This system works by reading the positioning of the pedals the last time the pedals were placed in their desired 'trimmed' position. So you are incorrect in your assertion here. If you fail to set the pedals to the position required for the power setting then the SAS system will struggle to maintain the aircraft heading and in the worst case actually cause severe yaw instability as the FMC commands an opposite or erroneous input. So understanding the aircraft systems goes a long way towards understanding why we say "use the force trim" or "turn off the FMC channels entirely". 

Operating out of ground effect requires greater power (to the tune of appx. 15 or so percent above your IGE hover power) thanks to the increase in induced flow velocity as a result of being further away from the ground. The Apache has a 48 foot rotor diameter, i've demonstrated that if you pull exactly OGE hover power the aircraft will ascend and stop on or around 50 feet or so. It's pretty cool. Again, practicing out of ground effect hovers before you've mastered in ground effect hovers is a lot like trying to sprint before you can crawl. It's why we teach kids to hover IGE first in flight school, so they have all the advantages of I described previously...you know, mainly close in visua cues and the like.

In the simulator the loss of cyclic authority in an actual dual engine failure is actually pretty pronounced. The aircraft is very sluggish to respond to control inputs until you recover the rotor. 50% is probably a little excessive i'll agree, but it's a very noticeable loss of authority and it's VERY difficult to get that Nr back once it's gone. This is the nature of a *low* inertia rotor system.

Are you saying the apache would be best auto'd backwards? Given that the tail would cause a massive amount of instability, I completely disagree with you on that point. If you had said 'turns increase Nr' I'd have been more inclined to agree...but you didn't. And in turns, the Nr will speed up...rapidly.

Edited October 10, 2022 by bradmick

[LowOnCash]

Bradmick,

Thanks for your reply - I agree with most of your thoughts however the point I'm stressing is all automated features and trims should be avoided during the training period since they mask what the helicopter is doing minute to minute. "If You're Not Working You're Not Learning"

Regarding the backwards auto - it actually takes more rotor energy than a standard auto because you’re performing a 180 turn, forcing the TR to an upwind position. There is one positive point and that is regardless of the flair angle you no longer have any concern striking the tail on the ground ground. For this reason it allows a more productive flair to slow the machine and speed up the rotor. As you know, on a full size helicopter over-flair may cause a boom strike during low rotor rpm when there is little centrifugal force to keep the blades outwards during an unwanted input.

Regarding control during an auto - As long as the rotor speed is close to normal, the rotor disk itself and its ability to steer the machine, doesn't have a clue the engine or engines are off and therefore cyclic control will remain somewhat normal as long as the rotor speed remains. In fact, during an auto, the rotor actually has more kinetic energy because unlike when the engine is running where it’s required to drive the tail rotor for anti torque, during an auto, there is no anti-torque requirements since the blades are now the power producing engine and the only torque exhibited is in slowing the rotors down. 

 
Regards - Mike t

 

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, LowOnCash said:

Thanks for your reply - I agree with most of your thoughts however the point I'm stressing is all automated features and trims should be avoided during the training period since they mask what the helicopter is doing minute to minute. "If You're Not Working You're Not Learning"

The point is that force trim is a key component to learning how the AH-64 actually operates. You are equating all helicopters as the same; but they are not. If you teach someone to fly an AH-64 without the force trim and FMC, and then introduce the FMC and force trim back into the equation and expect them to re-learn their muscle memory, you are actually causing "negative learning". There is a reason that the US Army does not teach their pilots how to fly the AH-64 with the FMC off (I sincerely doubt other nations do so either, but since I haven't flown in other nation's flight schools of instruction, I will only comment on the US Army).

It's called primacy. It means that if you learn something incorrectly the first time, it will take twice as long (or longer) to re-learn something the correct way later. Brad knows this quite well, he's not only been an instructor on the AH-64 for many years, he has thousands of hours in the aircraft.

