AeriaGloria

Su-25A goes brrrrrrr

The Mi-8 manual is basically the blueprint. Like that manual you will likely get a short introduction of its history and development. Followed by brief specifications and then a detailed description of the design and equipment including specifications for all components and detailed cockpit explanation Only after these sections, will there likely be a section start up, taxi, takeoff, landing, other procedures. Then weapons procedures and tables likely last.

Nope, just waiting, if there’s any procedures or technical information you want I can help you out

And how is the pilot notified of this bingo state?

No, but most of it will be applicable to 9-12/9-12A. Any information on the Gardeniya jammer installation is welcome as also. Other then Gardeniya and fuel hump, maybe some extra weapons in the FCS, I wouldn’t expect any differences from late 9-12/9-12A

I can’t watch track right now. But rockets won’t work when loaded with GUV pods. If you put GUV on four main pylons, only other GUV can work on other of the 4 main pylons In addition, the rocket “armed” lights that turn on from pressing button above it, are only for setting the firing order to tube 1. So it will always go out when you press trigger no matter what

Yes, it’s started electrically, but that doesn’t change that pilot button is only wired to one of three cartridges/dispensers. There are 3 ASO-2V cartridges on each side. And on the ASO-2V panel in CPG seat, there is a 3 way selector to choose what cartridge is used by CPG I am not trying to complicate things. I am only saying that if someone tried the bind, and it didnt work, this is a reason . That in multi crew it’s simulated that pilot can only control 1 of the 3 dispensers/cartridges on each side, you use up first cartridge, and pilot flare button will do nothing after that. With Petrovich, when you press the button and first cartridge is empty, Petro will automatically dispense flares from any remaining cartridge as if you had told Petrovich to do it and Petro does it instantly.

If this Doesn't work for you, it may be because you are flying multi crew. In reality, Pilot button only launches flares from cartridge 1. Only CPG can launch flares from all 3 cartridges. With Petrovich, it is programmed that if you press button and cartridge 1 is empty, Petro automatically hits cartridge 2 or 3. When I have real CPG, I try to tell to switch to cartridge 2, that way only pilot uses cartridge 1.

Well you can choose to not have trim also trim pedals if you like. You have it on “pedal deflection” which is the default I talked about, where you have 9% around center where heading hold is on and might fight with your turns Some people like it, I don’t because why have something barely useful mess with your turns, but different strokes for different folks. Also choice if you want instant or return to center trim, but I’m sure you know that and it’s a slightly separate topic

I have a whole guide on weapons and autopilot if you like As Miki said, they enable or disable heading hold, and when pressed and heading hold disabled will still dampen yaw movement and help you maneuver more smoothly. But exactly how it works in DCS depends on settings Make sure “pedal auto move” is off, as when on it’ll make the heading hold trim your pedals when it runs out of its 18% authority. By default, microswitch is “pressed” when you move pedals 9% from center, but you often need less then 9% pedal to turn, so it causes heading hold to fight your turns You can set it to be full manual and only work using the microswitch binds, but the microswitch binds will still work by default to override what your pedals are doing. In real life, the microswitch is pressed 98-99% of the time, the pilot has to deliberately remove feet from pedals or only push with their heel. The only reason I care about it so much, is because when microswitch is pressed and instead of heading hold you get a dampening/stabilization mode, and that stabilization mode is awesome, even if it’s subtle and hard to tell it’s there. But for me, every little bit helps, and it’s realistic to boot. That being said, unless you looked closely, you probably wouldn’t have easy time noticing the Yaw dampening/stabilization mode My guide will have all the info about the settings and what they do if you go straight to the Yaw AP section

The jammer doesn’t work, and I don’t think there was ever a setting for it? You referring to snow thing else maybe?

