Djent33

The landing and takeoff speeds of the Mig-21 is what inspires me the most. This video is fine… it’s zoomed out and a bit experimental to see… but when you land SU-25 at 250 kph whilst looking at the length of the runway, and if 330 kph 180 knots, (flaps up) it looks fast for the normal procedures.

I think that was a wrong topic for this thread. I can speak fish but I didn't babble about it in the wrong thread. Fishbed knows he has to hit the wall 9 out of 10 times before he gets a result. To be at an air show is risky due to the mechanics and piloting. You are essentially relying on a pilot and mechanical systems, the organizers have no control at that point that’s why insurance and betting offices have to take thing into account. Thank you, post some more.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have fans in the mission editor?

I had replaced hats but the old tracker stays, it does what I want it to do with some maintenance, the 3 dot resolution was clear after I had attached 3 pieces from a (normal) high visibility vest and the strips were only small strips, those were bound to the size of that metal thing to look around. Metal head right?

So is this a crunch or yam yam?

Such ideas do not seem totally wrong but the trained pilots knew then and know now how to operate SU-25T. It is quite possible to simulate only 10% of systems whilst flying AFM and that idea could be applied across the board for all aircraft. So why do people dedicate their time learning the principles of flight in terms of systems? This isn’t a real question, SU-25T is like any other aircraft with potential to be simulated like KA-50.

Sound navigator. It may have been whished before but I didn’t see it, not that I looked, perhaps that’s one more genie bottle rub. A nice helicopter with an automated crew, how cool would that be? Imagine a popup window where you can enter your flight plan in a form like: course WP1 250 for 20, then/and/if, inform deviation from radial, set distance for the navigator to sound. (programmable sound gauge) Human navigation analogue to FMC, because the crew is there to help. Let them scream at g forces and bad flying

Problems can be resolved with tape: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1973842&postcount=13

I’ve done some target practice with GUV AP-30 and I like it. It looks like some degree of accuracy can be achieved with having the sight adjusted all the way down to 20 whilst maintaining the pitch in between 0 and 2 degrees, it can be thought of as hypotenuse angle but it needs to be at about 300 metres high and the firing reference has to be made to the bottom of the largest circle of the sight. I’ve used those adjustments in this track which gives it some control of the trajectory. [ATTACH]93004[/ATTACH]

Thanks guys, I’ve managed to release the bombs and they flew,.. lucky targets. Speaking of GUV AP-30 pod, I simply don’t want to underestimate its potential, given the large number of grenade rounds in a sense that one hit can destroy unarmed vehicle and suppress the nuisance infantry which you may or may not see ie. where a direct hit from your gun is less likely. It would be nice to kill a tank with it but sweet dreams do that, a tank thinks he’s going to get you if you hover still and it will, he could be at 3, 9, 12 O’clock, eventually if a tank is in a close proximity, its turret elevation would be limited and the further a tank is, the lesser the chance of him knocking you rotors off. Maybe the height and distance vector to a target and pitch? I’m thinking the pitch can be stabilised in a hover mode whilst drifting sideways and notching forward, let the tanks fire some rounds, easier said than done but it would be nice to know and learn some techniques.

Hi there, I’m interested in your thoughts regarding the use of GUV AP-30 pod (grenade pod), I thought maybe the more accurate approach would be to fire test shots in a hover mode but the drawback soon becomes apparent when there is a tank 2-3 km away shooting at you, also such a trajectory is hard to predict which creates the risk of shooting the troops or structures you supposed to protect. Bombs. I followed the steps for arming of bombs, described here:http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1902018&postcount=1 and I can’t get it to work. Has any one tried using bombs in the current version of 127, if so did it work? Many thanks.

Thanks guys, that control helper.. hmm.. Today I switched 126 for 127 and ticked some boxes in UI options, and it was bobbing, I sow the collective stick move on its own and the trimmer went to sleep, I thought f*(. You see I wasn’t a heli man until I tried it and now can’t get enough of it… but ‘’control helper‘’, no,no,no,no.

When you read the bible, have a drink of wine and think about it…you can make brandy.

Battlefield effectiveness, I think rockets are there because you can’t fire that size of a canon from an aircraft. Armour plating on tanks is there to sustain so much bigger rounds. (in theory as such, that the top of the tank doesn‘t go ballistic). Now the ‘’stiner’’ SAM puts the rockets in it’s well deserved history. Not to say it’s useless, but it’s there to practice against SAMs.