zerO_crash

I already told you what the manual is stating! On the accelerometer of Su-27, the red mark covers 8G+ - 9G. That is to remind the pilot that effectively, the air force doesn't want him to pull more than 8G for durability reasons. You can also see on the MiG-29 a red line on 7G, which works in pretty much the same way, albeit here, the manual lists no specific limit, other than general 9G sustain. For comparison, on Su-27SK, the air force doesn't want you to pull 9G prolonged, therefore 8G below red line, and 9G within. You seem to have a problem with understanding that, even worse, you attempt to read a technical manual in a language you do not operate with. Don't do that, you will often lose the coherency of syntax - context.

Yes I know. In that portion, I describe two situations (modules affecting modules and modules affecting environment (ground)) that already seem to work, albeit not uniformly. Modules affecting modules works for planes, but not helicopters, and vice versa on modules affecting environment (helicopters affect ground, however planes do not). Again, I assume it will be implemented with time uniformly across modules.

I see, no problem then. I guess one will have to wait and see

I am wondering about if there are any plans for implementing more environmental and module-module type of effects. For example; planes flying close together (one after the other), creates turbulence and adverse wind effects for the plane behind. In the same way, helicopters affect grass and particles on the ground. However, with the situation reversed, helicopters don't affect movement of air for other modules (client/AI). Similarily, a plane taxiing around an airfield, does not affect the grass or other particles on the ground. My point is, I presume that the above, is only a matter of time before it gets implemented. What interests me, is if there are any specific plans being drafted with regards to expanding on general environmental effects and aircraft-aircraft (be it client or AI) interaction? For example, the take-off of a bigger aircraft or flyby of a really fast one, should create upheavals in air movement, affecting lighter aircraft as much as 30-60 seconds (sometimes longer) after that aircraft has passed. Should for example a light aircraft (plane or helicopter) take-off right after a KC-135, it should experience a pretty violent disruption of air. An additional question here is whether this is even viable performance-wise? Furthermore, additional physical effects such as fogging in cockpits, freezing and formation of ice, pockets of turbulence (not just a global/scenario setting), more cockpit shaking due to operating in adverse conditions, etc... I understand that this is tied very closely to the weather system being in development, as well as individual modules. The question is generally pointed towards a framework which would allow simulating this. zerO

Fantastic stuff, especially since helicopter dynamics are among the most complex to recreate in the digital environment. Such a methodical, yet accurate approach, is definitely the way to go. It's also good to hear that you'll be creating more helicopters

I am aware that you stated it, but I clarified why it's impossible to extrapolate that notion from these metrics alone. One could guesstimate that since the helicopter is relatively light (below 2500kg), that it'll be uneasy at handling. Uneasy, meaning nervous, which ultimately means nimble. That is, if you can control it. That goes without saying. The problem is, notice Sa-342. While it is nervous at low hover/low speed (below translational lift), howevee getting above translational lift, it becomes really stable due to SAS, fenestron and a relatively big tail fin. Such properties change the whole picture of how a helicopter handles. Is the inital question of this thread poor? No. Actually, the answers, while presenting many mistakes in the metrics, don't really answer the question at all. The proper feedback here, would be a qualitative one from a pilot who has flown the helicopter. Keeping in mind that it would be highly subjective, and prone to wrong recollections (memory is overall not trustworthy), you could extract a sentiment with regards to the aircraft and its flying qualities. That's also why I mention Mi-2 vs. e.g. Huey (UH-1H). Based on metrics, it should be all in the favour of Huey, but it isn't, not even close. My answer is very simply cleaning up the mess with metrics posted here, and making you all realize, that based on your attempted reasoning, you don't, and connot, answer this question. This is one for a former pilot, really. @Raptor9 You flew the OH-58D, besides AH-64, didn't you? If you did, would you mind chiming in with an actual pilot's perspective?

