AlphaOneSix

I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

On the AH-64A, the CPG (copilot/gunner) has a missile control panel, and on that panel is a selector switch for the missile seeker type: LASER, RF/IR, and IRIS. It might as well be welded into the LASER position. The production AH-64A was never capable of employing RF or IR missiles (the D-model finally got them), and IRIS was probably the ASRAAM (AIM-132) concept that never really got off the ground. They did tell us. We're just not listening. You're already convinced, we know you're not buying it. It won't have a third rail for Igla, and it won't have FLIR.

When discussions like this come around I usually point out the LASER-IRIS-RF/IR selector switch in the AH-64A on the gunner's missile control panel as an example.

I'm not picking on you, I'm just using this post as an example. TLDR; Assume that anything that was not specifically announced WILL NOT BE INCLUDED. I think the speculation machine should wind down just a touch, the announcement from ED said that the "new" Ka-50 is going to get the following "upgrades": Free (everyone gets this)- - Graphics update to include complete rework of the exterior model and interior textures. - Bug fixes (which bugs? unknown, but probably not all of them will be fixed.) Paid (you only get it if you buy it*)- - Iglas (Maybe on inner pylons and certainly on outer pylons. There is no third pylon as you can see by the new model pictures. Rack of 2 or rack of 4? Unknown. Which exact version of Igla? Unknown.) - L370-5 President-S DIRCM/MWS (The announcement just said IR jammers and MWS, but from the pictures that were part of the announcement, it's clear that it's the President-S system.) ANYTHING ELSE: ASSUME IT'S NOT COMING. If you were hoping for FLIR, stop hoping and just assume it's not coming. If by some miracle ED was holding back to surprise us, then let's be surprised and say "yay." But this is kind of a big deal so I feel very confident that they'd say they were adding it if they were adding it. They did say they were fixing a lot of bugs but missing features are not bugs, they are just missing features which will very likely continue to be missing if they were not already announced.

I'm sure they won't model all the false positives. :D But yeah, that's how missile warning systems work, and we already have it on the A-10, works the same way.

They are directional IR jammers

The Ka-50 doesn't have the third pylon. Only the Ka-52. And yes the wingtip is just an aerodynamic fairing containing the flare dispensers.

They are the directional "jammers". As opposed to jammers that are omnidirectional. https://russianmilitaryphotos.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/the-l370-5-president-s-countermeasures-suite/

I'm quite confident that the Igla rack will be on the outer pylons only, just like the Vikhr rack. There is no third weapon pylon, you can see that in the images. That image that shows Iglas going on the countermeasure "pylon"...well I don't know what to say about that, other than to say that the wingtip is not a weapon mount. There's just the inboard and outboard pylons.

The pictures show partially loaded APU-6 Vikhr racks. That is, with 4 tubes instead of 6.

There is no locking pin for the nose gear but it is self-centering. So when the aircraft is off the ground the nose gear should be centered.

The current behavior is correct.

The best answer, albeit not the one anyone wants to hear, is that if multi-crew is a dealbreaker for you, don't buy the module until it has multi-crew. That goes for any feature that is planned for but not yet implemented. It doesn't matter how much they promise it, right on the tin it says that it's beta/alpha/pre-release/whatever and everything is subject to change. So if something they promise ends up not working out, there is no recourse for the buyer. I know it's very frustrating because most people seem to be using the beta versions over the stable version, but I guess that's just the price of keeping up with the Joneses. I suspect the best answer is to just shrug your shoulders and move on, having gained some wisdom and experience that can help guide you in your next purchase decision.

I am not sure it's been officially reported. It's rather low priority. Like you say, better to just double-check the stop levers first. ;)

Game bug.

Yeah we don't use the American manuals at all, only the manufacturer's manuals. Of course, they're in English, but the translations have gotten much better. Although I did enjoy reading about the "wobble plate" (swashplate) in older manuals.

Okay I see. You can ignore that -10 then, because it's incorrect. But that's okay, the U.S. manuals contain a lot of discrepancies like that. In fact, the correct information can be found in the TSMO maintenance manual for the ice protection system, found in TM 1-TSMO-Mi-17-23-1 volume 2. I know very little and have no first hand experience with any Mi-8's prior to the Mi-8MT (called Mi-17 for export). The Mi-17-1V is the export name of the Mi-8MTV-1. All Mi-17's operate as I've described above. As noted with the RIO-3, that was an older, radioisotope-based detector used on early versions of the Mi-8 and Mi-17. I'm not sure when they quit using them, as I have documentation of Mi-8MTV-1/Mi-17-1V with both RIO-3 and SO-121 detectors. All of the Mi-8MTV-1/Mi-17-1V aircraft I worked on had the older RIO-3 installed, but all of our Mi-17V-5's (export version of Mi-8MTV-5), Mi-171's, and Mi-172's have the SO-121 detector set installed. Regardless of the detector installed, the PMK-21-TV cyclic timer energizes the heating elements in the same way and for the same times. Maybe on aircraft prior to the Mi-8MT/Mi-17 they had a different timer, I don't know. I kind of doubt it, but I don't have any documentation on them so I can't be sure. Thank you for your input!

