Gazelle Flight Dynamics... Again.

I read the contract in the contract that you do not return the money, but it would be fair to replace the wrong product with another module-the module is working. Because I like to buy a bike that can not drive because the wheel does not work properly. If something does not work properly it does not sell.

Set your pitch and roll curves to something around 30 and decrees XY sat to 80%. It takes time to learn how to fly it properly and it takes more time to master it. Shut up, stop complaining and start learnig! JK ;)

Let me know if you need any help with that beauty. It's multi-crew so I would give you some lesson online.

Pedro's out.

The FM has issues, this is covered well enough by many with RL experience and yes the communication block is strange to say the least and very frustrating ....

 

There are issues with all DCS helicopters - the flare pods in the Huey are wrong, the fans in the Mi-8 don't work properly - I still get hot flying it and the Ka50's illogic, nuff said....

 

If you are experienced with DCS rotary wings and accept that there are some areas not as true to RL as other models, the Gazelle certainly can be and is great fun to fly especially when in role....

 

If you have it, don't get hung up with the FM... with me the glass is a good vintage and 3/4 full and hopefully Polychop will make sure its topped up soon.....

 

Ok guys, Ive been reading all about the FM of the Gazelle and all the complaints about it.

 

Im not a helicopter pilot, or any other type of pilot besides armchair although I have taken the controls of a Cessna 152 a few times.

 

But after reading the Gazelle operating manual, I would be led to believe that the FM is not too far off at all. First off, the Gazelle has not only an SAS system, it also has a flight director. For those complaining that they disabled the SAS and it does the same thing...Disabling does not disable the FD/Autopilot.

 

So to put the info in the manual to the complaints...

 

Quote-It is true that pedal action is required below 80km/h. But the window between "needs pedal when changing collective" and "no pedal needed when changing collective" is so narrow I doubt it is real. If the fenestron takes care of that at 90km/h why not also at 70km/h

 

Answer- Transition to foward flight...is carried out by slightly increasing pitch, without exceeding either maximum permissible torque or the first detent. Note: A short yaw movement may be noticed at approximately 50 knots when yaw channel is disengaged.

 

Descent/slowing to hover is the same thing.

 

Sorry, its taking too long to go through the posts to quote and respond so I will just post the research in paragraphs.

 

Stability Augmentation System:

 

The SAS computer is both a rate and attitude sensing system which will recognize and correct for attitude changes resulting from external aircraft disturbances (gusts, turbulence, etc.) Since there is little or no control motion by the pilot, a corrective action for the disturbance is computed and fed to the SAS actuators which perform the necessary corrections.

 

Autopilot:

 

The automatic pilot consists of both the flight director and SAS which are joined together electronically with the coupler. This FD/SAS combination, once engaged, will automatically fly the helicopter with little or no effort by the pilot. Assistance from the pilot, in general, is required only in the form of minor trimming or repositioning of the cyclic following major power, airspeed or attitude changes. Since the autopilot only functions in pitch and roll (This doesnt include the Alt hold mode btw) the pilot must continue to operate the directional pedals and collective pitch when necessary (Maybe thats why pedals are needed to turn when banking in forward flight??)

 

Hovering at all headings has been demonstrated within the compete flight envelope up to wind velocities of 18 kts, however this value is not to be considered as a limit value. A value of 30 kts has been demonstrated at max weight at sea level with a nuetral c.g. location.

 

In case of vertical descent, do not exceed a rate of descent of 400ft/min.

 

I could just post the whole manual at some point and leave you guys to it...

 

Ok so lets get this straight, the Gazelle does NOT fly like a Huey or Hip or pretty much any other helicopter except maybe the newest and latest and greatest with FBW controls.

 

Honeywell picked the Gazelle to produce the FD/SAS/Autopilot for it because it was already stable and easy to fly and was already quite controllable even without the hydraulic servos functioning.