Since this thread got revived recently, let's point out and correct a few things: a) The original posted specifications are wrong, and impractical. Going off IRL and manuals, the weights are too low (they are lower than a completely defueled and disarmed aircraft in some instances). Also, it makes it very impractical to calculate the power-to-weight ratio just going off empty machines (no fuel). Rather consider MTOW, and you'll have a practical reference in each case. b) Obviously, pure power cannot be translated to climb rates. There are so many factors affecting whether a helicopter is good at climbing, speed, hovering, lifting, etc... that it's worth a book on each of these parts alone. The climb rates posted earlier, are complete fantasy. Not only do helicopters have restrictions on what is maximum allowed climb rates (durability and service life), but even the highest performing helicopters in the world will barely reach around 30 m/s in hover (Ka-50, and a couple others in civilian version). While one can pull more that momentarily, it's not really a measure one way or the other. Even from hover, it is only a select metric which doesn't by itself define a "good" (subjective and inadequate word) helicopter. c) Judging flight performance from two metrics alone, will again, yield very incomplete and biased results. For reference, while an Mi-2 has relatively low power-to-weight ratio out of the mentioned ones, it does have blades which are optimized for speed, making it the fastest of them all, as well as among the most capable in maneuvering. A Huey with its big two blades (main rotor) would never be able to pull of what an Mi-2 can, esp. security considered. Different rotor heads, different rotor speeds, different blade thickness and width, fuselage, aerodynamic properties, etc... are all factors that decide this. With the Huey, having relatively thick and wide blades, it slows down rotor speed very quickly at higher AOA (blade angle - collective level). Comparing that to three blades of the Mi-2 or Sa-342... it's basically outclassed in the dynamic aspect of flight. It is however a decent aircraft when it comes to lift though, considering it's wight-class. Here are correct specifications to consider (don't extrapolate too much out of it though, it's a very basic metric to mention): - UH-1H - 4310kg/9500lbs MTOW / Engine is Textron Lycoming T-53-L-13B with 1400SHP/1100kW power. - SA-342M1 - 2085kg/4596lbs MTOW / Engine is TURBOMECA Astazou XIV with 890SHP/663kW power. - OH-58D - 2358kg/5200lbs MTOW / Engine is T703-AD-700A (250-C30R) or T703-AD-700B (250-C30R/1) or 250-C30R/3, all with 650SHP/478kW power.* - Bo-105CBS-5 - 2500kg/5511lbs MTOW / Engine is Allison 250-C20B with 345SHP/257kW power.** *For those interested in the difference between these engines; - 250-C30R featured a electronic supervisory fuel control system. - 250-C30R/3 featured improved compressor airflow, air cooled turbine nozzle, low smoke combustor and a full authority digital engine control system (FADEC for short). Since we know that our OH-58D will have FADEC, we know that this is the engine that we'll get (latest and most capable). **Since I cannot find any relevant information/documentation for the Bo-105PAH1A1, I referenced the Bo-105CBS-5 for which there is a flight manual available. Keep in mind that this is not a military version, as such, certain specifications will differ. The CBS-5, also known as "Superfive", is a variant of the Bo-105 which stresses increased lifting capability. As such, this variant will have blades optimized for lift, not speed (there are many other minor changes irrelevant for military application). EDIT: Corrected MTOW of OH-58D after input from real OH-58D pilots. The NATOPS manual on OH-58D, does not contain updates relevant to operation, based on experiences from Afghanistan.

This is a pretty serious decision to make, considering that the two main designs, were about to start practical tests. Also, the sheer money that has went into this program, is pretty staggering. This points to a shift in strategy and tactics, with main emphasis being put on extending the use of existing helicopters (AH-64D/E, UH-60, etc...), and diverting the main attention towards drones. The current situation in Ukraine (and to some extent middle east), has apparently set new priorities and plans for future US programs, with more countries to follow (speculation, albeit informed). https://www.twz.com/air/army-cancels-hight-speed-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter-program

The AI is, and will, constantly be under development. There are many improvements to come. I cannot really tell you whether the issue is with the algorithm, or most likely the selection process of aerial units (this is not an issue with ground targets). It would be best if you could upload a .miz (trk) file, in order for this issue to be recognized and solved. The .acmi (Tacview) does sometimes produce artifacts in the form of desync, position of units, time frame, etc... This certainly is a bug, so no doubt there.

