Ka-50´s flaws (I think)

[JACN]

Hi all

 

First of all, please, in no way consider this topic a criticism to ED since I´m sure their work reproduces painstakingly the real thing as is. It´s just one opinion (one personal opinion) about what I previously considered as an extremelly capable combat helo. I must admit I have not yet many hours in the BlackShark but the more I fly it the more dissapointed I´m with this aircraft.

 

I´ve found several issues that could be considered as "minor issues". Amongst them and perhaps the most important is the lack of use of MFDs and other digital displays ("glass" cockpit). Of course, this can be considered as a legacy of old russian desing philosophy applied to an old? helo. Anyway, not a big issue but somehow annoying considering this is a single-seater aircraft and the increased workload of an already overloaded pilot that this fact produces. Perhaps an avionics (expensive) upgrade would eliminate this problem.

 

Another "CON" I´ve found related to this helo is the Flight Control System. The nature of this aircraft physics provides it with some big advantages regarding the handling and survability if compared with "classical" layouts. But this also brings new problems and limitations. Perhaps (and surely) due to my control hardware I find difficult to trim the aircraft to the desired condition, specially in transient conditions like hover to forward flight and forward flight to hover phases. It deserves too much attention and piloting skills and probably a more automatic control system would have made things (a lot) easier. Of course, always a better piloting technique could improve this feeling, I know :). Anyway, for me the big BUT is regarding the operative limitations...WHY did Kamov decided to leave ALL the weight of this critical issue on the pilot´s shoulders??!. The aircraft has literally no auto-limitation on its envelope boundaries!. If you fly forward at 265 kph and apply full left rudder you´ll be able to perform a quite agressive turn+pull in order to reverse but, if you perform the same maoeuvre to the right...simply you´re dead :( Also you don´t have any info of how close/far you´re from the rotor disks collision other than the marking in the g meter. You have a g pull limitation but not a stick+rudder combined one, so you don´t know how much rudder you can apply without die. The rudder input SHOULD have been limited by FCS as a function of dynamic pressure, loadfactor,... and any other variable involved, but NEVER EVER leave it only as a "verbal" operational limitation in a flight manual, damn...it´s critical!!!. For me a very big flaw -by omission- in the FCS design.

 

The last one is regarding the weapon system and FCC, specifically the rockets. ATGMs and cannon is fine for me, indeed I consider Kamov´s approach as a very good solution for a single seater helo. But the rockets implementation is a big joke to me!. Why the rockets launchers are not able to tilt as the ATGMs are???. Yes, you save weight, complexity and a ton of engineering problems with it but...you make them a "dead" and useless weight, so this weight should have been completely eliminated too, shouldn´t it? :) Of course, and again, just a matter of flying skills to get both reticles aligned but it´s an extremelly poor solution if compared with Apache´s one. If you want to get a fire solution you have to either increase altitude or move forward, period (being placed at the correct range is only luck :D). Both solutions are equally unlucky in terms of survability. The first one will make you visible to any known or unknown ground menace and will force to leave any advantageous (protected) position vital for the helo survability saying "Hi guys, I´m here!!". The second one is even worse because you have to move towards the enemy forcing you to get closer to the hot zone and even fly over enemies heads, making it easy for a hidden guy with and igla/stinger to make you a toasted chicken...A similar Apache´s laid "H" system with tilting launchers would have allowed hovering shoots and to crush an enemy target from a safe and distant position, not to say avoiding also the unnecessary pitch aiming over/undershoots=missed=wasted shoots. Definitely an acceptable solution for a ground attack (fixed wings) aircraft as the Su-25 but NEVER for an attack helo.

 

Guys, please, take all of this is only as a personal opinion or feeling about what I consider should have been or should be improved in the Ka-50 helo. I´d like you to share your own experiences/opinions about these or other issues (I have not faced yet) in order to perhaps help me to improve my flying skills or get a better perception of it if I´m missed.

 

Thanks and best regards

 

Álvaro

Edited November 27, 2009 by JACN

[Boberro]

This chopper is old, Soviet union has collapsed and many years Ka-50 has been abandomed. Many factors have caused this situation - Mi-28 proposition, conception of the chopper also has changed. No money at all....

 

Today the Ka-50 is only for low combat situations, so it can use rocket pod, gunpods as it can use now. I am sure if they had had money, they would have changed a lot of things.

