AeriaGloria

You never have to turn both on. They are completely independent But let’s say I am taking off. I have an assigned route to follow that I plugged into DISS-15 nav panel, and I want the moving map and the nav panel to show the same thing. It has been five minutes since generators were on so DISS-15 is working. I want to have them both turned on and working before takeoff so they can count any movement. It doesn’t matter if I have one turned on significant before the other, as long as both are on and work from the moment of takeoff/taxxiing. If I need to takeoff fast (before DISS warms up) and want to use a reference point after takeoff for best moving map/nav panel position accuracy, I will want to - input the needed route data in the panel for starting from reference point -move moving map marker to reference point -then turn both of them on at the same time over the reference point. Since any difference In time will cause them to match less as you fly with speed. If you are not using Nav panel for DISS-15, it is of no matter.

The reason it probably isn’t in by default is the Mi-35P that they used had fixed gear and shortened wingtips

Picture is from Chucks guide, the power switch for the map is on the lower left side of the cartographic tablet, just right of vertical position adjustment knob. This switch couples the map to the DISS-15 or not. You want to turn on DISS as normal. As long as “Doppler Power” switch is on on left hand side in front of Rad Alt switch, and generators are on, the Doppler will warm up and turn on after 5 minutes. It doesn’t matter where you turn it on or what movement you have if you aren’t using the moving map or DISS navigation panel (below the map tablet) at the same time. The navigation panel for DISS-15 is separate. Pressing its on button only initiates the counting of movement on its panel. However, if you turn it on at same time as the cartographic map, they will be perfectly in sync as they work identically. It can be nice to have the Cartographic map as a visual indicator of your movement, and the DISS navigation panel telling you exactly in km how far along your route you are, or how far from takeoff/IP you are (if you turn it on with 000 course angle so it tells you movement east/west/north/south I’m sure this is more detail then you wanted by including the navigation panel, but I wanted to avoid misunderstandings to make sure you know it’s separate from the map, and the cool way they can work together. Also make sure you never turn on airspeed to doppler. It will work automatically if Doppler fails, in which case movement on map is decided by airspeed And heading

Yes you are just limited 1. You have NVG, set them to lowest gain, use cockpit lights at lowest setting, and if needed set auto range to manual source so that ASP-17V doesn’t light up. NVG isn’t so useful for targeting, but it is good for orientation 2. You have illumination rockets. They will illuminate about 3.5 km away, and take 7.7 seconds of flight before they deploy the flare and 1 second to light the deployed flare. You want to fire around 10-12 degrees up at low altitude (0-250m), 5 degrees around 300m, and level at around 500-600m. It is most useful to have a wingmen use them while you attack, but you can also have your periscope open, fire illumination rockets then go back to MSL/OFF so you can fire ATGM as soon as they light up. If not just open periscope as soon as you fire the flares so that the 10 seconds for gyros to spin up are used while the flare is flying 7.7 seconds and the 1 second it takes to release and light the flare at the end of its 3.5 km journey. They will only light up for 35 seconds, and you may need to fire early and fire several in sequence until you get them perfectly over the target. If needed you can have illumination rockets on one side and regular rockets on the other and switch sides 3. Full moon night is easiest. New moon is very difficult. It’s a bit gamey but you can also increase gamma to make it easier to see. Use your landing and taxi lights for takeoff and landing! Just turn them off while flying becuase it makes it easier for AI to spot you 4. the only targets you can really attack are either pre planned targets, or targets that are shooting at you with tracers. Once you’ve blown up one target in the area, it gets easier using its fire and smoke as a reference It’s not easy or made for night, but using the above methods and other things you can be somewhat effective at night in the right situations

Yeah, but you would think the nuetral stability FBW plane would outmatch the positively stable CAS plane in this instance. When it comes to instant or sustained turn, perhaps only losing out in the vertical due to less TWR

I had the pleasure to test it. It felt extremely realistic and was a joy. I’m sure you will all enjoy it

The issue with this document is RP-21 variants couldn’t carry R-3R or any other SARH missile. It could carry the Beam riding RS-2US, but I doubt the operation is similar. So I really am not sure even if we were to translate it, we would find an answer.

You saying in MiG-29S in TWS2 it gives missile launch warning when firing R-77 before missile is pitbull? In J-11 it treats it as R-27, so same missile guidance injection signal. AIM-54/Mica R work same as AMRAAM and don’t give indication until pitbull, and I don’t believe R-77 acts any different when launched in TWS2 by MiG-29S. Also not sure what flares have to do with it but unless someone has a technical document for RP-22 that explains the specifics I don’t know what can be gained from arguing what we don’t know and trying to prove or disprove that it acts differently then any other SARH in DCS.

Interesting, I wonder what advantages the 29 could have had in medium and long range combat? Or even short range?

I have no idea, but it seems to me and I would assume it has a more mature and finished damage model. It has been claimed to be able to fly without the tail, so that’s the devs reasoning

Does this happen at any speed or only above Mach 0.62-0.7?

