AlphaOneSix

Ground crews and pilots generally don't have any say in their loadouts. Unit commanders determine that. In my early time in the Army (pre Desert Storm), the rockets were loaded on the outboard stations and the Hellfires were loaded on the inboard stations. However, when we went to Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield/Storm, we started loading them opposite. I don't know exactly why, but I've heard two theories/rumors. Maybe both are true...maybe neither. First, to Hellfires were moved outboard to reduce/prevent damage to the horizontal stabilator from the rocket motor ejecta. Not sure how accurate that is, as I never saw any damage from missile launches, and aircraft with four Hellfire racks still had the inboard racks. Second, moving the rocket launchers to the inboard stations supposedly made them more accurate, since they were closer to the center of mass of the aircraft, and were less susceptible to tiny aircraft movements. They still seemed pretty inaccurate to me. Also, a full rocket pod weighs more than a full Hellfire rack, so putting the rockets further inboard could result in slightly more stability...and maybe that's really the answer. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, and in the real military, it's up to the unit commander, who can make whatever decision he wants...or whatever his boss told him, etc. Pilots and ground crew would simply never have that kind of authority, although they could advise the unit commander and go from there.

Totally agree with this post 100%. The only thing I will add is to emphasize that there really is no direct counterpart in NATO to the Mi-24, since it was developed based on Soviet doctrine, not NATO's. And that's okay. I feel like too often people try to make comparisons where there really shouldn't be. If anything, an Mi-24 is what the Soviets envisioned as a mash-up of a UH-1 and an AH-1 into a single helicopter. At least that's my opinion based on basically nothing other than the timeline of its development.

This was something that was being trained for since the 1990's at least. My unit trained picking up downed aircrew with an AH-64 in 1990 during Desert Storm, thankfully we never had to try it out for real. I'm fairly certain that this was done as early as Vietnam using the ammunition bay doors of an AH-1 Cobra. Obviously it's something that would only be done in extremis and not as a preplanned action.

Yeah but DAPs don't carry people other than the crew of four. Unless you're saying that, like the MH-60 DAP, the Mi-24 also has a cabin that could, in theory, be used to carry people, but in reality it never does.

The engine condition levers are for separate engine throttle control, so that you can adjust the throttle of each engine individually, primarily for testing. The twist throttle does the exact same thing as the engine condition levers, it just does it to both engines simultaneously. In normal operation, the engine condition levers should stay in the center detent. The engines are started and warmed up at idle with the twist throttle full left (counter-clockwise), then to go fly, you twist the throttle full right (clockwise). The twist throttle is not meant to be operated like a helicopter with a manual throttle. With the throttle full right, the fuel control unit on the engine does what it needs to do to the engine RPM in order to keep the rotor RPM within the proper range. So to summarize, unless you are specifically testing something that requires the engines to be at different power settings from each other, you will always leave the engine condition levers in the center detent, and you will fly with the twist throttle fully to the right (clockwise).

Yes running takeoffs are great for taking off heavy. I get the feeling that the Russians intended for running takeoffs to be used in all cases where the aircraft exceeds “normal” weight. Just a hunch. In Afghanistan we routinely loaded our aircraft to their max gross weight for the conditions and used rolling takeoffs. We’d be so heavy at takeoff that the aircraft couldn’t do an OGE hover until we’d burned off about half an hours worth of fuel. (About 300kg)

You're not my target audience, I'm hoping other people don't read this and think it's a real maneuver for anything other than looking cool.

Please do not perpetuate this myth. This "maneuver" is for showing off and for airshows and has nothing to do with improving the takeoff characteristics of the aircraft. Accelerating with all three wheels on the ground is the method used to accelerate through ETL for taking off while heavy.

I can try to look at the track later, as I don't have access to my computer right now, but the situation you describe in the original post sounds like correct behavior. The engine separate throttle levers, the twist throttle on the collective, and the collective itself are all connected to the N1 control lever on the engines. Well, the separate throttle levers only move the N1 control lever on one engine at a time, while the collective and twist throttle move the N1 control levers on both engines simultaneously. The N1 control levers on each engine can only move so far. With the collective full down, and the throttle full left, the N1 control levers are at their minimum, so moving an ECL down will mechanically require the twist throttle to move clockwise, resulting in a rise in the N1 of the opposite engine. Any movement of the ECL, twist throttle, or collective will move the N1 control lever on the engines, thereby changing the N1 of the engine. In order to perform OEI training, you must place the "failed" engine ECL in the lower detent. It is correct that adjustments of the collective will necessarily adjust the N1 of the "failed" engine, since the collective is still moving the N1 control lever on both engines. For duel engine failure training, the ECLs should be left in their center detents, and the twist throttle should be turned counter-clockwise to the minimum. The engines will reduce power to the minimum considering that the collective is again still moving the N1 control rod on the engines, resulting in higher than idle N1 RPM.

