Can u finally FIX KA50 , being dead and still fyling and killing people?

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
43

so now you are changing your words, you literally still have it up and I quote:

“flying” and being in a somewhat stable hover are NOT the same thing, thats is why the RUDDER exists… because the blade pitch simply does not have ENOUGH counter force when moved to give the KA’s enough yaw input during forward/rear motion… otherwise the literal designers of the damn KA wouldnt have given it a RUDDER and simply relied on the blade pitch adjustments… which again you are blatantly ignoring here as to why it exists…

Again flying and being in stable or slow descent (which is what you do when you lose a tail) begin emergency landing are categorically not the same. so when you clearly said “it can fly without its tail” its just wrong. thats like saying a plane can still fly without one of it wings (it “could” but generally speaking its either in a heavily trimmed descent or the pilot is considering bailing out) pick your poison. I for one do not consider “flying” as minimal yaw input if ANY given potential variable such as conditions of either the weather/airframe are present end of.

you picked it and outright tried to hide the literal replies to that post and others CLAIMING exactly what has been said by me and others on here (losing the tail means no yaw input or very minor yaw input during forward/rear motion) which if you bothered to play WT at all you would see that every KA that lost its tail in game straight up flies like its nothing which is simply not possible without the RUDDER thats why you cherry picked that image and clearly didnt show the replies effectively disproving your own argument and proving others.

did you even “vet” your own link in that first article… ill snip the important bit that for some reason seems to hugely gone past your head. “twin rudders intended mainly to improve control in autorotation, but also effective in coordinating turns; flight can be maintained on one engine at maximum T-O weight”

I mean I dont expect you to know what autorotation means but the fact you straight up ignored the ACTUAL bit afterwards “but also effective in coordinating turns” is honestly mind blowing… changing blade pitch does not provide enough yaw input to manage turns ESPECIALLY if weather conditions are involved THAT IS WHY a RUDDER exists, you lose the rudder you are playing a dangerous game by not beginning emergency landing or bailing out. because any minor cross winds and you are done for without a rudder.

So show ME and everyone else where KA’s can fly without a tail like they would with a tail (as in full input on all axis) you will not because the entire point of it “flying” without a tail is to give the pilots time to bail or try emergency landings. again non of this is even touching on other factors that greatly decrease the likelihood of pulling normal flight manoeuvres of without a tail/rudder input.

But on the subject of Autorotation (if you want a nice read) Autorotation | SKYbrary Aviation Safety you categorically need a rudder so if you think ANY KA pilot will “fly” normally without a rudder when its an integral part of autorotation emergency landings in the event of engine failures (which is very likely if you just lost a tail due to enemy fire) are you beginning to see how stupid it is to expect KAs to “fly” without a tail is unrealistic because it simply goes against so many factors that would either force an ejection OR the pilot does a risk assessment and deems the airframe unsafe so tries to land it quickly.

You are not convincing anyone here that the KAs “can fly” without a tail, not the way the game has it portrayed, if a kill is credited then you should be auto kicked out the pilot seat back to vehicle selection menu, its stupid to expect KAs IRL to somehow “get multiple” frags when losing its tail

1 Like
44

flying: the act of piloting, navigating, or travelling in an aircraft
If you want to come up with made up definitions that’s your problem.
The word ‘flying’ does not imply in any way flight characteristics of an object.

There’s nothing to hide, you ignored that there are no replies. There’s one comment and as I wrote previously: it’s a question.

What exactly makes you think that ‘imrpove control […] also effective’ means ‘are necessary/essential’?
You, sir, ignored the video of the coaxial-rotor helicopter that doesn’t have a rudder at all.

I have never claimed that the flight performance of the Ka-50/52 with a damaged/ripped off tail is accurate. Never. I just wrote that it is indeed able to fly (that means it does not suddenly drop out of the air, just to be clear). That passage in the article about the Ka-39 clearly says it’s not necessary, rather improving flight performance.

You can keep your fantasies for yourself. You accuse me of ignoring stuff, but do it yourself. You fail to comprehend what you’re reading and even worse straight up lie.

45

you just confirmed what I said about flying… flying is “not being in a stable hover” you just described flying for me and proved me right… how do you navigate when flying? instruments and the act of using engines, ailerons, rudder controls etc. otherwise you are LITERALLY a “missile” without any form of control. how do you “travel” in an aircraft well for starters I’de expect you to move forward and have the ability to turn…

So no its not a made up definition because you just PROVED what flying is and ka’s without a rudder are NOT flying, the entire point of them losing a tail are to give the pilot greater time for risk assessment to either bail out or emergency land, you are “not flying” without a rudder end of. again otherwise the designers themselves would have removed the need for a rudder (which your constantly ignoring here)

go further down in the link and click the OTHER posts asking the EXACT SAME QUESTION… you clearly havent used Quora before have you… or have I got to literally screengrab replies because your too basic to do the most basic of functions on a webpage…

You really want to argue semantics on this… improved control in autorotation (which I gave you a great link on what that is) cba explaining it if you failed to read but while the term improved does “imply” not 100% required again I’de like to see you post a source proving otherwise (the burden of proof is on you my guy)

But the word “effective” which for some reason you dont think is a REQUIREMENT when the literal definition defines it as such “successful in producing a desired or intended result” depending how you use the word it can either imply its a requirement OR its the BEST solution, so when used in the context of “but also effective in coordinating turns” I’m not entirely sure what else you can even conclude from this, even IF we take both use cases of the definition of “effective” which either way implies its REQUIRED or the BEST solution.

