I agree it needs tweaking but don't agree they should fly like RC helicopters, quad-copters, or 3D_stunt helos in this matter (all of which I fly) then update your ticket argument accordingly which might help these votes? want to split up the helos and do some research as to how they should fly.even a auto-gyro is a good example on helicopter flight physics even though the main rotor is un-powered it is based on the same principle. I cant help but notice your theory resembles quad-copter physics more than anything rotor-craft related. Per real-life flight physics only a few helos (RAH-66 Comanche being one) can fly sideways at very high speeds without mechanically or pilot error. and I haven't tried TOH tho it caught my interests I wasn't about to spend double on "A2 content" with lots of practice the helos can be flown sideways infinitely in orbit with nose facing down.you can fly any direction for a bit THEN outta no-where the helicopter spins violently pointing its nose in that direction.We all came to the conclusion you appear to change your Anti-TQ theory throughout the posts. Ive linked a few guys on this thread to make sure Im not getting the wrong idea about what you are saying because I along with others DO want to understand your argument so this gets voted up So in your theory a jet could fly sideways? If you have something heavy and connect it with something less heavy the heavy part will dictate where it goes when you throw it and the less heavy part will follow behind(in ideal conditions) and the mainbody of a heli and its tailsection have the same relation.Īnd the rudders are just dull:) Compared to the TOH rudders they go a LOT slower. The sleek/lighest part(feathers) want to be at the back while the heavy part(the arrowtip) which also has all the momentum wants to be in front which is why an arrow always fly's straight and always lands with the tip first(nose of the helicopter. When done the aircraft will gain momentum to the left, still with me? Now at this point the air is hitting the craft over the entire side and most will hit the main body of the craft, the rest will go under,over or past the craft AND past the stabilising fin. It is the drag on the fin that stabilises! Think of a helicopter in hover, and now think of it putting the cyclic to the left. Now we just need a DEV to go half way with us to resolve the issue everyone should be happy so lets just meet half-way for the "most part" they are accurate tho the effects are aggressive i dont have any problems with itīut. I voted against this because i have been flying BIS helos since OFP. everyone has a right to vote as they please ![]() aerodynamics would cause the tail not to function properly and cause drag most likely again causing the helicopter to spin around If you read my note you would notice i was repeating what you saidĮither case IF you agree the tail fin acts as a stabilizer then BIS is again close because at higher speeds a stabilizer becomes more effective - in the case of helicopters you would be spun around because based on COG and resistance the tail would end up most effected (taking the path of least resistance)Īlong with the note that to increase speed you would you be increasing the main rotor RPM for thrust causing more TQ. BIS isnt completely accurate but they are close its main purpose is counteracting TQ from the main rotor and using it at higher speeds leads to mechanical failure or pilot error. At speeds above stall (hover) the anti-TQ rotor is nearly useless.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |