DaveRindner

So I hit an interesting problem. I set my wind to 25 m/s with 25 ms*.1 turbulence. Pretty intense wind. Take was into the wind with quite a bit more forward cyclic deflection then usual, to avoid wind induced slipback(backwards flight due to strong headwind). The helo was empty with 50% fuel. A training flight loadout. The problem was landing back on the FARP. I approached the FARP turned into the wind (137 heading). Brought the helo to near hover and at 5knots ground speed, trimmed the cyclic. At that time I noticed that my collective was already low. I positioned the helo at 2 knots gnd speed to land, lowered gear, and reduced the collective to gentle settle. The helo reduced height to 7-8m radar altitude and stopped settling. I further reduced collective, and at that point hit the collective minimum. The helo settled down to 5 meters, and refused to land. Just hanging there in slightly forward leaning attitude, with collective all the way down, and myself thinking I as out of options, and kicking myself for setting such high met. conditions. The only thing I could do to reduce the throttle. Well that was not too bright, I started loosing electric power, but helo did settle with loud umph on the FARP. I figure that that is probably not the correct reallife procedure. Does not sound safe. Is there a better way of handling this situation. DR

http://marinegouge.com/mediawiki-1.13.3/?title=Advanced_Helicopters-url There is a Marine Rotary Wiki. Has links to declassified procedures. DR

Well I am putting myself through KA50 'flight school'. Such I practice flying, under different weather and visibility regimes. High winds and high turbulence, i.e. gusts, are not that unusual. In Northern California, in the Cascades range, and Bay Area, wind gust speeds exceed 50 mph. Yet US Navy, Police, and USCG operates helos in that environment. Aleutians, around Adak, Dutch Harbor, and Unalaska have similar, if not worse wind conditions. Black Shark weather is actually not that realistic. It has high mou tain passes, but no induced wind. Rain and fog are likewise, not affected by winds. I guess you cant have everything in a consumer sim.

Through some experience with KA50. Blade intersection happens, at least to me, under following circumstances. Exceeding Vne for longer then 5 seconds. Low G condition. i.e. negative pitch over at speed. Execessive wind speed wit high turbulence. With turbulence set to 30 m/10 s, and wind speed higher then 25m/s. Blade intersection can happen at start up, due to blade flap, under such condition. Dr

Came across this periodical in Border's. http://www.verticalmag.com/ Its pretty good. The printed verson has all sorts of tips on rotary wing operation. Written for helicopter pros by pros, so its the real thing. No flashy stuff, very little military. DaveR

More 'Would be nice' requests More Amphibious warfare units; Ivan Rogov amphibious assault ship. KA-29 amphibious suppourt helo Russian and Ukrainian Naval Infantry(marines) units Russian towed artillery Option for submarines to run submerged or on surface depending on waypoint. Land attack mission for subs ASW light torpedoes for KA-27 helos. ASW mission for appropriate units. IL-38 May naval patrol aircraft MI-14 Haze helo BE-12 Chaika flying boat. BE-200 Tarawa and Wasp class LHD LPD ships (San Antonio class) Littoral Combat Ship NATO towed artillery (M198, M777, M119A2) HIMARS MV-22 Osprey Harrier AV-8B and GR9 ASW MK-54 light torpedo for SH-60B. ASW mission for appropriate units. P-3C Orion for NATO units. Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma CH-53/MH-53 heavy helicopters AW101 Merlin helicopter.

