How hard (real) will the Ka-50 be to fly in 1.2?

[Doug97]

Without getting into the whole "hard doesn't necessarily mean real" debate here, is anyone willing to have a guess as to how difficult this helicopter will be to fly? I mean, with all realism settings on, it should be very difficult, and require the use of separate joystick, throttle and pedals.

 

Can anyone tell me if the Ka-50 has separate throttle and rotor blade pitch controls? If so, I can't get my head around how ED will implement this in a PC game - I can't think of any products on the market that allow you to control both simultaneously (except the ultra-expensive Copycat controls).

 

Also, does anyone know if the Ka-50 has linked throttle and tail rotor controls (if so, that's one example of easier being more realistic)?

[504MrWolf]

The only guys who can tell are the DEV's as we the beta testers wont know until after 1.11 has been released.

[Doug97]

Ok, that's fair enough.

 

But if you don't know for sure, have a guess!

 

My personal feeling is that with maximum realism, you will need separate throttle, joystick and pedals. However, the throttle will do the job of both the throttle and pitch shift.

 

I still don't know about whether or not the real Ka-50 links the tail rotor to the throttle/pitch shift. Surely someone must know? Crack open those Jane's guides!

[STAR_80]

I still don't know about whether or not the real Ka-50 links the tail rotor to the throttle/pitch shift. Surely someone must know? Crack open those Jane's guides!

 

The KA-50 does not use a tail rotor as it uses a coaxial rotor design .

 

The coaxial rotor design provides a hovering ceiling of 4,000 metres and vertical rate of climb of 10 metres per second at an altitude of 2,500 metres. The rotor blades are made from polymer materials. The hingeless main rotor head requires no lubrication.

 

The coaxial-rotor configuration results in moments of inertia values relative to vertical and lateral axes being between 1.5 to 2 times less than the values found in conventionally designed combat single rotor helicopters with tailrotors. Absence of the tail rotor enables the Ka-50 to perform flat turns within the entire flight speed range. A maximum vertical g-load of 3.5 combined with low moments of inertia give the Ka-50 a high level of agility and manoeuverability.

[Doug97]

The KA-50 does not use a tail rotor.

 

The coaxial-rotor configuration results in moments of inertia values relative to vertical and lateral axes being between 1.5 to 2 times less than the values found in conventionally designed combat single rotor helicopters with tailrotors. Absence of the tail rotor enables the helicopter to perform flat turns within the entire flight speed range. A maximum vertical g-load of 3.5 combined with low moments of inertia give the Ka-50 a high level of agility and manoeuverability.

Doh! I guess if I'd have just bothered to do a Google image search I could have seen that straight away ...

 

Anyway, thanks for your answer!

 

Do you know if the blade pitch is automated in some way, so the pilot only needs to worry about the engine revs (or vice versa)? Is it even fly by wire (I'm guessing not ...)?

[STAR_80]

The MDP, based on the R-308I-family, processes all of the information given to the MFCD as a result of commands from the pilot based on inputs to the Hands On Collective and Stick (HOCAS). This is a real aid to the crew, as the pilot does not have to remove his hands from the HOCAS. The same basic concept is true for the gunner; all of his commands are generated via hand in-puts to his HOCAS.

 

Basically the main flight computer recieves the input from the HOCAS (collective/stick). The flight computer will determine what functions need to happen to get the aircracft to perform as to what is ask of it. And still remain in the flight envelope. So fact of the matter the flight physics that we see modeled if done considering realism might even seem a bit noobish to us.

 

Guess they can go ahead and borrow the crap FM's from BF2's helo controls and be done with it LOL!! Not really, Oooh, felt queezy just thinking that.

[Force_Feedback]

BF2 is by far the hardest flight sim to fly a chopper in, it appears that the throttle doesn't work in the "normal" way, but some random expoential throttle setting, drove me crazy, I returned that stupid game to the hell it came from, yuk.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Do you know if the blade pitch is automated in some way, so the pilot only needs to worry about the engine revs (or vice versa)?

