They already have the sources.
Oh yes, the classic “i will spew some bullshit and you have to prove me wrong, or it stays ingame like i want”.
They didn’t provide a single source to show us how kamovs can fly with third of the aircraft missing, so why should we “prove them wrong”?
3 Likes
If you want to change something you have to prove that you’re correct. Simple as that. If you don’t want to change something then you might aswell stop complaining because nothing will change unless if you provide proof.
1 Like
No. They should have to prove it first before implementing such an obvious unrealistic “feature”.
There is a reason why we haven’t seen a single propaganda video or picture of a kamov that has survived without the entire tail section.
You are clearly trolling (again), so i won’t waste anymore of my time with you. Have a nice day.
1 Like
You aren’t entitled to gaijin’s data. You aren’t gaijins data researcher. Gaijin has researchers that they pay, so they can get their hands on data. You aren’t entitled to something that they paid for, buddy.
If you want something to change, provide proof, otherwise it won’t change. This is a fact, you can’t get around this fact by arguing about how something should be.
It’s not trolling to state a fact. You’re trolling if you expect gaijin to give you every single piece of information that they used to make the vehicles in these games. You’re not a paid employee. Stop acting entitled buddy
You can’t prove negative.
You can actually use math and the quoted “laws of physics” to prove something wrong.
Go find out the weight of the tail, figure out how the tail affects the aerodynamics and figure out anything that could counter the effect. If the effects of tail loss are greater than anything that can counter it, you can consider that the aircraft becomes uncontrollable.
Since that another guy wanted to boast about his education, he is free to do the required math for this.
And if he is not, then he can be quiet. Pointless to reference the laws of physics if you can’t do the required math to prove something. Theorizing is not same as calculating. Theory is not proof.
2 Likes
I guess simple physics and applied forces mean little to you… if the KAs could fly without a tail let alone without the horitzontal stabilisation mechanism (which ALL aircraft/helicopters have btw) then there wouldnt be a need for it to be present on the KAs at all if it played such a little part because “it can fly without a tail”
Go read up on what horizontal stabilisers are used for in helicopters because as I said before the blade pitch mechanism on the KAs is simply not capable of enforcing enough “counter force” to overcome applied forces once the helicopter picks up motion, that is why helicopters HAVE horizontal stabilisers… it prevents up/down or pitching of the aircraft/helicopter which is what happens when you pick up speed without horizontal stabilisers.
stop trying to argue physics and something that is present on EVERY flyable aircraft, because its there for a very good reason.
I’m not saying the KA cannot fly without a tail I’m saying the entire purpose of blade pitch being controlled allows for the helicopter to maintain flight to ensure pilot safety and landing procedures THAT THEY WOULD FOLLOW in the event of losing a tail. IT IS NOT DESIGNED TO ENSURE COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS, ITD DESIGNED FOR PILOT SAFETY
But when you lose your horizontal stabilisers that becomes a completely different story and that is the KAs while they “could” fly without such horizontal stabilisers the moment they pick up speed the helicopters blade pitch wouldnt have enough to counter the pitch once the aircraft gains motion and begins to pick up air. hence “it wouldnt still be bonking ground units below and pilots at this point would prioritise leaving the AO”
Thats why I specifically said "does the helicopter count as a kill if it loses such horizontal stabilisers because otherwise its virtually non functionally as an attack helicopter.
That’s not necessarily true.
While i also think that loosing the entire tail should be sufficient to kill the helo, this statement in itself is nonsense.
Technically a huey can fly without it’s tail rotor, as long as it keeps up the speed it will be stabilized by the tail section. The tail rotor is still present on the vehicle.
So just because something is built on the helo it doesn’t mean it is necessary for flight.
except your comparing 2 entirely different things and unless the huey is going 200mph+ the tail wouldnt provide enough counter force if it lost the rotary tail section which is there to counter the spinning force applied by the main rotor spinning… your arguing with physics my guy.
Go read up on a thing called “autorotation” because ironically in the event of a tail rotor failure or tail loss, pilots would have to turn the main engine off to ensure no torque is being applied which would result in a spin. so a huey “would not” fly without a tail rotor as again procedures dictacte otherwise (you know something pilots are trained for)
Autorotation | SKYbrary Aviation Safety worth the read, this is something heli pilots are drilled into during pilot training/exams so to say a “huey technically” can fly is honestly factually incorrect because it simply cannot
KAs dont have a tail rotor because they use a duel main rotor design, but they still NEED horizontal stabilisers to control the vertical motion of flight (pitch) KAs while they can control pitch of the blades, as others have pointed out the moment you lose the tail section the weight shifts, when weight shifts further forward this forces a nose down pitch, how do you counter this? you adjust blade pitch but if the blade pitch isnt enough for a given speed then the aircraft cannot maintain level flight beyond a certain speed and begins to nose dive.
Hence combat effectiveness is called into question and also is provable by the fact in the videos posted the Pilot still dropped weight (wepaons) because he knew the aircraft would have uncontrollable or very hard to manage pitch so needed to drop weight to ensure safer flying/landing more than likely an emergency procedure as per the manual.
Sure as i stated in my post, i do agree that the ka-50 should count as dead.
I am not criticizing your point, only your argument as it is reliant in structure on everything built on a helo being necessary.
Don’t confuse an attack on an Argument with an attack on the Point. Those are two different things. You need to differentiate. I ageee with you, but your argument doesn’t work the way you built it.
So i am not arguing with physics, but with your argument structure.
Well Im not saying its all “required” I am saying that such systems are not so cut and dry like WT make them out to be.
For instance losing a tail I have said it more than likely “can fly” but this ignores the fact that it puts all emphasis on blade pitch and also ignores the fact that pilots would be required to disengage the combat zone for pilot safety and potentially safety of troops below
(if we assume the horizontal stabilisers are gone) then this means 2 things.
first, the pilot would have to ensure weight is sufficient in the event of a free fall or a pitch down due to no stabilisers and only relying on the blade pitch, less weight would allow better control especially if weight has now shifted in the event of losing a tail boom+horizontal stabilisers
secondly, pilot would have to limit speed and more than likely maintain an almost level flying state to ensure the airframe doesnt catch air and force an uncontrollable pitch without any horizontal stabilisers.
This is why I said in my initial post on here “are they counting the KAs dead if they lost the horizontal stabilisers” because functionally the KAs would be inffective in combat either due to jettison pylons or aircraft is hugely limited in its speed which massively contradicts how it plays out in WT which is why I suggested if they dont count it as dead in such event then remove its combat capabilities which would put it more in line with how a pilot would react to the situation.
The system is not there to ensure KAs can still clap cheeks, the system is there to ensure the KAs dont plummit to the ground and can potentially turn to base with pilots, this is my issue with gaijins take on this system and peoples interpretation of such system and the video going around proves just that
1 Like
Your arguments internal logic would only work if that was the case though. That’s why i said the problem is with your argument structure.
Saying something like “it wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t necessary” only works if everything on a helicopter is necessary.
But some stuff is just for ease of use, to reduce accidents or for convinience… So completely ruining your arguments internal logic.
Again this doesn’t mean, that a stabilizer isn’t necessary it certainly is. But the way you argued that point doesn’t work.