Damage Model moreso Time To Disable/Destroy

[StreakerSix]

On 12/6/2023 at 6:02 AM, Hobel said:

and what's wrong with the DCS Ka-50?

I agree about the tail breaking off, and what else?
 

 

 

I'd like to see the identical test done with the Mi-24 and the Ah-64D.

I'm guessing the Mi-24 flies around until the ground units run out of ammo after about 5 minutes.

The AH-64D loses it's tail rotor (or complete tail boom) on the first or second pass.

Those are just my guesses, I could be completely wrong though.

[Hobel]

vor einer Stunde schrieb StreakerSix:

The AH-64D loses it's tail rotor (or complete tail boom) on the first or second pass.

Basically the same result against ak47 

 

[Tiger-II]

Quote

Also, not having a tail rotor can improve survivability, since the tail boom isn't load-bearing; during testing, a Ka-50 lost its tail, but still managed to return to base without a problem." (As you can see in my video it immediately noses down and crashes.)

Well...there is a small matter of CoG. You lost the tail at very low altitude. It suddenly nosing over doesn't break the laws of physics, as you lost a couple of tons of airframe I would guess, instantaneously. One moment the system is balanced, next moment the rotor system is countering mass that is no longer there, hence the sudden pitch reaction.

Had you been higher altitude (= more room to recover), that event was likely survivable.

I've broken the tail off on the Ka-50 on multiple occassions (some deliberate), and then proceeded to fly it in combat for fun. It will fly in the sim.

As others have said, I'd say the tail breaking off easily is the real problem with the Ka-50 here.

As for the loss of the engines, it isn't all about the surrounding armor. The engine ITSELF can absorb a lot of damage and still run. It is part of the design. I have heard stories where upon crashing, as part of destruction of the aircraft before leaving, crews have dumped entire clips into engines to stop them running, and it has taken more than one full clip before they did enough damage (at point blank range) for the engines to shutdown. Take that for what you will.

The Apache, and Ka-50, are highly survivable aircraft. Look at the famous event over Iraq (there was even a TV documentary made about it).

I think the Ka-50 tail needs greatly strengthening, and the engines made more survivable than they are. Yes, there will always be the "golden BB" event when a single shot gets lucky and takes it out, but reality is they should take more of a beating before completely failing (including loss of power, but not total and absolute failure/destruction).

Edit to add: even in cases where commercial airliners lose discs/turbine blades, the engine is still running and producing power (albeit on fire and with severe vibration) and kept running/producing thrust until shutdown by the crew.

Even the Mi-8 has great survivability.

Edited February 29, 2024 by Tiger-II

[PawlaczGMD]

Some very subjective input: After trialing the Hind, I've found that it is significantly more tanky. Of course both the Hind and BS are almost immune to 7.62, but the Hind is practically immune to 50 cal also. In the Ka-50, I've often suffered serious system damage from tank-mounted MGs. Never in the Hind. Even going to 23mm ZSU, the Hind can tank a lot of it, while the Ka-50 is very quickly destroyed. The Ka-50 also really loves to lose its tail.

Suffering any damage above 7.62 caliber very often ends in engine loss, autopilot loss, and/or eventually hydro loss, which will kill you in a minute.

Overall, my impression is that the Ka-50 is not very resilient and should avoid any damage above small arms at any cost. I'm not sure it lives up to the armored reputation. Again, these impressions are made in comparison to the Hind. I'm not saying it is bugged or wrong, but the difference is quite stark.

Edited February 29, 2024 by PawlaczGMD

[StreakerSix]

18 hours ago, Tiger-II said:

Well...there is a small matter of CoG. You lost the tail at very low altitude. It suddenly nosing over doesn't break the laws of physics, as you lost a couple of tons of airframe I would guess, instantaneously. One moment the system is balanced, next moment the rotor system is countering mass that is no longer there, hence the sudden pitch reaction.

Had you been higher altitude (= more room to recover), that event was likely survivable.

I've broken the tail off on the Ka-50 on multiple occassions (some deliberate), and then proceeded to fly it in combat for fun. It will fly in the sim.