 

As far as Vortex Ring State, I doubt that it is modelled in the Gazelle, HOWEVER, I doubt ANYONE without a dedicated helo cyclic to fly with could ever get into VRS if it was modelled, at least in the current FM. As soon as you drop the collective the aircraft starts to pitch and move so at the point of you even beginning entering IVRS, you are already moving out of IVRS. The rotor diameter is just over 37 ft. so a 20 ft displacement in any direction and your already over half way out of IVRS and more than likely since it wouldnt be full VRS even a 10ft displacement would probably negate it in full.

 

The manual says do not enter a vertical descent rate of more than 400ft/min. But for many helicopters VRS state is a much higher descent rate. I would imagine that the manufacturer probably used 400ft/min as a precautionary number and it is a bit higher. In fact, I challenge any of you to manually fly a vertical descent rate of 500ft/min and then replay it and check to see if your forward/reverse/sideways airspeed stayed at 0 kts. If you had even a 5 kt airspeed in any direction you would be out of VRS in about 4 seconds and have moved a full rotor diameter with an altitude loss of less than 40 ft to full recovery.

 

Has anyone even watch videos of the Gazelle flying around, in or out of the cockpit? Other than seeing the airframe vibrations they are smooth flying. Even the military videos of them show the pilots wrenching them all over the place in perfect control.

 

I know we all want realistic and it might not seem too realistic, but maybe, just maybe, the Gazelle is just a great easy to fly aircraft, just maybe...with a helo cyclic anyway.

 

My 2 cents, let the rants begin...

Ranting is pointless, at the moment polychop need time to sort out their legal issues, then they can address users concerns about the flight model.

Set your pitch and roll curves to something around 30 and decrees XY sat to 80%. It takes time to learn how to fly it properly and it takes more time to master it. Shut up, stop complaining and start learnig! JK ;)

 

Let me know if you need any help with that beauty. It's multi-crew so I would give you some lesson online.

 

Pedro's out.

No thanks.... I think this area has been well discussed by those far more knowledgeable than me.. Until PC begin posting I fail to see benefit...

Yes. :thumbup:

I'm happy to help too. Either Huey or Gazelle. :pilotfly:

<edit>

I'll fess up I broke one tonight, something about having the horizon over 90deg and being at 2 mtrs off the deck,.. :music_whistling:

I am not advocating one opinion or another here. I'm just driving BIGNEWEY's point home that this thread is probably 99% opinion.

There was another fella saying that he was the chopper pilot to end all chopper pilots who flew RL Gazelles in a thread he posted: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=180633&page=5 and in his thread (albeit kind of condescending) he stated that the flight model of the Gazelle was 100% accurate.

Is he correct? Is the OP in this thread correct? I don't know. I'll probably never know. But I do know that from everything I have read, BIGNEWEY is certainly correct.

It's all subjective. (by subjective I mean opinion, and based on what the person judging it paying attention to.)

I initially fell into the same trap that many others do, when analyzing the FM.

It really surprised me when I realized just how different light helicopters are from the big ones we have in DCS.

First, most people compare the Gazelle to the Huey. This... is nonsense. They're both helicopters and the same physics apply to both, sure. However, the huey is many times heavier, has an extremely large rotor with tons of mass, and most importantly, it has a flybar! This results in very tame, dampened control response. The flybar is why the cyclic feels so "mushy" in the air. I'm sure that the rotor flapping has a notable effect on handling compared to the Gazelle, as well.

Light helicopters are a completely different breed. Watch any video of a Robinson hovering and you'll see just how sensitive the controls are, it's absurd!

Does the FM need to be improved? Yes.

Is it completely wrong in every conceivable way, as I used to think? Not even close.

It's all subjective? What does that mean?

Is it all a "social construct" or something?

I agree with others who perceive the current FM as laggy, or mushy, for a light helicopter.

It's almost like you give a cyclic input, then return the stick to center, then wait for the attitude change.

The reviews by professional pilots posted earlier describe the real chopper as highly responsive. Responsiveness and stability are two different things.