Any ED AI (Petrovich, George, etc...) has realistic spotting algorithms, not only based on field of view, but contrast, background, point of interest (designated target), etc... This is based on real studies performed on human awereness and observation. There will be situations that might seem odd, but are realistic in that the Ah-64 at distance might have been easier to see, than the Ka-50 close by. As an example, consider a WWII-scenario. If you fly by using BnZ (boom and zoom) tactics, you will have a much easier task spotting targets further away, albeit contrasted against somewhat bland in color landscape. That, vs. trying to spot targets straight below you, which will be camouflaged by terrain, shadows (mostly from clouds), and the fact that you cover less area with your peripherial vision. This is just an example, but it's perfectly normal and as designed, that AI isn't acting like a radar. He is given human deficiencies, he will make mistakes. As to the first post, it's clearly a bug.

If a response that does not share your view is "absolute clownshoes", then I suppose a big enough mirror is needed. I would suggest asking yourself the question what you are doing here, instead of a "flight game" where waiting times equal zero. In reality, I'm pretty sure that it's not as black/white as one would think. Just because there is a common norm/practice, doesn't rule out that a pilot would do this by himself. Especially nowadays, when budgets have become a serious limitation compared to 50s/60s/70s. Even considering the average situation, 20 minutes allows for a proper flight preparation. Also, there are sadly many things we still lack in DCS (we have come far though!), of them being a proper briefing-room, proper briefing documentation (this can be alleviated by mission designers) and most of all, proper tools for projecting flight plans on the F10-map. I would not say that waiting 20 minutes is any more absurd, than pilots having waited in/near their aircraft for a go-ahead in different kinds of operations (on-time requirements, or awaiting a final clearance). In essence, this is no different than pulling off a realistic CAP/CAS/SAR/+++ missions. Time is indeed a proper resource, but there are many other important ones. As I mentioned, most people use up their time by not preparing properly, and thus restarting an aircraft multiple times. Ultimately, this discussion is dead, and that's because DCS replicates a military aviator simulator, without the "classified"-inhibitors. We are bound to have certain aspects somewhat less realistic, but that is still a single digit percentage, vs. people asking for something to be made unrealistic in order to be more accessible. The ruling principle of this product, is that it is a simulator - as real as we can get it, while not getting jailed. The option to shorten the INS-startup, is already there, but not by default. Making it default is completely wrong, as it detracts from reality. It might replicate SOP better, but as a system, it works wrong. The proper way of going about this, is waiting for an expanded ground crew (more refined). At that point, it would be solved properly. Still, I see it as being a mission option. The whole problem in this thread, is that people with different conceptions of what DCS is to them, ask for neural changes to be made. That's the problem! Most newcomers as well! At this point, I state again: If you don't have time for comitting in DCS, then you can either create your own server/mission and host it, or seek a simple product tailored to your needs. It's that simple! For example: Many wanted Ah-64, relatively few fly it! Why?! Because many found out that it's a tad more complicated aircraft to fly than what they initially presumed. As such, the urge to go for a different airframe is greater, than reading the manual. That's the essence of the discussion in here as well. Private beliefs of what a simulator should be like. Again, subjective perception on what a simulator should simulate or not. With DCS attempting to move a normally classified simulator setting to commerical grounds, one assumes that you are a pilot willing to sit there kitted out in a suit and taking it seriously. That's the essence of it. If you however have a different concept of what you wish to simulate, and what you wish to jump over (because you have a family/dog/laissez faire attiude/some other hobby, etc...), you are fully allowed to do so by altering these settings in the mission editor. Remember that on the other side of the table, are people who for example want to relive their former careers (former military pilots), or e.g. actual private/commercial pilots who never got the chance, and would gladly learn all they can about their favourite aircraft. Again, this whole topic is beyond the point due to pure speculation and "I want, therefore do it."-attitude. DCS with it's realism aspect has formed its core much before many of the new members joined. Sometimes, it is important to remind of that. When it comes to this thread, DCS currently allows to deliver an experience both to purists, as well as those seeking more arcade. Asking ED to tailor it to a subjective time schedule, is highly irrelevant, and more so, lacking insight.