As others have said, I'd say the tail breaking off easily is the real problem with the Ka-50 here.

As for the loss of the engines, it isn't all about the surrounding armor. The engine ITSELF can absorb a lot of damage and still run. It is part of the design. I have heard stories where upon crashing, as part of destruction of the aircraft before leaving, crews have dumped entire clips into engines to stop them running, and it has taken more than one full clip before they did enough damage (at point blank range) for the engines to shutdown. Take that for what you will.

The Apache, and Ka-50, are highly survivable aircraft. Look at the famous event over Iraq (there was even a TV documentary made about it).

I think the Ka-50 tail needs greatly strengthening, and the engines made more survivable than they are. Yes, there will always be the "golden BB" event when a single shot gets lucky and takes it out, but reality is they should take more of a beating before completely failing (including loss of power, but not total and absolute failure/destruction).

Edit to add: even in cases where commercial airliners lose discs/turbine blades, the engine is still running and producing power (albeit on fire and with severe vibration) and kept running/producing thrust until shutdown by the crew.

Even the Mi-8 has great survivability.

 

Yep, this is the entire basis of my concerns with the damage models of the Blackshark and Apache... They barely take more damage than a Huey before being taken down and take the same if not less than a Hip (Probably less, I didn't add the Hip to testing) and definitely nowhere near a Hind... In which, by reading specs and claims by the manufacturers, the Hind, Apache and Blackshark should all be fairly comparable to each other in the amount of damage they can take before becoming unflyable/crashing.

[PawlaczGMD]

35 minutes ago, StreakerSix said:

Yep, this is the entire basis of my concerns with the damage models of the Blackshark and Apache... They barely take more damage than a Huey before being taken down and take the same if not less than a Hip (Probably less, I didn't add the Hip to testing) and definitely nowhere near a Hind... In which, by reading specs and claims by the manufacturers, the Hind, Apache and Blackshark should all be fairly comparable to each other in the amount of damage they can take before becoming unflyable/crashing.

Yup, I was shocked by how resilient the Hind is. You can tank 23 mm like the Shark can tank 50 cal. After playing through 2 campaigns, I only got shot down by AAA once, and it was only because I've given up after a failed mission and did a head-on suicide run. I think it was a pilot kill. Otherwise the most I suffered was single engine power loss, not even a complete shutdown. Meanwhile single hits from that 23 mm will cripple a Shark.

It was also my expectation that these two would be roughly similar in this regard.

[zerO_crash]

It is pointless to compare damage models on modules that are not complete. Both Hind and Apache are in early stages of development. It is confirmed that Hind handles too much damage, and this will get fixed. Apache is definitely the weakest helicopter, with most glass and least armor in the airframe. Regardless, as said, these modules are in their early infancy. Issues or lacks in modelling, are to be expected. It is also important to understand that just as a small FPV-drone or molotov-cocktail can take out a 50-70 tonne tank, a solid hit to any vital component (armored or not), can potentially result in a loss of the airframe.

 

It ought to be said that it is poor form of airmanship, to rely on armor in ones employment of aircraft. While the risk will vary with mission, one is to fly so as to avoid getting hit. In other words, consider the armor a bonus, but don't fly with the mentality of it forming a part of your tactics.

Edited March 1, 2024 by zerO_crash

[PawlaczGMD]

5 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

It is pointless to compare damage models on modules that are not complete. Both Hind and Apache are in early stages of development. It is confirmed that Hind handles too much damage, and this will get fixed. Apache is definitely the weakest helicopter, with most glass and least armor in the airframe. Regardless, as said, these modules are in their early infancy. Issues or lacks in modelling, are to be expected. It is also important to understand that just as a small FPV-drone or molotov-cocktail can take out a 50-70 tonne tank, a solid hit to any vital component (armored or not), can potentially result in a loss of the airframe.

 

It ought to be said that it is poor form of airmanship, to rely on armor in ones employment of aircraft. While the risk will vary with mission, one is to fly so as to avoid getting hit. In other words, consider the armor a bonus, but don't fly with the mentality of it forming a part of your tactics.