Yaw AP: Yes I recommend Yaw AP off until you are ready to learn the microswitch system. If the Yaw AP only did heading hold, I would say ignore it. But with microswitch pressed it can stabilize and smoothen your turns, taxi, especially hover. As long as that switch is pressed, it will help you and not hurt you. But while learning, struggling with the heading hold should be saved for later Trim: I trim pretty frequently. When you trim, it is taking into account where stick is, what is considered movement from that spot. So if I fly 250 kmh, trim, then fly 140 kmh. The AP is not only trying to pull my nose down. It will also try to roll me right (since you need more left cyclic as speed increases, and last trim at 250 kmh was when stick was slightly left. Now at 140 kmh stick is more right and Roll AP thinks I want to roll right because cyclic is moved from trim point) the trim hat does not interact with AP. It will tell AP new center position, but will not update the pitch/roll attitude hold. It’s best for small corrections when your speed hasn’t changed much. Using too much of it rather then force trim can mess up the AP In videos, you will hear Mi-8/24 and Ka-50 pilots constantly pushing trim. Since Mi-24 is so unstable in roll, I usually use hat trim for roll unless I need more then a handful of clicks/holding it a second or two. Ka-50 has similar trim controls attitude hold as Mi-24, you can hear the trim button more subtly hear but still pretty often. Usually before after maneuver/speed change. My rule of thumb is is if I change speed by 25-50 kmh, I should probably trim because my attitude and controls have changed a lot

1. I assume you have a spring centered stick? 2. how you use trim is personal preference, but I will explain how it works The trim interfaces with the autopilot roll and pitch. In the same way in Mi-8 you can turn AP off then back on to change what pitch/roll attitude it holds, you can do this with trim button When you press trim, it will cancel autopilot (like caging a gyro), and when you release trim it will will hold the pitch/roll you are at when the trim is released The pitch AP is much more aggressive then roll, so when you press trim, if pitch AP is giving a lot of inputs, you will feel the helicopter pitch in response. This is realistic and can be worked around by 1. You can hold trim to maneuver, if you like 2. or trim 2-3x to get it perfect Your pitch attitude will change a lot with speed. If you last trimmed/turned on AP in hover, it will constantly try to hold about 3-5 degrees nose up. But to fly at medium speed, your nose needs to be level. And to cruise at 260 kmh, you need -5-7 degrees pitch below the horizon The pitch AP will go from 0% to 100% within 5 degrees, so somewhat important to trim if speed, center of gravity; etc change significantly. Trim reset is only returning any trim to center, it does not interface with AP at all Also. AP will not get in the way of many maneuvers. When you turn on AP or trim, it not only takes into account current attitude, but takes your current cyclic position as ”center.” Then, if cyclic moves from this new “center,” it will move the autopilot in that direction to “help you” maneuver. For example, you will notice that it will roll faster with roll auto pilot on! So pressing trim to maneuver works for some people, but you might miss out on how this awesome auto pilot will help you maneuver while stabilizing and auto leveling you (if you trim with 0 roll). For “course,” that is all determined by Yaw AP which is basically entirely separate. You can choose to control it with pedals or binds depending on options you choose, but IMO is a secondary thing that might help, but ultimately makes only a small difference on flying. Alt/hover/route all use roll/pitch, so not having Yaw AP on won’t hurt much.

Yes, have you seen my translation of the aerodynamic manual? Or perhaps you read the original supplement of it in Mi-24V I.E? If you haven’t and would like to, here I had a lot of fun translating it, and vigorously trying to figure out every graph and figure and symbol so I could colorize for better understanding.