1 hour ago, LowOnCash said:

Regarding the backwards auto - it actually takes more rotor energy than a standard auto because you’re performing a 180 turn, forcing the TR to an upwind position. There is one positive point and that is regardless of the flair angle you no longer have any concern striking the tail on the ground ground. For this reason it allows a more productive flair to slow the machine and speed up the rotor. As you know, on a full size helicopter over-flair may cause a boom strike during low rotor rpm when there is little centrifugal force to keep the blades outwards during an unwanted input.

I can assure you as someone that has practiced autorotations in a real AH-64D as well as done full autos to the ground in training helicopters, the last thing you should be doing is spinning your helicopter around when you are trying to perform an autorotational decel and touchdown. I don't know where you are getting this information that doing a 180 degree spin at the bottom of an autorotation is somehow better, preferred or even makes sense. You are taking a potential emergency situation and adding complexity to the maneuver that is more likely going to lead to death of the crew.

1 hour ago, LowOnCash said:

Regarding control during an auto - As long as the rotor speed is close to normal, the rotor disk itself and its ability to steer the machine, doesn't have a clue the engine or engines are off and therefore cyclic control will remain somewhat normal as long as the rotor speed remains.

Incorrect. A helicopter like the AH-64 is controlled in pitch/roll using rotor disc tilting, which means the total lift vector of the main rotor system is tilted to create an offset from the aircraft center-of-gravity, causing a rotational motion around the center-of-gravity. This lift vector is proportional to how much lift, or thrust, is being produced by the main rotor. If the lift amount is small, the total amount of cyclic input required to achieve the same rotational force to induce a pitch/roll is higher.

In an autorotation, the difference is that the collective is bottomed out and the rotors are at flat pitch. The rotors are indeed producing a little bit of lift due to the autorotational effect, but the amount of lift is obviously much smaller than in normal flight (which is why the aircraft is falling like the Space Shuttle). As a result, you will not have the same cyclic authority in an autorotation compared to straight and level flight.

[Floyd1212]

I think the argument about learning to fly the Apache with or without the computers assisting you might be similar to learning to drive for the first time on a race track in a modern sports car, and then suggesting it should be done without traction control and ABS and other driver aids on to assist you.  Yes, you can argue this will make you appreciate the basics of car control and handling and braking, but these aids are there to help make your life easier, and to stay out of trouble, and those aids are on by default for a reason. Learning with them off, and then switching them back on will only require re-learning how to control the car at the limit, as it will most definitely feel different with them on.

Perhaps a better suggestion is for someone who wants to learn the fundamentals of helicopters to do it in the Huey, then move on to the Apache.  In our sim world, that isn't a requirement; we get to skip that "trainer" step of our flight education and go straight to the real deal, and learn to fly for the first time in a Hornet or Apache, where it's more about the muscle memory of how the inputs on our peripherals control the aircraft in the sim world, and we aren't worried about losing lives or a $$$M aircraft.

@LowOnCash It was interesting to see the Apache flying some of those maneuvers in your video that you might not see every day, then it made more sense when I looked at your impressive background in the R/C helo world.  Do your insights come strictly from your experience designing/building/flying scale models, or do you have seat-time in "full-scale" helos as well?

[LowOnCash]

Raptor 9 thanks for the reply - Don’t try to over-evaluate the backward auto or roll, it was only added to the film to show the DCS Apache can perform more than just a standard take off and landing. I never stated a reverse auto takes less effort, in fact, I clarified it took more energy since the TR is more active.  

In your reply you often mention the AH64, there is nothing specific to an Apache helicopter, for the most part it’s not any different (rotor-wise) than hundreds of other helicopters. With that said, it’s important to understand the only thing flying is the rotor disk itself. The helicopter under the disk is just not that important to flight, it's just there for the ride.

Concerning Flight Automation - Most sim pilots get way too involved in the mathematics and technology of rotory flight and never learn to fly the actual helicopter. This is especially true on the DCS Apache & Huey platforms. There are hundreds of threads of guys looking for crutches or better automation or an easy way out, because they don’t want to confront and spend the needed time to learn the basics of rotory flight.  New pilots need to hold off on theory it won't teach you to fly a helicopter.  Spend that time flying rather than reading.  

