AlphaOneSix

Yes the CMWS automatically dispenses flares if it thinks that it is appropriate to do so.

Here is a picture of the FT overspeed sensor, with the white ceramic potting compound. The second one is right above it but that part is cutaway so they only have one visible. There are two more on the other side of the shaft but they are spares and an electrical connector must be moved to enable those two.

This doesn't seem relevant without knowing what it was before the problem occurred. He said he lowered the collective and that's all that's required to have a rise in rotor speed.

Yep, lowering the collective and bringing the nose up are a sure fire way to spool up the rotor.

116% plus or minus 2% Yes there is a clutch, but that is to prevent driving the N2 turbine when the engine isn't running. When the engine is running, the N1 RPM (nearly 20,000 rpm at 100% N1) is way higher than the N2 RPM (15,000 rpm at 95% NR), so if the rotor speeds up, the N1 will push the N2 higher to keep up. In other words, the main gearbox isn't driving the N2 RPM, the engines still are. The engines are always trying to get the N2 to match their N1, and if the rotor speeds up too much, they will succeed (or at least succeed enough to trigger an FT overspeed condition).

Yes, this.

Well the text he wrote and the pictures don't jive, in my opinion. I know exactly why and how this happened, but only if it's true that the rotor did not stop turning, at least not initially. I'm looking for a rise in rotor rpm that pegs the needle at 110% following a reduction in collective pitch as well as raising the nose of the aircraft with the cyclic. If that's the case, I have the answer, I just need that confirmation because without it I could be wrong.

I have a theory. You say that the rotor stops (or rather, that the rotor speed goes fully down?), but in the picture the rotor is spinning. Does the rotor stop spinning? Or are you assuming that the rotor rpm gauge is reading zero? Because the rotor rpm gauge appears to be pegged at 110%, not zero.

Well, Steam requires a release date, so they have to put something. I would guess that the Steam release date is the earliest possible release date, with the actual release date having a good chance of being somewhere within two weeks following the Steam release date.

Yes, generally speaking. In my experience in Afghanistan, aviation units used the callsign of their battalion/squadron rather than their individual company/troop callsigns, so that the customer could expect a more consistent callsign regardless of which company/troop was providing the support that day. Edited to add: I *think* that they would use the numbers 1, 2, or 3 to represent which particular company was flying that day, and then 1, 2, 3, etc. to designate the aircraft in the flight. So "31" would be C company flight lead and "32" his wingman. If A company was flying that day it would be "11" and "12". I am not positive that this is the case, however.

The best gunship is something that's designed to be a gunship. The Mi-8 isn't a gunship, it's just a truck full of rockets. Sometimes that's useful. I think it's better used for it's designed purpose...carrying stuff on the inside. But I've never been involved with using it as a gunship.

We've gone plaid!

Fair enough

That's just the thing, it will give you all the power unless the ECU fails, there won't be "a little power left".

Wags has already said they plan to implement left, right, or both in VR. When that happens has not yet been established, but it has been officially noted as happening.

The overhaul time periods have nothing to do with how the aircraft is operated. They differ based on the part itself and who/how the overhaul is performed. The components we pay most attention to are the ones that will kill us if they fail in flight. Tail rotor, tail rotor drive shaft, main rotor blades, main rotor hub, swashplate, that sort of thing. Nothing fails very often. I've been involved with a fleet of 10 Mi-17s for 15 years, and we've had two engine failures (both shortly after an overhaul) and one tail rotor drive shaft failure (caused by water getting into an oiled coupling). We also had a tail rotor gearbox fail in such a way that pedal inputs were no longer possible, which was caused by the failure to properly modify the gearbox at overhaul with updated internal parts. Other things have been caught during inspections that could have been a big problem had they failed in flight, but these things are quite rare. Usually things go bad slowly and are caught during scheduled inspections and replaced. Or the things that break don't result in the aircraft crashing, they're just a nuisance and are fixed as time and parts permit. I've never seen an IFF antenna under the nose, only on the bottom of the tail. I suppose there could be two antennas, or I could be wrong and that's actually an antenna for something else. The one on the tail has always been the IFF antenna in my experience.