 

One pilot idea was challenge in 80s, but IMHO not so bad, however Ka-50 terrible needs more automatic procedures and equipment. Fire-forget missiles, something better than Shkval to view area, FLIR, radar, IR jammer, RWR, chaffs, flares and much better cockpit view. With these things Ka-50 would be really great chopper. Now it is not - good maneuvering and power won't protect it enough to survive on modern battlefield.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Boberro

[topol-m]

If you want the ultimate combat helicopter - that would be Ka-52 armed with hermes missiles. Take that Longbow! :D

[JACN]

This chopper is old, Soviet union has collapsed and many years Ka-50 has been abandomed. Many factors have caused this situation - Mi-28 proposition, conception of the chopper also has changed. No money at all....

 

Today the Ka-50 is only for low combat situations, so it can use rocket pod, gunpods as it can use now. I am sure if they had had money, they would have changed a lot of things.

 

One pilot idea was challenge in 80s, but IMHO not so bad, however Ka-50 terrible needs more automatic procedures and equipment. Fire-forget missiles, something better than Shkval to view area, FLIR, radar, IR jammer, RWR, chaffs, flares and much better cockpit view. With these things Ka-50 would be really great chopper. Now it is not - good maneuvering and power won't protect it enough to survive on modern battlefield.

 

Ok, thanks for your comments. This confirms my worst guesses...it´s not (only) me, it´s the helo itself :(. It could be considered as an unfinished combat helicopter project.

 

Regards

 

Álvaro

[Feuerfalke]

Only a few Ka-50 were built, most of them server as testbasis (e.g. for the Ka-52). They were designed for a different era and a different scenario than todays battlefields.

 

Besides that, this simulation represents just a snapshot of the ongoing development of the Ka-50 - the one ED were allowed to simulate and had solid data on. Nobody says the version represented in the simulation is 1:1 the Ka-50 in service today.

 

It could be considered as an unfinished combat helicopter project.

 

The only finished project is an abandoned project. For everything else, it depends on you to make the best of what you got.

[Boberro]

If you want the ultimate combat helicopter - that would be Ka-52 armed with hermes missiles. Take that Longbow! :D

 

Hermes looks nice, but still is not FF missile. But compard to Vikhr it is milestone :D

 

Only a few Ka-50 were built, most of them server as testbasis (e.g. for the Ka-52). They were designed for a different era and a different scenario than todays battlefields.

 

Besides that, this simulation represents just a snapshot of the ongoing development of the Ka-50 - the one ED were allowed to simulate and had solid data on. Nobody says the version represented in the simulation is 1:1 the Ka-50 in service today.

 

The only finished project is an abandoned project. For everything else, it depends on you to make the best of what you got.

 

If I remember correctly ED made in DCS Ka-50 based on #25 or 26 no. We have ABRIS, cos earlier models had only paper plan :O.

We got more modern version than it is normal, at least maybe they upgraded it recetly to newer versions.

As far I know they won't add anything like FLIR, IR jammer ect big upgrades on them - their role is low area, with that what Ka-50s have now it is enough.

 

It is Mi-28N and Ka-52 era in Russia ;]

[Feuerfalke]

There were already pictures of Ka-50-cockpits with e.g. RWR-Receivers and other upgrades. But as you posted, there's simply not much sense in pushing these upgrades on a helicopter with limited usability.

[topol-m]

Hermes looks nice, but still is not FF missile. But compard to Vikhr it is milestone :D

 

 

Yes it`s not fire and forget which it compensates with its range ;)

[sobek]

Yes it`s not fire and forget which it compensates with its range ;)

 

And it's awfully fast. Supersonic AT missile, that's gotta count for something :)

[Panzertard]

Hello :)

I can see that most of your thoughts evolve around the Ka-50 design.

 

However - this one may be factored by how DCS:BS implements trim in the sim;

 

..........

Another "CON" I´ve found related to this helo is the Flight Control System. The nature of this aircraft physics provides it with some big advantages regarding the handling and survability if compared with "classical" layouts. But this also brings new problems and limitations. Perhaps (and surely) due to my control hardware I find difficult to trim the aircraft to the desired condition, specially in transient conditions like hover to forward flight and forward flight to hover phases. It deserves too much attention and piloting skills and probably a more automatic control system would have made things (a lot) easier. ......

 

Thanks and best regards

 

Álvaro

 

I think you're finding yourself in a place where we've all been - "how do I fly the thing using the dampers & trim system." :D

 

You will find several good thread regarding the dampeners & trim usage.

