Kiowa practice, use Huey or Balck Shark?

lol good stuff

@Relic The input axis indicator in the Kiowa video is actually pretty concerning. Whatever is set with saturation or curvature for axis makes no sense or is bugged the same way as in the Gazelle. Why would someone need to narrow inputs down that much? To fractions of millimeters for movements that are hundreds of times larger in reality?

Check the instruments on the dash guys.

what is your read out there?

Are you concerned about the throw of your gaming throttle or the actual in game power/torque readings?

does your gaming stick at 40% movement equate to what your gauges tell you?

In real life is there more movement in the cyclic and collective than you will actual use in normal flight?

You may need to closely watch the review video of the Gazelle by Eric Scott and 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. In the Gazelle module this is already a problem for years now. In DCS:Kiowa videos you can clearly see that it has the same problem as the Gazelle module: only 3%-5% of axis movements off the center are needed cover the whole range, even for hard maneuvering: 1. this is absolutely unrealistic, 2. makes no sense in helicopter or aircraft design in general, 3. introduces pointless over-sensitivity and unrealistic flight model behaviour for the helicopter in DCS.

So you are claiming the feedback given by real pilots, and even the aircraft instructor, for the kiowa is not valid. And you have the truth without having touched either the real airframe or the module? Sorry but wait for it to release, is not even finished and you are already stating things that are not true.

I flew the AH1 Gazelle with the British Army for a few years...800+ hours, from basic rotary training (how to fly a helicopter), through advanced rotary (tactics, AOP, FAC etc). Many years later I flew the civilian Jet Ranger and Long Ranger and during a Squadron exchange flew the earlier US Army Kiowa (2 blades) in Germany. The US IP pilot I flew with was amazed at the manoeuvrability of the Gazelle, a very intuitive aircraft. I in turn found the Kiowa/jet ranger to be quite a bit more deliberate and slower to react to inputs.

Of course the Warrior with 4 blades is more dynamic so probably closer to the Gazelle. The Huey to me seems further along the stable direction, sitting under those huge blades, quite happy in the hover or a straight line.

I'm biased as all of my basic training was on the Gazelle and like thousands of students before me realised that once you stop squeezing the life out of the controls and relax, look ahead, think ahead, it's a great little machine.

The Huey and the Mi8 are in my opinion, more truck than sports car.

@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 "normally" operate in maneuvering profiles beyond 30 deg angles of bank or so. Civilian operators don't like it when you get froggy with their expensive machines.

Particularly in hydraulically assisted or fully hydraulic actuated systems, "fingertip" flying is the norm, with only the slightest of control pressure required to move the cyclic, and no more than fractions of an inch for most maneuvers required for normal flight (15-30 deg angles of bank).

Large "combat" maneuvers may deflect the cyclic beyond an inch or maybe two of deflection.

If I'd ever moved the cyclic "40% to 50%" of full travel, the aircraft would've been upside down.

How this translates into sim flying using mechanicals that are far shorter than most actual flight controls obviously influences control motions as well.

I'd assume with the wide variety and range of controls out there, some allowances and adjustments have to be made to derive what feels comfortable to the simmer.

@Barundus

Do you see the axis indicator in the left corner?

Do you understand what it means and what he is talking about? He even shows original data on real controls input for the Gazelle.

Do you see that this:

And how many inches do you see here?

We should see that inch of 90% "normal" movement 1:1 in the axis indicator movements, within a 30-40% range left/right/up/down like in every other DCS module without messing up saturation - on a 100% linear input setting for each axis. For stick extensions, saturation should be reduced about from 20% to 40% to compensate input from a the longer stick and show a line with a steeper angle not that ridiculous flat one that is needed to make the Gazelle less crazy.

@Barundus

 

I think you are absolutely right to be suspicious of Barundus input. After all, he only flies the real Kiowa.

I'd much rather listen to someone like you, who watches videos on the internet and builds joysticks badly.

