Good try, but not realistic...

[Crispus222]

First off let me say that this is honestly my favourite game on PS3. It's so much fun and as a pilot, I decided to play the campaign on simulator mode. Now I expect realism as much as possible with a simulator mode which they have not achieved.

First, spin recovery. They don't teach this in the US anymore but they do here in Canada still. Spin recovery is as such: If in a fully developed spin, pull off the throttle immediately, full rudder deflection in the opposite direction of the spin. Once the spin has broken, level wings with aileron if necessary and pull out of dive using ailerons. YOU SHOULD NEVER TOUCH THE AILERON CONTROL AS IT WILL ACCENTUATE THE SPIN TO THE POINT WHERE YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RECOVER. In the game however, it requires you to use aileron control.

Next, how come on full sensitivity, full deflection of the controls on simulator mode (as well as realistic) results in an instant spin? This is not what should happen and is incredibly frustrating.

You guys managed to program spins into the game (good job, because there is so much involved) but where are spiral dives then. Most people on sim mode are going to be entering into steep turns incorrectly which results in spiral dives.

Torque effect is my next beef. After lift off the ground torque effect becomes so minimal that it is not recognized. Why when I am straight and level on sim mode why do I experience torque effect? How about instead you be actually realistic and add asymmetric thrust for climbing and descending because that is a HUGE factor once you have are in the air.

There's quite a bit more (like WEP, that's not realistic and should not be in sim mode...), but I don't want to get into it much more. Except maybe the overpriced DLC on PSN (which has nothing to do with this topic and also has everything to do with Sony...). Bottom line, if your gonna make a simulator mode and say it's realistic, as well as put a caption that says it's for experienced pilot's, then make it realistic... It just bugs me when people on this forum keep saying it's: "SO REALISTIC"... when it's not. It bugs me so much that I created an account just to say this lol...

But, ya... Still an awesome game. Can't wait for the content update!

[SL83]

First off let me say that this is honestly my favourite game on PS3. It's so much fun and as a pilot, I decided to play the campaign on simulator mode. Now I expect realism as much as possible with a simulator mode which they have not achieved.

First, spin recovery. They don't teach this in the US anymore but they do here in Canada still. Spin recovery is as such: If in a fully developed spin, pull off the throttle immediately, full rudder deflection in the opposite direction of the spin. Once the spin has broken, level wings with aileron if necessary and pull out of dive using ailerons. YOU SHOULD NEVER TOUCH THE AILERON CONTROL AS IT WILL ACCENTUATE THE SPIN TO THE POINT WHERE YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RECOVER. In the game however, it requires you to use aileron control.

Next, how come on full sensitivity, full deflection of the controls on simulator mode (as well as realistic) results in an instant spin? This is not what should happen and is incredibly frustrating.

You guys managed to program spins into the game (good job, because there is so much involved) but where are spiral dives then. Most people on sim mode are going to be entering into steep turns incorrectly which results in spiral dives.

Torque effect is my next beef. After lift off the ground torque effect becomes so minimal that it is not recognized. Why when I am straight and level on sim mode why do I experience torque effect? How about instead you be actually realistic and add asymmetric thrust for climbing and descending because that is a HUGE factor once you have are in the air.

There's quite a bit more (like WEP, that's not realistic and should not be in sim mode...), but I don't want to get into it much more. Except maybe the overpriced DLC on PSN (which has nothing to do with this topic and also has everything to do with Sony...). Bottom line, if your gonna make a simulator mode and say it's realistic, as well as put a caption that says it's for experienced pilot's, then make it realistic... It just bugs me when people on this forum keep saying it's: "SO REALISTIC"... when it's not. It bugs me so much that I created an account just to say this lol...

But, ya... Still an awesome game. Can't wait for the content update!

Die in a fire.


(just kidding)

Are you a pilot? Do you know of this stuff? Cause it bugs me too that when I'm playing on Realistic or Sim, pulling the stick a little bit makes the plane stall and spin all of a sudden. That can't be how real planes are.