Once again. I love this sim. Such great work from developers. Trully a good training tool for amateur helo pilots, and wannabe's like myself. Though there are some issues, which, no doubt , are being addressed. Perhaps some of my comments are due to lack of experience. In which case please accept my apologies. Ship landing on Ticonderogas, and OHP's. The helo desends right through flight deck, with no touchdown. But no crash either. Landings on Kirov class (actually its called Admiral Ushakov now, as Sergei Kirov was a Bolshevik a-hole), and Russian frigates, is a great challenge, and great training. Oddly the faster they go, 30knot flank, the easier it is to land. However, the masts around their flight decks, are not in down position. The helicopter goes right through them, decreasing the realism of the sim. As major task of helo flying is dealing with obstructions and confined operations. It would be cool to have Kuznetzov have static objects, (i.e. parked aircraft) on it, to provide a more realistic landing experience. Once again for obstruction and confined area training. It would be cool to be able to set ships as takeoff and landing points, like FARP. For mission start, end, refuel/rearm. NVG/Shkval/fog. For life of me I cannot get Shkval to work right during night with NVG. Regardless of brightness/contrast setting of the screen, I cannot make anything out in Shkval with NVG on. So I cannot target anything. Shkval during fog is unusable. It does not see anything, farther then .7km. Oddly I have bad guys (insurgents)in trucks shooting at me from inside the fog from outside 2km. So they can see me, but I cannot see them. I think KA-50's night/inclement weather fighting systems are lacking. Actually I don't see KA-50 (as it is simulated) as an attack helicopter per-se. To me its more of single seat VTOL/STOL attack aircraft, like Yak-38, or Harrier (pre-night). It needs a CCIP/CCRP for freefall bomb delivery, if there is one in real life.

I have gotten all right in landing. I can land gently on ships, and farps. I still from time to time have unexplained in-flight rotor disintegration, and dynamic roll. I get intermittent dynamic roll when landing on rough terrain. Slow gentle touchdown of main gear, then as soon as nose gear touchdown, the aircraft rolls to the side and rotors disintegrate when they strike the ground. This does not happen, on farps, roads, ships, and tarmac. Why only on terrain such as grass. Second, during maneuvering, with heavy rudder, I sometimes experience rotor intermeshing. Where the lower rotor cones high enough to intermesh and strike top rotors. The whole rotor assembly disintegrates in flight with predictable consequences. I am not certain why this happens. DaveR

Actually. Special Forces Suppourt, is perfect job for KA50. It has high hover ceiling, and thus can suppourt Spetsnaz in the mountains. Recall how Hind-Ds had to fast rolling takeoffs in Afganistan becouse of altitude.Its fast and survivable so it provide close air in close proximity to friendlies. No anti-torque rotor, so it can absorb DsHK hits. Torque rotors as suseptible to DsHK rounds (14.5) and RPG. As Americans found out in Somalia, and more recently in Iraq and Afganistan. Hind and MI28 cockpit tubs can take a 23mm, but torque rotors are most fragile and vulnerable part of helicopter. Strangely the SOP for CASEVAC pickup in nonsecure area, is to land facing backwards to the threat. I guess its harded to hit anything vital from that aspect. I like KA50's ability to act as virtual fixed wing aircraft, carrying freefall ordinance. Its almost a SU-25T/39, and it can land vertically with bringback ordinance. Apache and Cobra don't carry freefall bombs. At least I've never seen them. Normal loadout is Hellfire and 70mm FFARs. MI28 is more suited to conventional attack helicopter roles, specifically maneuver unit CAS, screeining, and anti-armour. As to why MI-28 was chosen. Could be politics, operating costs, training/conversion costs. I recall '93 technical breifing ( Military Power of CIS), KA50 was described as a dedicated anti-helicopter helicopter. It was illustrated carrying R-73 (Archers), and podded SA-18 Strelas. Guess they were off the mark.

