yasotay

Tried doing air to air refuel last night with the mod. Very cool, with lots of careful power management like you would expect. Noted a couple of minor glitches in the process. First the CV-22, when it connects to the hose the engine nacelles go to full up 90 degrees. It does not effect the refuel operation, but it looks funny at ~ 300kmh. More daunting is that the pilots attitude indicator in the MC-130 goes two dimensional during refuel and pivots around the heading at the start of the refuel. Again not a killer, but it does make the effort more challenging for all involved in the refuel effort. Overall this is a great mod that adds some awesome new things for the airdales of the community. Really looking forward to being some help with the U.S.Army effort when you all find time for it.

Great mod! Very much looking forward to seeing a CV-22 that flies a little more responsively as a rotorcraft. The real deal is somewhere between an H-60 and an H-47. Also excited with the fast rope option. I think it is a great idea to put the belly gun in as an intrim, but I am told AFSOC wants to go with a nose mounted gun (likely a .50 cal gatlin gun). The APKWS and Griffin missiles fired off the company owned MV-22 earlier this month were fired from a quickly implaced mount just aft of the cockpit. Currently it is only on the port side of the aircraft as it would interfer with the crew door on the starboard side of the aircraft . They like this position because it keeps the weapons out of the downwash from the prop-rotors in helicopter mode. There is also a move in the Navy to put winglets on the outside of the rotor nacelles for improved long range performance. Thanks for all the hard work.

Does this mean the MV-22 half of the project is dead as well?

Hope you are right. The transition between fixed wing and rotorcraft, and back, are a big real world challenge for tactical operations for tilt rotor like V-280. Not bad, just different. The acceleration/deceleration (level body due to thrust of tail prop) of a coaxial compound like the S-97 is very different to that of a conventional rotorcraft. Honestly dont know how difficult that is in the existing code.

Having worked the RAH program the exteranal wing stores were meant to give the helcopter more stowed kills when it did not need to be stealthy. So eight Hellfire or twenty-four more DAGR would be appropriate for a "Heavy" version. By the way "stealth" and "open rotors" are an oximoron. By 2035 wthout the help of a hacker it is a joke. As a note of irony the US Army is now going to use the Apache to do the Scout mission. Somone wants an Army 2030 unobtainium, take the Blackfoot fuselage, turn the tail rotor 90 degrees and put close coupled coaxial rotor on top. 230 knots cruise and level body decel... yum.

Three words for the Huron; flat-plate-drag. Find the Kamov-esque Tarhe far more useful looking, It will be fun to see all of the varied cargo pods that will come about. I do like the cockpit of the Huron though. Have to agree with those hoping to see something like a S-97 or V-280 in the game, but both present some interesting aerodyamics that BI has likely yet to deal with in the code.

Well I certainly hope there are no issues with using it.

From the picture provided I would bet on a variation of the on-again/off-again Boeing proposal for a NATO heavily lift helicopter proposed to France and Germany. Other option would be based on the Boeing 360 flight demonstrator. As much as I want a tilt rotor, I am not sure that they can support that. The aero-modeling of a transitioning tilt rotor is pretty heady math that challenges aero-modeling even in an aero engineering simulation. Given the "adventure" I have read here with the basic helo aero-model, tilt rotor seems a stretch. Just a humble opinion.

Bleh! Looks like a Catfish. :cool:

I agree with CT, that patience is usually well rewarded. Just keep improving them and you might find that someone will find the time in the future to provide some assistance.

2030! Try 2050. Then we discover antigravity or reach singularity. NATO may need UH-1 in 2030 when the UH-60 reaches $23,759/flt hr.

Have to agree that your AHV-284 is going to need a bit more snout like its CSAT counterpart for sensors. A recommendation only as I don't see any room for sensors. It looks like the pilots feet are right next to the nose.

Charcoal gray/black for SOAR might look nice. ---------- Post added at 00:55 ---------- Previous post was at 00:49 ---------- Charcoal gray/black for SOAR might look nice.

I think Gatordev is trying to say that the aircraft does not get into VRS naturally. In over twenty years of helicopter flying I only got into VRS once, and that was in flight school where the instructor pilot was demonstrating it. It is a function of the atmospheric conditions as much as the aerodynamics of the rotorcraft. Most modern software driven rotorcraft (like MV-22B) will either not let you get there or "B*tch'in Betty" will calmly inform you repeatedly that you are trying to fly the aircraft into the condition. Since ARMA III is suppose to be future tech driven ...

Fantastic. Just a note (not a critic here) that the V-44 did not need the V-22 tail assembly. If it is there for coolness, good to go, but if you get to where you want to cut poly count for other bits and pieces, I would make that as a recommendation to you. Really looking forward to flying these birds in game.

and a C-17 carry ~50 tons of tank (not sure how much a Merkava weighs) is most certainly not an STOL aircraft. Having worked planning for the beast even with a 33 ton vehicle it does not meet the criterion for STOL performance. Unless of course you are not planning to use the aircraft again.

Perhaps an aircraft like the Bell-Boeing QTR?

Thanks Helicopterenthusiast! I was wondering the same thing as, alas, I to am an ol... elder gamer who is going to invest in a new rig soon for Arma III. Sure hope they get around to integrating TOH.

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.

Dagger while a 70mm missile it is very different than the old Mk.66 Hydra that would hit the earth 9/10 times. It has lock on before launch and lock on after launch capability. The seeker head has a limited gimble range so if the laser spot on the target is significantly off boresight or outside of that gimble limit the missile will not track. The APKWS which is a lock on after launch only missile is even worse. Still the USMC has been using the APKWS to good effect downrange. So i would think accuracy of the Dagger might be best predicated on the target to boresight angle for Ph.

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.

Roger that. Will see if I can find some compelling data.

The AH-64E (Guardian) has the ability to import data from other sensors and systems through the Link 16 software. So if there are other sensor systems providing common data the attack helicopter ought to be able to see it, or at least know where a target is. They also now have the ability to see UAV sensor data as well. The Longbow radar has had a number of upgrades but still is usually not used in 360 mode except for the occasional air-to-air mode. I cannot say if the radar has the sensitivity to acquire dismounted troops, especially in complex terrain. Of course LOS plays a significant part of what the radar can see. Also the range of the radar is usually not much more (for valid ID) than the range of the primary missile the aircraft carries. On the RAH-66 one of the less known capabilities was to be that the targeting sensor would constantly sweep in something like a 120 degree arc, and provide the co-pilot/gunner with snapshoots of potential targets. This would have worked better at slower speeds than higher of course because the gunner had to decided on the validity of the target and input or delete the data. Finally if I can tell what type of car is in my driveway by easily accessable internet data today, why would it be so hard to believe that in the near future militaries won't be able to see dismounted squads moving in a combat zone by overhead assets.

What sort of verification is needed for this? Having some experiance with the RAH program I will say that the premise is correct. Front seat was the pilot-in-command station, however both were fully capable.