How to turn a Ka-50 into a Ka-25

[BBQ]

I've been reading too much "Song of Ice and Fire" lately; I almost titled the video "Half Man"

 

:music_whistling:

 

[MTFDarkEagle]

Oooh yes.. I've had that a couple of times :-)

 

Makes for some interesting flights back to base :D

 

Flying looking outside your sidewindow :joystick:

[Devrim]

Funny.

 

By the way, when rear part off, Ka-50 must leak too much amount hydraulics and you wouldn't control aircraft, certain time later...

 

Leaking hydraulics isn't simulated?

[MTFDarkEagle]

By the way, when rear part off, Ka-50 must leak too much amount hydraulics and you wouldn't control aircraft, certain time later...

 

Are you sure about this??

[Devrim]

I didn't see this in DCS World. That was a guess.

 

I was just thinking; Rudder is moved by hydraulic pressure right?

[Erforce]

The main fact is the Ka is probably not built upon separate blocs like this.

hydraulics, electric and others circuitries should run through the entire craft. Thus removing the back (and not the tail extremity) should cause severe damage to the hull.

 

but in DCS, complex crafts has separate "life" blocs. it's easier to kill a subsystem.

 

Ships has separate blocs too, but i never see one braking like the titanic :)

(note : i did not saw the titanic too)

[Bucic]

Funny.

 

By the way, when rear part off, Ka-50 must leak too much amount hydraulics and you wouldn't control aircraft, certain time later...

 

Leaking hydraulics isn't simulated?

Main controls and empannage controls are most probably on separate lines

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/black_shark/22760/#image

 

Edit:

Nope. See item 4.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Bucic

[Devrim]

Thank you Bucic. So, I think there's no any hydraulic pipe or something connected to rear fuselage...

[Bucic]

Thank you Bucic. So, I think there's no any hydraulic pipe or something connected to rear fuselage...

Sure there is. Are... I'd watch the track again and check the hydraulic pressures. Also '50 may be controllable without hydraulic augmentation. I don't know. If it completely retains hydraulic system operation it should be reported as a bug obviously.

 

Then you can always test a complete main hydraulic system failure without losing the tail and observe the parameters. It's something.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Bucic

[MTFDarkEagle]

Going by memory, HYD pressure is indeed lost when you "lose" ( :P ) the tail.. Will have to look into it..

 

I'm pretty positive the Ka is controllable without HYD augmentation.

[GunfighterSIX]

KA-50 like most large helicopters is probably not controllable with a full hyd failure. I know the UH-60 can't fly with a full loss, the controls lock up. And if you lost the back half of your helicopter your Center of gravity would shift so much that you would flip over forward.

[Bucic]

I'm pretty confident CoG shift is handled properly in BS. What raises questions is how the 50 retains controllability. Can anyone report back with complete settled hydro indications after losing the tail?

[BBQ]

I'm pretty confident CoG shift is handled properly in BS. What raises questions is how the 50 retains controllability. Can anyone report back with complete settled hydro indications after losing the tail?

 

I'll try.

[GunfighterSIX]

I promise CG is not handled properly. There have been real world crashes where the helicopter noised over and spun in the ground after just loosing the weight of tail rotor components. This aircraft lost 70% airframe behind the mast. A fuel imbalance in the KA-50 shows more of an effect than the tail falling off.

[AlphaOneSix]

It would not be possible to control the helicopter without hydraulics.

 

It cannot fly without the tail, it would be so far out of CG that it would be uncontrollable. However, the tail should also not fall off as easily as it does in-game.

[Bucic]

It would not be possible to control the helicopter without hydraulics.

 

It cannot fly without the tail, it would be so far out of CG that it would be uncontrollable. However, the tail should also not fall off as easily as it does in-game.

Would cutting off the tail cause a complete loss of hydraulic pressure or is there a fail safe system that isolate torn off line?

 

CoG:

Has this been reported? I mean, in a form of a bug report.

[AlphaOneSix]

Would cutting off the tail cause a complete loss of hydraulic pressure or is there a fail safe system that isolate torn off line?

 

To my knowledge, which I admit is limited, there are no hydraulic lines or units in the tail. I believe that the rudder is controlled by a cable, which itself is actuated hydraulically, but losing the tail would just cut the cables, not anything in the hydraulics. Again, I do no have direct, real-life Ka-50 experience, so I do not know this for sure.

 

CoG:

Has this been reported? I mean, in a form of a bug report.

 

Not to my knowledge, no. If I were to do it, it would not be a bug for the CoG, it would be a bug for the tail falling off. I don't believe the tail should come off without the aircraft either hitting the ground or in the event of a huge explosion which also destroys the rest of the aircraft simultaneously.

[DieHard]

Funny.

 

By the way, when rear part off, Ka-50 must leak too much amount hydraulics and you wouldn't control aircraft, certain time later...

 

Leaking hydraulics isn't simulated?

 

A few months back I was flying on the Eno Firehouse server. I watched a guy RTB with his whole tail blown off, fly the Ka-50 using just the two main rotors fly quite a ways back and land perfectly at the designated ramp parking area. I was watching him in the F4/F3 views.

 

Is this realistic?

 

If you observe the external rotors' control surfaces in F3, rotors stationary, one can see the different aspects of the blades' movement while moving the cyclic.

[MTFDarkEagle]

Is this realistic?

Yes. Unlike a "regular" helicopter, this one doesn't "require" it's tail. There might be a CG shift which could cause problems and hydraulic system(s) failure(s) which would make things even more difficult but not impossible. I've done it several times as well :-)

Makes some interesting flying, looking out your sidewindow where you are going :P

[AlphaOneSix]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

 

Until someone can show me a weigh and balance report that proves that removing the tail keeps the aircraft at least close to it's normal CG envelope, then I say that being able to fly with it missing is ABSOLUTELY UNREALISTIC.

 

However...

 

It's also not possible for the tailboom to become separated like it does without destroying the rest of the aircraft along with it.

[Bucic]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

 

Until someone can show me a weigh and balance report that proves that removing the tail keeps the aircraft at least close to it's normal CG envelope, then I say that being able to fly with it missing is ABSOLUTELY UNREALISTIC.

So, it may be the case that e.g. only the empennage mass is removed from the model?

 

It's also not possible for the tailboom to become separated like it does without destroying the rest of the aircraft along with it.

Something like this would be a good start

Damage model - new factors