Timings are the same, I'm not sure where you see a difference. It's not the 115.5, is it? 38.5 ON 38.5 OFF 38.5 OFF 38.5 OFF So each main rotor section spends 38.5 seconds on and 115.5 seconds off, for a total cycle time of 154 seconds. Or am I misreading something somewhere?

It's not possible to use the ammeter dial to change which section light illuminates, they are completely independent. There is no bug. This is how it is designed to work. Does it not work as I described above in the game?

Okay. I will start by saying that I am calling the system anti-ice instead of deice. For this aircraft, the distinction is irrelevant in my opinion. If you turn the system on manually before you get icing, it's anti-ice. If you let it come on automatically after icing is detected, then I guess it's deice. In Russian, it's not called either. It's called "heating". The ammeter has nothing whatsoever to do with the anti-ice system. It just checks the current being drawn by the item selected. The systems works just one way no matter what you have selected on the ammeter dial. Here is the sequence for the rotors when the anti-ice system is turned on: The SECTION 1 light illuminates and the heating elements of section 1 of the main rotor and section 1 of the tail rotor are energized for 38.5 seconds. The SECTION 2 light illuminates and the heating elements of section 2 of the main rotor and section 2 of the tail rotor are energized for 38.5 seconds. The SECTION 3 light illuminates and the heating elements of section 3 of the main rotor and section 1 of the tail rotor are energized for 38.5 seconds. The SECTION 4 light illuminates and the heating elements of section 4 of the main rotor and section 2 of the tail rotor are energized for 38.5 seconds. Go back to #1. This means that each main rotor section is energized for 38.5 seconds and is de-energized for 115.5 seconds per cycle. Each tail rotor section is energized for 38.5 seconds and is de-energized for 38.5 seconds. The total cycle time is 154 seconds. The position of the ammeter dial has no relevance to this cycle, other than it allows you to see if current is being drawn by various blades/sections for troubleshooting purposes. You can check each main rotor blade individually, because you can change each main rotor blade individually. The tail rotor blades are always changed as a set, so it doesn't matter which particular tail rotor blade may be causing the anti-ice to fail, since all three will be replaced anyway. If you turn the ammeter to the tail rotor position and when the SECTION 4 light illuminates the ammeter drops to zero, that means that section 2 on one or more of the tail rotor blades has failed for some reason. If you turn the ammeter dial to W/S or DUST PROT then it will go occasionally drop to zero normally because those elements de-energize when their respective temperature sensors reach 30 degrees C.

The autopilot will attempt to hold the pitch and bank angles if the cyclic is not moving. That is, if the cyclic is stationary, the pitch and roll channels of the autopilot will attempt to hold the pitch and bank attitudes within its 20% authority. If the cyclic is moving the autopilot still tries to hold the attitude, but essentially it's holding the attitude around a moving target, since the movement of the cyclic is being removed from the equation. This is why it's more similar to a SAS-type system than what most people would consider a traditional "autopilot". And so it follows that if you, for example, move the cyclic to the left to enter a 10 degree angle of bank, and you stop moving the cyclic when you achieve that angle of bank, the autopilot will attempt to, within its 20% authority, hold that 10 degree angle of bank, with the cyclic still being deflected to the left. With the autopilot off, you're now dealing with just the standard aerodynamics. I believe on the Mi-8 it will tend to roll out of shallow banks by itself. That is, for shallow banks, you may need to keep the cyclic deflected or else it will just naturally roll back to level. Then at some intermediate angles of bank, it will naturally hold that bank angle and the cyclic would be returned to center (or very nearly center) and the bank angle will just sort of hold itself. And then beyond some intermediate bank angle you will get the overbanking tendency, where the aircraft will tend to bank even more and you will have to apply slight opposite cyclic (opposite side of being centered) to keep the bank from continuing to exaggerate. I do not know what the angles involved are, but if memory serves (and it probably doesn't), an shallow bank angle is 15 degrees or less, intermediate is from maybe 15-40 degrees, and beyond 40 degrees you'll get overbanking tendency. I could be very wrong on those so as soon as someone argues with me I'll just edit this post and delete it. :D I could be thinking of the over and underbanking tendencies in my Cessna. EDIT: I asked one of our pilots about it and he said, basically, "Heck I don't know, I just do whatever makes it point where I want it to point." SO in other words he doesn't think about it enough to answer offhand.

Yes.

I don't have enough hours behind the controls to answer that with any confidence, I'll ask one of our stick-wigglers and get back to you.

Realistically, the answer is no. The documentation says yes, but it assumes sufficient strength. However, I have yet to meet a human that was capable of doing so. I can only move the pedals without hydraulics. I have never tried doing it with two people. According to the TSMO -10, if you lose both hydraulic systems in flight, "sporadic control movement, response and extreme control stiffness will be felt." And just in case that wasn't scary enough, "loss of both hydraulic systems may result in a loss of aircraft control." The Russian flight manual is a little less optimistic and says that in the event of a dual hydraulics failure, "prepare the crew for bailout."

Changes in attitude caused by the pilot's deflection of the controls are recognized as "wanted" attitude changes and are not counteracted by the autopilot system in the Mi-8.