The pedal microswitches cut out the autopilot heading channel, but do not remove pedal force trim.

860 is as hot as it's supposed to go for an unlimited time, I think 910 is the 30 minute limit? Maybe it's 60 minutes. I'd have to check the book and I'm too lazy to do that right now.

Yes that's correct. When both systems are operating normally, the main system supplies pressure to the flight controls, while the common system supplies pressure to the cannon actuators, landing gear extension/retraction system, and the wheel brakes. If the main system fails, the common system automatically switches over to supply pressure to the flight controls (in addition to the cannon actuators, landing gear, and brakes). If the common system fails, the main system continues to supply pressure to the flight controls, the cannon is no longer movable, the landing gear still work but have to be manually switched over to use the main system, and the brakes continue to operate using pressure from their own separate accumulator, although this accumulator is no longer being refilled/pressurized (the pressure gauge for this accumulator is the third one from the left in the bank of hydraulic gauges). The good news is that if both systems fail, your brakes will still work for a while. But then again, if both systems fail I would be checking the operation of the ejection seat, not the wheel brakes.

The swashplates have no ability to center themselves if there is no hydraulic pressure. They will just stay where they were when the servoactuators stopped moving them. After all, they are physically connected, the swashplate cannot move independently of the servoactuators. Likewise, the controls in the cockpit are physically connected to the servoacuators. So the cockpit controls will also lock up and become immovable. Also, this thread is using percentages quite a bit, which I'm not sure is appropriate. The operating pressure of the hydraulic systems is 65-90 kg/cm2. The accumulators are probably pressurized with nitrogen to somewhere between 30 and 50 kg/cm2. So this means that once the pressure in the system drops to the level of the nitrogen precharge, the pressure should in the system would immediately drop to zero. For example, if the precharge is 50 kg/cm2, then once the system pressure dropped to 50 kg/cm2, it would just drop off immediately to zero. So you really only have from wherever the pressure was (somewhere between 65-90 kg/cm2), until it drops to 50 kg/cm2 before the system completely fails. I'm just using 50 as an example, it could be higher or lower...but at least 30. The Mi-8 precharge is 30-32 kg/cm2 and it's operating range is only 45-68 kg/cm2. Finally this also assumes a complete failure of both the main and common hydraulic systems, as each is capable of operating the servoactuators completely fine by itself. I think it's just a system that is not very deeply simulated and I very much doubt it's something that ED is looking to change. But I'm happy to talk about it all day long.

The hydraulic systems are far more binary than that. They will work 100% effectively until they run out of fluid (in the case of a fluid leak) or the accumulator is empty (in the case of a pump failure), at which point they go straight to 0% effective. There is no point where they work "a little bit". Wherever the controls happen to be when this happens is where they will stay. The switchover from the main hydraulic system to the common hydraulic system for the flight controls is automatic. So if you lose the main system, the common system can power the flight controls 100% effectively as long as the common system continues to function. This can be tested by turning off the main hydraulic system and seeing that the common system valves open. If you lose the common hydraulic system and not the main system, there is no effect on the flight controls, since they weren't powering the flight controls anyway.

It's easy for the Ka-50. The controls just don't move. As far as buying a joystick to replicate it, I suppose you could just put a steel pipe into some concrete.

It looks like you've simply run into something that isn't simulated very well.

I updated the links so the images work now. Thanks for letting me know.

No VRS there, looks like just various ways to lose tail rotor authority.

They are rubber, not foam.

Correct. It may help to understand that only the left engine can be ON or OFF. Everything else on that panel is ON or AUTO. So putting the switch down doesn't turn it off, it just puts it back in automatic mode. And as mentioned above, to turn those systems off, press the GENERAL OFF button.

Thanks! I'm glad some people find them helpful.

With the crossfeed valve closed: The Rear tank feeds the right engine. The Forward tank feeds the left engine. Opening the crossfeed allows both tanks to feed both engines. If damage occurs to one fuel tank and you suspect that one of the fuel tanks is leaking, your best course of action is to OPEN the crossfeed and turn OFF the tank pump for the GOOD tank. This will burn more fuel faster out of the bad tank, instead of just losing it overboard. Once the bad tank nears empty, simply turn ON the tank pump for the good tank. There are check valves that prevent fuel being pumped from the forward tank into the rear tank, and vice versa.

Imp basically has it all correct, but here is the relevant info from the maintenance manual (attachment). DC Power Sources Description and Operation.pdf

I have some basic diagrams for an Mi-8MTV-1, I'll try to get them uploaded when time permits.