AeriaGloria

It’s not in the guide, I am referencing real world checklist I likely shouldn’t share here Fuel pumps need battery power to work. So you are checking both batteries and that the fuel pumps work. When you turn on fuel pumps, green annunciator lights above them turn on. So you are checking that both battery and fuel pumps work

It’s in the pre start check list. Step 38, power from battery on. 39. parking break check 40. Service tank 1/2 on Check tank 1/2 lights and battery voltage then turn tank 1/2 off

It’s just how MiG programmed it so you couldn’t accidentally use it while taking off or landing. It’s in the real manual

Who knows if the MiG-29 has enough thrust to balance the drag. All we know is that it’s above the stated limits for the tanks. These limits could be “safe jettison of tank is ensured/tested up to this speed” or it could be “the pylon/connecrion/tank cannot withstand pressure past a certain airspeed,” which is something DCS doesn’t simulate with FC3.

As far as I’ve been able to tell, while it seems possible for the sensor to slew 75 degrees, it can only be aimed 45 degrees before launch. For example, the R-60 on MiG-29 with HMCS seems to have 20 degree off boresight targeting angle even though the sensor can slew 45 degrees. So for some reason, the Soviets/Vympel decided to not take advantage of the whole slew angle for off boresight launches. Perhaps it was for kinematic reasons, or they wanted to make sure the sensor had enough wiggle room to be able to comfortably make off boresight shots without going over any limit. Your guess would probably be good as mine

According to MiG-29 weapon employment manual R-60 work off boresight up to 20 degrees

The one in DCS should be the original with 45 degrees off boresight The Su-27/J-11 can still use IRST up to 60 degrees off boresight, but should still limit R-73 LA to 45 degrees. I can test it in game

They use the same IR suppressor we use in DCS? Do you have a picture of them using a different suppressor?

What’s your loadout? Certain loadout will disable the 5-8 missile stations, 1-4 works with any loadout For example. You cannot carry 2x S-5 in UB-32 pods with 8x ATGM, 5-8 ATGM will not fire. The FCS thinks S-5 is a bomb, and bombs have same restriction

Was learning more about IRST/radar, there’s a “Cooperation” switch in front of the throttle next to air/ground switch and emergency rocket release. This switch forces the radar into medium prf. In this mode only do you get both sensors working together, if radar lock drops then it is maintained with IRST and radar/laser ranging; or if IRST lock drops it is maintained with radar. In close combat mode and gun mode the IRST is main station with radar used if IRST won’t lock, and in helmet/phi-o both are used simultaneously and the first to lock on becomes primary. If target is being tracked by IRST with this switch on, a second press of the lock on button will transition to Radar STT while continuing back up support by IRST In order to do HPRF search this “Cooperation” switch must be turned off. Which is unfortunate but makes sense since the IRST has a nominal range of 12-18 km, which is pretty neatly within MPRF range of 12-30 km (tracking). You would rarely be able to properly use IRST as a backup at the ranges the HPRF would work (25-55 km for tracking.). However, this section seems to affirm that when using IRST tracking with quasi continuous radar ranging, there will be no IFF indication. Which would mean you would need a temporary radar lock and disable in order to verify IFF. Oddly enough, this same switch seems to enable or disable the calculations for high drag bombs when in air to ground bombing mode…. Of note, I cannot figure out the WCS selector (left of HUD) and Radar selector (in front of throttle below delta H selector). Both have a close combat switch. Only WCS has Opt/Phi-0 modes. I wonder if since IR is selected before these modes on WCS selector, IR is only sensor for OPT/Phi-0, and radar selector only works when WCS is In Radar position. And that the only way to use radar for Opt/Phi-0, is with this Cooperation/High drag switch EDIT: after reading employment manual, it seems WCS needs to be on radar to use radar selector settings. Selecting close combat/Helmet/Opt/Phi-0 on WCS is purely for IRST UNLESS you select Cooperation/Interaction/High drag switch, OR if you have a radar guided weapon (R-27R, perhaps ER) selected. Either way, interesting cooperation of Radar/IRST and switchology. Will be lots of fun

From reading Mi-24V manual book 1 dated 1987 this seems to be the case. Intended procedure is to heat audio signal first using SPU-8, then switch to COMPASS for guidance to the beacon once you hear the correct audio signal

Is your gun on? Weapons powered up?

