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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Deferring to my comment for foxxo, you do understand how the aerodynamics of a aircraft and the COG effect a aircraft correct?
Pray tell how the aircraft should react to loosing 40% of it’s mass and flow surface along with two horizontal stabilizers and a vertical stabilizer.
Is there anything present on that aircraft that would keep the nose pointing forward now beyond the torque imparted by the rotors and do you think that would be enough force to do so?
I would also like to state, looking back at the photo from before, where the avionics is located is just before the rip on the tail. I would also like to mention the fact that, this game is currently not using a “dynamic damage system” as to cut off a tail where you specifically shot it, but just giving it a standard location, which may not be realistic to the combat scenario.
On another note, these do not look, to me, like avionics, but I’m also not familiar with Russian equipment.