Typical time before overhaul for major components can vary quite a bit, but is typically 1,500 to 2,500 hours between overhauls, with total lifetime of 8,000 to 20,000 hours. This is quite a bit less than comparable Western aircraft, but the entire overhaul philosophy is very different. Western aircraft parts typically go 5,000 to 20,000 hours before overhaul, and don't have a lifetime limit at all. It seems to me that it is generally assumed that many operators will lack extensive training and facilities to do heavy maintenance themselves, and so the overhaul facilities fill that role, while Western manufacturers push a lot of that extensive maintenance down to a lower level. This is part of what makes Western aircraft so much more expensive, not just the aircraft themselves, but the parts, tools, facilities, and training. Russian helicopters are easier to maintain in the field and in harsh environments and with less well-trained maintainers, but have to go back to an overhaul facility more often. I'm not sure what thing on the nose you're referring to, but the thing on the tail you circled is the IFF antenna. The trim tabs are adjustable, but not in flight. They are adjusted as part of a maintenance procedure to make the rotor smoother in flight, which we call tracking and balancing. We use weights, trim tab, and pitch control link adjustments to reduce vibrations from the main and tail rotors (tail rotor only uses weights for balance, no trim tabs or pitch change link adjustments).

Comparisons between the two are inevitable. However I believe it is unfair to compare them. Very different design philosophies.

Pros and cons are pretty hard, because a pro can be a con and vice versa, depending on the situation. In general...the aircraft is very reliable. But since it is such an old design, it is not as easy to maintain as more modern aircraft. However, since it is so reliable, maintenance mainly consists of adding grease and doing regular inspections. We like to refer to it as the AK-47 of helicopters. It is not as sexy, fast, or maneuverable as more modern aircraft, but it is dependable and relatively cheap. There are so many in service all over the world that parts are not terribly hard to find. Upgrade after upgrade keeps it relevant compared to more modern helicopters, but it's an old design and that hurts it a little, in my opinion.

1) That's the air bleed for the APU compressor. When not used to start the engines, the APU dumps a lot of air pressure overboard. During engine start, a diverter valve prevents air from being dumped overboard and is directed forward to the engine air turbine starters. 2) Antenna for Yadro-1A radio set. 3) Modification to Mi-8s that have a second AC generator installed. Mi-8s prior to the Mi-8MT only had a single AC generator. Starting with the Mi-8MT, a second AC generator was added that sticks out from the left side of the main gearbox and requires that blister in the panel in order to fit. 4) Gun camera, yes. 5) Trim tabs, yes.

A. 1. In theory, if there is enough fuel in the line to start the APU, the fuel pump built into the APU could suck fuel without the help of a boost pump. It certainly works for the engines. I reality, in my experience, the APU will not finish its start sequence before it shut off from fuel starvation. Maybe the Ka-50 is a little more forgiving in this aspect, or maybe ED didn't model this particular requirement. 2. This is correct behavior. The APU on the Ka-50 is not set up to supply DC power. B. 1. You can't, the gauges aren't modeled. Maybe BS4? 2. The APU is not a source of power in the Ka-50, and therefore is not mentioned in the electrical system. 3. The APU doesn't generate power, and so requires batteries or external power to be available in order to operate. I don't know what kind of shutoff valve is used in the Ka-50, but in the Mi-8, the APU solenoid valve is held open electrically, so removing power shuts the valve, stopping fuel flow to the APU. I don't know if this is the same valve the Ka-50 uses. I suspect that there are actually two valves, and the one that's like the Mi-8 valve is not shown on the fuel system schematic, since that's how the APU is shut down...pressing the APU off button removes power from the APU fuel solenoid valve (a different valve from the one that is operated from the right wall panel), causing it to close and shut off fuel to the APU. And that solenoid valve requires power to stay open. 4. This is correct, since the APU doesn't provide any electrical power. C. It seems like the manual may be mislabeled and this is actually an AC ground power light. The behavior you described would be correct behavior if it was an AC ground power light and not DC. Maybe check the Russian version of the manual if you can get it? I don't have it. So either the manual is wrong and it's really an AC ground power light, or the aircraft modeling is wrong and it acts like an AC ground power light when it should be DC. To save your sanity, I think it would be best to assume it's an AC ground power light and that the manual is incorrect, because it (the sim or the manual) is not going to get fixed...or at least it's very unlikely to get fixed.

Pulse sparkle. My two favorite words. No it does not.

They said there would be HE rockets at launch, but they haven't specified if they will be the 10- or 17-pounders. My gut says 10-pounders, based on my experience that they are more common, but we don't know for sure yet.

Yeah that's not true AT ALL. I read Ed Macy's books, and while they were greatly entertaining, they should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Lots of dramatic license in his books.

You're good, I was being silly...but I did get you to post D model pics! So win-win.