The fact that the FM changed so drastically after the first FM update shows that they were shooting in the dark to begin with. THAT was a responsive FM that felt like a light helicopter, albeit with problems.

Belsimtek has actual scientists and aerospace engineers on board, not just "coders".

I can't understand why people are still defending this FM.

There are multiple pro pilots I know of who are avoiding pointing out the obvious publicly simply to not ruffle feathers, and hurt feelings.

I personally don't have such concern - and it's not the $50 at this point, it's the literal years worth of waiting and being led on.

It's been almost an entire year since release, and that was after a glacial rate of development.

Sorry for the double post but I'd like to add 0.02 to the topic of rudder coordination in forward flight.

There shouldn't be a speed above which you can take your feet off the pedals. The shape of the tail is opimized for a certain cruise speed. Above or below this cruise speed, the vertical stabilizer will either be producing insufficient or excess sideforce, requiring pedal input to keep coordinated. No matter what your speed is, changes in torque will cause a yawing moment. It's just like flying an airplane, you step on the ball, always!

I don't know exactly how well it's implemented in the Sim right now, which is why I said "should." It's been a while since I've flown the Gazelle.

But after reading the Gazelle operating manual, I would be led to believe that the FM is not too far off at all.

Is that the manual provided with the module or are you referring to a real world document? If the latter can you please provide a link? I would be really interested to get my hands on a real manual. They always contain a plethora of additional information. This could shed some light on the airframe systems and their expected behavior.

Even the military videos of them show the pilots wrenching them all over the place in perfect control.

Well, that maybe just down to, you know, them being real pilots? :pilotfly:

They have hours of experience, so I expect them to do their job properly.

Let me summarize my worries: I just don't want to invest hours of my free time on something that turns out not to be the real thing. That would feel like being cheated on and diminish my achievement of mastering this craft.

Is that the manual provided with the module or are you referring to a real world document? If the latter can you please provide a link? I would be really interested to get my hands on a real manual. They always contain a plethora of additional information. This could shed some light on the airframe systems and their expected behavior.

One problem, though. The SA-342M manual is classified. The 341 manual is publicly available but the SAS system is completely different between the two. Apparently, pilots who transitioned felt the 342 SAS is too restrictive and they're "fighting" it.

If somebody actually has the SA-342M flight manual I definitely wouldn't mind a PM... :music_whistling:

The 341 manual is publicly available...

Well, had a little sniff around the Googles. All that turned up were sites that wanted a bigger or smaller amount of money or at least my banking information. So no luck in getting the regular manual.

Any pointers?

Well, had a little sniff around the Googles. All that turned up were sites that wanted a bigger or smaller amount of money or at least my banking information. So no luck in getting the regular manual.

Any pointers?

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=1836

It's all subjective? What does that mean?

 

Is it all a "social construct" or something?

 

I agree with others who perceive the current FM as laggy, or mushy, for a light helicopter.

 

It's almost like you give a cyclic input, then return the stick to center, then wait for the attitude change.

 

The reviews by professional pilots posted earlier describe the real chopper as highly responsive. Responsiveness and stability are two different things.

 

The fact that the FM changed so drastically after the first FM update shows that they were shooting in the dark to begin with. THAT was a responsive FM that felt like a light helicopter, albeit with problems.

 

Belsimtek has actual scientists and aerospace engineers on board, not just "coders".

 

I can't understand why people are still defending this embarrassment.

 

There are multiple pro pilots I know of who are avoiding pointing out the obvious publicly simply to not ruffle feathers, and hurt feelings.

 

I personally don't have such concern - and it's not the $50 at this point, it's the literal years worth of waiting and being led on.

 

It's been almost an entire year since release, and that was after a glacial rate of development.

This kind of statement worries me a lot, I find no mushy or laggy response in the Gazelle. perhaps I need to take her up since I last flew her a week ago, but the words "laggy" and "mushy" do not apply.

May I suggest flipping on your DCS frame rate counter and adjusting your graphics to move from a frame rate from 15 fps to 60 fps.