Owning The Night Anyone who served in ground US/NATO armed forces, and have gone through advanced training. Gets drilled in to their head, WE OWN THE NIGHT. Just about everything they do, on a tactical level, they do at night. Or mission is started at night. Two items that a soldier prefers to load in place of MRE or pogeybait(unauthorised food items), are batteries for their NVG gear. Everybody carries spare batteries. Every direct fire weapon has an attach point for low light device. Rotary crews especcially train with night gear. I am saying that I've read on threads, and YouTube, how KA50 is superior to AH-64 or AH-1W. On an airframe level. Perhaps, I am not sure. But sensor wise. Apache or AH-1W (NTS), or Mangusta, or Tiger, wil eat it alive, given similar crew skill level. German crews are particulary good with their Tigers. The do crazy crap. Like hide behind a treeline, hovering at 1 meter, and rotors 5 meters away from nearest tree. In pitch dark. Autohovering in ground effect, on reduced power, they are very quiet, and can loiter. NATO crews use this as anti-armour ambush tactic. We would joke how silent black UN helicopters are not an urban myth. Mangusta and Tiger have this mast mounted sight (IR/laser/or mmmRadar). They only expose top half of the sensor sphere, for target aquistion and targeting. They have this advanced auto-hover, where aircraft won't drift more then 6" in any axes. The crews use translational lift from the anti-torque rotor, to crab the aircraft without banking. NATO crews also train for LOAL engagement. Thats where your buddy fires his Hellfire/Brimstone from long range, hidden far from target. The designating crew pops up, and starts laser illuminating the target about 5-10 seconds before the missile starts its terminal dive. BOOM. The designator crew immediately beets feet. Then they setup somewhere else to do it all over again. Tactic is called Shoot'n'scoot. Raytheon makes this doohicky, where IR and lightamp are sensor fused. Advanced fixed wing have synthetic aperture multimm radar fused with IR and lightamp. Checkout F-35 Distributed Aperture System.It is downright scary how good it looks. Its like grey/amber version of the world. DSP's filter out the gain noise. I am saying that the sensors give a slower airframe an advantage. For helicopters, speed and maneuverability is not as important as their sensor suite I suspect that the actual 'block' of KA50 being simulated is late 80's, early '90s. Russian army now has access to the same DSP as NATO. So the actual airframes in service are likely outfitted with latest sensors. In the manual there is a photo of KA50 at '99 airshow with nosemounted sphere sensor. My opinion, that thing belongs on top of the mast. Assuming that the coax rotormast can accomodate the sensor. I am wondering if that was one of the reasons Russian Army chose MI-28 as its standard attack helicopter. I am still learning the sim. But I am up to hovering. So I practice flying (scooting) from treeline to treeline.

Kudos to ED team. By far the best sim I have played. Love it. Rotary dynamics are top notch. I served in US Army, as Artillery Officer in '90s. So I had some experience with AN/PVS binocular goggles, US Army and Marines use. They are a little grainy, but even at high gain, you van make out detail, depth, and moonshadows. I have no doubt that ED modeled night vision accurately, based on Russian NVG googles. Assuming that. Those things are downright dangerous. I can't see crap. Terrain, buildings, and trees, come render barely passable, but looking at TV and targeting , can't make anything out. Very noisy and grainy. Plus the tunnel vision. I tried all sorts combinations of NVG brightness, and brightness/contrast of TV. Way hard to make anything out. If this is how it is in real life, KA-50 needs better, night vision devices. I don't think I'd want to fly this thing in realife with those tools. Is there a trick to NVG use in KA50. Otherwise really great!

I own both LOMAC and F4:Allied Force. Used them for years, and have gone through Shaw's Fighter Combat end to end. Back in the day (llate 60's early '70s), this guy (actually an American jet Ace) Col. John Boyd came up with Energy-maneveuverability theory of fighter design and fighter tactics. Which have been central guidance to US Fighter design. The philosophy basiccally sas "Speed is life". I can't imagine reallife F-16 driver fighting at high AOA at 200 knots. Yet for close combat, slow speed is central to fighting in a Mig-29. I find that in LOMAC if I can survive iniital AMRAAM and long range AIM-9 shots, and get into F16, F-15, and F-18. Then bring the fight close in between 150-180 knots. I can almost always win, even with enemy AI set to ace. In F4:AF if my fight speed goes below 400 knots, MIG eats my lunch. My best chance for visual range victory is head on launch of 120C, 9M or 9X at 8nm with my velocity between 380-420 knots. Little bit below 16's corner velocity.This forces bandit 29/30 to break, which allows me to convert to his (6-9) for a follow on kill shot, if head on missies. I cannot let the fight degenerate into a hollywood style furball. I always loose. Below 350 knots ,in F4 AF, the nose authority is limited. Yet 29's or '30's out turn my F16. Well at least thats sim-reality in F4. However if I keep my elbow long, the F4 AI will break slow down the 29/30 in an attempt for me to overshoots. Thats gets his energy low, and I eat AI's lunch with a gun. OK, so my belated point, is that it seems that Russians have different take on Boyd's E-M theory, as reflected in LOMAC and F4. They beleive that slow speed is life, Americans belive that high speed is life. F16 instructors, teach to fight at 16's corner velocity and it can't be beat. So I see all these cool aerobatics vids on youTube and LiveLeak. Cobras, Kossack turn, and (my fave) SU-37's VT assisted, post stall loop. All of them require entry velocity of 230 kph(180 knots). In a fight with a 16 or a 15 at its corner velocity with long elbow. These guys would be toast. They are at high AOA, nose high, low energy. Easy targets. Reallife 16 or 15 driver is not AI, he would never get himself snookered into a low speed fight. So what is the real reason Russians train these maneuveres? I see the same thing with F/A-22 when it shows off its 80 AOA flight. In a real fight , why would the Raptor slow down to such slow speed as to require 80 AOA? DaveR

