I’m not, if you had any semblence of reading comprehension you could see me pointing out the inaccuracies of your comparison.
Losing the tail of a Ka-50 is in no way comparable to pitching upwards in a fixed-wing aircraft with an asymmetric load.
Do you know what happens as an aircraft travels through its ranges of speed?
It needs to be trimmed!
Just as with the Ka-50, a fixed wing aircraft’s CoL will change with speed, and its CoG will be ever changing. Fuel burn can move it forwards, backwards, and shift the CoG around due to that.
I can tell you for a fact that the Ka-50’s tail (aft of the APU exhaust port), with its heaviest weight being a 50kg ballast, will not shift forward to an uncontrollable state.
No more than an aircraft dropping bombs or bleeding through fuel, at least.
And no, losing 40% of the length of a helicopter does not mean the mass has decreased by 40%. Almost all of the weight of the Ka-50 is in the nose and the powerplant section, whereas the only weights on the tail are a mechanical counterbalance and electronic components that are directly behind the auxiliary firewall.
It’s really the counter-rotational (Pitching) moments(A force at a distance) that the rear aerodynamic surface(s) impart, which is why they are so important. After all if they were unneeded or could be provided by the Co-Axial rotor setup (since they are both on the same side of the Center of Mass, they can’t counteract each other, since you would need to be perfectly predict and counteract a chaotic system to maintain nose authority with rapid adjustments) they would simply not be included to save weight and improve secondary characteristics.
I personally like to fly them in/with a simulator setup, I get more control over the proformance. I think they handle better in sim control, but ease of use in point aim is easy. (This is from test flight experience, not combat although I might buy it when the next sale goes on)
Indeed, I feel the same way with the F-14 and 16 in SIM, while they preform well with mouse aim, in the right moments, dumping the SAS and going full manual allows them to preform some seriously crazy things that normal mouse aim would never permit. Sadly I do not have much time with helis in SIM as I seldom play GRB now.
This better? Downed KA-52 in the nation that cant be mentioned.
And I’d need a source for the statement that the components inside the tail do not provide critical systems, since, as far as I know, this is the primary avionics bay of the KA-50/52.
The stab doesn’t matter, it doesn’t work like on a fixed wing. And at some point you also have to slow down and you also start spinning…
How far are you and what is 107 ? Just wondering
I guess when you say aircraft you are talking about a heli.
Of course it’s not beneficial and it will fly worse. From a technical aspect though, it should be possible for the KA50 to at least land somewhat safe.
Could be, would be interesting to see a weight chart of the KA50.
Is the Air-to-Air looking missile the Igla? I thought the Igla was encased in a sleeve like the FIM-92.
SPEAKING OF A-T-A missiles, why don’t we remove Heli PvE and have a “mixed” battle of Air SIM/EC with helicopters and airplanes? Could have interesting implementation.
The “realistic heli models” will come this summer update but i’ll take a wild guess and say thet i will maybe not affect the ka 50 that much but every other thing will be… worse
There’s a lot of arguing going on in here for topics that are neither new nor especially complex:
All heli damage models / damaged flight models are a bit questionable. Which is why fixing them is already on the roadmap.
No aircraft in the game model avionics and similar systems. I’m all for adding further detail/complexity to damage models and those systems having gameplay effects (looking at you, tank optics), but this would be a new addition; lack of these is not, strictly speaking, a “fault/error” as the game currently exists.
