AlphaOneSix

Where is there confirmation of a D-model? Or is that just wishful thinking? I agree it would be nice, but while we have evidence that an A-model was actually in progress in the past, we have no indication that a flyable D-model is being developed. Would be nice, though.

You can loft the rockets for increased range or to clear an obstacle. I tried this a few times in the AH-64A simulator.

Ain’t that the truth! Or alternatively implement 9 to 1 dim tracer like we use in real life. Hate shooting day tracers at night.

The manuals for the D-model Block 1 and Block 2, as well as the E-model, are not approved for public release at the time I'm writing this post. The manuals for the A-model are all approved for public release. That seems to make it fairly obvious to me which version ED is likely to develop. Not saying that they can't make a D-model, I just find it far less likely.

It's because the rotor blades are not all exactly the same distance/angle apart after sitting for a while. Some blades lead a bit, some blades lag a bit, depending on the angle of the rotor mast to the ground or how the rotor was tied down and if the blades moved independently for any reason. At startup, at a certain rotor speed, all the blades lead and lag to their proper angles, but before they get there, the rotor has an imbalance due to this uneven spread of the blades, which causes the wobble. The more imbalance, the more wobble. If you could somehow keep all the blades at exactly 72 degrees from each other, there wouldn't be any wobble at all.

Although it's possible to do the end thing (firing a weapon from either seat) most actions will require a certain amount of cooperation from both pilots to make it happen. That is, for the missiles, even if the back seater wants to fire them on his own, the front seater has to complete several tasks to make this possible. The rockets are slightly more forgiving, but without range data from the laser, the back seater's rocket steering cursor will default to 3km range and he's basically firing fixed rocket pods. The gun is probably the easiest to fire independently, but it was notoriously inaccurate when being fired off-boresight using the IHADSS. This will be fine in DCS, where things work as they are theoretically supposed to work, not how they worked in real life. I'm speaking specifically of gun-to-sighting system harmonization here. I am sure that in DCS, the weapon systems will always be perfectly harmonized so that the sensor line of sight will always perfectly match the weapon line of sight as directed by the fire control computer, just like it's supposed to. Anyway what I'm getting at is that weapon engagements in the AH-64 are very much a two-person job, so it will be interesting to see how this is handled.

It seems like doing an A model now, which they already partially started years ago, then doing a D model a few years after, would be more profitable.

The Russians themselves don't do that. They say it as the beginning of the word. I.e. the Mi-8 is pronounced Mee-8, not M - I - 8 separately. I will admit that where I work we do call it M-I but that's because we're Americans and that's how we roll. But the Russians definitely do not do that. And Su-27 is most assuredly pronounced Sue-27.

It hasn't been mentioned here because it isn't true.

You mean AH-64E Apache Guardian? I think even a D-model is a pipe dream, but that's just me. E-model is even less likely. I'm not sure that ED is willing to put in the guesswork required to make a D-model. The A-model documentation is pretty much all public now, so that seems like a more logical choice for a more complete module. Just my opinion, of course. I was invited to the tester team in June 2007 specifically to test the AH-64A module. Of course, it ended up not happening back then.

No, you wouldn't use the dust protectors while cruising, since there is no dirt flying up into the engines.

There are different procedures depending on if the tail rotor is stuck at a certain pitch angle but it's still being driven, or if the tail rotor drive system fails and you lose tail rotor thrust completely. I will assume these are the failures you mean, because the tail boom itself doesn't exactly come off like it does in-game, and if it does then the aircraft will crash out of control. The procedures for dealing with the first two situations can be found in section 10 of the game manual. We have had both situations occur where I work and in both cases the aircraft was able to land without injury to any occupants, although the aircraft sustained a bit of damage in both cases and was no longer flyable. --- Single engine failure is also covered in section 10 of the manual. Generally you just slow down to an airspeed range based on altitude and weight that results in no loss of altitude. If it is not possible to maintain altitude, perform an emergency landing. The aircraft is quite capable of continuing to fly on a single engine in most cases, and if not, then it's simple enough to just execute a running landing, presuming that there is suitable terrain to perform a running landing.

The tail rotor blade tips don't break the sound barrier on any helicopter, not even close. But the tail rotor noise is a quite a bit higher frequency that is more annoying to humans. So the tail rotor seems loudest close up. But the main rotor is still the main noise producer.