Testimonial to this is almost every profession helicopter pilot I taught to fly  R/C helicopters, had start like everyone else as a novice. Flying a helicopter from a seat is a totally different animal then flying from a monitor. A common mistake for sim developers, is some rely on full scale helicopter pilots to develop the model.  Regretfully - full size, R/C models and sim models all differ considerably.

Some Sim Pilots spend thousands of dollars on special joysticks or full size cyclic and collective devices some with chairs, thinking it will make helicopter flying easier, only to find out there is absolutely no advantage. The truth of the matter is; a simple Logitech $19.95 joy stick as I use, provides all the control needed to become an expert pilot.
I’ve flown with and know some of the best full size helicopter pilots in the world for motion picture work, and most know nothing of the logistics of how a helicopter works nor care, what they do know is how to fly the helicopter.

If Neil and Buzz would have relied solely on automation as some here suggest, when the capsule automation system failed, we would have never landed on the moon first. It was basic pilot skill and knowledge that enabled them to move to another location and land.  

Keep in mind - You can study helicopter theory for 20 years, when you finally get in the seat, you’ll still be a novice like anyone else.  

Best Regards - Mike

 

[Swift.]

So all your experience of helicopters is from RC helicopters? And you claim of 'mastery' is purely a self assessment?

There are some interestingly egregious points made in your video, I wonder where you learnt such things. For example, I'm curious how 12-15ft is considered out of ground effect.

You appear to have some kind of opinion about automated systems, but I can't imagine where its coming from. I mean are you also advocating that pilots turn off the FADEC and control the engines manually to get a better 'feel'? Or is this more about you not understanding how the systems work and thus not wanting to fly with them?

I don't intend to pick a fight, and I apologise if its come across that way. But you must understand how detrimental it can be to so confidently spew gouge that isn't solid.

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, LowOnCash said:

Testimonial to this is almost every profession helicopter pilot I taught to fly  R/C helicopters, had start like everyone else as a novice. Flying a helicopter from a seat is a totally different animal then flying from a monitor. A common mistake for sim developers, is some rely on full scale helicopter pilots to develop the model.  Regretfully - full size, R/C models and sim models all differ considerably.

Yes. Full-size, manned helicopters differ greatly compared to R/C models, in a lot more ways than I suspect you realize. The comparison of the two isn't even close, not even in the same ballpark. But if you think that teaching anyone to fly an R/C helicopter is anything like teaching someone to fly a real helicopter, you are quite mistaken. (And yes, I've flown RC helicopters as well)

2 hours ago, LowOnCash said:

Some Sim Pilots spend thousands of dollars on special joysticks or full size cyclic and collective devices some with chairs, thinking it will make helicopter flying easier, only to find out there is absolutely no advantage. The truth of the matter is; a simple Logitech $19.95 joy stick as I use, provides all the control needed to become an expert pilot.
I’ve flown with and know some of the best full size helicopter pilots in the world for motion picture work, and most know nothing of the logistics of how a helicopter works nor care, what they do know is how to fly the helicopter.

If Neil and Buzz would have relied solely on automation as some here suggest, when the capsule automation system failed, we would have never landed on the moon first. It was basic pilot skill and knowledge that enabled them to move to another location and land.  

Keep in mind - You can study helicopter theory for 20 years, when you finally get in the seat, you’ll still be a novice like anyone else.

I fly with a Saitek X52 and Saitek rudder pedals, no expensive set up here. Additionally, I have been playing flight sim games for decades as well (as has @bradmick), so we are fully aware of the differences between real helicopters, professional simulators, and desktop flight sim games. Further, equating force trim to "automation" is a false premise. The AH-64D's force trim is not a crutch or "an easy way out", it is a key components of the pilot-machine interface of the AH-64D. This isn't a Huey, or an R/C helicopter, there is more to flying the AH-64D than wiggling the sticks.