Real world I flew with just my wrist making minute movements, the Kiowa is so responsive that I rarely needed more.

@Extranajero

I can only imagine your struggle and i'm really sorry for you.

If you're using a regular flight stick, not one with an extension, couldn't you just adjust saturation and curvature to mimick the data that alec posted?

You shouldn't be using any curves, as you will lose the touch of the helicopter behavior.

One of the challenges in the helicopter piloting is that it behaves completely differently than fixed wing aircraft. Even in the high speed straight flying the helicopter has a different flight dynamics.

The one reason for that is the center of gravity moving around, the pendulum effect, gyroscopic forces and all are changing in time and in conditions. And the controls are there to deliver you the feedback that you know what is the state of the helicopter and how much you have leeway to do something.

Example you can find out by the position of your cyclic that you can't make a right side turn or you can't decrease speed, the instruments doesn't tell you that but your cyclic position does.

And if you add a curves to cyclic input, you lose that feedback system that informs you your capabilities.

The same thing is with the saturation, you are doing two things with it. Either you make your controls not capable for maximum controllability, or you minimize the accuracy you can have with your controls so you start making overcorrections or just not capable to do the smooth handling.

That is why you shouldn't apply any adjustments to the cyclic, collective or pedals input values.

And yes, it is bad thing for those who fly without extension in their joystick, but that is just the real world problem. And only good way to fix it is to have an extended joystick and a extended collective.

And that is root for the simulators control systems problems, where the helicopter can be designed to be used on tabletop joystick without any extension, with stronger centering force spring etc. So you can see in various videos that if you have a normal joystick, then it is easier to fly Gazelle (and likely Kiowa Warrior) as if their control system is designed around that, not around a realistic controls system.

And now when you compare a properly made control system to a more realistic helicopter controls setup, they are completely different.

Where a fixed wing pilot needs to worry about lack of real world feedback informations like a G-forces, sounds, the feeling about the speed and all, the helicopter pilot has lack of information about cyclic, collective and pedals positions as well.

So when a trained pilot try to fly a helicopter simulator without all those real world information, they get confused. They are lost.

I totally miss my FF joystick, as it was in so many ways better as it could give some indicator for the aircraft handling. You had some feeling about the speed, the Angle of Attack, G-forces, trimming and such.

I believe that all helicopter modules should have the settings options to set the helicopter input and flight dynamics based few options player can select:

1) Joystick with or without extension.

2) Joystick with or without FF.

3) Joystick with or without centering spring.

4) Pedals with or without centering spring.

As reality is that players has different control setups, and on small amount has a even semi-realistic helicopter controls in use.

Some modules like KA-50 has some of those above mentioned settings (IMHO little oddly worded although) but it should change the helicopter flight modeling more to match the player capabilities to fly.

Like it is totally understandable that player with a Thrustmaster Warthog with a heavy centering spring and no extension is no where near as capable fly a helicopter as is one with 40 cm extension, no spring and with magnetic break system.

So what to use for a practicing a helicopter flying?

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 "normally" operate in maneuvering profiles beyond 30 deg angles of bank or so. Civilian operators don't like it when you get froggy with their expensive machines.

Lots of civilian accidents has happened because pilots has not estimated properly their weight distribution changes and changing wind conditions. https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=103&sID=441&preview=true

Pilots has simply run out of their cyclic range as when they performed the take-off checks the conditions changed middle of flight. Some passengers has changed their seating position, fuel has been used more from one side, the cargo they are transporting was more than expected, the wind was stronger and wrong approach direction relative to speed and all.

And he is just hovering...

The helicopter cyclic is not "fly straight and level when cyclic is kept at center" like it is in the DCS Gazelle. Just like in the posted video about real Gazelle controls positions, they move a lot through the flight even in straight and level.

50% is the center of the control, meaning 0% is for far one side and 100% is far other side.

So if you have a control input at 50% then it is at center of its physical movement range.

 

And that is a smaller and lighter helicopter than anything in DCS.