It's not a realistic loadout for the Mi-8MTV2, therefore, it won't get added. Also, NS430 is only optional as the real one is essentially plug-and-play. Most modules don't have the space for it in their configuration, thus no physical NS430 (2D is purely added for convenience). Still, optional GPS =/= optional loadout. This will never be a practice in this simulator, rest assured. Any other equipment then we currently have, will require a different model of the Mi-8. Also, never mention Wikipedia as a source for anything. There is much at fault there. That's all there is to it.

Nor have I ever stated that the governor detracts from whatever one trims the engine at. I stated very clearly, that in an ideal world, 95% wouldn't even need a margin of +-2%, but in the real world, due to maneuvering, lag in the system, potential lack of/or too much power, and frankly physics, the rotor will move outside of even the +-2%, and that is perfectly fine! This topic is originally talking about "generator failiure". I mention, that one of the reasons for losing generators, outside of a mechanical failiure, is the main rotor RPM falling below 85%. That is not a recommendation to fly such that the main rotor RPM lowers to 85%, that is simply a technical limitation. The manual sets a practical operational minimum of the main rotor RPM at 87%, and that to have a buffer, but the technical limitation is 85%. Still, during any flight, with heavier maneuvering or not, you will see the main rotor RPM move outside of 95%, and even the stipulated +-2%. That's how helicopters work. Any other helicopter (AH-64 or UH-1H) is no different in this respect, other than different thresholds and available power levels (typically lower hp/tonne). Since the virtual pilot here is unaware why he gets generator failiure, the simple answer is; he let's the main rotor RPM droop below 85%. Now, how to mitigate this issue, is another thing, and I have already recommended him what he should and shouldn't do. It's important to attack the issue where it occurs and before, and not after it affects. I guess you confused yourself by assuming much here, by arguing against claims that have never been made. The devil lies in the details - semantics. You also argued not understanding the main rotor RPM moving out of the 95% range in flight. I made it very clear; during cruise flight, it will hold it, but during a complicated flight profile, it will move up and down, depending on what you perform. At this point, the issue is solved.

Yeah, I'll have to look for it. It might very well be that R-60M was already in common use when Mi-24 got that ability, in which case it'd be unrealistic.

Having looked at a good couple of centrifuge runs, I would certainly not say that a pilot can do it a lot. 2x 30-second runs typically drain the pilot to a solid exhaustion. Again, with aircraft nowadays, it's the pilot that is the weak link. Then you get to the mood-side of things. A pilot has better and worse days for sustaining G-loads. I guess most military fighter pilots can hold 9Gs for a short time these days, but after 2-3 runs, based on observation, I'd say that they better rotate (change with a less active CAP-flight) for the day. There are of course others who handle even 11Gs (referring to the famous centrifuge run O_o), but that does look pretty rare. I'm mostly talking about, as you mention altering between positive and negative G-loads, pulling funnel while at high-G, etc... There's a lot of poor and unrealistic piloting on quake servers. It's not an environment for someone who wants at least a little realism. I'm not even mentioning turning around and looking behind you, during a dogfight (if that happens). In certain aircraft (e.g. MiG-21Bis), the pilot is strapped to the seat without the ability to move around - zero ability to look past whatever your neck will twist. Consider now someone with TIR moving their head 20-30 degrees at most, to look behind them... yeah. Too bad one cannot restrict users from joining based on TIR/VR. EDIT: I'll add that as you point Dawg, dedicated CAP squadrons are selected and trained in G-strain tolerance, no doubt there.

