Love the Black shark but is it worth getting the Gazzel?

Was just wondering if the Gazzel is different and unique enough a module to buy if I already have the Ka-50, or will I find it to fly and feel very similar to the shark. Just wondering how the Gazzel differs? Many thanks...

it's completely different... everything

Alone the names - a shark and a gazelle - make it very clear that both helos have not too much in common. And to be honest, the names are actually quite fitting. Shark: strong, agressive, and dangerous. Gazelle: quick, nimble and fast. :-)

They both have rotor blades, cyclic, collective, and rudders. That's about it in terms of similarity. :D

Gazelle: quick, nimble and fast. :-)

And prey for the predators!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel these fanboi's are giving you incorrect information.

Lets start with the most glaring lie. The Gazelle in DCS is the slowest of all the choppers including the Huey. In its civilian form it holds/held speed records, but when loaded with equipment it is quite slow.

As far as gameplay is concerned the Gazelle isn't all that different from the Ka-50. What the Ka-50 does in a single air-frame it takes 3 air-frames for a Gazelle to achieve.

They are both tank busters. The Ka-50 has 12 Vikhrs which can destroy targets up to ranges of 11-12 KM, but usually a max of 9 KM if actually locking onto the target. The Gazelle (SA342M) has 4 HOT missiles with a maximum range of 4300 meters, and no more because after this the wire runs out, and guidance is no longer possible. The Ka-50 uses tracking technology, so that once locked the missile will guide to the locked target. In contrast the Gazelle HOT missile must be manually guided (by the 2nd seat) all the way to target.

The Ka-50 can employ rockets, and a 30mm cannon. The Gazelle can employ rockets, and a 20mm cannon in a 2nd variant (SA243L).

The Ka-50 can use its Vikhrs for A-A although this is quite difficult without a good deal of preparation, but if successfully locked onto a target, then they are very effective. The Gazelle has a 3rd (SA342Mistral) variant which carries 4 A-A missiles which are easy to use, but will only acquire a lock from rear aspect. These are also quite effective as long as counter measures aren't used.

The PVI-800 in the Ka-50 operates in much the same way the NADIR does in the Gazelle. Each will allow you to create waypoints to help you navigate. Each will allow you to see wind speed, and direction. Each will allow you have an ETA, etc....

The Gazelle doesn't have a moving map (ABRIS in the Ka-50) thus you can't visualize the AO. It also doesn't have any data-link features, so no sharing target information with another Gazelle. It also cannot buddy lase which is something the Ka-50 can do for another Ka-50 (this is really just a bullet point as it's quite useless in reality).

The Gazelle has an stabilization system (SAS) which is similar to the Ka-50. The flight model on the other hand is where things differ vastly. The Gazelle doesn't fly like the Ka-50 at all. The basics are the same, push forward to gain forward momentum, increase collective for altitude, etc.. The handling is where everything is different.

Before I end, two important things the Gazelle has which the Ka-50 doesn't. First, an RWR, so you can detect radar threats which may or may not be tracking you. Lastly, the ability to fly with another person in multiplayer in the same aircraft. One person takes the pilot position, and the other takes the co-pilot position.

Good luck with your choice.

Just my two Cents: I personally enjoy the Gazelle much more than I do the KA-50. It's much simpler, It's not a flying tank so to speak. Although it can pack a punch, it is more vulnerable to attack, and there is no fire and forget anything.

It's more challenging to fly and navigate than the KA-50 as it doesn't completely depend on computers and it has only one set of rotors. It's much more of a "get your hands dirty" kind of aircraft.

To me, the KA-50 is pretty much like the A10C. Once you master the buttons, it's pretty much a piece of cake. That's why I pretty much stay with the WWII modules most of the time. It's nice to revisit all of that techno stuff, but nothing beats getting up close and personal with the enemy. In gaming anyway.........

I feel these fanboi's are giving you incorrect information.

 

Lets start with the most glaring lie. The

 

...

 

As far as gameplay is concerned the Gazelle isn't all that different from the Ka-50.

...

.

