David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Here's another fun landing: > > http://www.megginson.com/flightsim/water-tower.jpg > > The hard part, for me, is watching the ground close to the helicopter when > I'm close to the hover. In real life, when I'm flaring for a landing, I'm > usually focussing on the far end of the runway, perhaps a mile or more away; > in a helicopter, you seem to have to focus about 2 ft ahead or so. > > I'm controlling the (simulated) bo105 helicopter much better by picking an > airspeed (say, 10 kt when maneuvering for a landing) and holding it as > closely as possible with the cyclic. Once the airspeed is steady, I can use > the horizon to hold it rather than having to watch the hud. I then use the > collective as my up-and-down control (very small movements). > > Even as slow as 10 kt, the bo105 barely needs any input from the anti-torque > pedals. How realistic is this? It certainly makes flying easy. >
Not very realistic I don't think. It seems like there should be constant input at given collective esp. at low speeds. But as I mentioned earlier the rudder control on my setup is a bit touchy so this probably makes it flyable for me. What I'm wondering is if the anti-torque on a real helo requires constant pressure like a rudder, or if it stays where you put it. The tail seems to do what it should as far as pushing toward the direction opposite of movement and wind direction. The torque on the airframe should be about the same for a given collective setting with the only difference in anti-torque required being this tendency. That might change in translation, but I would think the wind forces would overwhelm any main rotor torque effect once translational lift was achieved anyway. Another effect that might need to be modeled is the tendency for the anti-torque to push the aircraft off course. Best, Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