I am curious if LockOn developers will include AESA radar modeling for MIG-29, SO-30MKI, and SU-33. As well as for F-15 and F-16. The latest F-16 blocks (50, 52+, 60) all have AESA options. Also F-15 are one of the lead platforms for JHMCS AIM-9X. AMRAMM is up to C-6 (Scorpion) mod. Bringing back MIG-29K would be nice as it the real thing for the Indian Navy along with their new (well really old but rebuilt) Moskva class aviation cruiser (i.e. pocket aircraft carrier). For carrier landing, some actual LSO integration with waveoff. Aside from OVT example, 29 has no flying thrust vectoring models. but SU-30MKI has thrust vectoring. I am curious how that could be implemented into LockOn. I would love to have SU-34 as flyable aircraft. According to Aviation Quarterly it flies like a heavy SU-30. Both R-77 and R-73 are in mod2. Extended range and engagement envelopes. Western ships are using Rolling Airframe for point defense to suplant or replace Phalanx CIWS. Adding some newer types. F-35 (A,B, C), F/A-18E/F, and Typhoon. I am afraid adding F/A-22 would make the sim unwinniable, as neither 29, 30, or 33, can effectively engage the Raptor. It would be interesting to run intercept on TR-2 Dragon lady. Add rain to weather.

I have both Saitek X52 and X52Pro, and have same problems with both of them in LockOn 1.1 and 1.12. Issue is that LockON is always reading the sticks as having buttons pressed, so defining inputs is nearly impossible. LockON always reads buttons 33, 34, 35, and 36 as always on. I can't seem to get it working. Also I run LockOn both XPPro and XP pro64. 1.12 refuses to run on XP64 becouse Starforce says it can't run on that system. However 1.1 runs great on XP64, better then on 32 bit XP. My XP machine is a Intel Dual-Core laptop with Radeon X1400 My XPPro64 box is AMD Opteron QuadCore with 4gb of ram and QuaddroFX 4600 (512mb). DaveR

Dear AWL Its Falklands Islands. Had Argentina won that little lover spat, then we could them Malvinas. To the victor go the spoils. Personnally I think that Argentina still holds a grudge against UK, and even US, for not adhering to Monroe Doctrine, for Malvi... I mean Falklands. So do many of South American nations, which explains bad blood (if unspoken) in Venezuela, Bolivia, Brasil,and Boliva, and US. Which partially accounts for their gradual shift to Leftist Socialist government. DaveR

Its a matter of naming with ModMan Its just a matter of properly renaming the DDS files. Problem is, I don't know what that name the should be, and how to do it in ModMan. ModMan only gives me the option to insert a an idetically named file(s) for exisiting ones. If you know how to use ModMan to do ADD vs. insert maps, PLEASE describe it.