 

That is all true, I think we just want to figure out which of these helicopters is modelled wrong, so that it can be made realistic. People just notice the big discrepancy between them.

[Silver_Dragon]

Remember ED and 3rd parties helos maintain the old "damage models", that require implemente them the "WW2 damage model" to make them more realistic, but that take time.

[zerO_crash]

No fault in that. It's definitely the ones in the progress which are incorrect so far. Hind tolerates too much. As to AH-64, it's not supposed to be as durable as those two, no doubt there.

 

The one additional issue, which seems to alter the impression of flying assault with helicopters, is the AI awareness/accuracy. For anyone who has ever been inside a tank/armored vehicle, knows just how little awareness you have to events outside your limited field of view. That goes for modern tanks as well. In DCS, this is how it was modelled back in the day. Nowadays, the system proves incorrectness, and it is being worked on as we speak. Additionally, the AI's accuracy with non-articulated armament (radar, optics (contrasting), systems for calculating predictive movement, etc...) such as tanks, IFVs, APCs, some basic triple-A, and more, is simply too accurate. This is also being worked on as we speak. All in all, these two points are some of the most major ones. This is specifically noticed with Huey/Gazelle and Bo-105PAH1A1/OH-58D (when they release). Small size, coupled with dynamic movement, is what has made these airframes survive assault and harass-style of combat without too many losses. I'll also add, that for a complete simulation of this specific type of warfare, the AI needs to have simulated (even on basic level) two more things: getting stunned/shocked from attacks nearby (incapacity), as well as regard for their own "life".

 

All in all, that would yield a more respective battlefield environment, alas that of IRL.

 

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Remember ED and 3rd parties helos maintain the old "damage models", that require implemente them the "WW2 damage model" to make them more realistic, but that take time.

Edited March 1, 2024 by zerO_crash

[StreakerSix]

On 2/29/2024 at 11:23 PM, zerO_crash said:

It is pointless to compare damage models on modules that are not complete. Both Hind and Apache are in early stages of development. It is confirmed that Hind handles too much damage, and this will get fixed. Apache is definitely the weakest helicopter, with most glass and least armor in the airframe. Regardless, as said, these modules are in their early infancy. Issues or lacks in modelling, are to be expected. It is also important to understand that just as a small FPV-drone or molotov-cocktail can take out a 50-70 tonne tank, a solid hit to any vital component (armored or not), can potentially result in a loss of the airframe.

 

It ought to be said that it is poor form of airmanship, to rely on armor in ones employment of aircraft. While the risk will vary with mission, one is to fly so as to avoid getting hit. In other words, consider the armor a bonus, but don't fly with the mentality of it forming a part of your tactics.

 

What is the Ka-50's excuse then? lol It's been around for almost a decade, right? As for the Hind handling too much, I believe that is incorrect as per what a person would "think" it can handle for damage, and from reading about them they the damage model seems realistic. It is the Ka-50 and AH-64D that do not "seem" realistic as all three are touted to withstand the same amount of damage IRL. People need to remember this is a game that is simulating real world aspects, therefore it is more what a person "perceives" certain airframes can do or handle for damage (based on actual events and/or manufacturers claims/specs). 

With that being said, my perception is the Hind has a believable damage model as the Ka-50 and AH-64D do not. Yes, I am aware the AH-64 and Mi-24 are in early access yet as are all of the modules in reality, as all of them have major updates to improve them constantly. These are just my thoughts on what can and should be improved upon in future updates. 

 

[zerO_crash]

2 hours ago, StreakerSix said:

What is the Ka-50's excuse then? lol It's been around for almost a decade, right? As for the Hind handling too much, I believe that is incorrect as per what a person would "think" it can handle for damage, and from reading about them they the damage model seems realistic. It is the Ka-50 and AH-64D that do not "seem" realistic as all three are touted to withstand the same amount of damage IRL. People need to remember this is a game that is simulating real world aspects, therefore it is more what a person "perceives" certain airframes can do or handle for damage (based on actual events and/or manufacturers claims/specs). 