 

I'm not sure if you have tried this method;

- Enable all 3 dampeners channels, fly with them on. (Dont use Flight Director mode just yet - wait until you have learned the stanadard mode).

- Before starting a new manouver, before you change Attitude - *hold the Trim button*

- Change attitude (speed, altitude, heading etc).

- Release trim.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Panzertard

[JACN]

Hello :)

I can see that most of your thoughts evolve around the Ka-50 design.

 

 

However - this one may be factored by how DCS:BS implements trim in the sim;

 

 

 

I think you're finding yourself in a place where we've all been - "how do I fly the thing using the dampers & trim system." :D

 

You will find several good thread regarding the dampeners & trim usage.

 

I'm not sure if you have tried this method;

- Enable all 3 dampeners channels, fly with them on. (Dont use Flight Director mode just yet - wait until you have learned the stanadard mode).

- Before starting a new manouver, before you change Attitude - *hold the Trim button*

- Change attitude (speed, altitude, heading etc).

- Release trim.

 

Thanks, I´ll give it a try :thumbup:

 

Álvaro

[GGTharos]

Yes, it can be considered an unfinished combat helicopter project, because it is. Originally it was to be upgraded with better avionics and other systems before being accepted into service, but this didn't happen due to USSR collapse. Now, it is (very successfuly) used as is for special operations.

 

However, it also is mostly you. A glass cockpit would not reduce the complexity of using the navigation equipment or weapons.

 

The rocket issue you're having is just a lack of proper technique (and I'll give you that your stick, especially if it's spiky or makes it hard to trim, will hold you back here) and practice.

 

You don't do aviation by jumping into an aircraft and flying it. You learn flying and navigation techniques first and foremost. Learn how to fly the thing, how it flies, how all the autopilot modes work (ALL of them, including when AP is not deliberately on in route mode for example), what stabilization does, and why.

Learn to fly procedure turns, and forget about doing everything with 90-deg-bank 3-second-to-heading turns ...

Hold your altitude and speed in the turn as well, and constant bank. Learn how to do it so you roll out on desired heading when you want to.

 

If you don't learn to fly like that, you have nothing to complain about ;)

 

The Ka-50, or any aircraft, is not about yanking and banking. That is a capability, and not the primary mode of flight.

 

Ok, thanks for your comments. This confirms my worst guesses...it´s not (only) me, it´s the helo itself :(. It could be considered as an unfinished combat helicopter project.

 

Regards

 

Álvaro

[lawndartleo]

And it's awfully fast. Supersonic AT missile, that's gotta count for something :)

 

Yeah, especially with all those supersonic tanks on the battlefield.

[JACN]

However, it also is mostly you. A glass cockpit would not reduce the complexity of using the navigation equipment or weapons.

 

No I didn´t mean navigation, of course ABRIS is as complex as any other navigation system could be. I meant general (chaotic) cockpit arrangement with many many indicators, switches and systems -even at your back!-. A modern glass cockpit allows different systems indications to be integrated into only one screen avoiding the claustrophobic sensation not found for example in an Apache or Cobra. You don´t have to turn back your head to both sides and back to know -with a "quick" look- if everything is ok, just to look forward and if any press a MFD button.

 

The rocket issue you're having is just a lack of proper technique (and I'll give you that your stick, especially if it's spiky or makes it hard to trim, will hold you back here) and practice.

 

Yes of course, a matter of practice to get rid of those PIO´s...but still a big disadvantage if compared with an Apache in which you can fire your rockets while hovering. Aside of any skills...it´s an operational disadvantage. Said in other words, for the same piloting skills, who has more chances to survive an attack run with rockets, a hovering and hidden Apache 4 km away from the target or a Ka-50 which has to fly towards the target (flying exposed over hostile/unknown terrain) while manually flying and aiming the weapons (perhaps a 33% of pilot´s attention put on SAM)?=> high operational disadvantage. As I said its and acceptable rockets attack technique -and the only one possible- for an attack aircraft but never for a helicopter.

 

Álvaro

Edited November 27, 2009 by JACN

[Boberro]

Even when you master how to fly Ka-50 there are still to many things which a pilot has to keep his eye.

 

About Hermes...Its range is very nice, however better is fire and run away or hide than fire and hover in air. Apache can fire and someone else will guide missile or fire and run away. Will Hermes be able to this? I don't know much about this missile system.

