Little note about the FM from the devs

Try do the same in a Gazelle with both trimmers off and the AFCS off.

 

I can do the same mission in the Gazelle, with the SAS off, no trimming and cyclic removed.

 

Take off from bunker, proceed to designated building (no need to set it on fire), land on roof, land on ground, proceed to another compound with 4 buildings, land on all roofs, land back at bunker.

 

The Ka 50 has a solid FM, so I'm confident you won't be able to do it and for that matter, neither in the Mi 8 or Huey

 

..

Try yourself please.

Fly hands off the cyclic ( because you can do it, not only cyclic, also pedals and collective ) in a Ka-50 and after that please write here if you feel the same about the Ka-50 AFM as the Gazelle.

Flying hands off means nothing on todays modern helicopters. AFCS is installed exactly for that. You can do it on a regular basis on any modern helicopter with a three/four axis AFCS.

The Gazelle has one, either the Ka50. We can discuss if they are modelled correctly but arguing because you can fly hands off is a proof of faulty FM is wrong

I dont have a life record software sorry but if you could take some time to watch this track i´ve made maybe will hep you understand what i mean.

Ka-50 test hands off cyclic. Only pedals and colective.

PD: Again i dont mean the Gazelle AFM is perfect the way it is right now.

Hands OFF test.rar

I think the FM may need a tweak, but I still enjoy the Gazelle.

I can do exactly the same with the Ka-50.

 

Flying hands off from the cyclic from the ground starting with a good hover trim. This means the KA-50 AFM is also a fake?

How? I mean the cyclic will simply drop to a position that wouldn't sustain flight? usually in a bad way. Just saying.

Trim doesn't come into it but WTF would I know?:) it's a meme BTW :helpsmilie:

For the L variant, I just turn AP off and when you get to about 30% fuel it almost flies :music_whistling: however , at 20% or less even better :thumbup:, but there"s the rub. It's not that it doesn't have power but more to it the turbine can't sustain hover and low ground manoeuvres without overheating in certain load conditions?

I really encourage anybody to do the same with AFCS on with the KA-50 and be the first to say that the AFM is wrong or call the Ka-50 AFM with the same adjetives like the Gazelle because you can fly it hands off from the cyclic ALSO.

 

PD: This doesnt mean the Gazelle FM is perfect at all.

Agree. but I don't fly the KA50 luv the Huey. ;)

I dont have a life record software sorry but if you could take some time to watch this track i´ve made maybe will hep you understand what i mean.

 

Ka-50 test hands off cyclic. Only pedals and colective.

 

PD: Again i dont mean the Gazelle AFM is perfect the way it is right now.

The Ka-50 coaxial rotor design precludes dissymmetry of lift & translating tendency making it much more stable at low speeds even with pedal input and airspeed changes. Flying it hands off in low speed/hover situations is part of the design and the mission it would serve.

Im only trying to say that the hands off argument used for Gazelle's críticism is not a valid one.

Modern helicópters with modern AFCS can be flyed hands off.

Another thing is if its modelled the right way.

Im only trying to say that the hands off argument used for Gazelle's críticism is not a valid one.

 

Modern helicópters with modern AFCS can be flyed hands off.

 

Another thing is if its modelled the right way.

But issue still occurs with AFCS disabled?

IIRC it's never completely disabled, even with the gyro and AP off you still have some assistance from the helicopter. I think it was in a SA-341F manual.

Remember that our model have an assistance system that is a lot more advanced that the SA-341 so it might be that you can't fly without any AFCS.

Holbeach if you have the Ka-50 please try do the same with AFCS on.

 

Last time I used the Shark was 9 years ago.

Here it is on the roof without using the cyclic.

Slightly easier because you have to set the trim for forward flight to suit yourself before you lift off.

I have to assume the stability system is on by default.

Thanks for taking time testing it.

And as you can see, you can fly other helicopters hands off. You only need a good and reliable AFCS and good SAS.

Gazelle has both.

PD: Gazelle´s AFM isnt perfect, this is not my point.

Thanks for taking time testing it.

 

And as you can see, you can fly other helicopters hands off. You only need a good and reliable AFCS and good SAS.

 

Gazelle has both.

 

PD: Gazelle´s AFM isnt perfect, this is not my point.

The Gazelle only has SAS.

