murderous

A H-60 will turn on a dime w/ no problems. (that means full aft cyclic at 90 degree bank. The rotors won't fall off...even at full airspeed.) What I want to see here is a stable hover with hands off the controls for all aircraft. (Yes, we do not need to have a hi fidelity FM!! But my earlier stated corrections are absolutely necessary to encourage semi-realistic air support.

Just glad this topic keeps getting bumped up...hopefully BIS has noted my input on the subject

Ok just took her around the block to feel it out some more. I still agree with all of my critiques above and have a couple more for the flight model. 1- Tail rotor authority at full speed should move the nose about twice as much left/right than it moves now. But no more! 2- The sound of the helicopter's rotors is that of a 2 bladed hughey. 3- Not a big deal, I kinda like it the way it is...but you CAN land the H-60 A LOT harder than is modeled and fly away as soon as the grunts get out...w/ no broken parts:)

Not being argumentative here. Â What I was trying to imply was the aircraft can be maneuvered (the point of a barrel roll)which is not just a stick input to the right or left. Â A blackhawk (though restricted by army regs) could theoretically roll around its rotor system w/ the correct control inputs and centrifugal force. Â Its understood that plain right stick rotates the aircraft around CG. Â But if you draw a line in the sky straight ahead of the aircraft starting at the rotor mast, I'd imagine after a few ILLEGAL attempts I could keep the mast on the line throughout the roll. Â Which, in turn just rotated the aircraft around the rotor system, with non-standard control input. Again, w/ a normal right or left cyclic displacement, the aircraft rotates around CG.

This is a game, but also a self-proclaimed military simulation. So I am offering my expertise to better educate military enthusiasts. For the loss of tail rotor thrust situation you spoke about, 10-20 knots will give youa very nice panaramic view of the world. In a UH-60 and most other aircraft, 80-100+ knots will provide you some yaw control via the tail fin, or cambered fairing. (yes, the weathervain effect.) Any slower and you will yaw uncontrollable (think blackhawk down.) At which point your course of action is to bring your engines offline to eliminate any more production of tourque and use your remaining rotor RPM to cushion your landings.

Exxxactly. Â The actual 'root' of the flight model failure I encountered was there's no aft cyclic aerodynamic effect. Â You can put the input in, the nose will cosmetically appear to go up a bit but there is no response via flight path. Â This is the case in a cyclic climb (fuselage level, pull back w/out reducing collective, aircraft should RAPIDLY climb while bleeding airspeed) Â or a standard turn where you bank the aircraft 50 degrees or so, pull aft cyclic, and again...nose appears to move, flight path remains the same. It appears that the current model models aft cyclic more like a giant air brake.

That is an excellent point. Default AI situational awareness should be in a 360. Only by a specific command should they ALL face the direction you are facing. Or for people who wouldn't like that approach, at least include those options.

Also, here are 2 things that are a definite no-go with the current model. 1: Collective pitch changes need to be modeled correctly. To be exact, when flying at 100knots and you reduce the collective to a full down position and provide aft cyclic to decelerate rapidly, the aicraft floats in the air entirely too easily. The rate of deceleration is good enough, but there should be more "gravity" pulling the aircraft down. I would say about 2 times as much as is currently modeled. 2: While flying in a canyon I reached 200 k/m's and hour. which is somewhere around 130knots maybe? I suddenly discovered, by smashing into the canyon wall, that the model eliminates your ability to turn at higher airspeeds. This data needs to be drastically modified for accuracy. The aircraft can pull hard turns all day long at sea level (which we are obviously at w/ Sahrani being an island.) The only thing that would change with airspeed would be turn radius. There are several more quirks that really should be worked on that I would be happy to provide an opinion on. Hope this will help the overall accuracy of the sim. Overall, instead of wanting to revert to old, non realistic models, why don't we build this one to become the benchmark for others? Murderous

Hello Gents, Lets put this issue to rest once and for all, shall we? Â BIS reps, listen up please. Â I am a 1000+ hour UH-60 pilot in the US Army. Â I have flown the Bell 206A and understand the aerodynamics/ physics of any US rotorcraft. Â I believe I can offer any assistance in regards to flight handling characteristics of these helo's in ARMA. Â I am going to settle 2 arguments I just saw on this thread here and now. Â 1: Â Tail rotor autority needs to taper off at 40-50 knots and be *almost* gone by 80. Â At 50kts or greater all you can do is place the aircraft out of trim. Â (A sideslip...but not past 25 degrees off direction of flight at 50 and decreasing up to 80.) 2: Â The airframe will roll generally around the center of gravity. Â It does not roll around the rotor system unless you're performing some sort of barrel roll.

Yep...I called it...bonehead! Thanks tea

To clarify, if you're flying the UH-60, you only have those crappy NVG's identical to what you see w/ the grunt's POV. The only aircraft that has the possiblity of FLIR is the cobra. But awesome job with the tweak

While I attempt to locate this thread, could you maybe post a link so I can repost at the appropriate area? Edit #1: Adding this- Is there even a search function on this forum? I may be a complete bonehead and keep missing it.

To build credibility for myself before I get thrashed by all of the "accept no criticism" types out there, I am a 1000+ hour UH-60 pilot for the US Army. I have also flown a bell 206 and am fully aware of the handling characteristics of a AH-1 rotor system. I would like simply to beg the decision makers behind this great military sim to relook the flight model. There are 2 HUGE problems with the flight model that need to be addressed: 1: Collective pitch changes need to be modeled correctly. To be exact, when flying at 100knots and you reduce the collective to a full down position and provide aft cyclic to decelerate rapidly, the aicraft floats in the air entirely too easily. The rate of deceleration is good enough, but there should be more "gravity" pulling the aircraft down. I would say about 2 times as much as is currently modeled. 2: While flying in a canyon I reached 200 k/m's and hour. which is somewhere around 130knots maybe? I suddenly discovered, by smashing into the canyon wall, that the model eliminates your ability to turn at higher airspeeds. This data needs to be drastically modified for accuracy. The aircraft can pull hard turns all day long at sea level (which we are obviously at w/ Sahrani being an island.) The only thing that would change with airspeed would be turn radius. There are several more quirks that really should be worked on that I would be happy to provide an opinion on. Hope this will help the overall accuracy of the sim. Murderous