[EtherealN]

You don´t have to turn back your head to both sides and back to know -with a "quick" look- if everything is ok, just to look forward and if any press a MFD button.

 

Pressing an MFD button means removing my hand from either the cyclic or collective. I myself is very happy with having everything I need for normal flight up at the same time even if it is in analog dials. One quick scan with eyes only and you'll know if anything is amiss there - instead of flipping through a few pages on an MFD.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I love MFD's and the whole thing with having stuff at the back is a bit annoying - but only very occassionaly. It has been only two-three times that I have been forced to look at them to verify something, and both times I was told about the problem by the EKRAN which helpfully indicated that I need to check my hydraulic pressures (I had had my hydraulics shot out by some pesky APC's that I overflew...).

 

So I do not agree with your view of how big a problem that is. In fact, I can see times where an MFD might theoretically increase workload compared to the current layout - all you need is a tense situation and the MFD sitting in the wrong mode. But yeah, that's what training is for, too.

[topol-m]

 

About Hermes...Its range is very nice, however better is fire and run away or hide than fire and hover in air. Apache can fire and someone else will guide missile or fire and run away. Will Hermes be able to this? I don't know much about this missile system.

There isn`t much info about it as it is brand new. But I`d say if the terrain allows it you could fire it from such range that you`ve got the advantage even if it will require you to guide it. And it`s real fast - it will pass that distance in seconds. I wouldn`t like to be in an Apache and someone to shoot at me at twice the range I`m capable of shooting him ;) And yes such distance of attack might be really difficult to achieve unless in perfect conditions, but this missile certainly gives you an advantage in terms of distance, speed and most likely in hit probability.

[GGTharos]

No I didn´t mean navigation, of course ABRIS is as complex as any other navigation system could be. I meant general (chaotic) cockpit arrangement with many many indicators, switches and systems -even at your back!-.

 

But they aren't chaotic at all, and the ones behind your back are things you set (or a technician sets) before t/o and you never look at'em again, in theory.

 

 

A modern glass cockpit allows different systems indications to be integrated into only one screen avoiding the claustrophobic sensation not found for example in an Apache or Cobra. You don´t have to turn back your head to both sides and back to know -with a "quick" look- if everything is ok, just to look forward and if any press a MFD button.

 

Yes, you can get some data fusion etc, but in general it isn't a whole lot more convenient than looking off to the side, like EtherealN pointed out.

EVERYTHING you need to fly and fight your heli is in front of you on the main panel. The only time you need to look aside is if you're either handling an emergency, or if you're doing administrative tasks (lights etc).

 

Yes, things COULD be even better, but it isn't a disaster zone :)

 

Yes of course, a matter of practice to get rid of those PIO´s...but still a big disadvantage if compared with an Apache in which you can fire your rockets while hovering. Aside of any skills...it´s an operational disadvantage. Said in other words, for the same piloting skills, who has more chances to survive an attack run with rockets, a hovering and hidden Apache 4 km away from the target or a Ka-50 which has to fly towards the target (flying exposed over hostile/unknown terrain) while manually flying and aiming the weapons (perhaps a 33% of pilot´s attention put on SAM)?=> high operational disadvantage. As I said its and acceptable rockets attack technique -and the only one possible- for an attack aircraft but never for a helicopter.

 

Álvaro

 

Well that's a horribly incorrect assumption ... an apache will do the same run-in rocket attack as a Ka-50 ... while it has the ability to better attack from a hover, it just doesn't seem to make a huge difference given the tactics used - which are identical for both helicopters when it comes to employing rockets. 4km is kinda far for those weapons, too.

 

Further, the apache pilot would be concentrating just as much on delivery as the ka-50 pilot, and this is why you have automated counter-measures. The Apache's main advantage isn't the tilting rocket pylons, it's better sensors/avionics and especially the second pair of eyes.

[dooom]

Learn to fly procedure turns, and forget about doing everything with 90-deg-bank 3-second-to-heading turns ...

Hold your altitude and speed in the turn as well, and constant bank. Learn how to do it so you roll out on desired heading when you want to.

 

If you don't learn to fly like that, you have nothing to complain about ;)

 

The Ka-50, or any aircraft, is not about yanking and banking. That is a capability, and not the primary mode of flight.

 

 

OK... you piqued my interest... is there any documentation of videos showing well coordinated/procedure turns in ka50?? I fear i am a yanknbanker wanker and could use a little more insight.:smartass:

 

Also - the OP mentions that right hand turns = dead vs left hand turns... why would this be so??

