AeriaGloria

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

Most helicopters hover nose high, Mi-8/24 can be anywhere from 0-6 degrees depending weight. Apache is I think around 4-6 degrees. A helicopter needs to pitch the nose for in order to maintain forward speed, you want to design a helicopter to fly at cruise speed efficiently. Right now Ka-50 flies in cruise about nose level. If it didn’t hover nose high, it would need 3-5 degrees nose down in cruise. At such an amount of nose down, fuselage/wing drag increases and wing produces negative lift. That is, if I understand your question correctly that it’s about nose angle not the actual rotor disk tilting.

I have updated my weapons guide with bomb lofting section and autopilot with new graphics, but much more importantly……. I have added my own translation of an aerodynamics document that explains the aerodynamic features and issues of the Mi-24, including graphs giving control deflection/trim needed for level flight at different speeds, and for different flight modes. It includes many other graphs and information that may be of interest. I have put a lot of work into interpreting the graphs and doing my best to explain them, let me know if I got anything from or if there is any suggestions Aerodynamics Translated: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ooc_8euzYEI21G2IV7X1xWMd1mlv7ess/view?usp=drivesdk

Yeah just be aware it’s easy to overpower roll channel with 18% cyclic, and it will not bank you more than 15 degrees. It deflects 15% for every degree difference, so within 6.5 degrees from set course it will give less and less output, and is even easier to overpower In addition, you have to press the “OFF” button when done using if you want it to work right. Hover hold/Route hold both do this, that if they are deactivated by exceeding doppler limits (7 degrees pitch, 30 degrees roll, or by passing the 50 kmh ground speed threshold, or 3,000m AGL limit) then their last input is saved in your autopilot. If it gets deactivated becuase I pitch below 7 degrees while it wants me to turn 6.5 degrees left, it will constantly be trying to turn me left with full deflection in circles over and over again until it’s either turned off or re-engaged. Fun fact, pressing “OFF” will also re center your pitch/roll attitude hold as if you had just pressed and released trim or just turned them on……. You will know you are on the right course when the roll channel is at 0 deflection, and using the hat trim is especially helpful for adjustments.

I made my own graphic for this. The doppler can determine drift angle from wind, and magnetic variation is already compensated for by Petrovich/CPG adjusting KM-2. Since these errors are known they are corrected. One of the biggest advantages of route mode over normal heading hold

Also, switching to external view will take you out of the periscope sight when you return to internal view