It should be an axis; and if closer to a certain end or middle tells the missile the target is small/medium/large

As mentioned. It’s setting wingspan for gun use. However for missiles, it does something else. If correctly modeled in game, it will define when the radio correction of the R-27R/ER is expected to end and seeker lock on to begin. For expected seeker lock on its small it’s 12 km (usually dusted for cruise missiles) medium is 25 km, large is 40 km So usually it’s stuck at medium intended for fighter sized targets. It also sets fuse delay, it seems, the smaller the target, the less delay after the fuse “sees” something. I’m sure the intention here is to get the missile to explode when near the center of the target, not just when it detects the nose or tail

Honestly the F-4 with AIM-7M isn’t probably far off from MiG-29 9.12 with R-27R. The closer you get the bigger the advantage to the MiG. Though I think the MiG-23ML is a very worthy opponent for F-4 with AIM-7M, 29 9.12 with 27R improves on it capabilities in some more evolutionary then revolutionary ways, with the focus being on dogfighting with 29 As said, F-14 with AIM-7, even Phoenix A, or Mirage 2000C are good opponents. F-15 with AIM-7 would be a close fight I think, F-15 would have quite the BVR edge with its large radar.

First stage is ICS, second stage is radio. That’s what radio trigger does

I am aware of all these charts and manuals, I have read Mi-24A/D/V/P and 35M manuals ranging from 1976 to 2011, believe me, I am aware of these. This chart does not say the governor changes the RPM it holds, only that at takeoff power, to expect it’s rpm to be on the lower side as you are pushing the limit of the engine. There is no “switch” in the system that changes the governor RPM based on power level. You can fly in DCS plenty on takeoff power with 95% rotor rpm or higher, but it’s often on the lower end becuase you are pushing your engine to limit and it can’t always give more to balance the increasing drag of more rotor pitch. In that chart, the manual is telling you what to expect on average, not that the governor lowers rotor rpm automatically when you enter takeoff power I only mention the turbine adjust rpm and transient torque as potential causes for why you see rotor rpm as low 87-88% in flight. Outside of those, in steady state conditions, the governor will command max engine power below 94% and command less engine power above 96%, trying its hardest to keep rotor rpm in that 95% +/-1-2% range as much as it can and this is what you see in DCS also.

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that anti ice used more power over time, it was not a mistake to leave it on. Just that it means you have nearly 20% less power going to your engines, so you get low rotor rpm much easier from the less power. Less power going to rotor = less collective pitch can be used Currently in DCS, the right engine decreases in power from anti ice much more. I’m not sure if that’s accurate, but that’s why EPR and PTIT will show different values for them. There are great hover charts that show how much altitude and temperature gives you hover performance, but they are not for anti ice Charts are from Chucks guide

Okay, watching your video, your generator failed becuase your anti ice just used up so much power, and you used so much collective your engines couldn’t sustain the rotor rpm . Becuase you had less power then normal, you needed more collective pitch to compensate. This means you also needed more right pedal to counter the torque, which increases tail rotor drag and further lowers rotor rpm. It looked like it wanted to come back and got close to 90%, but wasn’t able to fully recover as you stayed in a condition that required a lot of power (too much collective for your engines burdened with anti ice.) This is why in the manual, it mentions you might want to turn anti ice off for takeoff, landing, or any situation that needs high power for a short period of time. Sometimes I only use one engine anti ice if I want to compromise. I think if you had turned off engine anti ice, or entered an envelope that had a smaller power requirement (which does get worse at high altitude, which it seemed like you were at).

You are correct, the anti ice off button only affects rotor anti ice. Let me clarify some of power bleed and update my numbers, PZU removes 125 hp from each engine, or 200 kg of takeoff weight. This is equal to about 5.6% of the 2,225 HP engines. All anti ice together removes 700 kg takeoff weight, which is equal to about 20% power. However; 150 kg of this is for rotor anti ice. If you keep rotor anti ice off but only use engine anti ice, it will use about 15-16% power. I will take a look at your video and see what I can find

