Operating in cold climates

[astrospud]

I have tried on a few occasions to fly missions in cold climates, the last being "On The Other Side".

I know that the KA-50 has de-icing functions, but can't reconcile how to operate the ship as normal in sub-zero climates with these on.

I seem to loose RPM gradually and can't recover.

This tends to happen in prolonged hover, searching for targets.

Any help would be appreciated. :)

[mvsgas]

Are you turning engine anty-ice on? It sounds like that is the problem.

[astrospud]

I am, but am I doing that too late? Do I have to turn them all on before I get to sub zero temps?

[Sabre-TLA]

I turn on all the heat related switches:

 

Pitot static port and AoA Sensors heat switch: LALT+LSHIFT+S

Pitot ram air and clock heat switch: LCTRL+LSHIFT+S

Rotor de-icing system switch: LALT+LCTRL+LSHIFT+S

Engines de-icing systems switch: LALT+I

 

As part of takeoff routine.

[159th_Viper]

Aye - Some esentials are ALWAYS Forgotten :joystick:

[astrospud]

Thanks for all the feedback. My question is more related to the operational capacity of the ship. With all anti freeze gear turned on, am I still able to throw the Shark around as well as maintain a stable hover in these conditions?

[159th_Viper]

....With all anti freeze gear turned on, am I still able to throw the Shark around as well as maintain a stable hover in these conditions?

 

Dependant on Altitude, Yes.

[astrospud]

Rgr. Much appreciated :)

[sobek]

You lose a few hundred HP by activating the angine anti ice, but apart from that, it should handle the same.

[Bucic]

You lose a few hundred HP by activating the angine anti ice, but apart from that, it should handle the same.

Few hundred HP? :huh: Are you sure? Ka-50 powerplant is 2х2,200. IMO there should be a clear information on the subject in the manual - decrease by what percentage of total powerplant is to be expected after switching the engine anti-ice system on. If anyone can throw a rough percentage.

[159th_Viper]

....If anyone can throw a rough percentage.

 

Why do you just not run a Mission and ascertain the Loss First-Hand? Flick of a Switch will do it.

[sobek]

Few hundred HP? :huh: Are you sure? Ka-50 powerplant is 2х2,200. IMO there should be a clear information on the subject in the manual - decrease by what percentage of total powerplant is to be expected after switching the engine anti-ice system on. If anyone can throw a rough percentage.

 

I think that might be flight envelope dependant.

[Bucic]

I think that might be flight envelope dependant.

It would be good to know a reference value for the least favourable condition - low alt hover without ground effect.

[AlphaOneSix]

Your EGT will rise between 30 and 50 degrees with the engine anti-ce on. Max EGT is 995. That's roughly 3%-5% power loss. 3%-5% power loss is 66-110HP loss per engine.

Edited January 24, 2010 by AlphaOneSix

[Bucic]

Your EGT will rise between 30 and 50 degrees with the engine anti-ce on. Max EGT is 995. That's roughly 3%-5% power loss. 3%-5% power loss is 66-110HP loss per engine.

I was hoping that either you or AirTito will pick up the question :) Thank you.

Besides checking it on our own should be an easy task because Ka-50 has a dedicated Engine Power Indicator (extended manual, page 6-87).

[Frederf]

Remember to warm up the INU and engine well on those cold, Russian mornings.

[Prophet4no1]

So, car you have engine failure if you do not wait for the engines to heat up before taking off? I mean if you rush through everything and go? I can get the engines burning in about 1.5min if I don't worry about all the extra sub systems and just get enough on to let me fly.

[sobek]

So, car you have engine failure if you do not wait for the engines to heat up before taking off? I mean if you rush through everything and go? I can get the engines burning in about 1.5min if I don't worry about all the extra sub systems and just get enough on to let me fly.

 

IRL there is a warmup phase for the APU after startup and a mimimum APU cooldown period between engine starts (as well as before APU shutdown), which is about 1 minute, IIRC . Also the engines must not be taken out of idle before eng oil temp is above 30°C(?) and gearbox oil temp above -5°C(?), so as not to risk to reduce service life or damage the engines. In DCS, however, this does not cause any ramifications. Same thing with takeoff power, time limit is 6 mins (?, i'm sure A16 is gonna correct me on these values :)) and time limit for max cont is 1 hour (again, not sure on the numbers). In DCS, you will not notice any engine degradation below the governed maximum power setting.

[Prophet4no1]

But this s not simulated in game?

[Frederf]

Running the engines over EGT limits and/or in dusty conditions does have modeled damage in the sim. I'm not sure which engine carelessnesses are ignored and modeled exactly though.

[26-J39]

Running the engines over EGT limits and/or in dusty conditions does have modeled damage in the sim. I'm not sure which engine carelessnesses are ignored and modeled exactly though.

 

Both are modeled as you mentioned, excessive EGT's & flying in dust without dust protectors. ( try to hover in a dust cloud and see how long it takes to destroy an engine, took less than 15min when i tried :D ) and obviously anti-ice in sub-zero temps is necessary.

[Frederf]

Right but is advancing to high RPM before the gearbox has warmed up consequences modeled or no?

[astrospud]

Well, I can say in the last scenario I mentioned in the OP, I lost left engine oil pressure. Not sure if a lack of pre-fligtht warmup had anything to do with it.

With all the answers here, I'm guessing I failed to switch engine anti-ice on (although I could have thought about doing it, without actually doing it!).

 

Now, if damage modelling is as mentioned and, short of hovering above a sandpit, like J did (;)), does this have any affect on campaign missions?

For example, should you actually perform a mission where damamge has accumulated, does this translate to a damaged ship in the following mission?

I mean IRL I imagine mission to mission might be seperated by a factor of hours or days. Not enough time for an overhaul or engine replacement.

I can understand the need for damage modelling if this were the case.

I pretty much fly MP now, so I don't see how accumulated damage modelling will have any baring on how I fly in a MP session. I am not so hard core that I would actually care about my gearbox seals and barings are being worn at an exponential rate :D.

 

This being considered for a moment, I am very rarely successful in making it home in one piece anyways!!:megalol:

[EtherealN]

My impression on "what's modeled and what's not" is that those things that would cause life-cycle damage (that is, component replacement needed earlier in the chopper's lifecycle as opposed to causing failure in that flight) are not modeled. Since such information isn't passed over between flights having a model for it would only eat CPU cycles for no gains.

 

But I'm not 100% on that.

[Bucic]

It is just my wild guess that none of it is modeled except of power loss due to EGT increase.

Why cumulative damage is needed. Like you said it is needed at least throughout the given mission. That's the least. Second - I think weakening of the airframe is not modeled too e.g. if you land hard barely avoiding loss of your tail, wings or even explosion airframe integrity during the second similar landing will be calculated without taking the first hard landing into account.