 

Engine RPM is constant on (most) RC helicopters. I assume that to be the case with real helis!

[Sealpup]

The Ka-50 should be a fairly easy ride compared to other helo's. The coaxial design creates 2 major advantages that other helo's dont have:

 

1. No torque! And, in addition, no vulnerable anti-torque rotor in the tail (for those wondering, yaw control is accomplished by increasing collective on one rotor-disk, and decreasing it on the other, causing an increase in torque in one direction or the other)

 

2. The stacked rotors move the center of lift up higher above the center of gravity. This creates a natural tendency for the aircraft to want to return to a neutral orientation at all times (depending on the lateral/longitudinal location of the CG, of course). A properly balanced coax with direct mechanical controls (no computer stability) will hover safely hands-off.

 

IMO, Eagle has picked a fine helo to give you spoiled fixed-wing pilots something to learn in. :D

[BOPrey]

1. No torque! And, in addition, no vulnerable anti-torque rotor in the tail (for those wondering, yaw control is accomplished by increasing collective on one rotor-disk, and decreasing it on the other, causing an increase in torque in one direction or the other)

 

If it is in motion, doesn't this cause the helo to tild to one side? At least for the duration of the turn.

[Sleek]

well the 50 flys ok in EECH (not gonna be the same i know) :p but i been flyin EECH since new :)

 

can't wait till 1.2!! choppers are my real luv :cool:

[EvilBivol-1]

just to make sure no further ambiguity surrounds this particular question, *yes*, the throttle and pitch controls are linked on the Ka-50. Of course, this is only the case as long as the flight control system is in normal operation and without damage, failure, etc., in which case the functions can be controlled independently. I don't see why this would be such a difficulty to implement with all the wheels and rotors on today's throttles. Not so easy to use, yes, but very "do-able."

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

i gotta funny feeling that 1.2 is gonna sell like hot cakes within the community, and within 2 weeks everyone gonna go back to flying planes and just dump the helo. just my opinion but i really think thats whats gonna happen, even tho i lub helos, i got a feeling that helos in lomac is gonna be a novelty for a week or two then ppl will realise that when E aircraft are in the area they gonna live for 30 seconds and couple that with a harder flight system = disaster

even tho i will buy it, this is just my opinion, maybe am wrong and in fact the helo will pwn every single aircraft that it goes up against :P. but i can only see the hardcore flyers flying the helo after a period of time or keeping it for single player only, which woud be a real shame as far as am concerned, as i can think of nothing better than a good few helos all flying in formation in mulitplayer with ride of the valkyries in the background and when everyone starts to let loose, we all suddenly get 1fps..... :D

[Doug97]

I don't see why this would be such a difficulty to implement with all the wheels and rotors on today's throttles. Not so easy to use, yes, but very "do-able."

I agree, if it is linked, there should be no problem.

 

i gotta funny feeling that 1.2 is gonna sell like hot cakes within the community, and within 2 weeks everyone gonna go back to flying planes and just dump the helo. just my opinion but i really think thats whats gonna happen, even tho i lub helos, i got a feeling that helos in lomac is gonna be a novelty for a week or two then ppl will realise that when E aircraft are in the area they gonna live for 30 seconds and couple that with a harder flight system = disaster

 

Yep, I'm planning on only flying helos in singleplayer, even though I also "lub" them :icon_wink

[Guest IguanaKing]

Engine RPM is constant on (most) RC helicopters. I assume that to be the case with real helis!

 

Actually, engine RPM and blade (collective) pitch USED TO BE two separate issues, like on Bell 47s, early 206s, and some of the early military helicopters like the UH-1 and AH-1. Engine RPM was controlled by a twisting motion in the center of the collective, much like the throttle on a motorcycle. Modern western helicopters (the advanced type...not talking Robinsons or Schweizers now ;) ), however, have just the collective, the pilot no longer gives throttle inputs, so the throttle has been removed. Modern helicopters are controlled by collective, cyclic, and anti-torque (tail rotor) pedals...there is no throttle anymore. Not sure about Russian helicopters though, many of their jets differ from western jets, so their helicopters might be different as well.

