Explain to us how the tail section of the ka52 is aerodynamically mandatory for flight.
3 Likes
A heli doesn’t necessarily need to be aerodynamic, since all the lift comes from the rotor blades.
Obviously they are, but thats for efficency and flight characteristics.
1 Like
Explain to me how any aircraft beyond those who are designed as flying wings can function in stable forward flight, rotary wing or not without THEIR ENTIRE EMPANAGE.
Lift is irrelevant here, you can fly a UH-60 without it’s empanage straight up, but its not stable nor airworthy, both are true for the KA-50 in WT which is not possible.
1 Like
Ka-52 doesn’t have it full envelop when it missing it’s tail in game either. I don’t see your point again.
When you lose the tail you are more prone to overspin/overpull whatever you can call it. But you also are lighter and climb more iirc.
2 Likes
Yes, because on the UH60 the torque of the main rotor is countered by the tail rotor, as with most helis.
Also you can’t fly it straight up without the tailrotor, there is no way.
That is not the case with the Kamovs though. They counter each other, one spins left the other right.
3 Likes
Then why did you respond?
How am I arguing in bad faith? Better yet, why are you so keen on repeatedly attacking the portrayal of people’s arguments, instead of the basis of them?
How is that? Can you explain how they should work, as you’re seemingly much smarter than the pilot with a bachelor’s degree?
Or is this going to end up just like the “Delusional U.S cope” thread, where you embarrassed yourself in the scene of half a dozen participants with a couple hundred read-throughs?
“wahhhh, I can’t counter your point so I’ll simply attack the presentation of your argument instead of admit that my counter-comparison was fundamentally flawed and lacked 0 thought!!1!1!”
1 Like
And there in lies the issue, the KA-50 and 52 as it is in game is fully controllable and stable without all of that empanage missing, with only a very small change in flight performance, from a hover to forward flight.
I am not at all saying it should spin out like a hovering UH-60 which had it’s tail rotor taken out, but it should not fly almost exactly the same as it did prior to loosing that much of the aircraft.
1 Like
If you want to take wikipedia as source, here you go:
2 Likes
if u find a way to prove me wrong in any other topic then u can correct my grammar.
It’s not very small
And pray tell why this is impossible, you are aware that loosing a tail rotor only imparts rotation on the aircraft, it does not impart pitch or roll. No you can fly straight up without issue by increasing a magical thing known as the collective.
You mean the thread where you failed to counter any of my arguments for 30 odd posts of garbage? I’m still waiting on you to actually produce a actual tangible argument since nobody there seems to have done so.
Or how about we look back at the entire turbine debacle you pulled where you attempted to pass off a source about entirely different powerpack as a gatcha, only to have me tear down your source since I actually know how to look up documents.
I am still also waiting for you to make a rational argument there too if you want to come crawling back.
Very good look for you, just like the other two times you resort to such childish retorts when you have no further productive content to add. You done yet or are you going to keep filling this thread with off topic nonsense?
Cool, got any info on how much of the empanage was retained? Like the KA-52 image posted before if it is not the entire empanage like in game it lacks actual bearing on the subject at hand as, so far, you can loose vastly more of the rear of a KA-50/52 in game than you can IRL and still remain fully controllable.
1 Like
Prove what wrong? There’s nothing more than an illiterate anecdote here.
1 Like
From my time using my 50 I still have full yaw control as if I still had my vertical stabilizer along with no imparted slip or roll. However, the moment my transmission or one of my pylon wings gets damaged along with the tail such issues manifest.
Such should be the case with just the empanage removal alone.
1 Like
Because you can’t controll the heli anymore, it does not only affect rotation.
No i don’t, thats everything it says there.
You can still fly with missing avionics, it’s just more challenging not having any equipment to be able to see your altitude, speed, or stabilizing computers, but it is possible. I’m fairly sure that the helicopter uses a mechanical control arm and transmission clutch, so it would still be possible to fly without a tail, and computer aided flight control. As for the Ka-50, it might be a bit harder than the Ka-52, with having a weapons officer and such in the 52 you can take care of the flying while the officer fights, as for the Ka-50, you would have to divert your attention purely to flying.
Impressive that you do not know that rotary wing quals require learning to fly without a tail rotor in the US.
Noted
Of course, issue is that currently unlike in say DCS, the overall flight performance with and without the empanage is largely the same in WT, you might as well not have the tail as you gain additional vertical rate without the weight.
1 Like
If you look at this and asuming there are no revelant flight controls like 1 or 2 meters further (which i don’t know), i don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible to still fly.
Oh hey a repost, you should look up a bit in the thread, but since you posted this let me set up something real quick.
Tell me, do you see a difference in damage here?
4 Likes
Thats only simulated though. You need a lot of airspeed and power reduction for the heli not to spin without tail rotor.
What they are doing is basicaly an autorotation, but in case of a shut off tail rotor (which they obviously did not do in that video), the heli would immediatly begin to spin as soon as you ad collective short before landing.
Read again what i wrote maybe ?
I said assuming there are no flight relevant systems 1-2 meter further from that ripped off tail.