For me, as lieing fanboi, I learned today that the Gazelle and the Blackshark are basically the same. They fly, they hover, they shoot things with cannons, rockets and missiles. Thread should be stickied, imo!

... or will I find it to fly and feel very similar to the shark..

The handling is where everything is different.

 

...

Ok, they are different. Or the same. Or different!? Probably same difference ... I don't know ...

...

Good luck with your choice.

... and finally sarcasm?

And prey for the predators!

Depending on which predators you refer to, some people might disagree...

DCS: Gazelle Murdering F-15C's [Video]

:D

snip

I'm not making a personal attack on you, but addressing the lie that is often propagated (as I've seen in many threads) in which the Gazelle is fast. This may be true for the civil variant, but the statement should be mentioned as such.

I'm a fanboi too, but everyone likes to pretend the Gazelle is so different from the Ka-50. This is really only true in application, and not so much role. Even then, only to a point.

Put another way the Gazelle is like what the Camaro was once often referred to in the States as the poor man's Corvette. The Ka-50 being the Corvette.

As for my sarcasm, well I don't know what you want to read into, but I gave a far more objective view of each aircraft than anyone else and simply told the OP good luck with whatever choice they end up going with.

The question was about the difference or similarities of how the helos fly and handle - and even you admittet, that they handle quite differently. Nothing else was said by me.

Even if the main role - hunting tanks - is somewhat comparable, their application is vastly different and employ different tactics. Alone the greater versatility of the BlackShark, due to the more flexible loadouts vs. a single weapon for the Gazelle, makes it neccessary to use different approaches to accomplish their mission goals.

Imo, your wall of text as response to the short question of the OP was less helpful as you might think - if not rightout misleading. That's why I accused you of potential sarcasm in the end ...

edit:

for the record: I fly both of them (and the other two), and I love them all - especially their differences. Neither will become boring just because you "know helo XYZ" already.

One thing to consider, Gazelle is still in beta, the team behind it went silent on the forums and is currently "restructuring", whatever that means.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=183142

Some posts make me laugh. A lot. Some make me want to cry.

But, to the OP - I think a good comparison would be the A-10C and the Su-25

The question was about the difference or similarities of how the helos fly and handle - and even you admittet, that they handle quite differently. Nothing else was said by me.

 

Even if the main role - hunting tanks - is somewhat comparable, their application is vastly different and employ different tactics. Alone the greater versatility of the BlackShark, due to the more flexible loadouts vs. a single weapon for the Gazelle, makes it neccessary to use different approaches to accomplish their mission goals.

 

Imo, your wall of text as response to the short question of the OP was less helpful as you might think - if not rightout misleading. That's why I accused you of potential sarcasm in the end ...

 

edit:

for the record: I fly both of them (and the other two), and I love them all - especially their differences. Neither will become boring just because you "know helo XYZ" already.

No, you're picking out what you need from the OP's message. Here, the message in its entirety:

Was just wondering if the Gazzel is different and unique enough a module to buy if I already have the Ka-50, or will I find it to fly and feel very similar to the shark. Just wondering how the Gazzel differs? Many thanks...

As you mentioned I addressed the flight characteristics of both. Which quite frankly you didn't even do. The only thing you informed the OP of is that their names are different, so in must be everything else.

I also addressed what is highlighted in red by explaining the various systems of each (which I could go even deeper in depth on, but as you say I've already reached the wall of text moniker).

Simply by knowing the various ranges of each weapon system, and how they work should give an implied understanding the tactics of each air-frame, but yes I could have explained that, and then you'd still be sitting here reading my wall of text.

The intent is to give the OP enough information in the hopes they can make a judgement call for themselves on whether or not the module is worth it to them.

To attack my statements of FACT (please find anything I've written which is false) as misleading is what is misleading. I cannot fathom in what world your statement or any of these "Yeah man! Like totally different... I mean like this one fly good, and this one tank good!" could ever help anyone decide if the module is right for them.

No, you're picking out what you need from the OP's message. Here, the message in its entirety: [...]

Calm down.

You accused all of the previous posters of being fanbois, which I consider rude. You said we gave misleading information. You called one statement about the Gazelle an outright lie. And now you complain that you're not being treated fairly for the other stuff you said. :doh:

And yes, your post was contradictory.

