Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Warmoer

Blackfoot/Comanche Pilot Position Incorrect

Recommended Posts

from Mattar_Tharkari link's doucument

For all missions, the pilot flying the aircraft was assigned to the front seat, and the pilot operating the MEP was

assigned to the back seat. Pilots alternated between the front seat and back seat positions during each phase. A total of 30 missions was conducted during the

FDE.

another document

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA417885

The pilots completed 39 missions during FDTE I. For all missions, the pilot who flew the aircraft was assigned to the front seat and the pilot who operated the mission equipment package (MEP) was assigned to the back seat

Comanche is still in testing at that time ,but i think its enough proof that the first seat is design for pilot who fly the aircraft.

---------- Post added at 08:58 ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 ----------

another proof

Test pilot typically wearing orange flight suit to be found easier when something goes wrong, and there they are siting in the front seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know they say a picture is worth a 1000 words!

So what are the chances of finding a picture of 2 Comanche flying in formation with BOTH rear pilots clearly flying while the front seat pilots don’t have their hand on the collective or while the one in the furthest one is rubbing his nose/face with the hand that would be on the cyclic/rudder (you do know the cyclic twisted to provide tail rotor inputs don’t you?).

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HnfNSu4d9Qg/TcXLlSoCgpI/AAAAAAAAB8E/1qfqCiU_2bg/s1600/rah-66-comanche-helicopter-wallpaper_1024x768_18795.jpg

Alternatively if you look in arbecede “another proof†youtube link you can also see that on at least 1 if not 2 excerpts it’s the rear seat pilot flying, while in others excerpts it’s the front seat pilot, and IF you look on youtube most of what is on there is just rehashes of the same old stock footage over and over again.

FYI, the front seat position was used to test new flight hardware and software while the rear seat remained unchanged and would override the front seat inputs, only once flight hardware and software were proved would they be transposed to the rear seat position, so lots of front seat piloting was needed to prove the safety and reliability of hardware/software elements, while the rear seat position didn’t need the same duration of testing.

Also the FDE experiments pertains purely to the portable simulator (CPC) and later (FDE2) the full motion simulator (EDS) tests and that the CPC & EDS cockpits were “not identical to the anticipated design of the production Comanche aircraft†nor did they contain all the simulated systems, so were just button pressing human/machine interface time and motion study with pilots NONE of whom had flown the real thing.

Anyway regardless IF the RAH-66 program was ever resurrected it would be to modern day requirement NOT to old outdated requirements, they would have to build ALL the test aircraft again and redo most of the systems knowing what they know now along with the technological advance they have made, they would need to FIX ALL the problems the old ones were plagued with EVEN if they used the same basic airframe design, another important factor is a bulk of the testing was never done thus the production variant was NEVER set, so whatever BIS dream up is in fact NOT incorrect .

Likewise in real life many helicopter pilots who try to become e.g. AH-64 pilots just don’t make the grade and end up going back to what they were flying and you could probably say more of the same would be true IF the RAH-66 had made it into production, you could probably say an element exist in game if you don’t have good special awareness. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't about realism, it's about functionality. You can't see shit from the back seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your opinion.

Yeah, you will probably have a better view at stuff that is 5 feet in front of you, but for me the overall view is better in the back seat and I get a better 'feeling' for the heli.

Imagine driving a car and your head is where the bumper bar is. That's what front seat feels like for me. I don't know how I could describe it better, but I think you get what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the new "unlock controls" command is a step in the right direction. the "manual fire" command should get improved too ("unlock weapon control").

then pilot and gunner could share controls as they wish. of course the HUD for gunner and pilot would have to get improved for this to work properly. at the moment gunner has no hud at all and pilots hud is bugged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the new "unlock controls" command is a step in the right direction. the "manual fire" command should get improved too ("unlock weapon control").

then pilot and gunner could share controls as they wish. of course the HUD for gunner and pilot would have to get improved for this to work properly. at the moment gunner has no hud at all and pilots hud is bugged.

Heavily agreed with this then it can put the whole thing to rest as clearly proven by military documents the Comanche was built to work both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope to have something definitive soon. Have asked a friend to inquire with Sikorsky to see if there is a document of sufficient caliber to solve the dilemma. Have talked with some retired pilots who were suppose to fly RAH-66 before it was canceled, and they said that the aircraft could be flown from either position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yasotay

There was a rah-66 in a storage lockup at Ft. Rucker that was known to be there in Sep 2011, as there are some photos taken by a pilot being trained there on another aircraft type which show the inside and a side view of the cockpits with himself and another guy sat in it, there were also a set of photos taken in 2007 by another pilot, apparently both on open days.

