Cool, thats not even the proper airframe of the F-15 that is damaged, thats a sheared off wing. If you wanted to make an actual comparison that F-15 should be missing it’s entire rear empennage and engine nozzles.
But please, keep strawmanning like J_ackal and trying to defer the actual topic of the thread, I’m sure that is within the forum rules.
No this thread is not about the F-15, nor is it about the F-5, stop trying to make it so.
Wings are not needed to fly as we all know.
Last I checked the Elevators, rudders and primary traction control to the empennage on that F-15 look intact to me, and by comparison, wow, would you look at that, all of what I mentioned is now gone from the KA-50s I posted. Get back to me when THE ENTIRE EMPANAGE OF THE F-15 IS MISSING LIKE THE KA-50.
And there you go again, trying to conflate the ENTIRE EMPANAGE OF THE KA-50 AS NON-ESSENTIAL.
You and J_ackal continue to bring irrelevant aircraft into this thread, if you want to debate the airworthiness of a damaged F-5 or F-15 do it in a thread of your own creation, not here.
Get back to me when you know what a lifting body is.
that can only be said on russian helis and jets, thats it, u shoot a wing off a an american jet or any other jet it will simply seize to exist.
Im glad you did not get what i was saying.
ur little brain cant comperehend what i said either.
The Ka-50’s non-functioning horizontal stabilizer, and the vertical stabilizer that only takes effect at mid-speeds?
How does that equate to total engine loss, all vital control surfaces, and “all of what you mentioned”?
None of the Ka-50’s tail section is vital to flight. All control is derived from the rotors, both of which are untouched and unaffected due to the tail damage.
You can argue “b-but rudder!1!”, though that’s about as useful as a slat / aileron conjunction.
Is… Is all of the Ka-50’s control derived from its one menial rudder?
Get back to me when you understand some basic comparison skills.
I’m not bringing irrelevant aircraft into the thread? I showed an entirely similar instance to prove your point is stupid… All you’re doing is digging the hole further.
Don’t embarrass yourself in this thread as well.
The Ka-50 has no vital parts in the tail section, unless you count ECM and aerodynamic assists as vital.
The F-15 comparison you’re trying to highlight includes a loss of power (not present on Ka-50), a total loss of control (not present on Ka-50), and much more than 1 singular control surface being lost with a radio and ECM systems.
I’m not debating the airworthiness of the F-15 and F-5.
Nice, here we go with the insults.
I don’t blame him, seeing as you don’t know the difference between “cease” and “seize”
OK now I know you have 0 idea what you are talking about and are solely arguing in bad faith, take your BS elsewhere if you think you can gaslight me about the Israeli F-15 incident like this.
Good to know that you dont understand how aerodynamics work.
Once again, take the other aircraft elsewhere I will not humor such irrelevant drivel any longer.
Explain to us how the tail section of the ka52 is aerodynamically mandatory for flight.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!”
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.
If you want to take wikipedia as source, here you go:
if u find a way to prove me wrong in any other topic then u can correct my grammar.
It’s not very small