I've noticed a common thread as of late, in that several demographics of forum-goers: helicopter mechanics, crew chiefs, engineers, and in this case an R/C helicopter operator, all are of the opinion that they are more qualified to comment on the accuracy of the AH-64's flight model than those that have spent thousands of hours and years of their lives flying the real AH-64D (not every person in those demographics, just that at least one person from each has commented as such). I mean no disrespect to you or your own experiences (or the experiences of others that work on or with rotorcraft), but such assumptions are silly. In your very own words, "you can study helicopter theory for 20 years, when you finally get in the seat, you'll still be a novice like anyone else". If you truly believe this, lacking first-hand knowledge doing the very thing that the DCS: AH-64D is simulating, which is being a crewmember in an AH-64D, how can you possibly assess the accuracy of the experience or the relevance of its flight control systems better than someone that has actually flown the real AH-64D?

Again, I mean no disrespect, you are entitled to your opinion. But as someone that has seen both sides of the coin, as a helicopter mechanic and a pilot, not to mention played all sorts of flight sim games in the past 30 years, I'm telling you that your assertions are off the mark in these regards.

[admiki]

2 hours ago, LowOnCash said:

Raptor 9 thanks for the reply - Don’t try to over-evaluate the backward auto or roll, it was only added to the film to show the DCS Apache can perform more than just a standard take off and landing. I never stated a reverse auto takes less effort, in fact, I clarified it took more energy since the TR is more active.  

In your reply you often mention the AH64, there is nothing specific to an Apache helicopter, for the most part it’s not any different (rotor-wise) than hundreds of other helicopters. With that said, it’s important to understand the only thing flying is the rotor disk itself. The helicopter under the disk is just not that important to flight, it's just there for the ride.

Concerning Flight Automation - Most sim pilots get way too involved in the mathematics and technology of rotory flight and never learn to fly the actual helicopter. This is especially true on the DCS Apache & Huey platforms. There are hundreds of threads of guys looking for crutches or better automation or an easy way out, because they don’t want to confront and spend the needed time to learn the basics of rotory flight.  New pilots need to hold off on theory it won't teach you to fly a helicopter.  Spend that time flying rather than reading.  

Testimonial to this is almost every profession helicopter pilot I taught to fly  R/C helicopters, had start like everyone else as a novice. Flying a helicopter from a seat is a totally different animal then flying from a monitor. A common mistake for sim developers, is some rely on full scale helicopter pilots to develop the model.  Regretfully - full size, R/C models and sim models all differ considerably.

Some Sim Pilots spend thousands of dollars on special joysticks or full size cyclic and collective devices some with chairs, thinking it will make helicopter flying easier, only to find out there is absolutely no advantage. The truth of the matter is; a simple Logitech $19.95 joy stick as I use, provides all the control needed to become an expert pilot.
I’ve flown with and know some of the best full size helicopter pilots in the world for motion picture work, and most know nothing of the logistics of how a helicopter works nor care, what they do know is how to fly the helicopter.

If Neil and Buzz would have relied solely on automation as some here suggest, when the capsule automation system failed, we would have never landed on the moon first. It was basic pilot skill and knowledge that enabled them to move to another location and land.  

Keep in mind - You can study helicopter theory for 20 years, when you finally get in the seat, you’ll still be a novice like anyone else.  

Best Regards - Mike

 

To use bolded analogy: neither one of them learned how to fly on landing module, they had wast previous experience. To apply it to your case: instead of trying to learn how to "fly" helicopters by removing FMC from Apache, maybe new pilots should learn flying Huey first? There is a reason real life pilots don't learn helicopter basics on Apache or UH-60 or Chinook, and it's not only that training helicopters are cheaper to fly. 

[bradmick]

3 hours ago, LowOnCash said:

Raptor 9 thanks for the reply - Don’t try to over-evaluate the backward auto or roll, it was only added to the film to show the DCS Apache can perform more than just a standard take off and landing. I never stated a reverse auto takes less effort, in fact, I clarified it took more energy since the TR is more active.  

In your reply you often mention the AH64, there is nothing specific to an Apache helicopter, for the most part it’s not any different (rotor-wise) than hundreds of other helicopters. With that said, it’s important to understand the only thing flying is the rotor disk itself. The helicopter under the disk is just not that important to flight, it's just there for the ride.

