Hi fellow wiki editors!

To help newly registered users get more familiar with the wiki (and maybe older users too) there is now a {{Welcome to the wiki}} template. Have a look at it and feel free to add it to new users discussion pages (and perhaps your own).

I have tried to keep the template short, but meaningful. /Johan G

Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

MBB Bo 105

3,520 bytes added, 17:52, 6 December 2015
BO 105: second answer
The fdm is based on various very detailed reports, so the flight handling and all needed inputs matches exactly the real values. It had been also tested sucessfully by at least two real life pilots, so it is currently the most realistic helicopter in FlightGear regarding flight handling. Like the real version it doesn't have any helping assistence, in Real Life only the militarian PAH-Version had a YAW-SAS.
 
== Aircraft help ==
{| class="prettytable"
| Middle mouse button
| Adjust power lever
|-
| {{key press|]}}
| AutoTrim/ ForceTrim
|-
|}
 
==Usage of AutoTrim/ ForceTrim on FGFS Bo105==
(1) move the stick such that the aircraft is in an orientation that
you want to trim for (forward flight, hover, ...)
 
(2) press autotrim button {{key press|]}} and keep it pressed
 
(3) move stick/yoke to neutral position (center)
 
(4) release autotrim button {{key press|]}}
== Video Tutorials ==
|BO105CBS.Progress.03122015.jpg|Update BO 105 CBS 12/03/2015: added lots of details like grips, doorstop, airvent, strobe and beacon, ....
}}
 
==Realism==
The Bo105 has one of the most realistic fdm regarding flight handling, based on collected detailed datas of the Bo105 from NASA-flight tests, flightmanuals, pilots and published scientific datas from various sources.
Due to its unique flight character, and its nature of being a helicopter, there are some false assumptions about the realism:
{{FGCquote
|1=
''I believe the Bo105 also had AFCS (and it's from about the same era as the Lynx and also had a rigid rotor head). I think that the Bo105 is possibly one of the worst examples for a beginner because it requires about 45% back cyclic to lift off vertically /hover. This 45% is not too hard to maintain with a mouse, but it certainly is with a joystick. The EC145, for comparison, only needs about 5% forward stick during lift off/hover. Maybe the difference from StuartC's CH53 is the rigging of the main rotor head, i.e.: with no cyclic input, the lift is vertical. That's not cheating - just engineering''
|2= {{cite web
| url = http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=19294&start=2310#p267456
| title = <nowiki>[Forum]Re: What/Where did you fly today? - Part 2</nowiki>
| author = <nowiki>Warty</nowiki>
| date = Dec 5th, 2015
}}
}}
'''Answer:'''
Though the BO105 was the first helicopter with a rigid rotor head, the civilian version had never been eqipped with any helping assistence like SAS or even autopilot. The only helping assistence installed is a ForceTrim System by Springloading.
Only the militarian versions BO105 M-P, especially the armed versions, has a YAW-SAS to keep the helicopter better in place while aiming and shooting.
 
The 45% back cyclic is completly true and realistic on the BO105 and real values. The rigging of the controls of real helicopters are mostly not symmetrical like the joysticks we use. So the problem is on the hadware side, since realistic and affordable helicopter sim controls are rare. Especially the ForceTrimSystem can't be simulated 100% realistic, and would need corresponding hardware for, which does not exist yet. To counteract FGFS comes with a generic AutoTrim-function. It can be implemented to every aircraft (See Generic/Nasal/aircraft.nas). The Bo105 makes use of it by pressing | {{key press|]}} while moving the joystick. It has similar effect for joystick-users like a real AutoTrim/ForceTrim-System. Unfortunately it works on the pedals as well, which is unrealistic.
 
The 5% of the FGUK Version's EC145 is unrealistic btw. This helicopter (EC145 is just a maketing name. The real name is BK117 C2) has the same, but scaled, rotor head and rigging like the BO105. So it should have the same 45% back cyclic like the BO105. Depending on CoG, loads, and flight states the position of the cyclic will vary a lot anyway, so a 0% cyclic at lift-off would make problems on other flight states like fast cruise.
 
The only thing which makes the BO105 not 100% realistic as it could be are the known YASim-issues and the unrealistic underpowered flightperfomance. Later one will be fixed soon with the 3d-update.
 
--[[User:HHS|HHS]] ([[User talk:HHS|talk]]) 12:52, 6 December 2015 (EST)
== Nice textures for the interior ==
(Openflight)
 
 
== Gallery ==
833
edits

Navigation menu