:shrug:

[Doktorwzzerd]

From the Wikipedia article on War Emergency Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_emergency_power):

War Emergency Power (WEP) is an American term for the throttle setting on some World War II military aircraft engines. For use in emergency situations, it produced more than 100% of the engine's normal rated power for a limited amount of time, often about five minutes.[1][2] Similar systems used by non-US forces are now often referred to as WEP as well, although they may not have been at the time.


Apparently WEP actually is realistic, because whats in the game sounds remarkably like this description.

Also yeah your're sooooo much better than us for teaching stall recovery. Hope you feel like a big tough Canadian man:rolleyes:

I'm just kidding but really? I don't fly, but its hard to believe someone could possibly get a pilot's license in the US without having been taught how to recover from a stall.

[Crispus222]

Ya, I'm a pilot. The plane should not spin the way it does in the game with full deflection of the controls. A spin is a result of one wing stalling before the other and therefore drops resulting in said spin.

[SL83]

From the Wikipedia article on War Emergency Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_emergency_power):

War Emergency Power (WEP) is an American term for the throttle setting on some World War II military aircraft engines. For use in emergency situations, it produced more than 100% of the engine's normal rated power for a limited amount of time, often about five minutes.[1][2] Similar systems used by non-US forces are now often referred to as WEP as well, although they may not have been at the time.


I'm just kidding but really? I don't fly, but its hard to believe someone could possibly get a pilot's license in the US without having been taught how to recover from a stall.

Although it has been removed from most flight test syllabuses, there are some countries that still require flight training on spin recovery. In the U.S. spin training is required only for flight instructor candidates. A spin occurs only after a stall, so the FAA emphasizes training pilots in stall recognition, prevention, and recovery as a means to reduce accidents due to unintentional stalls and/or spins.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(flight)#Spin_Kit

[Ancient Seraph]

From the Wikipedia article on War Emergency Power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_emergency_power):

War Emergency Power (WEP) is an American term for the throttle setting on some World War II military aircraft engines. For use in emergency situations, it produced more than 100% of the engine's normal rated power for a limited amount of time, often about five minutes.[1][2] Similar systems used by non-US forces are now often referred to as WEP as well, although they may not have been at the time.


Apparently WEP actually is realistic, because whats in the game sounds remarkably like this description.

Also yeah your're sooooo much better than us for teaching stall recovery. Hope you feel like a big tough Canadian man:rolleyes:

I'm just kidding but really? I don't fly, but its hard to believe someone could possibly get a pilot's license in the US without having been taught how to recover from a stall.

For the commercial license you need it for sure. In Europe it's not allowed, so we don't get to practice it. I did because I flew gliders, but that's it. In the gliders I flew you also had to leave ailerons neutral. So either the planes of WWII needed aileron input as well, or it's just to not make it too easy to get out of a spin. In RL it's tough enough, but in a game it seems easy just to put one joystick to the left/right, and that's it. That might be the reason. I do know you can get out of a spin in-game just using the rudder. This is easier since you won't get into another spin as fast after you've recovered.

[SL83]

I don't know about you guys - but if I were a pilot - I think I'd rather have spin recovery training just in case I manage to get into one.

Sure - teach me stall recognition and avoidance - but why wouldn't you require spin training? Any reason they yanked it from US flight training except for instructors?

It's like teaching student drivers how to avoid needing to use their brakes - but not teaching them how to use it.

In the case that you need to use it - you won't know wtf to do.

[SEE]

Try adjusting the sensitivity down (about 40% works for me). Rarely go into a spin in Sim mode unless taken damage or made a real horses ass of it....

[SL83]

This looks scary. Hahaha.

I'll stick to skydiving instead.


_PZyQwOHeQ8

[Crispus222]

Here in Canada we are taught stall recognition and spin recovery. Stall recognition in order to avoid a stall and spin recovery just in case... I think it's really stupid not to teach spin recovery. Also, spins are honestly so fun, it would have been lame to not have done them.

[SL83]

I think it's really stupid not to teach spin recovery.

I do too, eh.

[Doktorwzzerd]

Ya, I'm a pilot. The plane should not spin the way it does in the game with full deflection of the controls. A spin is a result of one wing stalling before the other and therefore drops resulting in said spin.