Apparently it was on display there at one point but it was removed for being “to controversialâ€.

hobbs-rah-01.jpg

Front cockpit: (note RMPD)

http://digitality.comyr.com/Comanche/img/hobbs-rah-02.jpg

Rear cockpit: (note no RMPD)

http://digitality.comyr.com/Comanche/img/hobbs-rah-03.jpg

http://digitality.comyr.com/Comanche/img/hobbs-rah-04.jpg

Rear cockpit cyclic: (note no RMPD)

http://digitality.comyr.com/Comanche/img/hobbs-rah-05.jpg

Going by the descriptions in various places, the "RMPD screen provides information about the operational status and modes of the weapon system, mission equipment and radio and data link ciphony" which are ALL the things you would want as a WSO and not the primary pilot, thus as the RMPD is only in the front on the aircraft at the time of cancelation it tally’s with all the anecdotal info kicking around about redesigns etc to keep up with requirements while at the SAME time neither detracts for the ability for BOTH seats to fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also something that needs to be considered are the EFAMS/Wing Stubs that could be added above the integral weapons bays to carry further armaments. It'd be nice if we got variants of the Commanche/Blackfoot that had those stubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also something that needs to be considered are the EFAMS/Wing Stubs that could be added above the integral weapons bays to carry further armaments. It'd be nice if we got variants of the Commanche/Blackfoot that had those stubs.

Let's just keep this topic about the pilot positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Find a picture of one flying with the wing stubs with armament attached I would be very surprised given the very well documented lack of power and deficient climb rate and they seem to be missing the hard points for the stubs to attach! They dream all sorts of things up early on they cannot or won’t deliver on. ;)

Anyway I have found some more photos, also from Ft. Rucker as apparently BOTH RAH-66 are there in storage lockups.

The images I posted above are the earlier RAH-66 with almost identical cockpits just with the rear missing the RMPD, the later RAH-66 (The Duke) has significantly different instrument panel between the front and rear, the front has 2 extra RH displays and no landing gear warning lights or master caution and is much higher than the earlier front instrument panel with a lower front seat, while the rear instrument panel looks just like the earlier one but with an extra box on top with two MPD's in and has landing gear warning lights, master caution including fire suppression also fire suppression for the gear wells and a higher seat position.

Newer front cockpit:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jv9xJ9iC7lg/TsvjdqhtljI/AAAAAAAAF-8/SI6WpyMQQPU/s800/PICT1715.JPG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-n6T58dhiX24/TsvjdMDdN2I/AAAAAAAAF-4/uPTyHfnwMjM/s800/PICT1712.JPG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Ns2Lrk_1Qkw/Tsvjg9vWH1I/AAAAAAAAF_o/9J7IRLr5Ax8/s800/PICT7541.JPG

Rear cockpit:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-O4OC-5qNnPU/TswCQvS1-OI/AAAAAAAAGB4/vjH9SrM6C1M/s800/PICT3165.JPG

A view from the side flying, who has the better view over the top of their instrument panel!

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-9AlZGWFX-Wg/Tsvi2_2JF6I/AAAAAAAAF-M/sjLwhe_G-dw/s800/Col%252520Howell%252520Comanche0007.jpg

Note seat headrest height:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-iVaXVVBHj2I/Tsvje7IbxQI/AAAAAAAAF_M/f7RmLoeFTng/s800/PICT7533.JPG

So, on the strength of the images of the later (newer) RAH-66 taken in 2011 at Ft. Rucker and given the rear seat appears raised while the front appear lower would indicate the direction development was going was rear seat pilot, front seat WSO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nice pics

Don't you think that Comanche aka Blackfoot would be more upgraded just now if they didnt cancel it in '04?

Am sure they would same way as our Apache , something like this > http://digitality.comyr.com/Comanche/arc/rah-66-blocks.gif

-----

anyway sry for being offtopic

Edited by RobertHammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAH-66 being a child of the AH-64 including Delta would no doubt have cross capability for both crewman to pilot he aircraft. Though it's very interesting to compare the comanche's MPD's vs the apache's, by comparison it has far more "quick page" buttons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guy, i could need your knowledge of the commanche over here.