The rotor rpm deviates from 95% +/-2%, so really 93-97%. It is for a few reasons. But generally, the governor will do everything it can to keep it right at 95% 1. If lower then 93-97% it is becuase the engines do not have enough power to maintain the rpm at the commanded rotor collective pitch. Or that they lag and need time to accelerate. Or even transient torque spikes from right pedal and right cyclic 2. If rotor rpm is higher then 93-97%, it is becuase the engines can’t rev down enough or fast enough to stop the rotor from going to fast, such as in a fast pitch up 3. You messed with the “turbine adjust rpm” switch on the collective, which changed the governor setting from 95% to as low as 91% or as high as 97-98%. You adjust the governor with this switch, which you often need to do depending on air pressure if it deviates significantly according to manual If you rotor rpm is deviating from that 93-97% it is for one of those three reasons. I can go to 320 kmh and still maintain 95% rotor rpm. The governor is always trying to maintain it, unless it doesn’t have enough power to overcome the rotor drag, too much rotor inertia/speed that it can’t slow down engine enough, or you deliberately play with the switch that changes governor setting. The sentence in the manual about allowable rotor rpm is for a few reasons 1. The manual knows that pilots may push collective pitch, or right pedal/cyclic and lower rotor rpm, and that this is allowed to a certain extent, with a rough cutoff of 87% 2. The manual knows that pilot may pitch up fast or get into conditions where the rotor rpm goes up too much or too fast for the governor to stop it, and 103% is the hard limit here becuase of the rotor or generator structural limits 3. It flies best at 95% rpm, and the less the rotor rpm gets the more sluggish its response, the more pitch and thus more torque is needed. The manual even describes it being okay to raise rotor rpm with the “turbine adjust rpm” switch at high altitudes to increase tail rotor authority, or to decrease it to 92-93% with the same switch to help save 2-3% fuel in cruise You will find that if you let off collective pitch enough for the engines to have enough power to drive the rotor at 95%, it will do so and keep it there no matter your speed, attitude, or maneuvers. The only exception being transient torque spikes from right cyclic/pedal From manual: “When deflecting the collective pitch lever, the gas generators RPM of both engines change, the main rotor RPM are maintained within 95 +/-2% automatically;” Anytime in the checklist or emergency procedures it wants you to check for best rotor rpm at any speed, it asks you to make sure it is 95% +/-1-2%, and this is how it acts in game except it very perfectly keeps it right at 95%

Yes Zero_crash is incorrect. The only anti ice function that is automatic is for rotor blades. I also don’t know what you mean about the rotor rpm, in the Mi-24 and Mi-8 the rotor rpm is held by a governor to maintain 95% +/-1-2%. so yes. If you flip auto switch up, when you enter icing, only the main and tail rotor anti icing turns on. You can see this happen with their respective indicator lights Zero_crash described the Mi-8 procedure, which is totally different from Mi-24 procedure where you turn on both engines at the same time. And you are also right, the engine anti ice is completely manual. The reason this is different then Mi-8 is because instead of reacting to icing warning, for Mi-24 you are supposed to turn on anti icing under 5 degrees Celsius no matter what. However, in DCS you won’t have icing degrade engine performance until 0 degrees Celsius, so you’ll be fine as long as you turn on engine anti ice at 0 degrees or below to “protect” the engines from anti ice. Things like ice chucks from turning it on after ice forms isn’t modeled in DCS, only the slow degradation of engine performance that happens if engine anti ice stays off. Nothing bad happens if you keep rotor anti ice off either. It only draws power more. The 17% is a lot, so it’s totally fine to keep it off for takeoff/landing or other times a short term power excursion is needed l

Im sure the restrictions for having a door gunner with a gun hanging out of open cargo doors with 1m barrel is different then here where Ellis team is using the window PKT amounts and likely smaller caliber

Anti ice takes 17% power, and PZU about 2.5% The ice detector turns on and off constantly no matter what becuase it will warm the ice detector while the warning goes off, it will stop warming it after a while and see if it freezes again. As long as it’s going on and off you are in freezing conditions. It’s not a “my engines and rotor are freezing” detector it’s a “you are in freezing conditions detector while I turn off and on.” If anti ice is off long enough it will reduce engine power and cause possible shut down or fire Right pedal increases tail rotor pitch, witch puts more load on your rotor rpm Miki posted the video in transient torque spikes above, but yes right cyclic will reduce rotor rpm and left will do opposite, it depends on rotor rotation direction. So right turns will push the rotor rpm more, left turns will push it less This is why your left turns, all things being similar, will be 20-30 kmh faster then any right turn

Ukraine Arsenal sold upgraded R-27T/ET seekers and upgraded R-73 seekers. But their brochure for R-27R/ER seeker shows no improvement or differences and nothing else in their marketing implies such. R-27P/EP is its own matter, but for R-27R/ER just becuase it was made in 2014, does not mean it was performing better from the perspective of the pilot