So to put that into laymen's terms for us laymen, does that mean that the stall/spin characteristics are too easy or too tough? Its always felt to me like tight turns spin out too easily in the game, but then, what do I know? A cautionary note though, I don't know how far you are into the game or if you're just on the demo or what but the P-51 is not indicative of the flight models as a whole, there is something wrong with the Mustang that is being fixed.

[Chips86]

War Emergency Power is very real, and definately should be included in the game....and if your really after realism maybe you should just try this:

Ahh bugger it i cant find the video. Theres this place in pricksville USA that lets you take planes up in the air and using laser technology and stuff lets you simulate real dogfights, looks pretty cool, kinda like an aerial game of laser tag.

[Riceball]

^ Pricksville USA?

[beaker126]

Something I've noticed, when watching gun camera footage, the plane firing seems remarkably stable, not yawing wildly back and forth with the slightest rudder input. So to the OP, as a pilot, would a plane behave like they do in the game? I would love it if we could adjust rudder sensitivity as well, it might help. As it stands, if you try to use your rudder to tweak your aim a bit, you start to yaw like crazy. Some planes are worse than others.

[Ancient Seraph]

Something I've noticed, when watching gun camera footage, the plane firing seems remarkably stable, not yawing wildly back and forth with the slightest rudder input. So to the OP, as a pilot, would a plane behave like they do in the game? I would love it if we could adjust rudder sensitivity as well, it might help. As it stands, if you try to use your rudder to tweak your aim a bit, you start to yaw like crazy. Some planes are worse than others.

I can imagine the fighters would experience a large effect from rudder input, but the pedals have way more resistance then the joystick, making it easier to make small adjustments. This also meant a pretty big force was required for full rudder input.

[beaker126]

...the pedals have way more resistance then the joystick, making it easier to make small adjustments. This also meant a pretty big force was required for full rudder input.

Kinda what I thought, wich is why I wish you could turn down the rudder sensitivity. In the game it seems like it doesn't take much input at all to make a big change. I've also heard if you're flying with the aviator control set up, you don't really get incremental control over the rudder, it's just 0 or all the way over to either side.

[Chips86]

^ Pricksville USA?

Yeah the bit in america where all the pricks live. The bit inbetween and including the west coast and the east coast.

:P

[Riceball]

Yeah the bit in america where all the pricks live. The bit inbetween and including the west coast and the east coast.

:P

I won't take it too seriously, but I have'nt seen any American say anything like that about the U.K. or any other country on this forum. I know Live is a different story, but there is blame on all sides for idiotic comments. Like your last two.

Who's the prick?

[Ancient Seraph]

I won't take it too seriously, but I have'nt seen any American say anything like that about the U.K.

Who's the prick?

That sounds like you pretty much took it seriously.

[Voyager]

First off let me say that this is honestly my favourite game on PS3. It's so much fun and as a pilot, I decided to play the campaign on simulator mode. Now I expect realism as much as possible with a simulator mode which they have not achieved.

First, spin recovery. They don't teach this in the US anymore but they do here in Canada still. Spin recovery is as such: If in a fully developed spin, pull off the throttle immediately, full rudder deflection in the opposite direction of the spin. Once the spin has broken, level wings with aileron if necessary and pull out of dive using ailerons. YOU SHOULD NEVER TOUCH THE AILERON CONTROL AS IT WILL ACCENTUATE THE SPIN TO THE POINT WHERE YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RECOVER. In the game however, it requires you to use aileron control.

Next, how come on full sensitivity, full deflection of the controls on simulator mode (as well as realistic) results in an instant spin? This is not what should happen and is incredibly frustrating.

You guys managed to program spins into the game (good job, because there is so much involved) but where are spiral dives then. Most people on sim mode are going to be entering into steep turns incorrectly which results in spiral dives.

Torque effect is my next beef. After lift off the ground torque effect becomes so minimal that it is not recognized. Why when I am straight and level on sim mode why do I experience torque effect? How about instead you be actually realistic and add asymmetric thrust for climbing and descending because that is a HUGE factor once you have are in the air.

There's quite a bit more (like WEP, that's not realistic and should not be in sim mode...), but I don't want to get into it much more. Except maybe the overpriced DLC on PSN (which has nothing to do with this topic and also has everything to do with Sony...). Bottom line, if your gonna make a simulator mode and say it's realistic, as well as put a caption that says it's for experienced pilot's, then make it realistic... It just bugs me when people on this forum keep saying it's: "SO REALISTIC"... when it's not. It bugs me so much that I created an account just to say this lol...