With that being said, my perception is the Hind has a believable damage model as the Ka-50 and AH-64D do not. Yes, I am aware the AH-64 and Mi-24 are in early access yet as are all of the modules in reality, as all of them have major updates to improve them constantly. These are just my thoughts on what can and should be improved upon in future updates. 

 

Ka-50s excuse for what exactly? You are introducing a subjective perception, that is not a valid evalutation. Also, what kind of metric do you use to define that "... all three are touted to withstand the same amount of damage IRL"? Obviously this is not true. The manufacturers use different methods of testing, and militaries have different thresholds for what constituates an acceptable level of protection.

 

This is a very delicate discussion in that there is no guarantee of anything. A KPV (14.5mm, or even 23mm fragments) can score a few hits on the airframes, but not take it down, yet a lucky shot of lesser calibre can. Realistically, when you look at how these aircraft are built, then the overall consensus is that vital parts are the most protected (a armored part on the outer side of the airframe, will still be pierced faster, than one burried deep inside the airframe). Still, however, there are big changes in design, which all yield different results all around. The Mi-24, while being massively armored, is still limited in design by the weight a combat-/assault-helicopter can lift. Why do you think Soviets started flying high in Afghanistan (helicopters) in the early-mid stages of the war? About the biggest cannons that Afghani resistance had, were KORDs (few instances of captured ZU-23 platform). RPGs were also fired at helicopters, albeit with practically no documented success.

 

On the design-aspect, Hind and Ka-50 have a all-around armor, with main focus on pilot. While Hind "only" has armor on the front windshields (the bubble canopy is a type of plexiglass), the Ka-50 has armored windows all around. Comparison-wise, the AH-64 has mainly armored bottom (below the pilot and gunner), and the plexiglass all around the cockpit. Still, armored glass, is not titanium. Obviously, the glass-cockpit will never provide the same level of defense as a built-around, titanium monocoque. AH-64 pilots are taught to use the bottom of their helicopter to their advantage, if close air-support is provided (flying at higher altitudes and using the deflection of the cannon). Otherwise, there is one example of a AH-64 downed by a bolt-action rifle. Another difference lies in the spacing of engines, where the Hind, while having a armored plate between them, will still have a higher probability of getting both engines shut by shrapnel, than the Ka-50 and AH-64 (engines separated by fuselage). Finally, with the tail of a helicopter being potent to damage (thinner part of the airframe), that as well as the tail rotor, are an immensly sensitive point. A proper hit, and if the helicopter manages to maintain straight flight (only the tail rotor failed, and at speed), then it will have a problem at landing, even with roll-out. Most commonly though, the tail breakes off, and the helicopter is gone. A Ka-50 is incredibly survivable here, where the tail might be shot at, or off, and still fly well. With that said, use a little common sense in terms of the speed at which this happens, trim setting, change of CG, and other factores involved. Obviously, of this happens at very high-speed, and low altitude, chances are you will go down. 
 

Overall, the point is that these helicopters are very different in design, each and every one of them. Claiming what they should or shouldn't, based on qualitative judgment, just doesn't cut it. You don't even know what steel/composite is being used in the different airframes. A metallurgist, and synthetic materials-engineer, would also like to have a word on this topic. They are very different, but as different conflicts have proved, a Hind might survive landing in a minefield with 2XX shrapnel holes, and still fly well, but it might also get downed by a lucky hit through the bubble canopy, killing the pilot. Still, no aircraft is meant to withstand bullets of high-calibre (above 12.7mm) for a prolonged saturation. What you claim, is a pure fantasy. Also, DCS would be a simulator, not a game per se (even if the actual word is used by devs in the few marketing instances).

[StreakerSix]

17 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

Ka-50s excuse for what exactly? You are introducing a subjective perception, that is not a valid evalutation. Also, what kind of metric do you use to define that "... all three are touted to withstand the same amount of damage IRL"? Obviously this is not true. The manufacturers use different methods of testing, and militaries have different thresholds for what constituates an acceptable level of protection.