[GGTharos]

OK... you piqued my interest... is there any documentation of videos showing well coordinated/procedure turns in ka50?? I fear i am a yanknbanker wanker and could use a little more insight.:smartass:

 

No, but there's general aviation information about doing those things - they apply to pretty much anything that flies (you have to do small modifications sometimes for your specific type of aircraft, of course). I don't have a URL handy, but I think if you google something like FAA study guide or something of the sort you will find a lot of info.

There's two classes of info if you google aircraft navigation that you are looking for: One will teach you how to use and understand your navigation instruments, the other will teach you how to fly your traffic patterns. You need to get both, and put them together.

 

Incidentally, your Ka-50 autopilot flies some very nice turns. You could try practicing by using flight director and following its cues, though this obviously doesn't really teach you navigation ;)

 

Also - the OP mentions that right hand turns = dead vs left hand turns... why would this be so??

 

Blade flapping ... heli blades produce lift, and because the Ka-50 uses two counter-rotating rotors, they produce most of the lift on opposite sides (on the sides that the blades advance). The faster you go, the closer the rotors come together on one side. Couple that with rudder pedal which changes the blade pitch in order to induce torque and rotation, and that side rises even higher, and ... boom. So if you want to make a right turn, and you absolutely must make it in 'dangerous' circumstances, lower the collective.

[159th_Viper]

......If you fly forward at 265 kph and apply full left rudder you´ll be able to perform a quite agressive turn+pull in order to reverse but, if you perform the same maoeuvre to the right...simply you´re dead :(..........

 

No No No No No No No.............

 

At the Very Real Risk of Repeating Myself Ad Nauseum.........You can be hammering it along at 300km/h and put the Right Rudder through the Floor with No Ill Effects whatsoever - All Depends on the Technique

[dooom]

Incidentally, your Ka-50 autopilot flies some very nice turns. You could try practicing by using flight director and following its cues, though this obviously doesn't really teach you navigation ;)

 

 

 

Blade flapping ... heli blades produce lift, and because the Ka-50 uses two counter-rotating rotors, they produce most of the lift on opposite sides (on the sides that the blades advance). The faster you go, the closer the rotors come together on one side. Couple that with rudder pedal which changes the blade pitch in order to induce torque and rotation, and that side rises even higher, and ... boom. So if you want to make a right turn, and you absolutely must make it in 'dangerous' circumstances, lower the collective.

 

 

Thanks GG... I am a stick and rudder guy coming to the high tech world of Ks50 from wwii sims. I have no problem coordinating turns in vintage aircraft - was just wondering if there were specific principles i needed to heed regarding rotor craft.

 

... The Blade flapping issue... very very good to know. Might even be worth a mention on the wiki to help confused noobs understand the need for technique a tad better.

 

thanks again.

[JACN]

 

Well that's a horribly incorrect assumption ... an apache will do the same run-in rocket attack as a Ka-50 ... while it has the ability to better attack from a hover, it just doesn't seem to make a huge difference given the tactics used - which are identical for both helicopters when it comes to employing rockets. 4km is kinda far for those weapons, too.

 

Sorry but I have to disagree with you at this point. Always the fire solution in the Apache will come sooner since only it will need to be aligned in the horizontal axis. Indeed always if the aircraft is aligned with the target moving forward or hovering (of course, within a reasonably limits) you can fire rockets. And that is already an operational advantage. And not being able of using rockets capability while hovering is an operative disadvantage. Better sensors is another one ;)

 

Álvaro

[GGTharos]

All moving aircraft (including helis and jets) require coordination just like the ones in WW2 sims :)

 

It IS the case that some modern aircraft will do this for you, however.

 

Thanks GG... I am a stick and rudder guy coming to the high tech world of Ks50 from wwii sims. I have no problem coordinating turns in vintage aircraft - was just wondering if there were specific principles i needed to heed regarding rotor craft.

[GGTharos]

Disagree all you like. This technique is not used, running rocket strafing is what's used.

 

Sorry but I have to disagree with you at this point. Always the fire solution in the Apache will come sooner since only it will need to be aligned in the horizontal axis. Indeed always if the aircraft is aligned with the target moving forward or hovering (of course, within a reasonably limits) you can fire rockets. And that is already an operational advantage. And not being able of using rockets capability while hovering is an operative disadvantage. Better sensors is another one ;)

 

Álvaro