You had some stores, as I'm seeing at least ATGM's (Kokoon/Ataka) at 0:51 in the left mirror (tubes on wingtip). That's not completely empty, but if that's all, then it's light. Again, the key here is the result of all components. Altitude, to name one. Also, yes, you would have to come to hover, but you could do it at lower altitude, somewhere outside of that mountain range. No one demands that you land on top of Mt. Elbrus, if you cannot guarantee a safe hover. If a pilot IRL would e.g. work on OEI (one engine inoperational), then if he took off from a FARP, he could as well talk with the traffic controller and divert to an airfield with runway, or land on a road. Again, it's about being clever. Understand me properly, if you intended to land anyways on top of that hill, then sure, for the duration of the landing, turn off anti-ice. However, in general, if there are icy conditions, you ought to consider going lighter loaded, and in certain cases forget hovering, as it will pose an elevated danger. I cannot see if you had too much wind in the mission, but that is yet again something you could have considered - to land head on wind. It will increase your lift coefficient and allow for landing, even when normally without wind, you would be advised against it. Understand that aircraft, and their operations, are so complex in nature, that you cannot always do what you had decided for. When Soviets were flying Mi-24's out of Bagram, often, in order to take off, they had to go as light as they could, and lift as a plane (with forward movement). Their whole sortie, including landing was performed like a plane. Not once, could they hover at the altitudes over there (2km+), otherwise it would be a controlled crash-landing. That's why Mi-8s, which have greater MTOW and are generally optimized for lift - not speed, were often used to transport troops/equipment. The Mi-24 is optimized for speed, and those wings that you have, are doing you a very bad favour in hover. This helicopter loves speed, more than any other that we have in DCS, or IRL for that matter. Again, know your strengths, AND limitations. It's essential.

It is as I stated, and NAVY pilots have nothing to fear at 9G in their Hornets. Notice the graph from Dawger above. Again, the reprimand to exceed those limits, would not come from mechanical failiure (given that the airframe is within expected lifetime), rather from the given pilot's CO. Also, as stated earlier by me, in DCS, few respect those limits online. That's why, you have to find the right servers, or fly singleplayer. People abuse not only this, but even G-fatigue of the pilot, pullling moves and twists you would never see in real life. That's the problem on many servers online. Many just want to have "fun" between their job and taking their dog out. Hopefully, with time, the maturity will go up.