Oops, I'm incorrect. This limit is for DECREASING collective pitch. For INCREASING collective pitch, the limit is to go from idle power to takeoff power in no less than 5 seconds. The engines will likely reach takeoff power several degrees prior to full pitch.

Because the flight manual says so. Only the engineers know for sure. No. It's how the engineers and designers created it. The Mi-8 is not capable of flying fast enough for the blade tips to break the sound barrier.

Yes, 1 degree of pitch change per second.

In some situations, yes. In other situations, no.

If the helicopter is moving over the ground at 25 kph and the helicopter is experiencing a tail wind of 7 m/s, then the aircraft is in a hover as far as the air mass is concerned. If the aircraft is far enough off the ground to be out of ground effect, then yes, the helicopter would be in an OGE hover with regard to power requirements and airflows through the rotor system.

Once the tailwind exceeds the forward ground speed of the helicopter, it is flying backwards relative to the airmass, regardless of the helicopter's forward speed over the ground. The rotor doesn't care what direction the horizontal movement comes from. A: If you are on final approach to a landing, and let's say that at this moment there is no wind, and you have a forward airspeed of 5 m/s. Since there is no wind, you are moving across the ground at 5 m/s. You are also moving within the airmass with a forward airspeed of 5 m/s. The rotor disk of the helicopter is able to generate more lift due to the 5 m/s headwind, thus reducing the power requirement during the final landing approach. B: If in that same example you are landing with a 5 m/s tailwind, then in that case you are still moving across the ground at 5 m/s, however the helicopter is not moving at all relative to the airmass, since both the airmass and the helicopter are moving in the same direction at the same speed. In this case, much more power would be required to maintain this approach since it is effectively hovering. And if the aircraft is more than maybe 30-40 feet off the ground, it would be an out of ground effect over. C: Same example, but with a 10 m/s tailwind. The helicopter is still moving across the ground at 5 m/s, but since the airmass is moving faster than the helicopter's groundspeed, the helicopter is moving backwards relative to the airmass. Effectively, the helicopter is flying forward over the ground at 5 m/s, but BACKWARDS through the airmass at 5 m/s. This horizontal airflow over the rotor provides the same assistance with lift that was realized in example A, just from behind instead of from the front. For the sake of these examples, I have left out how the tailwind affects tail rotor effectiveness (it helps a little) and how the tailwind will make it a real pain to keep the nose straight due to the weathervaning effect.

Well if you don't know what Effective Translational Lift is then that's going to require some studying. To make it brief, a helicopter's rotor disk is more efficient at creating lift when it's moving horizontally through the air. It doesn't matter what direction the aircraft is moving, although it's generally moving forward when this effect occurs because pilots like to fly in the direction that they can see. The reason that 4-6 m/s is the worst tailwind is because that's generally the approach speed when you're just about to land a helicopter. You're not yet in ground effect and you are still getting some benefit from ETL. But if you have that tailwind, you are effectively in an out-of-ground effect hover as far as the air mass is concerned. And an OGE hover takes much more power than an IGE (in ground effect) hover.

I know this part of this post is 7 years old, but service ceiling has a real definition and that is the altitude at which the aircraft can no longer maintain a specified rate of climb. In the United States, that's 100 feet per minute (0.5 meters per second). Aircraft with two engines also have both dual and single engine engine service ceilings publish in the flight manual. Very much the wrong thread for this question, especially considering it's 7 years old already. I already answered this in your other post, but once the tailwind reaches a certain speed, the main rotor benefits from the effects of effective translational lift, just from behind instead of from the front. It's still bad due to the weathervaning tendency, however.

Because with more speed it's like being in ETL but backwards.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about how armor on helicopters works, I think.

Every Apache ever in U.S. service has had the AN/APR-39 radar warning receiver, as well as the AN/ALQ-136 radar jammer. Oh and a chaff dispenser, too.

This is correct by the checklist. The only difference is that after you close the overhead fuel lever, and also the fuel shutoff valve on the fuel panel, if the fire indication has gone away you don't fire the second extinguisher bottle. I don't know if in-game the fire ever goes out after just one bottle or if there is some randomness thrown in to require one or two extinguishers.