But, ya... Still an awesome game. Can't wait for the content update!

I recall a funny little anecdote of a engineer who always beat F-16 pilots in their training simulator, and nobody could figure out what was up. What everyone finally realized was he was pulling 9-10G maneuvers, while the real pilots were only pulling about 4-6, tops. The moral of this story was, people do things in sim that they would never, ever, do in real life.

A WWII fighter is a very different aircraft than a Cessna 172. There's a reason why Air forces need advanced trainers.

The full-back on the stick stall is an accelerated stall or high speed stall, where in one or both wings have exceeded their maximum AoA while under greater than 1G. Most GA planes don't really have the power or elevator authority to do one in a straight pull back. Also recall, the full back haul on the stick is 60-100lbs of stick force, which is non-trivial.

The death spiral does happen if you go into a tight turn near the plane's stall speed. Fighters are less susceptible to it than GA aircraft, because they generally have an order of magnitude more horse power. The P-51 has a stall speed of about 100mph IAS, but it's got about 1,700hp with water injection, cruises at about 200mph IAS, and tops out at 250mph+ IAS. Get into a dive, and you're talking 300mph IAS, with a Vne of about 500mph IAS. The Cessna 172 has a Vne of, what, 187mph, and has all of 170hp? Try flying around in a Mustang with 10% power, and then tell us there's no death spirals. Actually, I'm being a bit unfair with 10%. The Mustang is about 5 times heavier than the 172. Try flying around in the P-51 at 50% engine power, and you'll find that that things gets really tricky. Don't try to take off at that setting, though, or you'll get caught in the drag trap, which is another fun feature unique to aircraft with ridiculous wing loadings.

Torque is also very different on warbirds. ~2000hp with 10-13ft multibladed props tends to produce far more torque than a 6 foot, 30lb pair, driving by a 100-200hp engine. I don't know if you ever read Pelican's Perch, but in the last one Deakin wrote, he went over a Mustang crash on an aborted landing, that was caused by the pilot applying power too quickly. He essentially went from level wings to fully inverted in about ten feet, from torque alone. Deakin wrote a large number of articles on fly warbirds, and how different they are from General Aviation planes.

On WEP. The way you get a Merlin to produce 3000hp+ is very simple: you remove the boost limiter, and apply throttle until the engine reaches the desired HP, or explodes. To get a specific type rating, the engine makers put an engine on a mount, and run it at the desired HP settings until it either blows up, or passes the required run time, but the fact that it doesn't explode is not sufficient to tell you how much power it can really go at before it breaks. For most civilian applications, that's not really a big deal; they just label the thing Xhp, with X being the known safe limit, and that's the end of that, but for military applications, it's more a case of the quick and the dead. There are times when one is less concerned with the possibility of one's engine exploding, than the certainty that the guy behind you intends to administer suppositories with a MK108. As such, many armed forces equip their fighting vehicles with throttle settings that go a bit beyond the rated power, usually 10%, and large quantities of paper to fill out if they ever use it. I'm given to understand, they would typically have a notch wire guard at the 100% setting, that you would have to break in order to get to the 110% setting.

Actually, thinking about it, that was why we have the 110% throttle, WEP is generally referring to the engine modes in which additives are being temporarily added to the fuel/air mix in order to boost max safe power. Most of the time, it is methanol/ethanol/water mix that is being sprayed into the supercharger, which helps delay detonation at very high power settings. On some of the German extreme high altitude fighters, it's also talking about GM-1, which is Nitrous Oxide being dumped into the engine, to help compensate for the lack of oxygen at very high altitudes (as in, 9km+). In all cases, the additives require their own tanks, and generally, there's not enough for more than about 10m or so of operation, so you don't want to use it for routine flight. I don't know if the actual tank limits are modeled in game, however. Calling it WEP is an anachronism in some cases, but having random kanji pop up on screen would be a bit confusing for some.

[daryld12]

Next, how come on full sensitivity, full deflection of the controls on simulator mode (as well as realistic) results in an instant spin? This is not what should happen and is incredibly frustrating.