1. I am fully aware why the rotor RPM lags behind the engines in certain aspects of the flight. You might as well explain it for yourself, because the situations I referred to, are the ones which will provoke the rotor RPM to lag behind, or stay ahead of the engine RPM resulting in fluctuations beyond the preset 95%. If anyone asks, one might explain to them. However I, made it perfectly clear as to what and when. Transient torque is only ONE example, vortex ring state (uncommon as it is) is another. A third would be pulling high levels of acceleration or deceleration (albeit the former is more prononced, as with deceleration, assuming altitude is to be kept, is done at low collective levels, resulting in little effect on rotor speed.). Again, I see no purpose on building this out, as it only solidifies what I claimed. 2. I didn't mess with the "free turbine readjustment". No one ever stated it, as such, I do not see where you pull this conclusion from. Many factors affect rotor RPM, as such, trying to pick the anatomy of it apart, with little information to spare, bears little purpose and relevance. With regards to the "free turbine readjustment"-switch, also known as "engine trim switch", there is a very specific procedure regarding it, and that is at startup. You state that it has to be used if "deviates significantly according to manual". Well, no! It has to be performed upon every single startup. When the engines are fully started up, with engine condition levers set to normal, the pilot is supposed to pull collective equal to 3* degrees of blade pitch (AOA), and trim the rotor RPM to 95%. Whether it deviates significantly or not, is your wording, not according to ED or IRL manuals. Thus, it's being done each and every startup, as part of a check. With regards to other uses of this switch, yes, you are right in that one can lower the main rotor RPM in cruise flight in order to save fuel. That is however not the only case, another one would be descending with a higher rate of descent, in order to further create a larger margin for not over revving the main rotor. This is yet another example, just to be complete about it. Again, no one mentioned this switch, I see no relevance here (unless it was used wrong). 3. As mentioned prior, when flying in combat, within the envelope of the helicopter, one is perfectly able to move the main rotor RPM away from the default 95%. That happens regardless of helicopter. One thing is manual, another thing is real life and practical applications of the theory. There are more than enough recounts in Russian, where pilots show just how they pushed the aircraft to its limits, and sometimes beyond in combat. There are more than enough videos online as well, showing real life applications in combat, and why for example the rotor RPM is free floating to a degree, given the maneuver performed. 4. To clarify it, there is not "a sentence in the manual about allowable rotor RPM speeds" - there is a table showing it! I suggest you take a good look at the manuals again, as this is a very important component of flying. One is not to fly aircraft as if they are stolen (rip the controls apart), however in such a dynamic environment, one is required to often maneuver outside of daisy trips. We can go into the details, be my guest. I have however never given any specifics, here I recommend reading the manuals, because there are many factors to consider, not only engine RPM and main/tail rotor RPM. I never stated how much it deviates, just that it deviates from the 95% +-2%. Sometimes, it's even more than the stated 2%, and that is only due to a short lag of the system. At the end, as I always said as an instructor in real life; "It's not dangerous to do a given action, as long as you know what you are doing.". The danger lies, in doing something, you simply have no idea or knowledge about. That's why, teaching a pilot/driver/captain his craft, isn't only about manuals (in big part it is), but also about teaching them what to look out for, get the feel for it in a safe and controlled environment (instructor overwatch and step in, in case of danger) and ultimately, become familiar with the handling qualities and what to expect. Again, there really is no discussion here. You need to read up on this matter (what I gather from you stating). This is very essential for extracting the most out of the aircraft. Attached are supplements from manuals of Mi-8MTV2 (albeit with the TV3-117VM and VR8 gearbox, it applied to more than just our MTV2), Mi-24D and Mi-35P. Notice, that in certain cases, the permissable, and even max. RPM goes down with speed (mostly a maintenance consideration with regards to bearings of the rotor heads and blades) or flutter (there are more considerations to be made). If you've flown at 320km/h with 95%, then you have actually had 1% higher main rotor RPM, than what the manuals stipulate. It's not dangerous, and these rules are broken IRL often, as there is only so much a pilot can physically monitor, but if we're specific, then yes! EDIT: 1st graph is from a Mi-24 manual (general) from 1976. 2nd, 3rd and 4th graphs, are from ED's Mi-8 manual. 5th graph is from Mi-35P operators manual. 6th graph is from Ka-50 ED's manual. I could list many more, but they are all in Russian. To keep the thread clear, I post only one (Mi-24) manual which is Russian. No, it is never a mistake to leave anti-ice on, if you need it that is. The mistake was, you were too heavy for a flight in that weather. That's the way to think about it. You could have solved that problem in a different way. Most helicopters (count in those that we have in DCS), climb most efficiently at 130km/h indicated airspeed. You were flying at approximately 250km/h. If you had reduced your airspeed to 130km/h, or at least lowered it, you would have needed less power to sustain altitude, as well as climb. There are many things to consider, being decent pilot requires knowing the manual/rules with some experience, being a good pilot adds more experience, however being a superb pilot, requires being clever about how you deal with problems. Another thing that I notice, is that it seems to me like you didn't set your barometric altimeter to QNH, rather QFE. The area you are in, does not look to be at the height of the ocean. Neither does it make sense that, regardless of loadout, with less than 50% fuel, you struggle to maintain hover. Remember to set your barometric altimeter to QNH, otherwise, you will have a wrong perception on what altitude you are at, and thus misjudge whether you can enter hover, or not.

