It's supposed to do that due to the airflow over the vertical stabilizer (tail)

What is supposed to do what?

Think you got the right idea how to explain the problem but wrong choice of words... in other words I cant make sense of anything you said

from what I understood you believe

• the Anti-TQ Rotor is suppose to be effective and the tail surface doesn't act as a stabilizer regardless your speed (helicopters should be along the lines of a quadcopter)

Do a little more research on the topic... these models are "ideally" based on real military aircraft (tho they aren't 100% accurate)... not a smaller 3D_RC helicopters in which you would have a solid argument.

The tail rotor doesn't have enough power to turn the chopper while at high speeds and even if it did, the only result would be your helicopter drifting sideways, the direction of your velocity vector wouldn't change.

@ JSNFARREL the Anti-TQ is supposed to be MORE effective and the tail-fin should be more stabilising with sideways momentum.

@ Lunatico9 didn't we all want the TOH flightmodel? Because in TOH the tailrotor will knock you round when you give it a 100% input and the tailfin is more stabilising. Not that I want expert TOH flying in Arma 3, all I want is that the tailparts do their work:)

@downvoters: why all the downvotes? what happened to reasoning? if you don't agree or don't know what we are discussing then please go some place else. There are more gamethreatening issues like Akimbo and female characters that actualy could use your downvotes...

At speeds above stall (hover) the anti-TQ rotor is nearly useless... its main purpose is counteracting TQ from the main rotor and using it at higher speeds leads to mechanical failure or pilot error... BIS isnt completely accurate but they are close

Stabilizer... fin... whatever
if you read my note you would notice i was repeating what you said

Either 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)
along with the note that to increase speed you would you be increasing the main rotor RPM for thrust causing more TQ... aerodynamics would cause the tail not to function properly and cause drag most likely again causing the helicopter to spin around

Now... everyone has a right to vote as they please

I voted against this because i have been flying BIS helos since OFP.. for the "most part" they are accurate tho the effects are aggressive i dont have any problems with it

But... since they arent 100% accurate... everyone should be happy so lets just meet half-way

Ill raise your vote +1 to even the odds

Now we just need a DEV to go half way with us to resolve the issue

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. 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. Think of it as an arrow. 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. 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.

And the rudders are just dull:) Compared to the TOH rudders they go a LOT slower.

I get what you are saying but you really should research this because the tail fin is a very small stabilizer and IF the helicopter is designed around that idea the stabilizer doesn't face sideways... it is for FORWARD not sideways momentum.

Im trying to give you the benefit of doubt by not saying you are wrong...

leave that to the moderators/DEVs to decide

Thats WHY it should swing arround TOWARDS the given momentum if its anything other than forward................But ATM this is not happening hard enough, only at high (to high) speeds. How can I be wrong in that? Why do you think the Kamov and other contrarotating heli's without a tailrotor still have the tailfin? NOT for it to be this useless ;)(AS IT IS NOW!!!)

so in your theory a jet could fly sideways????

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

we all came to the conclusion you appear to change your Anti-TQ theory throughout the posts... so we are kinda lost and confused

... I do notice

• you can fly any direction for a bit THEN outta no-where the helicopter spins violently pointing its nose in that direction.
• with lots of practice the helos can be flown sideways infinitely in orbit with nose facing down.

... and I haven't tried TOH tho it caught my interests I wasn't about to spend double on "A2 content"

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.

I cant help but notice your theory resembles quad-copter physics more than anything rotor-craft related... 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.

what do you propose?

• want to split up the helos and do some research as to how they should fly... then update your ticket argument accordingly which might help these votes?

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)

Jets are propelled to go forward so no I didn't mean anything that suggested that(somehow)

-you can fly any direction for a bit THEN outta no-where the helicopter spins violently pointing its nose in that direction.
Yes it spins violently pointing its nose in that direction, which ALL I want is to be more gradually instead of "outa no-where".

And to be clear on the rudders. In hover if you press X or C (default 100% rudderinputs) the spin goes to slow(in TOH you will spin 10x faster if you do the save thing) and ALL I want is choppers to spin a bit faster in A3. I am not saying the chopper should be able to spin 180 or even 90 in the Commanches case when in full forward flight. Picture yourself in the AH littlebird and you want to spray a target from a distance while going fast, rocking the rudders fromt left to right is not doing anything(while it DID do something in A2 and TOH so why not in A3)

the jet came from your theory about momentum... another principle that is being changed now from thrust-vectoring (TVC) aircraft which I wish BIS would add to show off the capabilities of this "new engine with PhysX support"

ah... think this will end up being flagged as a duplicate then lol... plus your votes wouldn't be carried over which is something they need to fix

pretty sure I just saw some old stuff regarding helo physics + already had some tickets closed out as duplicates myself regarding similar matters

Normal helicopters can not change yaw on high speeds (like over 50-80km/h) as the engine does not have enough power for anti-torque rotor, drag is too big and anti-torque rotor doesn't get enough air.