 

This is a very delicate discussion in that there is no guarantee of anything. A KPV (14.5mm, or even 23mm fragments) can score a few hits on the airframes, but not take it down, yet a lucky shot of lesser calibre can. Realistically, when you look at how these aircraft are built, then the overall consensus is that vital parts are the most protected (a armored part on the outer side of the airframe, will still be pierced faster, than one burried deep inside the airframe). Still, however, there are big changes in design, which all yield different results all around. The Mi-24, while being massively armored, is still limited in design by the weight a combat-/assault-helicopter can lift. Why do you think Soviets started flying high in Afghanistan (helicopters) in the early-mid stages of the war? About the biggest cannons that Afghani resistance had, were KORDs (few instances of captured ZU-23 platform). RPGs were also fired at helicopters, albeit with practically no documented success.

 

On the design-aspect, Hind and Ka-50 have a all-around armor, with main focus on pilot. While Hind "only" has armor on the front windshields (the bubble canopy is a type of plexiglass), the Ka-50 has armored windows all around. Comparison-wise, the AH-64 has mainly armored bottom (below the pilot and gunner), and the plexiglass all around the cockpit. Still, armored glass, is not titanium. Obviously, the glass-cockpit will never provide the same level of defense as a built-around, titanium monocoque. AH-64 pilots are taught to use the bottom of their helicopter to their advantage, if close air-support is provided (flying at higher altitudes and using the deflection of the cannon). Otherwise, there is one example of a AH-64 downed by a bolt-action rifle. Another difference lies in the spacing of engines, where the Hind, while having a armored plate between them, will still have a higher probability of getting both engines shut by shrapnel, than the Ka-50 and AH-64 (engines separated by fuselage). Finally, with the tail of a helicopter being potent to damage (thinner part of the airframe), that as well as the tail rotor, are an immensly sensitive point. A proper hit, and if the helicopter manages to maintain straight flight (only the tail rotor failed, and at speed), then it will have a problem at landing, even with roll-out. Most commonly though, the tail breakes off, and the helicopter is gone. A Ka-50 is incredibly survivable here, where the tail might be shot at, or off, and still fly well. With that said, use a little common sense in terms of the speed at which this happens, trim setting, change of CG, and other factores involved. Obviously, of this happens at very high-speed, and low altitude, chances are you will go down. 
 

Overall, the point is that these helicopters are very different in design, each and every one of them. Claiming what they should or shouldn't, based on qualitative judgment, just doesn't cut it. You don't even know what steel/composite is being used in the different airframes. A metallurgist, and synthetic materials-engineer, would also like to have a word on this topic. They are very different, but as different conflicts have proved, a Hind might survive landing in a minefield with 2XX shrapnel holes, and still fly well, but it might also get downed by a lucky hit through the bubble canopy, killing the pilot. Still, no aircraft is meant to withstand bullets of high-calibre (above 12.7mm) for a prolonged saturation. What you claim, is a pure fantasy. Also, DCS would be a simulator, not a game per se (even if the actual word is used by devs in the few marketing instances).

I'm fairly certain you haven't read my original posts in this thread, all those claims I have made are cited and stated in there, to include my testing with nothing but 4 AK-47 and 2 12.7mm weapons shooting at them.

Yes, they will all be slightly different, however, one CAN NOT deny that a Huey has almost the same TTK as the Blackshark and Apache.... That right there should show you just how unrealistic the damage models are for these two Helicopters, especially seeing as this is a simulator and not a game (at least how I am understanding your statement).

As far as the DAMAGE MODEL goes:

The Huey feels-Realistic.

The Hind feels-Realistic.

The Hip feels-Borderline too strong but still mostly realistic. 

Recent changes to the Gazelle (So one does not revert to thought processes of the original)feels- Borderline too strong but still mostly realistic.

The Blackshark feels- Unrealistic. (I didn't test it but I bet the Hip can take more damage) as the TTK probably falls somewhere in between the Huey and Hip.

The Apache feels- Unrealistic. (I didn't test it but I bet the Hip can take more damage) as the TTK probably falls somewhere in between the Huey and Hip.