My perspective from reading IRL stuff was this Ka-50 prioritizes armoring the pilot. Almost all the armor is around the cockpit and the fuel tanks. The Mi-24, has less armor around the pilots, but puts armor on the sides of the engines, gearbox, and hydraulic systems. That being said, it’s been clear to me there are other aspects of the Mi-24 DM that are unfinished. For example, I have never had a fuel or hydraulic or oil leak in it that effected the systems, it was only ever a visual effect. That needs to be done I think the DCS damage model(with exception of warbirds) also doesn’t do a good job of accounting for empty space. With Ka-50, your vital systems are packed very closely and there is little open space. If something can breach the skin, it’s hitting a vital system. Whereas for Mi-24, if it hits the cabin door area, or fuel tanks beneath it, DCS only sees those non vital areas being hit and end up with no damage “passing through” or around it, in addition to the fact that the fuel leak doesn’t seem to be implemented or fire from fuel tanks, as the DCS Mi-24 seems to be modeled without the polyurethane foam inserts.

In that IA I just flare on approach to MANPAD, and try to fly low and popup to get it before it can get me. You have a lot of flares, I just try to rely on having a lot in the air when missile comes at me. Nice that Petro can flare now also

Where did the 21 degree come from?

True, the manual does mention If you pitch up, aircraft will want to roll left If you pitch down, aircraft will want to roll right If you roll right, aircraft will want to pitch up If you roll left, aircraft will want to pitch down While these are much smaller then the intended movement, it does seem that it doesn’t completely compensate, but only mostly.

Yeah, the wing helps a lot with stability being behind the rotor mast/CG. Little known that the vertical end plates weren’t just for ATGM, but also to increase lateral stability to fight Dutch roll

This Apache was reportedly able to fly home with its rotor shot this up in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pretty unbelievable, but fully articulated rotors are pretty amazing things

Did you lose generators at any point from low rotor rpm?

I can make track when I get home, but last time I flew MiG-15 I noticed that gyro sight corrects for NR-23 G acceleration correctly, but not ballistically. In gyro mode; if you get behind a level non turning target, and change range, the pipper does not move up and down at all to account for range, only G acceleration. So if I use Gyro sight, I must still correct for ballistic drop of NR-23. I would think this incorrect, so maybe I have some MiG-15 manual translating to do. I presume this is why you needed to place target between center of pipper and outer ring, the ballistic compensation is not there.

Good job on the test! Very interesting what it showed, I’m glad they modeled it that way. I got these numbers from the official manual documentation, as you noticed both English and Russian manuals agree. These have wind limits and talks about VRS occurring above 5 m/s. For VRS, the tip speed of the tail rotor and main rotor is very similar, so I would assume similar limits. Under emergency procedures for vortex ring an English translation would be “The helicopter entering the vortex ring is possible during power-on descent and forward speed under 50 km/h and a vertical rate greater than 5 m/s.” (right speed of 5 m/s and 50 kmh descent/climb in tail rotor case) The manual you reference is originally made for TSMO (Threat Systems Management Office)by OTSA (Operation Test and Evaluation Threat Systems Management Office). It is basically created based on American intelligence, and used for any American/Western evaluation/use of said airframes, with numbers roughly rounded to convert to knots and other imperial measurements. For example. When English speaking/weatern countries operate Mi-8/24, TSMO manuals are considered the Bible they go by. There is only one small blurb on page 6 that mentions it. They probably have other sections for combat and other flight operations, but I don’t think they are so willing to release under FOIA. Cool to see they modeled it so well! There was much discussion on release if this was a modeling error or LTE or VRS. And ED said they had not modeled LTE so we were scratching our heads. This completely confirms it’s VRS!

Since you asked to have the other thread moved to Mi-8 section I’ll reply here. You said swashplate should have tilt by number of blades, 180 divided by 5 is 36 degrees. And plus the pitch horn offset, equals the angle from which the blade pitch is angled from say, direct forward for a backwards pitch. Now if I’m translating the technical document on the swashplate correctly, it says that the angle of the pitch lever horn to the horizontal flapping hinge is 72 degrees. However, it also mentions that the tangent of this angle is the coefficient of the swing compensator. Is the swing compensator the angle we are looking for? In this case, the tangent would be about 172.3 degrees. That is unless it means the opposite angle, 28 degrees, which would be a tangent coefficient of about 30.4 degrees. Not sure if any of these numbers help, or if your Mi-8/171 pilot gave you specific numbers

If VRS usually occurs at 5 m/s, that is only 18 kmh. By the time the hover speed indicator shows max right translation, you are probably VRSing the tail rotor. Would be great If it was published or mentioned in the aerodynamic manual, but for reference the wind speed limit for wind coming from the right is 10 m/s, 36 kmh.

Rotors don’t behave like an exact gyroscope though, most helicopters have different then 90 degrees for precession. Do you know how much it is for Mi-8/24? I might have a source somewhere, but I believe it’s considerably less then 90 degrees

I believe this vsterminus video has a section on it. Most of the other issues he talks about have since been fixed

There isn’t real world data for right translational hover that I’m aware of. There is real world tests on side slip, but they begin at 120 kmh. People noticed that on release its right translational hover has little weathervaning effect, and the consensus was that VRS of the tail rotor was modeled. I personally feel that is what is personally happening