[Sealpup]

If it is in motion, doesn't this cause the helo to tild to one side? At least for the duration of the turn.

 

Well, seeing as one of the rotor disks will have blades at a higher AoA than the other, that disk would suffer retreating blade stall more severe than the other disk. Also, the other disk would be suffering LESS blade stall on the opposite side, and also be generating less lift on the side that is stalling for the previous disk. So, at least going on the theory, what would happen in foreward flight is the helo would roll to the outside of a flat turn.

 

However, since you're already in foreward flight, you likely wouldn't do just a flat yawing turn, you'd likely roll into it and add some collective for a coordinated bank. So, that -shouldn't- be noticed. But, then again, knowing the psychos that live on this board... ;)

[Sealpup]

i gotta funny feeling that 1.2 is gonna sell like hot cakes within the community, and within 2 weeks everyone gonna go back to flying planes and just dump the helo. just my opinion but i really think thats whats gonna happen, even tho i lub helos, i got a feeling that helos in lomac is gonna be a novelty for a week or two then ppl will realise that when E aircraft are in the area they gonna live for 30 seconds and couple that with a harder flight system = disaster

 

Well, if you look at it as an E engagement of helo versus 'fast mover', then yes, the helo is screwed.

 

HOWEVER, the helo has alot of things going for it that a fast mover doesnt.

 

1. Terrain: Unlike a fast mover, helo's can hide behind things. Trees, buildings, bridges, SAM launchers. If it's taller and wider than the helo, the helo can use it for cover.

 

2. Clutter: This fits in with terrain. Being able to fly so low allows a helo to take better advantage of terrain for cluttering radar returns, making it harder to detect.

 

3. Notch: The helo is the ultimate machine for notching someone's radar. Just hover! Bam, you are now part of the terrain, and filtered from their radar returns.

 

Fighting a helo would likely be a visual engagement, with IR weapons in use. The fast mover would need to make strafing-like passes to attack, and the helo would just need to pivot to face in order to fire. IR missiles used for both sides, with the fast mover having the option of guns.

 

So, are helo's affraid of fast movers? Yes.

 

Are they helpless against them? No.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Heh...I wonder how the twin, coaxial rotors will affect things like vortex rings and mast bumping. :D

[GGTharos]

Well, if you look at it as an E engagement of helo versus 'fast mover', then yes, the helo is screwed.

 

HOWEVER, the helo has alot of things going for it that a fast mover doesnt.

 

1. Terrain: Unlike a fast mover, helo's can hide behind things. Trees, buildings, bridges, SAM launchers. If it's taller and wider than the helo, the helo can use it for cover.

 

 

Not so simple. The fighter can just make a steeper aproach for his attack, and hit the top. And it's not like you become invisible either, helos aren't that hard to spot. In GF1, A-10's took one helo out with guns (that I know of) and the helo didn't really get to do all that much to avoid it. It was a straight shot, as described by the pilot - in other words, you need to be aware of it.

 

2. Clutter: This fits in with terrain. Being able to fly so low allows a helo to take better advantage of terrain for cluttering radar returns, making it harder to detect.

 

Not a big deal, really. Not different from detecting a low-flying aircraft. If you mean terrian MASKING, that's obviously quite different and circumstantial, too.

 

3. Notch: The helo is the ultimate machine for notching someone's radar. Just hover! Bam, you are now part of the terrain, and filtered from their radar returns.

 

Not really - those blades are moving at velocities well past those of the notch gate. Of course, it's possible that within the beam they average out to zero, so this question is a touch harder to answer. But regardless, once detected, what are you going to do - stop and sit there until the heaters and bullets start raining down?

 

Fighting a helo would likely be a visual engagement, with IR weapons in use. The fast mover would need to make strafing-like passes to attack, and the helo would just need to pivot to face in order to fire. IR missiles used for both sides, with the fast mover having the option of guns.