Unfortunately it is a fact that all DCS users must endure graphical sacrifice to ensure superb eye hand co-ordination that DCS choppers demand.

It's all subjective? What does that mean?

 

Is it all a "social construct" or something?

 

I agree with others who perceive the current FM as laggy, or mushy, for a light helicopter.

 

It's almost like you give a cyclic input, then return the stick to center, then wait for the attitude change.

 

The reviews by professional pilots posted earlier describe the real chopper as highly responsive. Responsiveness and stability are two different things.

 

The fact that the FM changed so drastically after the first FM update shows that they were shooting in the dark to begin with. THAT was a responsive FM that felt like a light helicopter, albeit with problems.

 

Belsimtek has actual scientists and aerospace engineers on board, not just "coders".

 

I can't understand why people are still defending this embarrassment.

 

There are multiple pro pilots I know of who are avoiding pointing out the obvious publicly simply to not ruffle feathers, and hurt feelings.

 

I personally don't have such concern - and it's not the $50 at this point, it's the literal years worth of waiting and being led on.

 

It's been almost an entire year since release, and that was after a glacial rate of development.

sub·jec·tive

səbˈjektiv/Submit

adjective

1.

based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

"his views are highly subjective"

synonyms: personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive

"a subjective analysis"

2.

GRAMMAR

relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.

nounGRAMMAR

1.

the subjective case.

The way a helicopter responds to control inputs is a function of a set of real world phenomena referred to as "physics".

That has little to do with anyone's feelings and subjective tastes, Zimmer.

This kind of statement worries me a lot, I find no mushy or laggy response in the Gazelle. perhaps I need to take her up since I last flew her a week ago, but the words "laggy" and "mushy" do not apply.

 

 

May I suggest flipping on your DCS frame rate counter and adjusting your graphics to move from a frame rate from 15 fps to 60 fps.

Unfortunately it is a fact that all DCS users must endure graphical sacrifice to ensure superb eye hand co-ordination that DCS choppers demand.

I get solid 40-60 fps, that's not an issue.

I'm not sure what you mean in your last sentence.

I'm referring to lag between control movements and attitude changes. I have set curves of -10 in pitch and roll and it doesn't seem to help much.

I remember the original flight model being really light and twitchy, very different in that respect from the current one...which hasn't changed since August, as far as I recall.

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=1836

Cannot a download button or am I just to blind to see? I found that page alright, but when I want to download it it asks for a $38 subscription. I cannot include this document on my kneeboard without being able to download it.

The way a helicopter responds to control inputs is a function of a set of real world phenomena referred to as "physics".

 

 

That has little to do with anyone's feelings and subjective tastes, Zimmer.

Was just answering your question...........

The link Pocket Sized posted is the document in which I have been referring to.

@Scarecrow

You are right. The way the helicopter responds to control inputs is physics. But physics to a great extent, could care less how the control inputs are generated, either by a human pilot capable of generating less than optimal inputs or by a computer that generates near perfect or perfect control inputs based on based on how physics affect the flight of the helicopter itself. Hence the ability of the AP/SAS/FD to respond to the physics of wind gusts and turbulence (as stated in the flight manual).

@Zimmerdylan/BigNewey

I disagree in that it is not all subjective. At the point in which I referenced the actual Gazelle flight manual (which I believe nobody has done to date, could be wrong), it became only partially subjective since I pretty much quoted verbatim, certain undisputed facts of the portions of the AP/SAS/FD in how it relates to aircraft handling. In a way partially validates some questionable parts of the FM.

@Pocket Sized

The autopilot combination of SAS and the FD could easily counter the increased torque. The fenestron does not use alot of power in faster forward flight. In addition, while you are correct in that the airfoil of the vertical tail would by nature provide an exact balance at a certain speed, the fact that the tail is countering the torque to some degree would lessen the need for more pedal input to counter.