Its there I checked, its is there on Page 10 for ALL aircraft. If you search by aircraft, SU-25T, it comes up, though in this site, which is kind buggy, I sometimes get aq blank page. But its there. http://www.lockonskins.co.uk/index.php?page=skins&offset=0&order=SKID&aid=63

OK. Now how do I upload it here. The skinpack ZIP is 3,822 KB in sze and this forum will not allow more then 1000kb uploads. I need the rule eased or moderator or someone assist me in how to get that skinpack uploaded. Breaking up the ZIP into parts does not work, as the main fuselage DDS map is 1788 KB in size. Preview is here http://forum.lockon.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=3658&d=1134645233 Thanx in advance. DaveR

Version 01 of Peruvian Naval Su-25T/39 is availble I could not upload it here, so I uploaded to http://www.lockonskins.co.uk Use ModMan. The DDS files replace the SU-25T Test Scheme skin. Had to make some compromises. I wanted to make the gear struts, wheels, and gear bay, painted white, but LOMAC FC uses single map for those details for all schemes. Same for pylon underwing portion. Works well with overcast skys, like those found in Southwest Pacific. Also works well over winter terrain. DaveR

Peruvian navy skin is done! Need help to upload it. But I need help uploading it. The ZIP file is almost is 3822 kb in size and this forum will not accept ZIPs over 1000kb, or total combined ZIPs over 1000kb from me. It tells me limit reached. Is there an upload repository that someone can point me to. Or contact my public e-mail at daverindner at yahoo dot com, if you own a repository. The map looks nice. It works pretty well if there is dense overcast with 40km visibility and over land in winter. LOMAC/FC sets the water and sky as dreary gray. I put in fake cockpit glass on bottom of fuselage, and from distance, when aircraft is in steep bank, it is hard to tell which direction it is turning. DaveR

Active Stealth technology: i.e. plasma generator If it could be made to work.No doubt the wizards at Zshukovsky, at LM Skunk Works, and Boeing Phantom Works, have tried. So far it seems failiure or non-practicality is the result. Anyway, US technology tradition, espouses passive techniques. Any kind of active 'stealth' technique is bound to be detectable by alternate sensor or side effect. Hell, even bi-static, or Nnode radr techniques likely gave American stealth gurus the fits. Until they , obviously figred out a way to deal with it. The pundits were saying that China and Iran were upgrading S300 and S300PS systems with Nnode network surveilance radars, and B2 could no longer be counted on to penetrate the airspace. Turned out that, the theory worked in lab, in real world the aspect of primenode (emmitter) to reflector(target) gave different results. So by changing course, and aspect, the B2 effectively created a circular probablity of location, so huge, that by the time the supercomputer spat out the proable position of relfector, it was no longer valid. Now this is for subsonic (600 knots or less) hi profile. It can;t be used for targeting, unless you count in megaton airburst saturation of CPL area. It may be used for vectoring interceptors, but I doubt that in real world, a SU-37 onboard sensor can detect it, much less track it. There was talk of utilizing bistatic or Nnode radars as enhanced weather patern detection, such as ultra-hightech dopplers, to detect wind vortices and air displacement (wake) of the penetrating aircraft. That went nowhere. To complex in real world. For wake detection and tracking, you would need satelites or very hig altitudes assets. All targets in case of conflict. I can't say what is the deal with LADAR surveilance. That went black. So far, it seems to me, that passive stealth approach, by the Americans, is the correct one. If nothing else, everyone knows that it works. Two said days in US Defense policy. JSF greenlighted Comanche canceled.

No roving gnome for uncaged winder There is longitudal aiming mode in F15C and A10 in LOMAC/FC, but thats not true uncaged mode. In uncaged mode you get a wandering designator carret, that represents the seeker gimballing in quasi-random or helical search patern, on its own, independent of radar. In all F15C modes, with exception of longitudal and boresight, the AIM-9 seeker is slaved to radar. Thus it is caged. The nice thing about uncaged mode, is that it allows you to approach and launch, usually from rear, without ever having to use on-board radar. Its aerial assasination.

