AeriaGloria

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

I still have never seen a single photo of it. I’m sure it’s technically possible, but toes that line of simulation “is it possible or should we avoid it because it was never done in service? Even the joke photo on 24D phalanga rails is a M

I love turning the pedal damper off! I think it’s a valuable trick that not many people take advantage of!

Not sure how up to date your reading of Russian pilot complaints are, but MiG-29 FM was updated with DCS 2.9 to have more aggressive SAU damper that makes it fly smoother and better ground effect that makes landing much easier S upgrade can’t cover R-77-1 becuase it didn’t exist at the time.

They work when bound to my HOTAS. Odd

It would be great for FFB, but not sure how it would work for regular sticks

The exact limits for toppling the gyro are 30 degrees roll, and seemingly around 10-20 degrees/s pitch/yaw rate Sometimes when partly broken, you can still get Petro to target units on one specific side of your nose

Open beta or stable? There was a bug that was fixed, but not sure stable is updated to the build with the patch

Note the updated flight control system of the S upgrade is not simulated in DCS. All use the same flight model, and like A-10A sure any updates will be backported A-10A is supported. So little need to worry. It’s more of an issue that FC3 probably doesn’t make enough money to allow much work

Agreed

Sure, even KBM made this advertisement in a 1993 magazine describing Shturm vs Ataka flight times while Ataka was being developed. Here, Ataka is identified as Shturm variant 1. There are many such discrepancies you can see in the relevant section of the tankograd blog post on Soviet ATGMs https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2021/07/soviet-atgms.html?m=1#kokon It’s just interesting

Additionally, there are manuals that will explicitly call it’s a “Shturm” missile and an “Ataka” missile. I won’t post here, but you can see it in 1987 Mi-24V manuals that Ataka first appears in. While Shturm is also the name of the complex including guidance, I think there is some grey area as the Ataka was developed and added, where Shturm was used to refer to the older missile without sayin “Kokon” and Ataka only meant the newer missile, while not referring to anything non missile as “Shturm.” So while “Kokon” is technically correct, I think after a certain point people in the military, including those writing the manuals, used Kokon and Shturm interchangeably

I would be surprised to get anything more then 15-18 km on anything but after burning targets or look up, even at high altitude

Idk if you are talking about the wallpaper picture in this thread or the secret picture no one is posting, but the wallpaper picture in this thread is definitely 9.12. The spine isn’t convex but more or less a straight line, and you can see the indentations for the square avionics equipment racks right above the auxiliary intake

Deka has said in these forums that the wingtip stations are not strong enough to hold PL-8, its above the wingtip mass limit. That is unless you want to carry PL-8 instead of other underwing weapons…..

Yes I believe it can, if lock fails

S-8OFP2 has an engine with 2x the power and 50% more weight. It will always fly differently