I am not here bashing devs or criticizing anyone, I am just pointing out the obvious tweaks that need to be made for a more realistic "feel". Yes, the feel for realism is based on perspective, if it doesn't SEEM real it takes away from the overall satisfaction of the "simulation", then it truly does become just a game. Just remember also, there is a fine line between realism and what is fun when it comes to games, and it is not fun to me to be shot down in an Armored Attack helicopter just about as easily as being shot down in an Unarmored Utility Helicopter.

 

[Fastbreak]

SixStreaker, you ought to see reason - "Because what must not be cannot be" (Christian Morgenstern – The Impossible Fact).

[zerO_crash]

On 3/6/2024 at 8:52 PM, StreakerSix said:

I'm fairly certain you haven't read my original posts in this thread, all those claims I have made are cited and stated in there, to include my testing with nothing but 4 AK-47 and 2 12.7mm weapons shooting at them.

Yes, they will all be slightly different, however, one CAN NOT deny that a Huey has almost the same TTK as the Blackshark and Apache.... That right there should show you just how unrealistic the damage models are for these two Helicopters, especially seeing as this is a simulator and not a game (at least how I am understanding your statement).

As far as the DAMAGE MODEL goes:

The Huey feels-Realistic.

The Hind feels-Realistic.

The Hip feels-Borderline too strong but still mostly realistic. 

Recent changes to the Gazelle (So one does not revert to thought processes of the original)feels- Borderline too strong but still mostly realistic.

The Blackshark feels- Unrealistic. (I didn't test it but I bet the Hip can take more damage) as the TTK probably falls somewhere in between the Huey and Hip.

The Apache feels- Unrealistic. (I didn't test it but I bet the Hip can take more damage) as the TTK probably falls somewhere in between the Huey and Hip.

I am not here bashing devs or criticizing anyone, I am just pointing out the obvious tweaks that need to be made for a more realistic "feel". Yes, the feel for realism is based on perspective, if it doesn't SEEM real it takes away from the overall satisfaction of the "simulation", then it truly does become just a game. Just remember also, there is a fine line between realism and what is fun when it comes to games, and it is not fun to me to be shot down in an Armored Attack helicopter just about as easily as being shot down in an Unarmored Utility Helicopter.

 

 

I have read and seen all the posts in the thread, and that is precisely why I pull out the points that I do. While the discussion is somewhat irrelevant in the long-term aspect (new damage model will come to more than just WWII aircraft), in the near term, I give you the examples for why your testing is flawed at hand. Initially when Mi-8MTV-2 released, it was getting shot down by a couple of AK shots. It would literally take 2-3 AI soldier with common personal weapons, to pop one/two of your engines, and that was the end of the mission (mostly). The problem back then, was that the AI would explicitly aim for your engines, and had superior accuracy, when aiming for the Mi-8MTV-2 specifically. To that extent, it felt like all the other helicopters would take a fair amount of beating, where Mi-8MTV-2 had no place in combat closer than 3km to a target. Certain changes were made there, most of all, the AI's accuracy was toned with regards to hitting the engines, and that issue got solved. The point being, it's not always the damage model which is to blame.

 

First and foremost, this is not a contest, thus doing a comparison in the form of "X should be tougher than Y, because X is a combat helicopter, and Y is a utility one.", is pointless. It is an improper way to tackle the issue, and while your testing might seem interesting, it does actually point to more issues at hand. Namely, if you watch closely your attempts with the Huey, it seems durable, because the bullets are hitting mainly the middle of the helicopter. If those hits were anything close to real life, then both pilots would be shot to pieces either by the first bullets, or by the shattered glass in the cockpit (most bullets are going through front windshields). For some reason however, the bullets (look at the incoming tracers), go mainly towards the middle of the airframe - neither killing the crew, nor damaging any vital components. This then, gives a flawed perception of what the Huey is capable of handling. There is a reason why Huey Cobra was introduced (other requirements aside). Notice how Cobra, introduced a slim design as its main attribute to present a smaller signature. Furthermore, you are comparing two aircraft which are in a state of development. There are videos showing Mi-24P being nearly impervious to 7.62mm bullets, which while it is considered a tank in the sky, it is not. If you hit some of the vital components (engine intake, sides of the bubble canopies, certain parts of the rotors (bearings, shafts, etc...), it will get damaged. Both the Mi-24P, and especially the AH-64D (the glass will not take that damage it took on your video IRL!), are all individual aircraft, and in making. There is no comparison here. 