Nope. It does not work Nope the radio menu does not come up with regardless of what hotkey is assigned to it. Simply does not work. Its a no brainer. Lights. CNTL-L does not turn them off. Neither does SHIFT-L. Actually no button keypress combination works. The function does not even appear in Input section of Options. Are you guys using FC 1.11 version. Perhaps it works fine in FC 1.1. I recall it was working fine for me in LOMAC. Only when I updated to 1.11 did all these problems began. I've tried clean install from CD then update several times. No change. There are other issues which are contrary to what ED is saying about FC 1.11. For example, they claim that with 1.11, Starforce protection only checks the CD once a week. From my experience, that claim is false. My 1.11 checks CD every time I launch the app, and will not work without the CD in the drive every time. Tire shredding. I do flare, and keep nose high during touch down. My touchdown speed is 250, flaps in full deployement, VS -2. Thats pretty consistent. Sence neither the nose gear tire, nor the main gear tire shreds during departure speed of 270-280, why should they shred at recovery speed of 250 or less? Advanced flight model is great, but thats an inconsistency that I beleive is a bug.

Granted, much is classified about F/A-22, still the more I learn about the more scarier it seems, the more irrelevant every other 5th gen platform is seen. I am comparing it to Typhoon, and SU-37(thrust vector). Theres nothing else really to compare it to, including Grippen. In serioua air2air combat given high level of skill, a threat pilot only has any real chance to engage FA-22 in Typhoon or SU-37 VT variant. Eurofighter claims that in CAC Typhoon has advantage in turning and burning. Who are they kidding. A thrust vectoring aircraft would naturally have more nose authority, especcially at lower speeds.F/A-22 is capable of true tailslide and 90+ AOA, I've seen the video. Though honestly I am not fond , at least in flight sim fighting, of tailslide. At the end of that move, you got no energy. Where low speed nose authority would be usefull in 1V1 where in CAC the opponents scissor until stall speed. In which case the, guy that retain more nose control at lower speed and high AOA attitude has the advantage. Now Typhoon's canards give it low speed high AOA nose authority, but not quite as low as F/A-22 with thrust vector. Well thats just CAC. As far as BVR and BVR merge, forget about it. F/A-22 could initiate Scorpion attack before Typhoon or Su-37 would even know about it. TYphoon's Meteor long range BVR missile (EU's AIM-54) is very amazing. But thats assuming that F/A-22 would be targeted at range beyond AIM120-C-5. Same goes for R-27ET and RR-77ER(extended range R-77). In the end, both Typhoon and SU-37 are AMAZING high peformance 5th gen conventional aircraft. While F/A-22 is high performance low observeables aircraft. I think its just as well that its unlikely that any of the three will see combat against each other for the foreseeable future. I like the US Air Force's somewhat 'arrogant' estimation that with F/A-22 they would gain theater wide air dominace not just local air superiority espoused by Typhoon and SU-37. The hutzbah of the Americans makes me proud of being one of them. I mean I look at what Americans are doing as to air dominance in 21st Century. They got F/A-22 for air dominance fighter, B-2 for strategic penetration bomber, B-One and F-15E for regional theater bomber, and entering service YAL-1A Airborne Laser. The only aircraft I don't like is the JSF. What a DOG! What a waste of money. For what the intend JSF to do, I would much rather have US develop F-16 into a super low cost platform. The way I see it, it would have been more effective to take F-16 airframe. Strengthen it to 11g load. Add MultiAxisThrustVector F119 or F110 or similar powerplant. Add conformal tanks and spine for internal ECM/avionics. Hell ,all Americans had to is to Americanise the F-16I Soufa, and save how many billions developing JSF. All JSF has is its low visibility as its defense. In ACM especcially CAC, SU-37, Grippen, Typhoon, Mig-29/35, and 4th/5th gen Chinese airframes will eat it alive. I am surmising of course. But they are implementing a 5th gen airframe without thrust vector, and limited visibility, and limited range.

Is there an UNCAGE command for AIM-9M in F-15C that I missed? I recall in Jane's F-15 and in Falcon4, you could effectively dogfight without radar with just EEGS and uncaged Sidewinder. Sae goes for A-10. this 2 deggree longitudal aiming mode for AIM-9M is not realistic enough. DaveR