Enough spamming about your thread, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Find a picture of one flying with the wing stubs with armament attached I would be very surprised given the very well documented lack of power and deficient climb rate and they seem to be missing the hard points for the stubs to attach! They dream all sorts of things up early on they cannot or won’t deliver on. ;)

Anyway I have found some more photos, also from Ft. Rucker as apparently BOTH RAH-66 are there in storage lockups.

The images I posted above are the earlier RAH-66 with almost identical cockpits just with the rear missing the RMPD, the later RAH-66 (The Duke) has significantly different instrument panel between the front and rear, the front has 2 extra RH displays and no landing gear warning lights or master caution and is much higher than the earlier front instrument panel with a lower front seat, while the rear instrument panel looks just like the earlier one but with an extra box on top with two MPD's in and has landing gear warning lights, master caution including fire suppression also fire suppression for the gear wells and a higher seat position.

So, on the strength of the images of the later (newer) RAH-66 taken in 2011 at Ft. Rucker and given the rear seat appears raised while the front appear lower would indicate the direction development was going was rear seat pilot, front seat WSO.

Great photos! Yes the billion dollar museum pieces are in storage still. I would remind you that both of the flying RAH-66 were test aircraft so the cockpit was not very close to what the production aircraft were to be. The intent was that both positions would be identical in the production aircraft. If memory serves the back seat was raised because it was very low and difficult to fly from due to visibility. More of a safety of flight issue than a change of aircrew positioning if I recall correctly. Interestingly part of that was to allow the 5th percentile female aviator (i.e. very short) to see over the displays. If the front seater took a bullet she would need to be able to see out of the aircraft.

As the aircraft were test bed aircraft, they were also demonstrators, so when non-Boeing/Sikorsky pilots got to fly it they would take the front seat and the test pilots would fly from the back seat.

Ultimately I think it would have been an trivial issue. The aircraft would have been operable from either seat, but because it is a military aircraft we have to have our nomenclature, so the front seat stayed the 'pilot in command' station and the back seat was the weapons operator/co-pilot station. Personally I would have flown the aircraft from the front seat because of the far better visibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, ultimately we have found that both seats have full pilot and gunner functionality in real life. This should be aparent ingame as well, because it it realistic and it separates the faction a bit more from each other.

Link to the recently updated feedback tracker post regarding this issue: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10403

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also noticed during flight that HSI on both pilot and gunner seat work the opposite, when you pitch up the indicator goes below the orizon line and vice versa. Could BI please fix this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also noticed during flight that HSI on both pilot and gunner seat work the opposite, when you pitch up the indicator goes below the orizon line and vice versa. Could BI please fix this?

I'll take a look into this and create a feedback traker issue if the problem really exists.

EDIT: HSI is working on the stable branch.

Edited by HKFlash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll take a look into this and create a feedback traker issue if the problem really exists.

EDIT: HSI is working on the stable branch.

Sorry my bad, not the HSI but the attitude indicator is working the opposite. Don't know about the stable a couple of days ago was working, I figured out this issue this morning after the last update

Edited by mac81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great photos! Yes the billion dollar museum pieces are in storage still. I would remind you that both of the flying RAH-66 were test aircraft so the cockpit was not very close to what the production aircraft were to be. The intent was that both positions would be identical in the production aircraft. If memory serves the back seat was raised because it was very low and difficult to fly from due to visibility. More of a safety of flight issue than a change of aircrew positioning if I recall correctly. Interestingly part of that was to allow the 5th percentile female aviator (i.e. very short) to see over the displays. If the front seater took a bullet she would need to be able to see out of the aircraft.

As the aircraft were test bed aircraft, they were also demonstrators, so when non-Boeing/Sikorsky pilots got to fly it they would take the front seat and the test pilots would fly from the back seat.

Ultimately I think it would have been an trivial issue. The aircraft would have been operable from either seat, but because it is a military aircraft we have to have our nomenclature, so the front seat stayed the 'pilot in command' station and the back seat was the weapons operator/co-pilot station. Personally I would have flown the aircraft from the front seat because of the far better visibility.

The seating arrangement and height, etc wouldn't change much, that requires a lot of reworking for the aircraft.

As an example, the YAH-64 went through extensive changes to its "final" phase but the basic shape remained the same.

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/ah/ah64/ah64-3.jpg

http://www-micrel.deis.unibo.it/~michele/aircrafts/yah64.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×