Of course all of us could get into great detail on how the helicopters differ and how they compare.

Personally, I think giving OP a quick response is what he's looking for, seeing as this topic can be easily answered by reading the various posts that address both helicopters (note how I said "easily", not "quickly").

Some questions warrant an in-depth, wall-of-text-type answer. IMO this wasn't one of them, so let's not accuse people of being misleading because they prefer to give a quick response to a quick question.

I love internet fighting! People take such offense to each other!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, you're picking out what you need from the OP's message. Here, the message in its entirety:

 

As you mentioned I addressed the flight characteristics of both. Which quite frankly you didn't even do. The only thing you informed the OP of is that their names are different, so in must be everything else.

Yes, my initial response was probably also not the most helpful one, agreed. (But then, I react maybe somewhat allergic if I am put into the same bin as "liars" and "fanbois".)

But I understood OP's question in a more general way. Most obvious differences are the handling characteristics. For someone not too familar with these helos, the difference in their employment is the other big difference. All in all, both helos are quite different - my opinion.

Your comparisation of the various components are most likely accurate, but might not really help the OP to derive the "essence" of how one or the other helo "feels" when flying it - or better, flying missions in it. What I could gather from your comparisation was rather, "they are doing the same thing - just a tad bit differently here and there" - which I find misleading if that were your conclusion.

However, I think everything is said now and we should hand the thread back to the OP.

Calm down.

 

You accused all of the previous posters of being fanbois, which I consider rude. You said we gave misleading information. You called one statement about the Gazelle an outright lie. And now you complain that you're not being treated fairly for the other stuff you said. :doh:

 

And yes, your post was contradictory.

 

Of course all of us could get into great detail on how the helicopters differ and how they compare.

 

Personally, I think giving OP a quick response is what he's looking for, seeing as this topic can be easily answered by reading the various posts that address both helicopters (note how I said "easily", not "quickly").

 

Some questions warrant an in-depth, wall-of-text-type answer. IMO this wasn't one of them, so let's not accuse people of being misleading because they prefer to give a quick response to a quick question.

Edit: To include quote in response.

However, I think everything is said now and we should hand the thread back to the OP.

Sorry guys, you're right, I'm wrong.

Simple answer, you will enjoy the Gazelle..... I think.

Some posts make me laugh. A lot. Some make me want to cry.

 

But, to the OP - I think a good comparison would be the A-10C and the Su-25

EXACTLY!!!! To the degree that the SU25 isn't an interactive cockpit. But it's the same idea.

Lol thanks guys I should maybe define what I mean a little better.

I love the Blackshark I love how versitile it is, I love that it has guided and non guided missiles and I love using both types as much as the other, I love how well it handles when you get used to it, how it feels and I love the the onboard systems. I just love it, and I think I prefer helicopters to planes or jets although if you gave me a choice in real life I'd take a plane every time as in them I have died a thousand deaths!

I was flying around the other day doing taget practice in VR and it was the first time I really realized how amazingly acrobatic and agile the BS can be, I started to fall in love with flying it danerously low and close to the ground, using the cannon and unguided missiles to take out soft targets it just felt godly- until that nasty crash of course in which I tragically perished! I realized I was wrong to jump into missions when I should have just been practicing flying and shooting. That said in mission cant really fly like that and its best to be a distant sniper, so I got to wondering if there was a faster more 'on the sharp end' helicopter module. That brought me to the Gaz because the others seemed more liek transport choppers.

I just have the feeling that more so than plane to plane helicopters all feel and fly the same, and with less systems and weapons there would be no sense buying a new helicopter module. I dont know why I think this, I think its because the avaliable modules all seem kinda similar to the shark when reading the store page. But mainly its like I said the BS just seems to have everything they have and more.

It has almost everything I could possibly want in a helicopter so I kind of worry that if I bought the Gazzel or the Huey would I never get round to using them.

I think its a very hard question for you guys to answer as it probably comes down alot to how it, and I, feel when flying and is very subjective and difficult to put into words.

