Jump to content

barundus

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About barundus

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS; IL2

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The 1999 and 2001 versions of the Operator's Manual floating around the web have Distribution Statements "Approved for Public Release"
  2. No, the Bell 206 is essentially the OH-58 A/C The Bell 406 is the OH-58D, and the 407 grew out of that.
  3. The Kiowa Warrior is the Bell 406 (internal company designation). 407 is a derivative.
  4. No, I didn't bother to note the conditions when I did my quick test. Agreed a substantial headwind will tend to "weathercock" the airframe into the prevailing wind, but will never totally overcome torque effects. A given wind may weathercock an airframe at a specific torque setting, but once that condition is changed (power change), that equilibrium condition will be changed as well, and there'd be a heading change if no anti-torque was applied. I just wanted to see what behavior is exhibited with power changes; my expectations were confirmed. Not a comprehensive test by any means.
  5. I flew the Gaz last night just to verify. Definitely had torque effects immediately upon getting light on the skids, and lifting. Also power changes produced the expected yaws and required pedal input to maintain heading. No idea if there's a setting to turn that off. Also; watch the torque gauge during the vertical maneuvers. It goes all the way up to 95% or so on the initial liftoff, then he plays with it for a minute or two in climbs and descents. The torque gauge behavior doesn't correlate with what the aircraft is doing in terms of yaw, and also the climb/descent behavior
  6. Ya, sumpin' ain't right in that vid. Massive torque (power) changes, and no anti-torque required on the pedals. I don't have that behavior in my setup. Weird.
  7. Quote: "How about a workshop? The agenda would be:" Is this a joke?
  8. @alec delorean: "real footage to see that realistic cyclic movements for normal operation are within 40% to 50% in each direction of the full axis range from the center." Can you link that? 'Cuz you crazy. I don't know your background or exposure to various systems, so my comments are only offered as counterpoint based on my own experiences. I guarantee you 90% of helicopter operations use no more than an inch or so of deflection of the cyclic from center. (Probably more like 98% for the civilian flight regime, although I'm just making an educated guess there), as they don't "n
  9. Paladin; you'll have to forgive a bit of salt and vinegar. I'm an old salt, constantly presenting the other side of the coin to the young'uns who think they've got the answer. Thinking outside of the box definitely has it's place. Bosnia? Sounds like you've been around back in the day too. 74 hours/month back before the WoT would've been outrageous figures. But KW made it happen. Then 90+ hours/month for years afterwards. Great aircraft, and they certainly served us well. It's really too bad it was never modernized with contemporary electronics and optics. I still gnash my t
  10. Yup. A couple units tried it, very early, when no-one knew WTF they were doing and liberties were taken (e.g. removing the 5200lb weight restriction back to 5500lbs for a deployment, and removing the MMS). Both of which had serious second-order effects. It wasn't done afterwards because it wasn't a good idea. (i.e. we flew those aircraft for the next 15 years at an OPTEMPO of around 90 hours/month, which wouldn't have been possible with f'ucked-up crossbeams and constant XMSN mount replacements at half their rated service life. Second - removing the capability to see and sense at nig
  11. Exactly right. The MMS could easily be removed for transport, but it was an entirely different thing to fly without it. The MMS payload featured some pretty gee-whiz vibration reducing systems. Removing the payload assembly had effects on the track and balance of the rotor system, and on the lifespan of the transmission mounts. To fly with the MMS removed, the rotor system would have to be re-tracked and balanced. A big PITA, and time consuming. Second, the TBO interval (time between overhaul) of the transmission mounts and crossbeams was radically shortened by flying without the
  12. Alec, The vid you linked is an OH58A+ or C. Very different drive train and rotor head. (underslung vs semi-rigid). That's not to say the control motions aren't similar. They're both hydraulic assist, but the A/C doesn't have a SAS system as does the D. D is actually less "twitchy" than A/C, but far more agile.
  13. The MFDs in the KW are color capable, but the MCPUs (Master Controller Processor Units) which drove them did not have color outputs.
×
×
  • Create New...