arneh

US Army helicopter doctrine was to fly nap-of-the-earth, right in amongst the trees. They don't do it in Iraq or Afganistan, that's not what works best there. But for the European theatre it's been part of their doctrine for a long time to fly right amongst the trees. Have a look at http://www.realmilitaryflix.com/public/536.cfm?sd=71 which is a army training video from the 70s. There's lots of footage of helicopters flying in among the trees. And it's a great film to watch in any case, as it has some interesting information about anti-tank helicopter tactics :) But also note that for the most part they are flying slowly when doing so, not racing around at 100+ kts.

It was simulated in the way that temperature increased more rapidly at first because low RPM meant there was little airflow and hence little cooling. Then when the RPM picked up there would be more airflow.

Well, I did implement engine temperature spiking when starting the turbines in EECH :p But of course DCS har much better system modeling in almost every other respect.

Well it makes sense. Since they're building so few Ka-52s it's going to be expensive anyway, so at least to make it somewhat cheaper by at least not having it use a weapon system no one else uses. Though I did notice it had Vikhrs in the first image, but Ataka in the second. So it seems to have tested both. Ok, thanks for info :)

From what I understand it climbs a few meters right after launch, and then flies straight to target. But it's just a few meters to clear immediate obstacles, it's nothing like the Hellfire profile, and it won't hit the target from the top. Interesting hadn't seen that. Seems it's only a few days old :) Though as usual with Russian hardware one airshow model with dummy weapons doesn't really mean it can use it yet, or that it will ever be put in service like that :) That one seems to have a ton of other new sensors too, so I suspect it's mostly Kamov showing off what they're capable of putting on the thing if they get a customer interested. But still interesting, thanks for showing me!

No, the Ka-52 carries the Vikhr(AT-16) too. But the Mi-28 uses the Ataka (AT-9), as does the newer Mi-24 models (Mi-24PN, Mi-35M). The Ataka is a development of the older Shturm (AT-6) missile used on most Mi-24s. Both are radio command guided (guided by the antenna in the characteristic nose of the Mi-28, or under the left side of the nose on the Mi-24) and has a normal straight flight path.

The Soviets began using S-8 rockets on Hinds in Afghanistan from early 1983 onward (you did say that the S-8 began to replace the S-5, though you made it appear this happend after Afghanistan, while it actually happened during). Some interesting rocket experience from Afghanistan. Though it doesn't mention which warhead was used, so possibly something more suited for infantry. (my emphasis)

I made the cockpit, yes, and also have done much of the exe mods. But I haven't made all the mods that make EECH what it is today :) I don't play multiplayer myself, so I don't know. Though I suspect it's not that big. You could ask in the SimHQ EECH forum.

No, only one player per helicopter in multiplayer.

Have you seen the SimHQ article about the EECH Hind? http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_342a.html

The X-15 was basically a manned missile. It was built from a special heat-resistant steel alloy called Inconel-X which kept its strengt up to 650°C. It only flew for a few minutes at a time, and it used liquid nitrogene for cooling that time. Still the surface temperature reached over 700°C in places. But since it was just momentary it could stand it. For the SR-71 skin surface temperature of around 200°C was a huge problem. I seriously doubt it could take the heat at mach 6. BTW, the maximum speed the X-15 reached was mach 6.70, but some reports of damage from that flight: Later calculations showed that temperatures where the extensive heat damage was reach 1500°C!

I won't speculate about how the 1.7 number came about, but it's just so far beyond any other number I've heard that I can't take it seriously. Other F-111 pilots talk about speeds around 1.1 to 1.2 at low level. E.g. there are several stories by F-111 pilots at http://www.fb-111a.net/Storybook.html which talk about those sorts of speeds. And in one exceptional circumstance one F-111F pilot told about doing 890 kts at 3500 ft (i.e. not quite low level, but still low), which was mach 1.37. That was so exceptional that he took a photo of the instruments to have proof that he went that fast. That the ones you talked to went 25% faster at lower altitude in the same aircraft doesn't seem very likely to me... That's not to take anything from the F-111, it's certainly one of the fastest aircraft ever at low level. But exageregating its performance doesn't help, and isn't necessary, it's impressive enough as it is.

I find this happens a lot when landing outside of hard surfaces (i.e. not on a runway or road). One wheel will often "get stuck", and probably cause the helicopter to crash on take off unless you can get it unstuck in time. Same thing if trying to taxi on such a surface, one wheel will often get caught up. Engine icing or dust won't cause that sort of behaviour, it will just degrade engine performance.