I agree. While you can have a high speed stall by pulling full delection of back pressure it doesn't mean you will or you should in the sim. There are too many variables involved to have the identicle outcome each and every time you brush the stick with back pressure. I have not flown a warbird but I have flown high performance GA aircraft. I've talked with a friend of mine extensively who has flown many including the P-51 Mustang B and D model. BOP has a great flight model it just needs a little tweaking. The aircraft all stall way to easy in realistic and sim mode. It would be nice to hear or feel the buffeting of a developing stall as well. I would also like the option to turn off the unrealistic "Pull Up" warning that they never had in WW2as I find it to be distracting and annoying. BTW, I was taught spin training in flight school here in the U.S. and I wouldn't go to any school that didn't.

[The_Goalie_94]

Thankfuly i plan on flying Helicopters instead. I also plan on becoming a pilot for the Canadian Coast GAurd. How i do that, i have no idea, but i plan on it.

[daryld12]

Thankfuly i plan on flying Helicopters instead. I also plan on becoming a pilot for the Canadian Coast GAurd. How i do that, i have no idea, but i plan on it.

Good luck to you and your bank account! I've flown GA helicopters as well. There's a whole other set of variables you have to contend with when piloting them. It will keep you busy for sure. Hardest thing to do is hover.

[Crispus222]

Something I've noticed, when watching gun camera footage, the plane firing seems remarkably stable, not yawing wildly back and forth with the slightest rudder input. So to the OP, as a pilot, would a plane behave like they do in the game? I would love it if we could adjust rudder sensitivity as well, it might help. As it stands, if you try to use your rudder to tweak your aim a bit, you start to yaw like crazy. Some planes are worse than others.

Actually, I can understand what your saying. Pretty much all those old planes have a huge rudder and usually the entire thing moves. Not only that but the rudder moves pretty far on those planes. This will make the rudder very sensitive. At my flight school we have 2 citabria's. I have personally not flown it but all my friends who went from the cessna 172 to the citabria say that the rudder is extremely sensitive. So yes, this is realistic but I can see how it would be frustrating from a gamers perspective.

[Crispus222]

I recall a funny little anecdote of a engineer who always beat F-16 pilots in their training simulator, and nobody could figure out what was up. What everyone finally realized was he was pulling 9-10G maneuvers, while the real pilots were only pulling about 4-6, tops. The moral of this story was, people do things in sim that they would never, ever, do in real life.

A WWII fighter is a very different aircraft than a Cessna 172. There's a reason why Air forces need advanced trainers.

The full-back on the stick stall is an accelerated stall or high speed stall, where in one or both wings have exceeded their maximum AoA while under greater than 1G. Most GA planes don't really have the power or elevator authority to do one in a straight pull back. Also recall, the full back haul on the stick is 60-100lbs of stick force, which is non-trivial.

The death spiral does happen if you go into a tight turn near the plane's stall speed. Fighters are less susceptible to it than GA aircraft, because they generally have an order of magnitude more horse power. The P-51 has a stall speed of about 100mph IAS, but it's got about 1,700hp with water injection, cruises at about 200mph IAS, and tops out at 250mph+ IAS. Get into a dive, and you're talking 300mph IAS, with a Vne of about 500mph IAS. The Cessna 172 has a Vne of, what, 187mph, and has all of 170hp? Try flying around in a Mustang with 10% power, and then tell us there's no death spirals. Actually, I'm being a bit unfair with 10%. The Mustang is about 5 times heavier than the 172. Try flying around in the P-51 at 50% engine power, and you'll find that that things gets really tricky. Don't try to take off at that setting, though, or you'll get caught in the drag trap, which is another fun feature unique to aircraft with ridiculous wing loadings.

Torque is also very different on warbirds. ~2000hp with 10-13ft multibladed props tends to produce far more torque than a 6 foot, 30lb pair, driving by a 100-200hp engine. I don't know if you ever read Pelican's Perch, but in the last one Deakin wrote, he went over a Mustang crash on an aborted landing, that was caused by the pilot applying power too quickly. He essentially went from level wings to fully inverted in about ten feet, from torque alone. Deakin wrote a large number of articles on fly warbirds, and how different they are from General Aviation planes.