I am looking it up, and with regards to the anti-ice in the Mi-24, yes, my bad. On the anti-ice panel (right console by the pilot's door), the left most switch is for rotor anti-ice, beside it the "force anti-ice off" button, and next to that, two switches (one for each engine) to turn on/off the anti-ice. So yes, it is fairly different from the Mi-8 in this case. As to the main rotor RPM, I mean exactly what I write. While the rotor will be mostly held in the "95% +-1%/2%"-range when cruising level, as soon as you start maneuvering, or performing any kind of high-performance turns, the main rotor will be moving outside of that range. The maneuvers can be anything from acceleration/deceleration, hovering (heavy loaded), reducing/increasing altitude quickly, etc... Even when you go faster (speed), you will see that pushing the helicopter in speed, you'll lower the main rotor RPM. The manual for pretty much any Russian helicopter gives under "operating limitations" the permissable high's and low's during different phases of the flight. This is encountered during normal flight, combat/high-performance flight, and emergency. As to not turning on anti-ice, I'm fairly sure that you can get a engine fire, if you leave it off for too long in icing conditions. Not turning on anti-ice for the main/tail rotor, degrades performance. I'm am fairly sure of it.

Yeah, that last digit seems deformed, but if you look closely, it's because of the F-18's vertical stabilator posing as a different background than the sky. The time readout is in the following format - "0-00" where the first digit is in hours, and the last two digits in minutes.

I see no evidence why this should be GCI. If this was a combat mode, then both weapon information would be displayed as well as target distance on the sides of the HUD. I see absolutely no reason to infer that this is GCI!? This is standard navigation HUD, albeit with different layout for showing the flight information. It's pure speculation without any documentation confirming this, however, from what I see: Upper part of the bottom information on HUD - KNQX (Key West Naval Air Station - the HUD is in landing mode for the KNQX airfield), D (destination 300*), T (flight plan track, in other words "course" - 276*). Lower part of the bottom information on HUD - He is setup for time 5 minutes, because the system calculates for the pilot that with the airfield at a distance of 025 nautical miles, he should hold 0284 knots to reach it in estimated time. (25NM/284KT = 5 minutes and 17 seconds) This is basically the navigation mode set up for landing at pre-briefed airfield. Nothing more than that.

Difficult to say. Looks like an internationalized Mig-29, considering the use of imperial units in the HUD. Possibly an evaluation aircraft, or even more likely, an export one (IAF or so).

Also, yes, 17%! For the Mi-24 and Mi-8, when engine and rotor anti-ice system is running, the maximum take-off weight is reduced by 1000kg. When PZU (particle dust separators) are running alone, the reduction in take-off weight is 200kg. Lastly, AeriaGloria didn't quite clarify it. When you engage rotor anti-ice due to icing conditions, there are bound to be chunks of ice around the engine inlets. Those can either melt gradually, or fracture and get sucked into the engine. If a big enough piece of ice get's sucked, then what happens is actually a flamout due to disruption of air from the compressor and towards the cumbustion chamber. That's one possibility. Another one, is that it damages the engine inside, causing fire due to catastrophic engine failiure. In this case, you got fire. It's also important to remember that the automatic anti-ice, only works for right engine. The reason why it doesn't work on both engines, is exactly what's mentioned above. If the system engaged anti-ice on both engines simultaneously, you could potentially risk a dual engine failiure, which is a very different emergency, than having one engine run autmatically anti-ice and failing, while the other one still works. Becuase of this, when automatic anti-ice comes on the right engine, you have to wait circa 5 minutes, ensure safe operation of right engine, before you engage anti-ice on the left one. That way, you ensure at least one operating engine, should a flamout or fire occur. If you need extra power, be it hovering or flying (increase altitude before passing a mountain), you can always turn off anti-ice to gain that extra power. However, don't let it run too long, as you will get icing on the engines, and that is a sure catastrophic failiure to happen. Generally speaking, a 5 minute rule is a good on to go by. It's 5 minutes between turning on anti-ice for both engines, five minutes maximum operation without anti-ice in icing conditions. You'll be good to go. EDIT: Just to make it clear, I described the Mi-8's automatic anti-ice system. In the Mi-24, that system engages both engines autmatically, due to only the pilot and CPG sitting at the instruments. The crew chief is more often than not, not on board, meaning that as a safety measure, for the pilot not forget to turn on one of the engines manually, the automatic system works on both engines. In this case, the probability of forgetting to turn on anti-ice manually for one engine, is higher than the probability for both engines to cease working at the same time.

