Why KA50 still able to kill even when dead?

The video shows a Ka-52 with 0% of it’s tail missing and it’s horizontal stabilizers intact.

What happens in game is this (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIs6dxD-nAY) -

It’s missing the entire vertical stabilizer, the vertical stabilizer’s mass, has no control of its horizontal stabilizer, and moving faster than 100km/h (a single rotor AH-60 can be stable in the yaw axis above this speed, showing how little rotor authority matters at such speeds). It should be completely uncontrollable in both the yaw and pitch axis, if not roll as well.

Or this (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAnIP0IKCSQ) -

It’s missing the entire vertical and horizontal stabilizer, the horizontal and vertical stabilizer’s mass, and is moving faster than 100km/h. The CoG shift alone should pitch the helicopter straight into the ground, even without missing the control the horizontal stabilizer gives it.

2 Likes

NEVER stop shooting at stuff until they don’t move anymore, not even if some dingdong will accuse you for “killstealing” afterwards.

This “shooting after destroyed” BS will continue, so just keep hammerin’ on until it’s 100% dead.

And for those talking about how realistic it is.

No it’s bloody not!

If your plane or heli is in flames and/or are missing a lot of vital part, the realistic thing would be for the pilot to get the f out of the vehicle and live.

NOT thinking… shit… ill get a few more SP so i can spawn in a tank.

Destroyed should mean bloody destroyed!!

1 Like

This always makes me laugh when someone pulls this out.

That helicopter was either destined for the scrap yard, more likely being a parts donor, or a long time being repaired. It can barely hobble back to its base and certainly isn’t combat capable.

At the start of “current events”, there’s a famous picture of a ka-52 that was hit and forced down near hostomel. The crew tried to scuttle it, you can clearly see an open hatch just in front of the tail assembly where this was done.

The reason for this, is that the tail isn’t empty in real life, it has lots of electronics including the FCS I believe.

So no, a ka-52 losing its tail isn’t fine and certainly not combat capable.

It makes me laugh when someone starts talking about helicopters without knowing the device’s ballistic computer, including the laser-guided weapons that would remain stable in this situation. Read the post carefully, the guy is complaining about being killed by a ka-50/52 when he appeared dead on the screen. As shown in the video, this is actually perfectly possible, mainly due to the helicopter’s laser equipment.

Maybe I should have written it in a more obvious way so people like you could understand better, I’m sorry, it was obvious to me.

Talking about helicopters in general. They use different surfaces to help the device turn, but essentially the helicopter only needs the rotor blades, in Portuguese called rotating wings, to make the turns. Even in the most conventional helicopters, the main function of the tail rotor is to simply counterbalance the torque generated by the main rotor, it is simply not necessary to perform turns (although it can be used to assist in the turn and increase the maneuverability of the helicopter). , aggregated with other factors)

There’s no way to explain this better without going into detail, which will make the post long, but I hope it’s really worth reading.

History

Historically, building a functional helicopter was a difficult task with designers having to solve several problems, one of which was called lift asymmetry (at least in Portuguese)

To explain this concept, let me make some drawings, imagine the helicopter flying forward like this

image

considering the speeds in relation to the ground as: VR the rotation speed of the rotor blades, VL the linear speed of the heli, and VW the wind speed.

When the helicopter makes this movement of flying forward, note that observing the rotational movement, the blades that ‘advance’ forward have a higher relative wind speed than the blades that retreat backwards

image

in other words, the purple blade will have a higher relative speed with the wind than the green blade. This will cause a ‘lift asymmetry’ with the purple blade generating more lift than the green one, simply due to the natural movement of the helicopter.

and this was one of the main problems that helicopter designers faced, because, at the beginning of the helicopter, it tended to be unstable and make this type of downward movement(on image below), rotating in the direction that had less lift, for obvious reasons (it would be as if If a plane was missing one of its wings.)

image

and to solve this, for a long time many helicopters adopted rotors like this, just like this German one before the Second World War(image below)

image

This problem was only actually solved by the Italian Juan de la Cierva when he designed one of his known autogyros.