 

 

 

Lots of civilian accidents has happened because pilots has not estimated properly their weight distribution changes and changing wind conditions. https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=103&sID=441&preview=true

 

 

 

Pilots has simply run out of their cyclic range as when they performed the take-off checks the conditions changed middle of flight. Some passengers has changed their seating position, fuel has been used more from one side, the cargo they are transporting was more than expected, the wind was stronger and wrong approach direction relative to speed and all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And he is just hovering...

 

 

 

The helicopter cyclic is not "fly straight and level when cyclic is kept at center" like it is in the DCS Gazelle. Just like in the posted video about real Gazelle controls positions, they move a lot through the flight even in straight and level.

 

 

 

50% is the center of the control, meaning 0% is for far one side and 100% is far other side.

 

So if you have a control input at 50% then it is at center of its physical movement range.

 

 

 

[ATTACH]248620[/ATTACH]

You shouldn't be using any curves, as you will lose the touch of the helicopter behavior.

 

One of the challenges in the helicopter piloting is that it behaves completely differently than fixed wing aircraft. Even in the high speed straight flying the helicopter has a different flight dynamics.

The one reason for that is the center of gravity moving around, the pendulum effect, gyroscopic forces and all are changing in time and in conditions. And the controls are there to deliver you the feedback that you know what is the state of the helicopter and how much you have leeway to do something.

 

Example you can find out by the position of your cyclic that you can't make a right side turn or you can't decrease speed, the instruments doesn't tell you that but your cyclic position does.

And if you add a curves to cyclic input, you lose that feedback system that informs you your capabilities.

 

The same thing is with the saturation, you are doing two things with it. Either you make your controls not capable for maximum controllability, or you minimize the accuracy you can have with your controls so you start making overcorrections or just not capable to do the smooth handling.

 

That is why you shouldn't apply any adjustments to the cyclic, collective or pedals input values.

 

And yes, it is bad thing for those who fly without extension in their joystick, but that is just the real world problem. And only good way to fix it is to have an extended joystick and a extended collective.

 

 

And that is root for the simulators control systems problems, where the helicopter can be designed to be used on tabletop joystick without any extension, with stronger centering force spring etc. So you can see in various videos that if you have a normal joystick, then it is easier to fly Gazelle (and likely Kiowa Warrior) as if their control system is designed around that, not around a realistic controls system.

 

And now when you compare a properly made control system to a more realistic helicopter controls setup, they are completely different.

 

Where a fixed wing pilot needs to worry about lack of real world feedback informations like a G-forces, sounds, the feeling about the speed and all, the helicopter pilot has lack of information about cyclic, collective and pedals positions as well.

 

So when a trained pilot try to fly a helicopter simulator without all those real world information, they get confused. They are lost.

 

I totally miss my FF joystick, as it was in so many ways better as it could give some indicator for the aircraft handling. You had some feeling about the speed, the Angle of Attack, G-forces, trimming and such.

 

I believe that all helicopter modules should have the settings options to set the helicopter input and flight dynamics based few options player can select:

 

1) Joystick with or without extension.

2) Joystick with or without FF.

3) Joystick with or without centering spring.

4) Pedals with or without centering spring.

 

As reality is that players has different control setups, and on small amount has a even semi-realistic helicopter controls in use.

 

Some modules like KA-50 has some of those above mentioned settings (IMHO little oddly worded although) but it should change the helicopter flight modeling more to match the player capabilities to fly.

 

Like it is totally understandable that player with a Thrustmaster Warthog with a heavy centering spring and no extension is no where near as capable fly a helicopter as is one with 40 cm extension, no spring and with magnetic break system.

 

So what to use for a practicing a helicopter flying?

I appreciate the effort and desire towards educating someone, but I’m aware of the light touch need with helo controls. I’m not a pilot and always welcome info to learn but I’ve been doing the sim helamuhchopter thing for a long time. My question related specifically to videos posted, and whether the difference in travel distance of controls was due to short joystick vs real life cyclic. As an aside, negative curvature in rudder pedals is necessary imo because the sim doesn’t make the rudder as responsive as it should.