Concerning Flight Automation - Most sim pilots get way too involved in the mathematics and technology of rotory flight and never learn to fly the actual helicopter. This is especially true on the DCS Apache & Huey platforms. There are hundreds of threads of guys looking for crutches or better automation or an easy way out, because they don’t want to confront and spend the needed time to learn the basics of rotory flight.  New pilots need to hold off on theory it won't teach you to fly a helicopter.  Spend that time flying rather than reading.  

Testimonial to this is almost every profession helicopter pilot I taught to fly  R/C helicopters, had start like everyone else as a novice. Flying a helicopter from a seat is a totally different animal then flying from a monitor. A common mistake for sim developers, is some rely on full scale helicopter pilots to develop the model.  Regretfully - full size, R/C models and sim models all differ considerably.

Some Sim Pilots spend thousands of dollars on special joysticks or full size cyclic and collective devices some with chairs, thinking it will make helicopter flying easier, only to find out there is absolutely no advantage. The truth of the matter is; a simple Logitech $19.95 joy stick as I use, provides all the control needed to become an expert pilot.
I’ve flown with and know some of the best full size helicopter pilots in the world for motion picture work, and most know nothing of the logistics of how a helicopter works nor care, what they do know is how to fly the helicopter.

If Neil and Buzz would have relied solely on automation as some here suggest, when the capsule automation system failed, we would have never landed on the moon first. It was basic pilot skill and knowledge that enabled them to move to another location and land.  

Keep in mind - You can study helicopter theory for 20 years, when you finally get in the seat, you’ll still be a novice like anyone else.  

Best Regards - Mike

 

You’d actually be amazed at how much the theory of rotary wing flight helps provide those critical “ah-hah!” moments. When a guy understands that the helicopter rolls right and pitches up due to dissymmetry of lift and transverse flow, they can better understand what flight control inputs are required to maintain control of the helicopter. When they understand what the flight controls and the flight management computer are doing for them, they can more intelligently interact with them to help maintain control of the helicopter.

You’re methodology and mindset are rooted in really old aircraft mentalities. The fact is, the automation is there whether you want it or not. So to properly get the most out of the aircraft, you have to blend the old and new. You can’t say “don’t use this! It’ll make you better!” You have to instead say “This is how you effectively use the systems of the aircraft to achieve the desired outcome”. What you’ve said works for a Huey, it doesn’t work for any modern helicopter with a proper Flight Management system. This is because you end up teaching two completely different methodologies and sets of muscle memory which will negatively effect the individuals experience and then prolong the time it takes to gain proficiency.

Edited October 10, 2022 by bradmick

[LowOnCash]

Thanks for all the replies guys - Please understand I'm not instructing anyone not use automation or how they should fly a helicopter.  The advantage of learning to fly without automation, trims, and other crutches is it helps you to feel and understand the hundreds of actions and reactions that are constantly changing both in hover and in flight.  Automation hides all these traits. Learning to feel and respond to these changes as a reflex are a vital part of mastering helicopter flight, be it a sim or a real helicopter.  

I just bought my first two DCSs helicopters a few months ago in August and have only 10-15 hours between the two of them with most of the time spent learning armament.  Thanks to my 45+ years of designing and flying R/C and military aircraft with rotor spans over 20 feet the size and weight of a Hughes 300, has enabled me to feel a helicopters traits and errors the first flight.  Even though the Apache is challenging to hover and fly, I immediately felt comfortable, since at this point in my career, it’s all reflex, I’m simply looking at the machine and my hands are moving. I’m presently flying the Apache and Huey with a disadvantage, since I normally fly a two stick transmitter on mode three, rather than the joystick. It doesn't really matter because I’m flying these things just for fun and having a blast!

I’m very fortunate and blessed to have known some of the best military and motion picture plots in the world. For years, I hung out the doors of the likes of Rangers and 500’s with a Tyler camera mount with my life in their hands. These are the best pilots in the world and these guys could care less about helicopter theory, they know their machine and it limitations. While there is certainly nothing wrong with learning helicopter theory, like control automation, it won’t help you to master helicopter flight.  