On WEP. The way you get a Merlin to produce 3000hp+ is very simple: you remove the boost limiter, and apply throttle until the engine reaches the desired HP, or explodes. To get a specific type rating, the engine makers put an engine on a mount, and run it at the desired HP settings until it either blows up, or passes the required run time, but the fact that it doesn't explode is not sufficient to tell you how much power it can really go at before it breaks. For most civilian applications, that's not really a big deal; they just label the thing Xhp, with X being the known safe limit, and that's the end of that, but for military applications, it's more a case of the quick and the dead. There are times when one is less concerned with the possibility of one's engine exploding, than the certainty that the guy behind you intends to administer suppositories with a MK108. As such, many armed forces equip their fighting vehicles with throttle settings that go a bit beyond the rated power, usually 10%, and large quantities of paper to fill out if they ever use it. I'm given to understand, they would typically have a notch wire guard at the 100% setting, that you would have to break in order to get to the 110% setting.

Actually, thinking about it, that was why we have the 110% throttle, WEP is generally referring to the engine modes in which additives are being temporarily added to the fuel/air mix in order to boost max safe power. Most of the time, it is methanol/ethanol/water mix that is being sprayed into the supercharger, which helps delay detonation at very high power settings. On some of the German extreme high altitude fighters, it's also talking about GM-1, which is Nitrous Oxide being dumped into the engine, to help compensate for the lack of oxygen at very high altitudes (as in, 9km+). In all cases, the additives require their own tanks, and generally, there's not enough for more than about 10m or so of operation, so you don't want to use it for routine flight. I don't know if the actual tank limits are modeled in game, however. Calling it WEP is an anachronism in some cases, but having random kanji pop up on screen would be a bit confusing for some.

Thanks for your input. You are very correct in all of this. I would definitely assume a warbird is very different. But the way they react in game is still pretty unrealistic, you gotta admit. Also, the thing with torque effect about the P51 you explained could happen in a 172 (although probably not as easily nor as violently). In a stall you have no lift and are falling, now suddenly you add a spinning force really fast. Torque effect takes old turns the plane, one wing stalls even further and drops resulting in a spin.

But ya, definitely thanks!

Also, thanks for clarifying WEP everyone.

[Crispus222]

I agree. While you can have a high speed stall by pulling full delection of back pressure it doesn't mean you will or you should in the sim. There are too many variables involved to have the identicle outcome each and every time you brush the stick with back pressure. I have not flown a warbird but I have flown high performance GA aircraft. I've talked with a friend of mine extensively who has flown many including the P-51 Mustang B and D model. BOP has a great flight model it just needs a little tweaking. The aircraft all stall way to easy in realistic and sim mode. It would be nice to hear or feel the buffeting of a developing stall as well. I would also like the option to turn off the unrealistic "Pull Up" warning that they never had in WW2as I find it to be distracting and annoying. BTW, I was taught spin training in flight school here in the U.S. and I wouldn't go to any school that didn't.

Definitely! When did you do your flight training? Apparently it wasn't until recently that they stopped it from what I hear. (Please keep in mind that this is second hand information).

[Crispus222]

Thankfuly i plan on flying Helicopters instead. I also plan on becoming a pilot for the Canadian Coast GAurd. How i do that, i have no idea, but i plan on it.

Ya, definitely good luck with your wallet. For planes it's about $200 CAN for 1 hour of flight (with instructor) and helicopters start at about $300 CAN (with instructor) for 1 hour. I would like to try helicopters but one thing that I don't like is that if you have an engine failure YOU ARE DONE... In a plane you still have lift at least. Either way though, I make it a priority to know who the AME was that did the work on the aircraft. Also, if renting infrequently or at a school where people are lazy and not trustworthy, do a THOROUGH INSPECTION EACH TIME BEFORE YOU FLY.

Also, sorry everyone for the multiple posts...

[Ancient Seraph]

Ya, definitely good luck with your wallet. For planes it's about $200 CAN for 1 hour of flight (with instructor) and helicopters start at about $300 CAN (with instructor) for 1 hour. I would like to try helicopters but one thing that I don't like is that if you have an engine failure YOU ARE DONE... In a plane you still have lift at least. Either way though, I make it a priority to know who the AME was that did the work on the aircraft. Also, if renting infrequently or at a school where people are lazy and not trustworthy, do a THOROUGH INSPECTION EACH TIME BEFORE YOU FLY.