As to which helo OP should train, I’d disqualify ka 50 and gaz. Ka50 doesn’t fly like your normal helo, and polychop is making a new flight model so neither the Kiowa nor the new gaz will fly like the CURRENT gaz. It’d be like training in arma to come to dcs. I don’t think that’s the best plan.

I think the mi-8 is oddly the best bet to train. Reason being is the mi-8 is very stable in forward flight, unlike the Huey. I believe the Kiowa has stabilizing systems yes? It’ll probably be very stable in forward flight. Also I imagine you’ll have to be very attentive to the Kiowa when landing because it’s light and responsive, and the mi-8 requires a lot of attention in landing, even if the landing characteristics would be different. The Huey is a great balance between everything but I think the mi-8 would train you to be the best helo pilot you can be.

I believe the Kiowa has stabilizing systems yes? It’ll probably be very stable in forward flight.

Yes it has, the SCAS.

Stability Augmentation System active or is he flying without stabilization?

No mention is made about SAS in the 1975 SA-342 report that was used as the basis to create the flight control charts, I think it safe to assume one wasn't fitted.

DESCRIPTION OF TEST AIRCRAFT

 

4. The Aerospatiale Model SA-342 helicopter flown during the tests was a modified SA-341.

...

Subsequent to the Langley Directorate evaluation, Aerospatiale made several modifications to the aircraft based upon both in service operations and the Langley evaluation.

 

These modifications were incorperated into a company owned Model SA-341, making it a Model SA-342, and this was the aircraft tested in the report.

 

Only one Model SA-342 helicopter has been produced to date

The original ADA016921 Report is available here

https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/ADA016921.xhtml

My question related specifically to videos posted, and whether the difference in travel distance of controls was due to short joystick vs real life cyclic.

It doesn't matter how long your joystick is when comparing the positioning data.

The real data is the deflection percentage from the real cyclic movement range. So 0% and 100% are physical limitations.

The same thing is with the DCS input indicator, it shows the whole joystick, throttle and pedals movement scale.

If you add curves and so on in DCS, then IIRC there appears a another white indicator that will show you the relative input position and the red one shows the real joystick input scape as DirectX does read it.

As an aside, negative curvature in rudder pedals is necessary imo because the sim doesn’t make the rudder as responsive as it should.

To me the pedals work already very responsive manner, and I don't need to use pedals almost at all anyways than when taking-off, hovering or landing. After speed of about 40 KIAS the pedals are not required, same thing is with collective. So from the 40-200 KIAS you only need to operate the joystick to fly around as wanted, and mostly it sits at center in any attitude.

As to which helo OP should train, I’d disqualify ka 50 and gaz. Ka50 doesn’t fly like your normal helo, and polychop is making a new flight model so neither the Kiowa nor the new gaz will fly like the CURRENT gaz. It’d be like training in arma to come to dcs. I don’t think that’s the best plan.

Exactly.

I think the mi-8 is oddly the best bet to train. Reason being is the mi-8 is very stable in forward flight, unlike the Huey.

I find Huey just a slightly less stable than Mi-8.

I believe the Kiowa has stabilizing systems yes? It’ll probably be very stable in forward flight. Also I imagine you’ll have to be very attentive to the Kiowa when landing because it’s light and responsive, and the mi-8 requires a lot of attention in landing, even if the landing characteristics would be different. The Huey is a great balance between everything but I think the mi-8 would train you to be the best helo pilot you can be.

I still consider that many ways Huey could be better, as Mi-8 is really a "ocean liner" when it comes to landing and all. Huey is more of a "finger tip" flying.

But it be interesting to see what kind KW will be, as if already someone says that it is totally different than Gazelle, then it is odd if developer would recommend using Gazelle (sounds more as a reason to sell a Gazelle for hasty people...), especially if it would get that major changes as you know.