And as mentioned previously pitch blade does not have enough authority to provide relevant yaw input when in motion (which many concluded the same in the quora link which you conveniently chose to hide) ide love to see KA pilots control a helicopter’s yaw input using only blade pitch at 100mph+ in ANY conditions, think you will find out due to a little thing called “air compression” on the blades the blade pitch will only allow for so much before you risk applying to much and it become unrecoverable (hence the rudder) being a far larger surface area allows for finer/greater yaw control during speeds (hence its effective in coordinating turns)

So try again.

46

Never said it drops out the air… I said it loses a lot if not “all” manoeuvring when the rudder is no longer present.

ill post the proof myself (goes both ways) in the argument

The video is clear as a day (flying without a tail) which I dont discredit, I discredit how in game they fly at much greater speeds with arguably better/equal manoeuvring as if the tail was present, you can blatantly see from the video how the pilot is clearly trying to maintain “low speeds” hes keeping an almost level flight to ensure speed does not pick up when pointing the nose forward (because he knows without a rudder this becomes a problem) hes got landing gear down (in case of emergency landing) and is flying at such low altitudes that hes expecting “potential failures” elsewhere, basically he has done the risk assessment I’de expect to see when LOSING a tail.

You can also see how when turning hes also tilting the entire helicopter (which you do typically even with a rudder) but the rudder would allow for far greater turning than what this pilot is attempting, would not be surprised if the level of yaw input we can see here is the best blade pitch offers (hence the tilting to the right) to use helicopters momentum to force a turn almost.

But now compare that video to how its portrayed in game… completely different, I certainly would not be expecting KAs to survive multiple barrages of gun fire/shells (like they do in game) even when the tail is gone along with killing 3+ ppl in the process of being credited the kill when the first thing on ANY pilots mind will be risk assessment/survival not “who else can I kill while casually flying without a tail”

This again is ONLY in regards to the tail, just like half the clips on youtube and everyones experience, they can get an engine taken out, be on fire take other damage along with losing a tail and it be “fine” and capable of still killing ground targets (that needs to change and isnt realistic to IRL)

47

he never said that what the KAs can do in the game is how it should be.
he is just saying that it can in fact as you said yourself can fly without its tail.

48

except he pretty much does with this reply to the thread:

I agree on the kill notifications issue but thats where the entire “fly without a tail” argument comes from because while it can (as I have said it can) the issue is what can it actually do after its lost its tail.

from what I’ve seen from that video (also the twitter/x version of it by the pilot) its doing everything but major manoeuvrings which is contrary to what we have in game rn with KA’s doing full on 180s fire guns/ATGMs/Rockets like nothing is happening.

if its lost a tail the kill should still be credited because I’m yet to see ANY pilot engage in combat after losing a tail OR prioritise engagement over safety/emergency procedures, I wouldnt even mind that the video I posted also shows a very “calm” set of variables like weather and altitude and ONLY tail damage.

Which brings up other issues with the KA damage model and that is it can do stuff like fly without a tail + engines on fire etc. and kill multiple players after being “killed” which im sorry but there is NO proof ANY pilot can or would prioritise this over safety/RTB’ng if at all even possible.

Its unhealthy, unrealistic and to be frank clear bias, they dont model the A10s damage model correctly based of previous IRL reports etc. its selective bs and it needs to change, fine if the KA wants to fly without a tail, dont give the kill but utterly hamper its ability to shoot/turn which is what I would expect especially when the video shows similar capabilities beyond the usual airframe with a tail

49

Basically bullying at this point :D

1 Like
50

I dont know if it currently does or doesnt but if it would it would be logical for Simulator battles, where you dont have Instructor, just as planes and helis currently do in RB and AB. Instructor allows more people tofly both planes and helis. It also backs up player if plane or heli is hurt and has trouble flying, though Instructor can fail in some cases.

(sorry for very late comment)

51

So to sum it up you’re asking Gayjin to use their brain ?

Well, good luck with that. At this point they’ve clearly shown either theirs don’t work anymore OR they don’t give a care. Cause that’s not the only wtf thing around in Warthunder. That’s one of the biggest though.

52

Yeah but flying without the tail becomes much harder and that should be modeled as should running the risk of the rotors touching and shredding both rotor discs with violent maneuvers.

53

there are alot of things unrealistic in this game, the ka50 is not the only thing

54

It is not in an unkillable state. The kill message just appears before it is destroyed.

55

You’ve never used the Apache to make this claim or you’re being disingenuous.

56

I’ve used Apaches for over 80 collective hours.
HEPD is the best ammunition I’ve ever used on a helicopter, and I have 1200 rounds of it.

57

So you’re being disingenuous alright.

58

Please explain how. Because every plane can do it and so can every helicopter.

59

so good, i got hit by sam no tail and still destroyed 2 tanks haha

60

Well do it as long as you can
Next update the heli damage modell rework comes and it ends

61

whatever u say