I liked the idea of a smaller faster attack oriented chopper that employs hit and run tactics but get the feeling I may have misled myself there!

Dont think I will get it if its in beta, because I kind of promised myself I would never buy another alpha or beta game as the waiting gets too frustrating and devs tend to abbandon the projects.

I think one day when theres a sale I'm just going to go ahead and buy every module there is! To be honest though I dont even need a new module! Havent anywhere nearly mastered the Shark, mig 21 or A10C.

How about the Huey then guys?

Now you've given us a little more to work with. :)

One of your statements made me chuckle:

just have the feeling that more so than plane to plane helicopters all feel and fly the same

Oh man you couldn't be more wrong about that! :D

Of course, the aerodynamics and fundamentals of rotary wing flight are all the same, it's just the variables that change, like the number and positioning of the rotor blades.

That said, the Ka-50 is one of the few coaxial designs, where the torque forces generated by the two rotor discs almost cancel each other out. In essence, when you apply more collective stick, the helicopter will just try to climb. With a good takeoff trim, that's it.

In a traditional main rotor + tail rotor design, things are a tiny bit different. Let's take the Gazelle as an example here. The main rotor spins clockwise. That induces a counter-clockwise torque on the helicopter. As a result, as you apply more collective, the nose will tend to yaw left. With the skids on the ground, that yawing tendency doesn't easily overcome the skids' friction. But as soon as you get light on the skids, the chopper will start yawing counter-clockwise aka left very quickly.

In order to counter that yaw, the pilot needs to apply right pedal, affecting the tail rotor or, in this case, the Fenestron in order to induce a clockwise yaw-momentum and cancel the main rotor induced yaw.

Of course the tail rotor or Fenestron now pushes a lot of air out to the right side of the aircraft, and that pushes the entire aircraft to the left, and as a result the aircraft is likely to get a lateral displacement tendency while also tending to roll/bank slightly left. To counter that, the pilot needs to put in a bit of right cyclic and carefully watch out the canopy and get a good ground reference.

And every control input is going to change this delicately balanced system, affecting all of the aforementioned axes of displacement. Now as you go into forward flight, the airflow around the vertical and horizontal stabilizers at the tail boom is going to stabilize the aircraft and take away or reduce some of the induced yaw momentum, allowing you to ease up on some of your inputs. And when slowing down, the whole thing happens in reverse.

Of course the Gazelle has a pretty cool Stability Augmentation System that tries to help the pilot a lot. It won't negate any of these effects, but will reduce the amount of required pilot input in some regimes, while also apparently giving a somewhat artificial feeling during some maneuvers (as far as I've read from a lot of threads about its flight model).

Now, let's look at the Huey. The Huey's blades spin counter-clockwise, opposite the Gazelle's, meaning you have to apply left pedal instead of right pedal on takeoff. Our old UH-1H doesn't have any stability augmentation whatsoever, and it won't fly straight for 5 seconds unless it's perfectly trimmed. And even then you have to be quick on the controls 24/7 just to keep it flying straight. Hovering the DCS Huey is among the most difficult things I've ever done in DCS. It's like the Ka-50 with all stability augmentations switched off, just more difficult because you still need to apply exactly the right amount of pedal input.

I can stop the Gazelle on a stamp and correct a bad approach. In the Huey (after maybe 150 or 300 hours, I really don't know), if I approach too fast or too high, I have to go around or fly a circling approach, or else it's going to kill me. The Ka-50 on the other hand I could land blindfolded backwards (exaggerating, obviously ;)).

My experience with the Mighty Eight is too limited for a useful statement.

Anyway, the current set of choppers in DCS couldn't be more different from each other. And that's only looking at their flight characteristics. Their typical mission profiles, capacities, employment strategies, armament, defensive systems, survivability, all of that tends to be very different as well.

To make a long story short: IMO you absolutely can't go wrong with either helicopter. Each of them has so much to give and teach, it's practically guaranteed to be a rewarding experience.