About the different SAS system, if the 342 is classified then not sure how to tell its different for sure, but as far as fighting the SAS, I can see that easily. I have had quite a few high speed crashes at high collective settings in a steep bank during descent in which the cyclic became unresponsive. Almost like I was fighting the limiters. Learned to drop collective, level the aircraft quickly, hard pull on cyclic and raise collective quickly again. Always hear the G-grunts and recover now if I have the altitude.

Your last statement of "Is it completely wrong in every conceivable way, as I used to think? Not even close"...I agree with completely myself.

To those with issues about inaccurate FMs.

If anyone thinks that every other aircraft FM and weapons or system modelling is a completely accurate, you should probably think again. The F-15, M2000C and even the A-10C are all still front line operation combat aircraft. I would think that information to create completely accurate FMs is still classified to a great extent. As far as the russian birds go, I wouldnt doubt that those are quite a bit more accurate as it wouldnt be a far stretch of imagination to think that the information would be freely given out to certain people or could not be obtained financially in a legal or illegal manner.

All that being said, at the end of the day I think alot of us get way to serious about wanting perfect FMs, weapons and systems. While I would like things to be realistic as possible, the whole point of my thousands of dollars invested in a capable computer, high quality controls, Trackir and multiple DCS modules as well as the massive time sacrifice is for me to be immersively entertained to either my hearts content or to the point where I cant stand my wife nagging me to turn in off. And I think most all of us lose sight of that at one point in time or another either briefly or long term.

Im off to go enjoy my Gazelle now, cya!

Asset, it was not a freely downloadable document, but for anyone truly wanting to acquire it at no cost you could easily take screenshots of each page and create a pdf file.

Or build a 15 line php script to download all the manual images :music_whistling:

I'm referring to lag between control movements and attitude changes. I have set curves of -10 in pitch and roll and it doesn't seem to help much.

I'm not seeing that at all, the Gazelle seems very responsive to input. all I am running is saturation at 90% for cyclic on Gazelle otherwise it a little to responsive for me, no other mods to cyclic input. (saturation for the Huey is at 100%)

All other inputs also seem instant for me so maybe there is some other factor affecting your Gazelle module.

I will add that I do find the Gazelle fun to fly after taking some time to start getting used to it. That is not to say it doesn't need to be fixed if it is as incorrect as people are saying.

""@Zimmerdylan/BigNewey

I disagree in that it is not all subjective. At the point in which I referenced the actual Gazelle flight manual (which I believe nobody has done to date, could be wrong), it became only partially subjective since I pretty much quoted verbatim, certain undisputed facts of the portions of the AP/SAS/FD in how it relates to aircraft handling. In a way partially validates some questionable parts of the FM. ""

The point that is being made here (or attempted anyway) is that two completely different people, both claiming to be real world pilots, one of them claiming to be a Gazelle pilot with many hours of flight time have come to two completely different conclusions about the FM of this module. That is not speculation on anyone's part. It's all there in black and white. It is a known part of this debate. It is one of the only known facts. Two guys who are pilots have two completely different takes on this module.

This fact has been proven again and again all through the DCS forums. Many people claiming to be pilots have given two completely different accounts of their experience with the DCS flight model.

I have personally had Huey and A10 pilots sit here with me and fly DCS and have gotten completely different responses as to the realism of the FM, detail, sound, and appearance. And these are people that I know are pilots. And again, this is a fact that I have seen with my own eyes and ears.

Thus......accuracy of the FM is to a large degree, subjective. To say that it is not, is just ignoring what's right there in front of you.

Everything else being discussed here can and usually is debated. But the fact that people who have flown these aircraft in real life have always had different opinions as to their accuracy as depicted by DCS is one of the only consistent facts about this whole argument.

That's all that I am trying to get across here. By all accounts this makes it....subjective. I'm not arguing whether anyone is right or wrong.

TripRodriguez:

" I will add that I do find the Gazelle fun to fly after taking some time to start getting used to it. That is not to say it doesn't need to be fixed if it is as incorrect as people are saying."

This is one of the best ways to deal with the Gazelle and IMO, the best response in the thread...........

END OF STORY ;)