Also, sorry everyone for the multiple posts...

Actually, it's perfectly possible to land with a helicopter with an engine failure, at least if you're high enough. You dive with feathered prop (or whatever you call it) and just before smacking into the ground you pull up with full prop setting up (you know how they adjust the prop pitch to go up and down, you put it to full up) and you can land. Just one shot though, and it's gotta be scary as hell.

[Crispus222]

Actually, it's perfectly possible to land with a helicopter with an engine failure, at least if you're high enough. You dive with feathered prop (or whatever you call it) and just before smacking into the ground you pull up with full prop setting up (you know how they adjust the prop pitch to go up and down, you put it to full up) and you can land. Just one shot though, and it's gotta be scary as hell.

That's ridiculous! The problem is, you actually have to be able to do that. Next, you have no chance to pick a good field to land in. At least in a plane you have time and can actually go through procedures to save your life lol. Thanks for the info though... Where do you know this from though? Sorry to be a little skeptical but if you could provide a credible source or something that would be great?

[Ancient Seraph]

That's ridiculous! The problem is, you actually have to be able to do that. Next, you have no chance to pick a good field to land in. At least in a plane you have time and can actually go through procedures to save your life lol. Thanks for the info though... Where do you know this from though? Sorry to be a little skeptical but if you could provide a credible source or something that would be great?

The airport I go to school on also has schools for choppers. Talked to someone who went to school at one of those. Credible source... maybe not the most credible, but check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation_(helicopter)

[MorgothNL]

That's ridiculous! The problem is, you actually have to be able to do that. Next, you have no chance to pick a good field to land in. At least in a plane you have time and can actually go through procedures to save your life lol. Thanks for the info though... Where do you know this from though? Sorry to be a little skeptical but if you could provide a credible source or something that would be great?

It is true actually, I go to the same school as seraph, and the militairy helicopters often pratice engine failures (at 500ft above ground level or something). Must be a scary thing to do your first time though :P

[flynlion]

A helo with an engine failure is no more dangerous than a fixed wing with a similar problem. The main rotor continues to spin due to inertia and the air blowing through it (autorotation) and this generates enough lift to control the decent and make an emergency landing. True, the glide distance is not as great as with an airplane, but neither is the size of the field required. A good pilot can put it down safely in a remarkably small patch. Engine out procedures are something every pilot practices religeously, wheather they be civillian or military, rotary or fixed wing.

[mattd27]

How about some visuals? This one was very informative. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzWw5U3eCok

[Crispus222]

[QUOTE=mattd27;112089]How about some visuals? This one was very informative. :)

Thanks, for the video! That is absolutely insane. Although, I've done a forced approach from 1500 AGL and I had way more time because I'm in a plane and still have the same amount of lift. The big difference is that I had time to find a spot to put down, make a distress call (sudo of course...), emergency briefing for my passengers (my instructor...), as well as final shutdown. At least in a plane there's a little room for error (as small as it is lol...). But props to the pilot in that video for remaining a calm and collected as he did as well as handling the heli the way he did!

Seraph, Mogoth, do you guys got your licenses yet? Where are you guys based? I'm up in Alberta, Canada. Just got mine a couple weeks back (the test was soooo nerve racking lol).

[Ancient Seraph]

[QUOTE=mattd27;112089]How about some visuals? This one was very informative. :)

Thanks, for the video! That is absolutely insane. Although, I've done a forced approach from 1500 AGL and I had way more time because I'm in a plane and still have the same amount of lift. The big difference is that I had time to find a spot to put down, make a distress call (sudo of course...), emergency briefing for my passengers (my instructor...), as well as final shutdown. At least in a plane there's a little room for error (as small as it is lol...). But props to the pilot in that video for remaining a calm and collected as he did as well as handling the heli the way he did!

Seraph, Mogoth, do you guys got your licenses yet? Where are you guys based? I'm up in Alberta, Canada. Just got mine a couple weeks back (the test was soooo nerve racking lol).