 

You are further making claims as to what "feels" realistic or not. That is neither an argument, nor a qualified opinion to have. The closest we will come to judging what damage will be handled by an airframe, is refering to either credible sources that have performed such tests, having detailed information from former shootdowns and action in conflicts or having pilots/manufacturers provide their insight (which still has to be confirmed is many ways, as e.g. memory is neither consistent nor credible). In terms of manufacturers, it has to be pointed out that there is PR in play, and one has to consider very carefully the wording. Semantics-wise, there is absolutely no instance in which a manufacturer will claim that an airframe "will" (with certainty) handle damage from any given calibre. Instead, they use "can". The reason is that the whole topic on damage, is a very complex one. There are far too many metrics to consider, in order to qualitatively give a specific promise. An example here, is that Mil (Rosobornexport) claims that Mi-24 (and its derivatives), "can" handle up to 23mm "splinters", whilst Boeing claims that AH-64 "can" handle up to 23mm "fire". The the word "fire", does not imply the bullet, but rather the whole system, meaning for example fragments from the bullets.

 

Simply put, ED has to investigate this, and see what they come up with (based on individual modules). I would recommend writing a bug report on the UH-1H in the appropriate forums as well, with that video. It proves that AI have a point-specific shooting pattern for the UH-1H.

Theory:

http://www.ppgaerospace.com/getmedia/9a556385-c535-491c-bbce-e332a8ca63bf/boeing_apache_-AH64-12021Final.pdf?ext=.pdf

 

Practice:

Edited March 19, 2024 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

On 10/31/2023 at 6:48 PM, Hobel said:

You can't compare the two helicopters that easily.   Even if the armor values between all 3 helicopters were absolutely equal, the Mi-24 would have a better survival probability than ka-50 or apache.  One of the reasons is that the engines of the Mi-24 are not so dispositioned but rather hidden.  The engines of the other two are very exposed.   What are the main reasons for their crashes as I observe it, especially with apache is the loss of the engines?

To correct this:

That is wrong, and completely opposite of what it actually is. There is a reason why every moden attack/combat helicopter has engines spaced on both sides of the fuselage (as far as doable - performance/mission dictate design). Whilst by default, both configurations shield the engines in a similar way, notice how, from below, the engines typically are placed such that wings are obstructing them. Primarily though, the reason for going away from the engine-by-engine arrangement, is that both configurations are susceptible to losing at least one engine upon direct impacts. Where the difference lies, is that with engines close together (even with armored plate between), the chances of losing both engines is far higher, than when you have a fuselage between them (more space (shielding from pressure), more material that can stop a bullet/part/shrapnel, and higher chance that the bullet/part/shrapnel will miss the other engine (the further apart two objects are, the less space they occupy of the their arc in a crossection).

 

There are positives though, with engines high up on the fuselage and well ahead, for example; the Mi-24 is not prone to dynamic gas ingestion, even when firing rockets as big as the S-25. Another positive, is that due to being mounted higher up, they are less susceptible to dust/particles, than otherwise helicopters with engines mounted down low. Ultimately, the Mi-24, has the engines placed in such a way, so as to permit a troop/cargo compartment in the middle. That is the reason for such an arrangement. As Mil learned themselves from Afghanistan though, when one engine got hit in combat, often, both went out. (One engine experiencing a malfunction, sends turbine blades and other pieces flying in all directions. With the kind of forces a turboshaft engine exerts, the armored barrier sitting between gets easily pierced.)

 

Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, however survivability, is prescribed to the separated configuration, out of the two.

