AlphaOneSix

As far as the ball is concerned, it operates exactly like a fixed-wing aircraft and you want to keep it centered just like you would in a fixed wing aircraft in most cases. As mentioned above, the only exception is transitioning to a slip for landing. I guess you could also say you could let the ball get off-center momentarily during a weapons engagement as well, but if you're shooting rockets that's a good way to ensure that they miss...rockets should always be fired with the ball centered. You really should step on the ball, just like in a fixed-wing. If you're not stepping on the ball, you're adding unnecessary drag, just like in a fixed-wing. What may be more dramatic is that when you step on the ball you will also need to apply left or right cyclic or else you'll end up in a turn. Left pedal, right cyclic, and vice versa.

Officially it's 88% but in reality it's usually closer to 85%. If I remember corrctly it's also 85-ish% in-game as already mentioned.

I've never been able to *fit* 30 people in the back of an Mi-8. I think the most we've ever physically had in the back was 26, and that was standing room only. I think to fit 30 they would have to have no gear at all, and they would still be packed like sardines. We're hiring.

For reference, our aircraft weight a little over 17,000 pounds empty, with a max gross of 28,600. So not the best, by any stretch, but we have dropped 22 assaulters on a pinnacle at 9,000 feet, so I'm okay with it. ;) The external load is an issue with the sling gear itself and not the aircraft. The entire MTV series has an identical cabin structure. The "default" system is 3000kg, but there is also a 4000kg system (the shackle itself is rated at 6000kg). I understand that there is also a 5000kg system, but I don't know much about it, but I do know that if you put 5000kg under an Mi-8 with 3 crewmembers, you are only going to carry about 20 minutes of fuel (no reserve) on an ISA day at sea level. So true.

Yeah, pretty dubious. CH-47 max takeoff weight is like 50,000 pounds. Mi-8 max takeoff weight is 28,600 pounds.

There is an APC in-game light enough to be carried by either an Mi-8 or a UH-1? On a good day an Mi-8 can pick up 8,800 lb. (in real life, UH-1 quite a bit less) and even an empty M113 weighs 20,000-ish pounds.

*shrug* All 10 of the Mi-17s we operate came with English cockpits, but I suppose one could argue that being an Mi-8 implies Russian military or civil service only, not export, therefore a Russian cockpit is more authentic. I appreciate your English cockpit, just the same.

The fewer particulates/vapor in the air, the less visible the beam would be...although I have never in my life seen air so clear that you couldn't still see the beam, at least faintly.

That's peculiar about the range limitation. The IZLIDs I've used in the past mounted on machine guns have a range of around 50 kilometers. Seems odd that a targeting pod would have such a weak laser pointer. In the real world, I've had A-10s "sparkle" for us before, but I have to admit it was only from a range of about 3 miles, but it was like the finger of God pointing down from the heavens.

Have you read this? It's quite good. North Caucasus: Problems of Helicopter Support in Mountains

I believe that all OH-58D are wired to accept Stingers, though I have no positive proof of this at this time. Quite a few OH-58C helicopters were as well. It's called ATAS for air-to-air Stinger. I have never seen an OH-58D armed with Stingers outside of a testing environment (doesn't mean they don't/didn't exist), but I do know for a fact that many OH-58C helicopters were deployed to Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990 with ATAS installed and operational. So yes, I am fairly certain that Stingers are available for use on OH-58Ds. But the post was in reference to the AH-64, and that is what I was responding to.

I guess this depends on what you mean by "field mod", but no, that would not be possible. It would require a pretty big modification to the aircraft, and none of the operators are equipped or trained to use or maintain it.

"have appeared on test aircraft." Also, I'm fairly certain the Ka-50 can't use the Kh-25MP (AS-12 Kegler), just the Kh-25ML (AS-10 Karen), but I could be wrong. Also, the AT-9 is the Ataka, if I recall correctly, and the Vikhr is technically an AT-16, although even the DCS:BS flight manual gets this wrong.

Sort of like how the AH-64A controls include "IRIS" switches.

No, it's just been discussed here about 1000 times.

I should clarify that I'm a mechanic, not a pilot, but I'm afforded the opportunity to fly fairly regularly.

Here's where we go: http://www.concordavia.com/facilities/7-facilities-concord-xxi-usa.html But they just have a sim at the moment. But hey, I get to fly them pretty often in real life for free, so WINNING.

I don't know how it's used in DCS off the top of my head, I just assume it's as in the real world (of course I could be wrong). The way I described is how it's used in real life, with the "keypad" referring to the number setup on a telephone.

I've always wondered about that number. I mean sure, you can pack 30 people in the back as long as they aren't carrying anything with them and they are all relatively small...but what are you going to do with them? Unless they are all skinny and naked you won't be able to carry more than an hour's worth of fuel. Last night we packed on 23 people with 1200 liters of fuel and we hit 101.5% on the Ngg (2.5 minute emergency power) just taking off. I will grant that our aircraft are heavier than a typical Mi-8, but still, unless your target is really close, you aren't going to be taking 30 people very far at all.

If a fuel pump was implemented somehow, you could supply fuel even without an internal fuel tank. I don't see how the two are related, other than the fact that having an internal fuel tank give you a lot more fuel. But that seems to imply that the "fat cow" aircraft (the one with all the extra fuel) is just going to park somewhere and not be part of the action, but instead just waiting for other aircraft to come by and give them fuel, sort of like a mobile FARP.

None of our aircraft are equipped for external stores, so I can't speak to that. We actually do have crates with the external stores systems and external fuel tanks, but we've never mounted them. Our job is strictly cargo and passengers.

We use the internal auxiliary fuel tanks fairly often, and sometimes we just leave them in for extended periods of time if we think we're going to need them and not need a lot of cargo/passenger space. An extra internal tank adds about an hour of flight time to the aircraft. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure that it's something that would be used with a lot of regularity. I mean, sure some people enjoy four-hour long missions without refueling, but I think that's a minority, and it is quite heavy.

I'm partial to this one that I wear fairly often...

Probably referring to a location on a grid-referenced graphic (GRG). See attachment.

I used to be really pro-metric system, and I still am, but not as much. The turning point came when I realized that converting units is generally not that important for many benign, say-to-day applications. For example, if you're driving to the store, and it's a 3 mile trip, why would you need to convert that unit of distance to another number? Who cares how many feet it is? Same with metric...okay it's 5km to the store. Yay, I can instantly convert that to 5,000 meters, but that number is completely irrelevant, nobody is going to say, "Oh, thank goodness I was able to convert that 5km to 5,000m. Imagine if we were using the imperial system!" I will readily admit that there are also lots of situations where it clearly makes things easier to use metric system, and I think in those cases, we should probably completely switch, but I don't think it's quite as big of a deal as many people try to make it.