Su-27 is always going to have about 40-50% better radar and better IRST. I think some things like look down limits have changed, but that’s it and been changed for all ED modules. It’s radar and IRST just do have very good range, it was only a modest upgrade over MiG-23MLA/MLD in this respect, gaining mostly in low altitude performance I’m sure. You get a lot of benefit from using right PRF, and you can disable the notch by diving until target is more then 3 degrees above horizon. MiG-29S should have 14% more range, but it is not modeled. The radar is very simplified, but the FM is a high standard and weapons are as good as you can get on the old API

Ah. This is where this Cd/Cy graph comes from! I had only seen it in Mi-35M manual before. The graph there has much less detail, and does not so easily show the exact point of stall. So it’s really 17.5 degrees before it stalls. That means that depending on CG, the wings might not be un-stalled in flight until you are above 200-220 kmh! They really wanted them at the highest possible angle in cruise It is a genius design, having higher incidence on one wing of the Mi-6. But after reading Mi-24A/D/V/P and Mi-35M technical manuals, I can say with certainty that each one has both wings set at 19 degree incidence. It seems the difference of incidence was not needed perhaps from the gearbox tilt, or perhaps needing weapons pylons complicated it. I can find the relevant sections as well if you wish

Yes, for Mi-8, your bucket speee, best loiter/least fuel burn is around 120 kmh. This will stay largely static as you go higher. Its cruise (best range) is 205-220 kmh bellow 1000m depending on exact altitude and weight. At ceiling, this is 100 kmh and likely limited by top speed For Mi-24 its bucket speed/least power regime is 140 kmh; and this only decreases slightly with altitude. It is 260 kmh for cruise speed, but manual stresses that 10-20 kmh difference in speed only yields 2-3% change in efficiency, and since the range tables are calculated for a constant 4x rocket and 4x ATGM load (which also hurts efficiency by 2-3%), it is within the margin of error. Like Mi-8, this speed becomes smaller as you go up and will eventually be limited by max speed. In surprised these two speeds aren’t talked more about by DCS players. They are very important for aircraft also, many people cruise too fast or climb to slow because it’s not often shared, and the value of saving fuel is often not seen. Less fuel you need, the lighter you can be and get more performance For both Mi-8 and Mi-24, you also have a “turbine adjust rpm” switch that changes target rpm for governor. This is 95-96% default; but by lowering it to 92% you get 2-3% efficiency gain. Similarly, you can increase it to 98-99% for more rotor lift for 2-3% fuel efficiency loss. The manual mentions increasing the rotor rpm this way to increase tail rotor authority at high altitude, but also works anywhere. I often use it as a “combat” mode

I do not know. The numbers might be less correct for tail rotor. I am only comparing the vertical force on the rotor shaft to the tai rotor lateral force. The study says the transducer was fixed to the shaft, so I would not think that the vertical stabilizer lift would be included According to the aerodynamic manual, you reach lowest pedal, about the 1/4th left at around 140 kmh. Pedal moves to around middle at 260 kmh. At 280 kmh, you might need 1/4 right pedal. For hover, you would similarly be around 1/4-1/3 right pedal. Above 140 kmh, the engine torque needed increases. 140 is your bucket speed, Lowest power for flight needed. So even though you are more fuel efficient over distance at 150-280 kmh, your powertrain still needs to output more power, more anti torque to fight the torque. IIRC, the vertical stabilizer is supposed to produce half the anti torque force needed at cruise (260 kmh), and power increase (looking at torque/EPR) is about 50% there compared to 140 kmh. I bet if the vertical stabilizer did not produce the lift it does, you would see the tail rotor doing 10-15% of the main rotor power at cruise speed That being said, the point that the tail rotor has 0 pitch is about 1/2 left pedal.

