AeriaGloria

What they had said was 1. Interviewing active duty Mi-24 pilots said that the YakB was not very useful as a gun. And the P was vastly preferred. You can also see this in how the P models have outlasted the V in greater numbers in both Russian and Ukrainian Service 2. they had also said that yes, both pilot and CPG can use the Gsh-30-2K while flying but as you correctly said, the CPG cannot use the gun and fly at the same time. The gun can be locked to boresight and used by the pilot with CCIP the same way we can currently with the GUV pods So yeah, the P was chosen because its firepower makes it more useful and desirable to many in DCS, and they thought it could be fun for CPG also, but I really think that’s just to justify the decision. In the end I believe it was really just about firepower https://stormbirds.blog/2021/01/09/new-dcs-mi-24p-information-translated-from-russian-interview/

Not to mention, since it’s descended from Tu-16 turret, it also air to air modes AND, it can be used for a pseudo CCRP bomb mode, where CPG points at target, and using radar altimeter and correct bomb ballistic input will drop bomb at correct spot provided Pilot has done drift correction The CPG can even choose to use barometric altitude data manually put in, or offset the radar altitude to adjust for any known terrain elevation changes in any air to ground mode

Very helpful! I have read every MiG-29 weapon employment and technical manual I can get my hands on and no answer. So thanks a lot. Kindve the whole reason we are discussing this in the first place. Not trying to disprove any point just saw it and thought maybe it could be explained. Good day!

The memory mode at gimbal limit doesn’t seem to work well (if at all) here

Wow, impressed they had the SPO-15 upgrade

Happy to have your experience here!

Yes. I might be exaggerating. Some of the electronic ones can definitely get to me though. 300 pages of which contact connects to another contact? Sometimes I have to tap out temporarily lol

Someday I hope to make a holy pilgrimage to a real Mi-24. I’ve just tried to find any manual I could and translate and read it. Every book. Anything on the internet. Boring maintenance books (one tells you the exact gear ratios of the autopilot!), just a lot of study

Ah, Thank you It’s still Early Access however surprising, and thus there are things not implemented. The cabin floor has limited damage model, there is no actual fluid leaks despite graphics, the manual is still being worked on, a few lights are still not implemented (please ED gimme the max engine temp lights), etc The difference with L-166V is it was not promised for early access/release, but to stay as only visual model until early MANPADs are added

Because it’s in the real aircraft It’s been said it will be made functional when such missiles are added I have also heard that AM seekers of air to air such as R-3S/AIM-9B, R-60, I think some other early stuff would be effected by it as well

Very nice find! Excellent feature

I have talked to MiG-29 who said that, for the FC3 module, its flight performance is perfect according to all the manuals. But this is still slightly different from real aircraft. They might have made a perfect “by-the-book” flight model, but one completely based on reality.

Yes, I do read too much and take things too 1:1, I do not deny this I try to constantly tell myself “manual says you can fly 20 kmh from these speeds with only 2-3% difference, it matters little!” I appreciate your words of experience!

If the wind is 5 m/s or above, it can VRS the tail rotor when coming from stsrboard. Same if you hover translate right 18 kmh

Yes. Interesting a manual I have for it says 250 kmh for maximum range cruise speed for 700-1200m alt cruise

Are you speaking from experience IRL? Most efficient speed for travel is 260 kmh at that altitude. It only goes below 240 kmh once above 3,000m alt, or 1,500m alt if above 11,500 kg weight

Brakes are very important. Real pilots are required to lock them with the “parking brake” latch when parking. The nose wheel is free castoring like a shopping cart A shopping cart that might way 10 tons. But a shopping cart with a full load of groceries can still be pretty easy to steer, especiallly with all the weight in the back (since the weight in this case is centered right in front of the main wheels)

You gain only 10-20% fuel efficiency for cruising at 2000-3000m compared to 0-1000m. Unless traveling very far, the fuel used to climb outweighs the benefit. If you have a route in mind, I could calculate it for you. Above 3,000m efficiency decreases because you can no longer maintain best cruise speed. Usually, 500-1000m is best compromise. From that altitude, if you lower collective completely, hold 170 kmh (best autorotation distance speed), you can glide for quite a while. About 20-15 degree angle.

You turn on the wheel brakes?

From a book long long ago. 50 km for a Mach 1 shot at 10 km vs Mach 1 target seems right on the money. You often see 80 km also quoted, this is right around 15 km mark, so likely maximum range for high speed launch from Su-27/MiG-29 At 20 km, It can go up to 100 km, so likely only reached by MiG-31 launch on an equally fast and high target This chart is likely for max TAS, as we see from other similar 80s/90s Soviet/Russian charts. From testing in DCS, this seems pretty close

Yes it is a bug. The reason is that after the loadouts were created, someone here pointed out that the Shturm/Ataka needs an extra pylon adapter that wasn’t modeled. ED then created and added the Shturm/Ataka pylon adapter when ATGM 5-8 were loaded. But it broke the loadouts If you do it manually it will work, and I’m sure ED can fix it, but that’s the “why” it’s broke.

Yeah, I always imagined it as the CPG writing down in notes how many flare were used, then passing it through the hole in the foot well with a cigarette whenever you ask

1 hr for 50% fuel is usually best estimate, 1000-1100 L/hr IMO. You will get best results from knowing your best speeds for cruise (250-270 kmh), and loiter (130-150 kmh). 140 kmh is best climb speed and most efficient descent speed There is also the “rotor rpm adjust” switch, which if you lower all the way can also reduce fuel consumption 2-3%, and if you raise it will increase fuel consumption same amount, but also increase lift/control Weapons have a surprisingly small effect, about 2-3%. The IRL manuals say the difference is so small that the range charts assume you always have payload and there are no figures/charts for being clean, as 2-3% falls within an expected margin of error. Also. Because the wings produce 25% lift at cruise, and are behind the CG/rotor, and payload their moves center of gravity back, which increases the angle of attack of the wing, increasing wing lift (which is more efficient then rotor lift), and actually increases efficiency Gun ammo has opposite effect since the bullets are loaded in the nose. It’s not until about 300 kmh or above that the drag outweighs the benefit of moving the center of gravity back in terms of fuel efficiency and maneuverability

Yes. Export version with minor differences. So you could conceivably use both foreign docs for any g sensitive, domestic docs for other things, and assuming that any of the changes we have no information about are minor and not applicable in DCS

Yes, I don’t know of any significant differences however except maybe the radio choice of the operator. I have suspected it might be for Brazil?