Regards - Mike   

 

[bradmick]

If they’re Army aviators, they do care. We’re taught to care, and that knowledge is what enables us to be the best. We understand the theory of ops for our aircraft, the aerodynamics and physics behind why the machine does what it does. The practical application of that knowledge comes from a generous amount of flight time provided by Uncle Sam. So while you may have this dismissive attitude towards the fundamentals, it’s wrong. I can say without a doubt from years of observing and teaching that those fundamentals count for a lot with regards to producing a proficient and competent aviator. 

 

Edited October 11, 2022 by bradmick

[LowOnCash]

Bradmick thanks for your reply - As I mentioned, I'm not forcing anyone to change their flying habits. Looking through the forums its easy to see that 90% of all Apache pilots are struggling to fly the the machine so they revert to automation or looking for magical solution. Even with automation its difficult to fly the Apache without learning the ground work first.  It's sort of like a guy who wants to fly R/C helicopters and buys a drone to practice flying, thanks to automation, he ends up just holding the transmitter watching the thing fly and learning nothing to master helicopter flying.

Regretfully most sim pilots choose the easy way out with automation and never learn to really master the helicopter. Using automation is sort of like letting Fred fly the helicopter, it provides little to nothing to sharpen your skills, you're just a passenger in your own helicopter.  Spend the needed time now to develop your skills and learn the traits of the helicopter on the ground first, then in the air. I have used my (Raw Flying) procedure for over 40 years now to teach thousands of pilots to fly successfully it really works!

Regards- Mike

Edited October 11, 2022 by LowOnCash

[Floyd1212]

I'm not sure if it's worth going back and forth on this topic anymore, but it may be that we are just talking past each other about different things? 

You keep using the term "automation" in your discussion, and then you just made a reference to "automation" as like flying a DJI drone.  Perhaps you mean to suggest a pilot learning to fly the Apache might refrain from using ALT Hold and ATT Hold modes as a crutch, until they are more comfortable manually holding a hover?  I would consider the hold modes more like the automation you are referring to, which is different than using "trim" in the Apache.

I don't have any experience flying a serious R/C helicopter (just the cheap versions you would probably consider toys), but I believe your cyclic stick on your transmitter does not have a spring-return to center, correct?  In layman's terms, the "trim" function in the Apache is the way you tell the flight controls not to spring back to center.

[admiki]

3 hours ago, LowOnCash said:

Bradmick thanks for your reply - As I mentioned, I'm not forcing anyone to change their flying habits. Looking through the forums its easy to see that 90% of all Apache pilots are struggling to fly the the machine so they revert to automation or looking for magical solution. Even with automation its difficult to fly the Apache without learning the ground work first.  It's sort of like a guy who wants to fly R/C helicopters and buys a drone to practice flying, thanks to automation, he ends up just holding the transmitter watching the thing fly and learning nothing to master helicopter flying.

Regretfully most sim pilots choose the easy way out with automation and never learn to really master the helicopter. Using automation is sort of like letting Fred fly the helicopter, it provides little to nothing to sharpen your skills, you're just a passenger in your own helicopter.  Spend the needed time now to develop your skills and learn the traits of the helicopter on the ground first, then in the air. I have used my (Raw Flying) procedure for over 40 years now to teach thousands of pilots to fly successfully it really works!

Regards- Mike

 

I think 90% of Apache pilots are not interested in learning how to fly it more than is needed to shoot something up. 

Not a single pilot that joined squadron I am part of, told me that they don't know how to fire a Hellfire or gun. 50% or more couldn't hold a hover.

[jnr4817]

1 minute ago, admiki said:

I think 90% of Apache pilots are not interested in learning how to fly it more than is needed to shoot something up. 

Not a single pilot that joined squadron I am part of, told me that they don't know how to fire a Hellfire or gun. 50% or more couldn't hold a hover.

I can hover…