:thumbup: It's not often you will hear someone on the internet admit they were wrong :) The F-111 is certainly among the contenders for the fastest aircraft ever a low level, but I do have to be very sceptical about the 1.7 mach number. What I've seen other places is from about 1.2 to 1.3. And other aircraft which are designed to be really fast at low level (like the Tornado, Su-24 and F-104) max out at around 1.2. That the F-111 should be able to do 0.5 faster than anything else at that low level where the drag is immense sounds unreasonable. Also the official world record at low-level was set by a modified F-104 at 1,590.45km/h, which is around mach 1.3. Of course millitary aircraft don't always compete in such contests, but if they had something which shattered the record then I'm sure they would... I have to be sceptical about mach 3 in a dive too. The temperatures at such speeds is immense, and the few aircraft that can do it have been specially designed to withstand it. After having read quite a bit about the designs of the SR-71 and XB-70 and how they were designed around flying at mach 3, and all of the problems they had to overcome and build into the design to achieve it, it seems really implausible that other aircraft that weren't designed for it can just accelerate or dive to mach 3, just because they have the engine power for it. Admittedly the SR-71 and XB-70 were designed to cruise at mach 3, not just a quick dash before decelerating, so that is more demanding.

It's a lot more than just thrust which limits top speed. Particulary when you get up to those sorts of speeds. Temperature is a serious problem, it's not for nothing the SR-71 was built from almost pure titanium, while the MiG-25 and XB-70 are very heavy because they use mostly steel (while most other planes uses mostly aluminum). And also the engine inlets have to be built specificly with high mach speeds in mind, the air that enters the engines have to be subsonic, so they will have to have som way of slowing the air in the inlet. And there are tons of other such limitations which limits top speed. So you can't just look at thrust/weight diagrams to see how fast a plane can go. A good example in your own stats is that the MiG-31 is limited to a slower speed than the MiG-25, despite it having a much higher thrust/weight ratio, and basically the same shape. But temperature is the limit for the MiG-31.

The RAF lost six Tornados in combat, four of which were in the first week. And the Italians lost one too. Compared to other aircraft losses in Desert Storm that was high. But then the Tornados flew some of the most dangerous missions. They dropped over 100 JP233 anti runway weapons. Just one of the Tornado losses was during such attacks, and that was when it crashed into the ground on egress, not during the attack itself. The RAF has a summary of each of the losses: http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/loss.html

GOG has published a download version of EECH, and like all their games it's dirt cheap at just $5.99. So if you want to experience a different helicopter sim for a change, then just head over to http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/comanche_vs_hokum And of course, download the mods from SimHQ to bring it up to date. You may also like to check out SimHQs review of 1.11 to see what it's like.

While the F-111 in theory has an impressive payload capabillity, in actual weapons carriage ability it is mostly limited by the number of hardpoints. If it is to be able to swing the wings all the way, then only one hardpoint on each wing can be used, and the F-111 doesn't have any hardpoints under the belly due to low ground clearance. Though it does have an internal bomb bay capable of carrying two 750 lbs bombs, or something of similar size/weight.

Then you'll only get a 3D model of an Austrian basement. Do you really want that? :p

Well, having gates smaller than the target is useful to lock on to a specific part of a larger target. But I assume that would lose lock easily if that part isn't very distinct from the rest of the object (in real life). Or if the target rotates or you move position so the specific part isn't visible anymore, but the target itself is. In DCS however it seems that the smallest gate size always works optimal, so there really isn't any reason to use anything else but the smallest gate size.

This statement is just wrong: "DCS models ring vortex effect, which is essentially when you fly low and slow over the ground. If you are too close to the ground your helicopter can’t gain enough lift and drops out of the sky." A Vortex Ring State (which I guess is what you were trying to describe) has nothing to do with being close to the ground (in fact being close to the ground gives you more lift because of ground effect). Vortex Ring State is when you decend too fast at slow speed and the rotor gets into its own downwash. And about the cockpit instruments you seem to be missing, then that's a different helicopter than the one ED has modelled (or possibly same helicopter after an upgrade). Since there are so few Ka-50s there really aren't any standard, and some have different instruments from others. The one ED modelled simply didn't have those instruments, it's not something they forgot, or left out because it was classified.

Make sure you are high enough. Bombs have a minimum release altitude and won't release if you're below that altitude. And as others have mentioned, you need to hold the pickle button for a while before the bombs drop.

Don't think there is any aircraft I would like to see more than the Tornado. But yes, unfortunately it doesn't seem likely :( Is there any technical manuals about it anywhere to be found?

US Apaches are being upgraded to the T700-GE-701D (which gives it 2000 shp compared to 1890 shp on the previous T700), but it's still not as powerful as the Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322 engines in the WAH-64s (which has 2100 shp in the version used in current WAH-64s).

Another reason the US Apaches don't have radars in Afghanistan is that much of the country at high elevations where weight becomes an issue. The British Apaches have more powerful engines which makes it more feasable to carry around the radar. That said, it doesn't appear they ever carry a full weapons load. E.g. the cannon usually carries just 300 rounds, compared to the 1200 round capacity, and often just two or four hellfires.