There are few different designs like co-axial in Mi-48 (in game) what use Kamov invented design what removes the anti-torque rotor. Such helicopter (like KA-50, KA-52 and KA-50-2) can do full turn on _any speed_. They can fly 330km/h and change yaw but because drag they lose speed quickly to 180-220km/h range and they as well have small roll effect same time (change yaw to left at very high speed = speed is lost and helicopter rolls ~10 degrees to left). At high speeds like 180-200km/h they can do a flat turn without roll effect and maintain the speed if wanted with small roll toward original heading or simply start funneling to left by changing pitch down toward target and then do a small roll to left. Co-axial designs allows very fast turnings but they are not so sharp as helicopters with anti-torque rotor so pilot needs to little "smooth" the pedal release.

With helicopters what have the fantail they are capable to do quick turns in hover and accurate. They are capable to fly sideways fast like 150-180km/h but they are inferior to do flat turns on high speeds (like >80km/h) as the anti-torque rotor does not get air so well as does typical anti-torque rotor as air wash over the duct. The fantail has much better throughput when compared to typical ones why helicopters with it can fly sideways faster and controls are sharper and of course anti-torque rotor is protected from b bushes, trees, branches way better what is very important for recon helicopter what flies very low and in tight spaces.

What comes to helicopter fin, it is used to fly on high speeds as helicopters start acting like fixed wing (pull up and you fly up etc) at about speeds over ~50km/h and if you want to turn, you roll to turning side and then you pull up.
The tail is not there for stabilize the helicopter in flight other than just be there to give more power for anti-torque rotor. Ailerons are used to give better control in higher speeds as the anti-torque rotor isn't enough for it.
And there is change in pitch when you change yaw in higher speeds, western and easter helicopters usually rotate different directions and in westerns it is when you change yaw to left small negative pitch (down) is applied but when you change pitch to right a small positive pitch is applied (etc). The helicopter flight is very "unstable" because massive forces generated by main rotor and it overthrows other forces.

But helicopters flight modeling is totally different from fixed wings, as the main rotor has all the power what is directed in different manners to fly the whole thing. The main force is the centrifugal force and the forces what are generated are those two forces directed in different manner to get whole vehicle generate lift, change pitch, yaw, roll etc. It is a huge gyroscope with huge forces and the fuselag has little to do flight modeling as everything is in the main rotor (there is no difference of center of gravity etc).

ARMA 3 (nor take on helicopters) does not simulate any of the common helicopter flight models like retreating blade, retreating blade stall, advancing blade, vortex ring etc etc so we are very limited to get good helicopter flight modeling in game.

In short listing:

AH-99 in game should be able to change yaw around 80-120km/h speeds but lose air speed but capable to maintain speed and accelerate to 160-180km/h with sharp turning capability at that moments. Be able to fly sideways 160-180km/h but once returning to flight heading turning back is impossible without small maneuvers and easily roll around but have weak ascend rate.

Mi-48 should be able to do yaw change at any speed but lose air speed quickly (huge cabin) but be very stable to fly and be able to do funneling easily and have superior ascend rate, yaw change and top speed.

AH-9/MH-9 should be agile and fast but low sideway flight but avarage yaw change rate on high speed.

PO-30 would be more like AH-99 but having higher speed and ascend rate.

UH-80 to have high speed, high ascend rate but low yaw speed and capable to yaw at little higher speeds than AH-99 or PO-30.

AG-99, PO-30 and Mi-48 should have in game better yaw control on sideway flying but only Mi-48 have yaw good control trough all speeds.

nice... that's getting deep into the details.

I originally downvoted but after reading through some of the comments I have changed my vote. Superficially it reads as if to dismiss airflow effects to a gross degree.

The original reporter needs to revise the details of the original post which lacks specificity of issue. I also suggest referencing excerpts of Fri13's post in the note field.

This issue is months old and not even reviewed so there is not alot of hope anyway..

Only new thing I found is that a chopper yaws just as fast with or without tail rotor. So basically when your tailrotor goes out and you start yaw'ing to the right(in ghosthawks case)it matches the yawspeed of when you have the tailrotor and just give 100% input for right yaw... Which profes tailrotors are just to weak :)

Hello? anybody still down here?:D

Anyway I made a visual vid of the problem:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TR01PTi5hSI&list=UUG1GrPd-M0c2EkP_WRn7PjA

As you can see the yaw-speed in Arma2 is a bit faster than Arma3 with standard FM. But if you look at Arma3 with Rotorlib ON and TOH you'll see how fast it should be.. In full forward flight the rudders of both rotorlib and TOH also react more realistic to full inputs.

What do I want now? For Arma3standard to have higher yaw-speed comparable to rotorlib/toh speeds!