Edited March 19, 2024 by zerO_crash

[Blackjack_UK]

On 3/19/2024 at 12:25 PM, zerO_crash said:

...Ultimately, the Mi-24, has the engines placed in such a way, so as to permit a troop/cargo compartment in the middle. That is the reason for such an arrangement.

 

While not germane to the argument my inner pedant can't leave this.

Not strictly true. The Mi-24 has the powertrain arrangement that it does because it's based on the Mi-8 which had the same arrangement. The reason for this was simple - The Mi-8 was a natural development of the Mi-2 which had the same engine/gearbox arrangement because in the early 60's that was the way to go. Actually for a utility chopper it still is...

Before that you had the Chicktaw/Wessex arrangement with engine(s) below and ahead of the cockpit and a complicated and heavy shaft arrangement to drive the gearbox above the cockpit.

Edited April 23, 2024 by Blackjack_UK

[zerO_crash]

22 hours ago, Blackjack_UK said:

While not germane to the argument my inner pedant can't leave this.

Not strictly true. The Mi-24 has the powertrain arrangement that it does because it's based on the Mi-8 which had the same arrangement. The reason for this was simple - The Mi-8 was a natural development of the Mi-2 which had the same engine/gearbox arrangement because in the early 60's that was the way to go. Actually for a utility chopper it still is...

Before that you had the Chicktaw/Wessex arrangement with engine(s) below and ahead of the cockpit and a complicated and heavy shaft arrangement to drive the gearbox above the cockpit.

 

With that statement, while I didn't mention it, I wrote it in relation to my former line of arguing - focused on design in the former years (pre- and aft- of Vietnam/Afghanistan - first helicopter wars). I didn't want to expand the topic too far, unless needed (forum norm). I wasn't specific enough though - you are absolutely right and we agree on that point

 

Pedants of the world, unite! 

[Blackjack_UK]

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

Pedants of the world, unite! 

We will take over eventually

And by the way I absolutely agree with the rest of your argument in that post.

[zerO_crash]

3 hours ago, Blackjack_UK said:

We will take over eventually

And by the way I absolutely agree with the rest of your argument in that post.

I see you are playing the game as well - tactics of the grand subversion. Sugarcoat the falllen until we have them in our net, then it's time for resocialization. A factory of pedants and gentlemen, all at once. My stamp is running overtime though, almost out of ink... Hahaha, good stuff! 
 

Amen to us, harbingers of truth! We do it, because no one else would 

[LuseKofte]

On 3/19/2024 at 1:25 PM, zerO_crash said:

Primarily though, the reason for going away from the engine-by-engine arrangement, is that both configurations are susceptible to losing at least one engine upon direct impacts. Where the difference lies, is that with engines close together (even with armored plate between

Norwegian airforce Seaking had a total loss of power on both engines over sea during a test ride after a major overhaul. My brother worked at the time as a technician on F 16 situated in a hangar next to this workshop. 
He said it was awful quiet, for a week after the accident. Pilots and technicians survived the accident with no injuries after a perfect autorotation 

one engine blew parts out the air intake and the other engine sucked it in. Rendering both engines a total loss and subsequently wrecked the chopper. It landed at sea and went on as a training chassis.

[zerO_crash]

5 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Norwegian airforce Seaking had a total loss of power on both engines over sea during a test ride after a major overhaul. My brother worked at the time as a technician on F 16 situated in a hangar next to this workshop. 
He said it was awful quiet, for a week after the accident. Pilots and technicians survived the accident with no injuries after a perfect autorotation 

one engine blew parts out the air intake and the other engine sucked it in. Rendering both engines a total loss and subsequently wrecked the chopper. It landed at sea and went on as a training chassis.

Was it the accident from 21. May 1991 by Grimstad? 
 

It's a particularly unfortunate accident. It's surreal that parts would, upon failiure, be sent flying perpedicular to the plane of motion. The only thing I can think of here, is a compressor stall (I doubt that an explosion would have occured).
 

Good that everyone escaped unharmed. Still, it goes to show that efforts to mitigate risk by any means, in particular design, are well worth it.