And Polychop's Gazelle it can be flown without a cyclic with SAS OFF.

No, gazelle have an AFCS which is a "PA 85G"

Exact.

Both. SAS and AFCS.

Read Airbus documentation about it.

What is totally wrong is hands off without SAS and AFCS.

Esac_mirmidon can you fly Ka-50 like Holbeach said with AFCS off? He said to you that it doesn't matter if SAS AFCS is on or off in gazelle.

And I have Ka-50 and NO I can't fly it like you said. Granted I have a FFB joystick and is hard to do it because they are imperfect.

Also I think Ka-50 autopilot is a different beast than that little AFCS on Gazelle.

It´s very difficult but it´s possible with extra care flying the Ka-50 with AFCS off and hands off the cyclic. You still have the dampers but it´s impossible to do the same as the Gazelle.

AFCS are the same, Attitude Hold systems with three or four channels. They are doing the same job. Plus SAS as stability augmentation systems.

Apart from the flying upside down vids that Holbeach has demonstrated, I am still of the opinion the Gazelle simply needs tweaks in the normal flight regime.

From what I have researched so far of the Gazelle (the 341 but some of the 342) they are very stable platforms.

The reviews were machines both with SAS and some without.

Indeed some reviews of the "early" and older 341 were given excellent stability in flight.

IRL the fenestron seems to drain power like a muther in the hover but consumes no power in forward flight and the horizontal and vertical stabilizers "apparently" take care of all torque effects above 60 Km/H..ish (?). I am trying to research this further.

So far from what I gather the fenestron is awesome in forward flight..... indeed I have some odd statements here and there that as long as speed is maintained, the gazelle can be landed safely back at its airfield (forget immediately) after the anti torque rotor was destroyed ?!? Huh?..... Huh!

This I really gotta research.

One glaring trait that always comes through is that she accelerates like a bat outta hell and climbs like a banshee! I have read this everywhere and in every real life review of this chopper and its direct family. Indeed one review believes that alot of Gazelle crashes have occurred due to the unfamiliarity with the right pedal at slow down and the large climb rate during slowdown, the need to dump collective to maintain a slow safe descent was mentioned.

I find that the polychops gazelle starts transitional lift around 25 - 30 KM/h and maintains climb at deceleration until roughly that speed. There is no Transitional lift problems with this bad boy!

At the moment I do not seem to be able to edit my posts so please excuse my bad grammar.

Now I can Edit!

Also I would like to add that the major perceived problem with the gazelle is that there is no cross talk between cyclic and collective.

I love a low level turn at 90 degrees blistering through buildings and obstacles. Nothing gives me more pleasure than raising the collective to pull up the nose and tighten the curve!

Or when the turn was taken too tight and collision with a building is immanent, you drop collective and she drops out of the curve... just lovely.

Is it possible that there is no crosstalk with this machine?

No, gazelle have an AFCS which is a "PA 85G"

Isn't the PA-85G the SAS system?

The Gazelle has autohover,autoturn to target, autospeed and altitude hold mode.

All are features of an AFCS, plus attitude hold. SAS systems are dampers, filters, or augmentation systems, not an automatic flight control system. But both works interlinked

Interesting reading:

http://www.rotorandwing.com/2004/04/01/no-hands/#.VytkgXqjBp0

IIRC it's never completely disabled, even with the gyro and AP off you still have some assistance from the helicopter. I think it was in a SA-341F manual.

 

Remember that our model have an assistance system that is a lot more advanced that the SA-341 so it might be that you can't fly without any AFCS.

That might be the explanation to the above behavior.

AFAIR British gazelles are SA-341 that are different than the SA-342. So the behavior that your real pilot said should happen can be inexistant in our version, but that is speculation :).

Another test.

If you disable the gyros, AFCS channels, and trims and you take off hands off the cyclic without touching it its possible to keep moving and flying like this BUT if you touch only a little the cyclic, a very little movement in pitch or roll its impossible to control the helicopter without moving the cyclic.

So it seems that its more a problem of initial stability of the Gazelle when you take off vertical. Like keeping a stable attitude that isnt taking in count the Gyro/AFCS/Trim turned off, until you move the cylic breaking this initial stable condition.

When you move slighty the cyclic with everything off is impossible to fly hands off.

Isn't the PA-85G the SAS system?

No sir, you can search about SFIM PA 85G if you want more informations