Unless the only factor would be scoring in MP. In that regard, the Ka-50 is going to remain unbeatable until Mi-24, Mi-28, AH-1, AH-64 or something along those lines enters the virtual battlefield. Unless you wanted to kill air targets, in which case an earlier post of mine makes a very solid point in favor of the Gazelle. ;)

My 2c,

There is more difference in flying the Gazelle and the BS than flying any two jet fighters or any two war birds. For that matter, there is more difference in flying the Huey and the Gazelle, or the Huey and the BS, than any two jet fighters or war birds. The aerodynamics are different. The BS is waaaaaay easier to fly (by design) than any of the other helis, at least with the default SAS/autopilot/trimmer on (i.e., no FD mode). Even with FD mode, it is easy: lots of power and none of that confusing counter-torque! The Huey, on the other hand, is an awesome bird to learn actual no-handholding heli flying, in principle and in practice. The Gazelle, even though it has a stability augmentation system, also features a lot more hands-on flying than the BS, but is a whole lot more twitchy than the Huey, and is quite a bit more to handle.

As others have noted, the Gazelle loaded up is not faster than the BS, though IMHO (with not much real experience in the BS ...) it seems to me to be a lot more nimble however. (As an aside, to the comment regarding the Gazelle being slower than the Huey: it is when loaded up and the Huey is a slick; comparing the Huey gunship with twin miniguns and 2x19 rocket pods, the Gazelle, even loaded up, has the edge on speed and agility, I think?)

More to the point, in terms of the attack helicopter role, except for the agility and the RWR, the Gazelle is inferior in almost every respect to the Ka-50: it is slower; it is not much armor; it has a lot less automation and thus much, much, much higher workload for both pilot and WSO (and unless in multi-crew you have to fly both!); not only waaaaaaaay less firepower but also waaaaaaay less powerful firepower (e.g, less than half as many missiles that fly much less faster and have less than half the range of the equivalent on the BS; the precision anti-armor models do not give you a gun and vice versa) etc. The really damning thing is the short range of the Gazelle AT's --- you have to come in really close to take your shot, and you will be within range and exposed to all manner of bad things the bad guys throw at you, from small to large calibre AA to the really, really, really, really, really, nasty fast and deadly main calibre tube-launched AT rounds. The last are the ones that get you: super accurate, and they travel faster than your hown HOT's.

Basically, life as a Gazelle pilot on attack mission has a tendency to end very abruptly and very quickly, often before you finish expending your limited too-close-for-comfort-ranged four shots.

But .... wow! What a thrilling ride! Up front and personal and danger close, toe-to-toe eyeball-to-eyeball with the bad guy. Less a long distance sniper taking a shot from a distance, and more of a scout taking out the look-out on watch with a knife to the throat!

And really, it should not be called "flying" the Gazelle but "scurrying" in it. I feel less like a bird and more like a rat in the Gazelle, scooting from cover to cover, poking my head out of little holes or rises in the ground, looking around, and then diving down and running again. You are always looking at the terrain around you for hiding spots and nooks.

The BS is a multi-role, highly-capable, brimming-with-awesome-firepower robust battlewagon.

The Gazelle is a specialized, limited-capacity, limited-ability, relatively fragile wasp.

Yet: Over the last couple of years, I've put in < 2hrs on the BS; whereas in the last couple of weeks alone I've put in over 20 hours in the Gazelle. I love flying her so much!

Now you've given us a little more to work with. :)

 

... snip ...

Great response. Agree 100%!

 

Dont think I will get it if its in beta, because I kind of promised myself I would never buy another alpha or beta game as the waiting gets too frustrating and devs tend to abbandon the projects.

In that case, better wait, at least until the situation with the Polychop team clears out. As it is now, Gazelle is pretty complete systems and feature-wise, it comes with a nice campaign, but the FM still needs work and is a topic of heated disputes on the Gazelle subforum.

Huey and Mi-8 are both transport helicopters, with some weapons attached. For spotting targets you only have eyeballs Mk1, no fancy avionics to tell you where to aim to score a hit, definitely not as agile as attack choppers. So yes, very different machines compared to Ka-50.

Think after reading all of your comments when I can afford it or the next sale hits I will go for both the Gazzel and the Huey! Though I do worry that the FM is not finished...