Basically, Juan made a mechanical mechanism that allowed the main rotor blades to have different movements, such as going up and down due to elasticity; have an advance and a retreat; Furthermore, it is possible to change the angle of attack of the rotor blades. As indicated in the gifs below in a simpler way

then the lift asymmetry was corrected by changing the angle of attack and the inclination of the rotor blade, correcting the lift and making the helicopter have a much more stable flight.

Nowadays this mechanism is called collective pitch and ciclical control. And in war thunder we control part of this by changing the coil and using the mouse (another part the game itself does for us, as war thunder is not a helicopter simulator.)

How is this related to the subject?

So, having said all of the above, in real life, for a helicopter to ‘climb’, it does not change the engine torque as many people think (it could do this but it is an extremely imprecise method). It only increases the angle of attack of the rotor blades, generating more lift and thus rising. In the same way, for a helicopter to go forward or sideways, it simply needs to control the lift on the side it wants to go. In the forward case, it is enough to make the rotor blades generate less lift in the front than in the back, tilting the helicopter forward and causing it to move forward.

This is the main way a helicopter makes turns too, it makes these lift changes to the side it wants to turn and makes the turn. the general fuselage of the helicopter just follows the air flow, rotating due to less aerodynamic resistance

And of course, when it is actually stopped, static in the air, it uses the tail rotor to perform this function and rotate the helicopter. In the case of the ka-50, it makes a difference in rotation between the rotors, generating torque to where you want to go, but again, this is a less efficient method than when it is in motion, as it makes less use of this lift generated by the rotors. in war thunder, you can actually test this and see that the helicopter in general has more difficulty doing 360 degrees when stationary than when it is moving.

but effectively, an helicopter does not need a tail rotor, or a tail rotor, or anything else to make turns, it can make turns just using the rotor blades. This is why in Portuguese we call helicopters ‘rotary-wing aircraft’ because the helicopter rotor and its blades function exactly like wings, being able to change angles of attack and, in some cases, even having flaps in the middle of the ‘wing’, like can be seen in the image below.
image

I hope I have added knowledge.

4 Likes

Roadmapped for September.

1 Like

It wouldn’t actually…

The tail is the lightest part in the entire airframe, and therefore wouldn’t shift mass that much. I’ve actually looked into the construction of the airframe, and if it was completely taken off, almost all the way from the rear landing gear, it wouldn’t change much, only thing in the tail, is a little bit of non-essential equipment.

Isaac went into deep detail, and what he said is correct. Also, I know some of the mechanics of the Камов rotor design. It does not need the tail to function properly, it’s got a twin clutch plate system on the transmission, which allow for intentional rotor slip; causing one rotor to have more force, and therefore allowing the helicopter to rotate purely by its own created forces. Not to mention the gyro-stabilization of the coaxial rotors almost completely dismiss any COG changes.

Coaxial rotors are better than every other type of rotor specifically for this reason, the only reason it isn’t used “globally” per say, is because of its cost of maintenance, but it is better than every other rotor system.

1 Like

I believe those were even implemented on the Huey. I think the reason is when the AOA of the blades reaches a certain point and creates a spin vortex they pop in or out to restart the rotors lift.

1 Like

I already knew all of this, but it applies mainly for low speeds. It doesn’t change the fact that rotors are massively ineffective at maintaining control of the yaw and pitch axes above 100mph (185km/h, I had the wrong units initially) by themselves. Here’s a UH-60 pilot talking about how much more authority a vertical stabilizer can have on a single-rotor helicopter: I'd like to settle some fake news about flying a helicopter without a tail... - War Thunder Games Guide

1 Like

yes, this one in the wizard is kaman’s O-max, very strange and weird heli, but with a lot of payload efficiency Kaman K-MAX - Wikipedia

1 Like

I greatly admire and understand the effort put into that, and it has informed me greatly on the subject; Thank you!.

2 Likes

That was actually a good read. Thanks!

1 Like