When it comes to Russian aircraft, helicopters in this case, for the engines, you need to monitor three gauges specifically - engine RPM, engine temperature and EPR. The last one, is the least important, but you still have to monitor it and be within the limits, if you are flying realistically and replicating what is SOP in the Russian army/air force. Additionally, it's important to check the temperature gauges related to the drives and oil pressures on the upper right side once in a while (every 15-20 minutes). That's for the engine part. When it comes to flying however, rotor RPM is one of the most important gauges you have to watch. Depending on the flight regime, maneuver, you will never have enough engine power to maintain one constant engine RPM across the whole flight envelope. Understand that the EEG/FADEC/fuel regulators, do as best as they can do keep the rotor RPM within the designated limit, but they won't be able to hold it, when you are already running the engines at maximum RPM. It's also important to make the distinction here that Russian and US helicopters are inherently different in design. US helicopters run their rotor at pre-set 100%, and the pilot has to monitor any increase or decrease outside of what the regulators can handle himself. In the Russian helicopters, the common standard is to have the rotor operate within 85% - 100% RPM, however there are small variations. One can argue for or against one or the other, however it stems from a difference in design philosophy. One of the main advantages of the Russian way, is that the pilot always knows which side of the spectrum the rotor is (lower or higher), meaning that he will be pre-emptivly prepared with proper reaction. On the other side, in US helicopters, you really only monitor the torque gauge for engine operation (outside of occasional checks on temperatures and oil). Regardless, rotor RPM is what you have to monitor non-stop, regardless of helicopter. IRL, you hear little through muffled helmets, and as such, you often notice technical problems from the main gauges, one being rotor RPM. It's an important habit to have.

In this case, few care about what you believe, because at the end of fhe day, this is a simulator environment! If you want to take-off instantly, then you chose the wrong product, the market is saturated with software allowing you to spawn into battle with unlimited combat loads. Luckily, ED PR this software as a simulator themselves, and if you, or anyone here, lacks 20 minutes for a full alignment procedure, they should consider thoroughly if they should be spending time on a simulator. This translates even more to reading up on manuals and understanding the aircraft, which requires even more time than that! Let me introduce you, and the rest of the apparent heretics here to a new thought! Instead of starting up within 5 minutes (that's why accelerated INS procedure exists!), flying to the AO and getting shot down instantly (because you never planned anything, least of all, your flight), resulting in multiple restarts per session (accounting to more than 20 minutes, I'm sure!). You might as well use those 20 minutes of alignment to carefully look at where you're going, and what threats are estimated along the route, read the briefing you never have time for, and the likes. That way, at least you'll have more chance of staying alive. In the end, if the task proves too monumental to handle, luckily, as mentioned before, you can go to the mission editor on equip your Ka-50 with baby wheels (reduced INS alignment times). The option however, is a detraction from reality, something this simulator wants to achieve, thus not being default. Qualitative estimations of how many people want the realistic INS vs. unrealistic one, is irrelevant. None of you have either data, nor any evidence for this. I however, have evidence that people join this simulator due to the realism aspect, as its main selling key. That's that!