The Mi-8 and Huey are safe bets in the sense that they behave like one can expect from a helicopter. So it is closer to that.

But looking the videos of the Gazelle demos, I am worried about it repeating the same thing as Gazelle does have.

No mention is made about SAS in the 1975 SA-342 report that was used as the basis to create the flight control charts, I think it safe to assume one wasn't fitted.

If no mentioning it status (enabled/disabled) or effect, then I would assume so. But has Gazelle ever come out without one? Like isn't it a standard feature from the first version? And so on safe to assume that it would be enabled as standard flight would dictate so?

Anyways, it should be safer to assume that the report is about how the helicopter would be flown in standard manner, not so that things gets disabled to make it something else than typical flight would have.

Huey and Mi-8 should have slight pedal-hold in opposite direction of rotor spin to keep your nose pointing forward in forward flight. So for huey its left pedal in ground effect, and right pedal for forward flight.

But I agree that if the OP didn't want to go with the Mi-8, the Huey is right there with it (and perhaps better as a trainer). I fly the Huey more than any of the modules I own. Though if ED ever makes an AH-64 module I'd basically just uninstall everything (except the huey) and be a permanent resident of the apache cockpit.

Best of luck to the OP. I hope we all get to experience the Kiowa soon and that it's as awesome as we all want it to be.

@shagrat

that magical auto control thing in the Gazelle module isn't anyway near how the real SAS works. It makes it even worse and adds unnatural, physics defying effects. Like the continuous roll with just a bit steady holding of left or right stick input. This is mechanically and physically impossible in a helicopter. Like a real Gazelle pilot already said and real video footage shows, they always hold and move the stick. Even for making her steady and ready to land, you always have to work with the cyclic against the natural unstability of a helicopter. The SAS only acts as a input dampening system if the pilot is in control.

@shagrat

 

that magical auto control thing in the Gazelle module isn't anyway near how the real SAS works. It makes it even worse and adds unnatural, physics defying effects. Like the continuous roll with just a bit steady holding of left or right stick input. This is mechanically and physically impossible in a helicopter. Like a real Gazelle pilot already said and real video footage shows, they always hold and move the stick. Even for making her steady and ready to land, you always have to work with the cyclic against the natural unstability of a helicopter. The SAS only acts as a input dampening system if the pilot is in control.

EDIT and the SAS is basically what makes the autopilot modes possible (ALT hold etc.) so it's definitely more than "only a input dampening system".

@Shagrat

Autopilot modes are separate systems and make use of SAS, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot "Many helicopters have pitch, roll and yaw SAS systems. Pitch and roll SAS systems operate much the same way as the yaw damper described above; however, instead of dampening out Dutch roll, they will dampen pitch and roll oscillations or buffeting to improve the overall stability of the aircraft."

In a helicopter SAS is basically just a dampening system, it smoothes everything out. The pilot in the video makes a lot of quick movements and the chopper reacts a bit later, so it looks like SAS is active.

I was not discussing how the SAS is working, or if it represents the real life thing well. I was simply asking, if there is any indication, if the video linked as "reference" shows flying with SAS activated or deactivated?

EDIT and the SAS is basically what makes the autopilot modes possible (ALT hold etc.) so it's definitely more than "only a input dampening system".

SAS doesn't remove your controls positions. It doesn't apply a multiplier for the pilot inputs scales, but does dampen the inputs so pilot caused oscillation wouldn't happen.

Need to remember as well that SAS means "Stability Augmentation System" while AP means "Auto-Pilot". And SAS itself doesn't perform AP functions, but AP can have some SAS functions itself.

What comes to control systems, I am personally more interested about what the pilots like to use when it comes to their high skills to hover next to powerlines while linemen's are performing the repairs.

High respect toward those people working at such a dangerous situations, especially pilots.

But if they make a six figures a year, it is deserved for the high risk (if alone in USA a few dozens dies every year).