Someone on Reddit recently brought to my attention that multiple first hand sources say wing lift is 25% of weight. I realized this myself when translating the aerodynamic manual for the Mi-24 about a year ago but did not update this post However, I was also interested in how high the lift can get, and how it might contribute in other flight regions, or what regions it may be stalled. One thing I still would love to learn more about is the influence of the winglets, the contribution of the elevator to lift, and force of the vertical stabilizer. In addition, I realize that when I made this post so long ago, that I did not include all my figures and calculations. So using the Polish rotor head force study, this was what I came up with for the speeds tested 140 kmh: Wing: 500 kg Force, 6-4.3% of lift Tail rotor: 3.6% of thrust 260 kmh: Wing: 2000 kg force, 23.5-17.4% of lift Tail rotor: 5.2% of thrust 300 kmh: Wing: 2,170 kg Force, 25.5-18.8% of lift Tail rotor: 7% of thrust The difference in % of lift is to compensate for how the change from empty to max takeoff weight might effect things. If CG stays the same, and thus angle of attack, wing lift in this case should be little changed, but the rotor would need to match its lift to the remaining weight. Tail rotor figures are from the study using the force on the tail rotor shaft in the left direction compared to vertical force on the main rotor shaft

The SPUU-52 will limit right pedal depending on temperature and pressure. At high altitudes and temperatures, it might completely turn off

This must be an upgraded Mi-24D/25. Unless they replaced the ASP-17 with a spare panel and light shield

“F-14 was for fleet defense. It would never fly over a hostile nation or partake in offensive operations…..” In Ukraine today, 3rd parties have claimed MiG-31 achieving aerial victories up to 217 km of range with R-37M. That is, if you wanted to bring Ukraine present day into this. It may be intended as a flying SAM sight, but I don’t think that means it is always used as a defensive force only. F-14 was not meant to be used as mobile AWACS, but Iran liked using it that way. I love tactics and using these how they were intended to be used, but I don’t think that pegs into quite such a narrow role as “it wouldn’t have frontline sorties.” But okay, if 720 km/400 nm is short at 20 km and Mach 2.35 with aerial refueling, what is the range of F-15 or F-16 maintaining supersonic at 30-40,000 feet? I don’t know of any way to access that info; but might be interesting comparison. Might see if I can find supersonic range for MiG-29

I see 720 km and 1450 km for combat range. Which would be 400 nm for high alt high speed and 780 nm for 10 km Subsonic cruise. So not quite as big a difference as 400 vs 1300. With aerial refueling, the advantages from the height in missile/sensor range and descent, I’m not too concerned that wouldn’t make it a “counterpart” or “on par.” But alas, it won’t be in DCS for maybe decades.

Exactly, DCS is one discussion. MiG-29S not being relevant from low production miners is another One of the great things about the MiG-25/31 airframe though is its high speed efficient, 25 can get 1800 km range from cruising at Mach 0.9, or 1600 km from cruising at Mach 2.35. In MiG-25 manuals, Mach 2.35 is quite literally considered the most optimum high altitude cruise. It will not need to use full burner for it. MiG-31 also has the benefit of aerial refueling. Its engines seem to be not as powerful at high altitude, but at the cost of increased efficiency and power down low, where it is just as fast as MiG-29/Su-27 on the deck. It will get apparently 1,450 km at Mach 0.8 10 km cruise, and 720 km combat radius at Mach 2.35 20 km cruise. But anyways, it appears we are essentially at agreement. When MiG-29 “A” releases however, I will have as much fun as possible pushing it as much as it can in both old and new scenarios.

In my Cold War timeline, what AMRAAM is the F-16 using before 1992…. F-14 fighting MiG-31, how are they going to push MAR/WVR against a plane that will be cruising at Mach 2.35-2.8 at 20 km? Even a MiG-31 can barely hit its G limit at 20 km if you pull all the way back on the stick, and I don’t think much else will be able to pull much G or catch a MiG-31 up there if the 31 doesn’t want to be caught Tell me, If MiG-31 has Link 4 equivalent in 84, when was Link 16 introduced in F-16? Yes in 2000-2010, equal numbers/skill, redfor is getting slammed, not contested. But I don’t think MiG-31 is such an easy catch It is a lack of comprehensive upgrades and production of new models, in addition to classification making them hard to model, and Bluefor pilots often outnumber Reddit pilots 2:1 online, that leads to our curbstomp situation. But when MiG-29/31 are introduced, I definitely believe they are comparable and remain so for some time