 

Actually, when it comes to weapons, the fighter's the far more advantaged participant in this little duel - no helo mounts AAMs with the same capabilities as AAMs that are carried by fighters. The seekers on fighter AAMs are typically more sensitive to begin with - the missiles are faster, longer ranged, and more maneuverable. The helo has a better chance of decoying them, but now with FPA's coming (like the AIM-9X) to the sensor package, that won't work all that well.

As far as guns go, this one's easy for the helo: Turn towards the fighter and fly as low and as fast as you can towards it. I'll let you figure out the implication for the fighter's gun-aiming in this situation ;)

 

So, are helo's affraid of fast movers? Yes.

 

Are they helpless against them? No.

 

Theoretically no, practically, pretty much yes ;) Don't forget that it's a real rarity to see a helo carrying any type of AAM at all, and if they do it's of the Stinger/Igla fame, not anything else. In addition helo pilots barely get trained for helo v helo combat, let alone any helo v fighter action whatsoever - they probably just receive some instructions on what to do and that's it - minimum if any practice. AFAIK, anyway.

 

SO yeah, they're practically fairly helpless and must depend on evading and frustrating the fighter pilot enough, which is not always possible.

[Sealpup]

Dont want to argue...but I guess I'm in the mood for it ;)

 

The 'Chopper Popper' you're talking about was in a desert. Not alot of ground clutter, and a Hind is a fuggin BIG helo. It stands out anywhere (probably shouldn't even bother camoing the thing).

 

Next, on notch: No, I'm not suggesting sitting still when attacked. I am suggesting sitting still when the SPO starts making search noises. Once the attack is on, sitting still will get you killed, I agree.

 

Terrain: Well, yes, the aircraft can go to a higher angle to attack, but thats when he finds the chopper. My idea was simply avoiding the engagement, which is what a helo SHOULD do.

 

AAWs: Yes, the Shark would only have Igla's or Strela's, if carried at all. But, the Shark also has IR suppression, combined with rotor downwash to help cool and disperse the exhaust gases. The advantage of an R-73 or AIM-9 might (keyword there) be negated, and it might turn into a shoot first situation, or maybe mutual destruction.

 

I guess I should of made the point that my ideas were for avoiding the fight primarily, not tactics when the missiles fly. When the fight is on, your best tactic is to, as you said, frustrate the pilot and take a missile shot when able.

[Guest IguanaKing]

I believe there was also an airborne Iraqi Mi-24 taken out by a GBU-12 from an F-15E. Another airborne helicopter taken out by an AGM-62 from either an F-18C or A-6E...not sure which though, since it is listed as a co-op kill.

 

What's the Ka-50s IR suppression? Is it anything like our "disco ball"?

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

I believe there was also an airborne Iraqi Mi-24 taken out by a GBU-12 from an F-15E. Another airborne helicopter taken out by an AGM-62 from either an F-18C or A-6E...not sure which though, since it is listed as a co-op kill.

 

= PWND :D

[MikeRocker]

That F-15E kill by Capt. Richard Bennet and Capt. Dan Bakke was actually a GBU-10 (1000 lb). They cleanly guided it to impact and it "vaporised" the chopper. Technically that would be described as PWNED, yes.

 

Also during patrols in the no-fly-zones Strike Eagle crews made high-speed passes close to Iraqi helicopters, on more than one occasion causing them to emergency land or crash.

[Guest IguanaKing]

That F-15E kill by Capt. Richard Bennet and Capt. Dan Bakke was actually a GBU-10 (1000 lb). They cleanly guided it to impact and it "vaporised" the chopper. Technically that would be described as PWNED, yes.

 

The 10 is a 2,000 lb. weapon. ;) Thanks for the info though. I couldn't remember if it was a 500lb LGB or a 2000lb LGB. :cool:

[MikeRocker]

Nope, sorry. The 2000 pounder is the -24. The GBU-10 is 1000 lb. That was one hell of a bang nonetheless, though. A part of me would have liked to have seen that.