Nope. We're starting to fly our first retractable gear this week (Cessna 172RG), and in 2 or 3 weeks we should start flying Seneca. We're hoping to finish around februari. We're based at Madrid, Spain (LECU).

[InfiniteStates]

I recall a funny little anecdote...
That made me recall an anecdote I read a while ago. Sorry to derail your (very informative) thread, but... (It's quite old so you've probably seen it before, but for those that haven't)

ACTUAL transcript of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. This radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on 10-10-95

Americans: "Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision."

Canadians: "Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision."

Americans: "This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course."

Canadians: "No, I say again, you divert YOUR course."

Americans: "THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH. THAT'S ONE-FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP."

Canadians: "This is a lighthouse. Your call.

And just to stay on topic slightly, my brother's godfather is a big cheese in the RAF's Chinooks (you know the giant twin blade tank carriers?). He will testify that you can "glide" in a helicopter as well.

[xX-SiLeNcE-Xx]

^^^
LOL! Americans and their powers. pssht.

[Crispus222]

[QUOTE=Crispus222;112094]

Nope. We're starting to fly our first retractable gear this week (Cessna 172RG), and in 2 or 3 weeks we should start flying Seneca. We're hoping to finish around februari. We're based at Madrid, Spain (LECU).

That's pretty awesome man! At my school we got a 182RG. Pretty sick plane. But a seneca! Those are nice! Expensive though!

[Ancient Seraph]

That's pretty awesome man! At my school we got a 182RG. Pretty sick plane. But a seneca! Those are nice! Expensive though!

Yep, it's the plane we're doing our ME-rating on. We're going for the ATPL ;).

[Crispus222]

Yep, it's the plane we're doing our ME-rating on. We're going for the ATPL ;).

Nice! That takes a while though... So many hours required... What do you hope to do with your license eventually?

[Ancient Seraph]

Nice! That takes a while though... So many hours required... What do you hope to do with your license eventually?

Flying :D.

Nah, to be honest, I just want to get a job, preferably in Europe, at some airliner. I don't really care in what company for my first job. After I've got a decent amount of hours I can start looking for the right company.

[Crispus222]

ya man! I'm probably gonna go the instructor route for my first flying job and then get all the other necessary ratings, maybe fly for some other small company and then when I got enough hours and all, I want to do missionary flying.

Hey, I wonder, do you still remember your first solo... I remember mine, one of the most surreal moments ever!

[Ancient Seraph]

ya man! I'm probably gonna go the instructor route for my first flying job and then get all the other necessary ratings, maybe fly for some other small company and then when I got enough hours and all, I want to do missionary flying.

Hey, I wonder, do you still remember your first solo... I remember mine, one of the most surreal moments ever!

My first real solo was when I was 14, in a glider. It was awesome :cool:! I went up just singing :P. First solo routing was awesome though. Actually flying somewhere without anyone next to you. I loved it.

[Voyager]

That made me recall an anecdote I read a while ago. Sorry to derail your (very informative) thread, but... (It's quite old so you've probably seen it before, but for those that haven't)



And just to stay on topic slightly, my brother's godfather is a big cheese in the RAF's Chinooks (you know the giant twin blade tank carriers?). He will testify that you can "glide" in a helicopter as well.

And then there was that time when the carrier turned, and the destroyer didn't quite turn far enough, and the carrier ran over it. The ensuing fire is one of the many reasons Arleigh Burkes use all steel construction.

[flynlion]

Flying :D.

Nah, to be honest, I just want to get a job, preferably in Europe, at some airliner. I don't really care in what company for my first job. After I've got a decent amount of hours I can start looking for the right company.

When (if?) you do find the right company, will you carry in my resume? :mrgreen:

[Ancient Seraph]

When (if?) you do find the right company, will you carry in my resume? :mrgreen:

Haha, contact me in 20 years, I'll tell you :P

[ChankyChank]

I went the instuctor route. Still instructing until the airlines hire again. I should have my ATP in a couple of months so hopefully that will help me in the job search. I haven't flown a Seneca yet, supposed to fly one this week actually, I'm pretty excited about it. I have about 1100 hours in Seminoles so it will e nice to have a little more horse power :)