AeriaGloria

Very nice find! Excellent feature

I have talked to MiG-29 who said that, for the FC3 module, its flight performance is perfect according to all the manuals. But this is still slightly different from real aircraft. They might have made a perfect “by-the-book” flight model, but one completely based on reality.

Yes, I do read too much and take things too 1:1, I do not deny this I try to constantly tell myself “manual says you can fly 20 kmh from these speeds with only 2-3% difference, it matters little!” I appreciate your words of experience!

If the wind is 5 m/s or above, it can VRS the tail rotor when coming from stsrboard. Same if you hover translate right 18 kmh

Yes. Interesting a manual I have for it says 250 kmh for maximum range cruise speed for 700-1200m alt cruise

Are you speaking from experience IRL? Most efficient speed for travel is 260 kmh at that altitude. It only goes below 240 kmh once above 3,000m alt, or 1,500m alt if above 11,500 kg weight

Brakes are very important. Real pilots are required to lock them with the “parking brake” latch when parking. The nose wheel is free castoring like a shopping cart A shopping cart that might way 10 tons. But a shopping cart with a full load of groceries can still be pretty easy to steer, especiallly with all the weight in the back (since the weight in this case is centered right in front of the main wheels)

You gain only 10-20% fuel efficiency for cruising at 2000-3000m compared to 0-1000m. Unless traveling very far, the fuel used to climb outweighs the benefit. If you have a route in mind, I could calculate it for you. Above 3,000m efficiency decreases because you can no longer maintain best cruise speed. Usually, 500-1000m is best compromise. From that altitude, if you lower collective completely, hold 170 kmh (best autorotation distance speed), you can glide for quite a while. About 20-15 degree angle.

You turn on the wheel brakes?

From a book long long ago. 50 km for a Mach 1 shot at 10 km vs Mach 1 target seems right on the money. You often see 80 km also quoted, this is right around 15 km mark, so likely maximum range for high speed launch from Su-27/MiG-29 At 20 km, It can go up to 100 km, so likely only reached by MiG-31 launch on an equally fast and high target This chart is likely for max TAS, as we see from other similar 80s/90s Soviet/Russian charts. From testing in DCS, this seems pretty close

Yes it is a bug. The reason is that after the loadouts were created, someone here pointed out that the Shturm/Ataka needs an extra pylon adapter that wasn’t modeled. ED then created and added the Shturm/Ataka pylon adapter when ATGM 5-8 were loaded. But it broke the loadouts If you do it manually it will work, and I’m sure ED can fix it, but that’s the “why” it’s broke.

Yeah, I always imagined it as the CPG writing down in notes how many flare were used, then passing it through the hole in the foot well with a cigarette whenever you ask

1 hr for 50% fuel is usually best estimate, 1000-1100 L/hr IMO. You will get best results from knowing your best speeds for cruise (250-270 kmh), and loiter (130-150 kmh). 140 kmh is best climb speed and most efficient descent speed There is also the “rotor rpm adjust” switch, which if you lower all the way can also reduce fuel consumption 2-3%, and if you raise it will increase fuel consumption same amount, but also increase lift/control Weapons have a surprisingly small effect, about 2-3%. The IRL manuals say the difference is so small that the range charts assume you always have payload and there are no figures/charts for being clean, as 2-3% falls within an expected margin of error. Also. Because the wings produce 25% lift at cruise, and are behind the CG/rotor, and payload their moves center of gravity back, which increases the angle of attack of the wing, increasing wing lift (which is more efficient then rotor lift), and actually increases efficiency Gun ammo has opposite effect since the bullets are loaded in the nose. It’s not until about 300 kmh or above that the drag outweighs the benefit of moving the center of gravity back in terms of fuel efficiency and maneuverability

Yes. Export version with minor differences. So you could conceivably use both foreign docs for any g sensitive, domestic docs for other things, and assuming that any of the changes we have no information about are minor and not applicable in DCS

Yes, I don’t know of any significant differences however except maybe the radio choice of the operator. I have suspected it might be for Brazil?

You can set the microswitch to trim the pedals. But of course, that is personal preference. And I’ve never used it, I like having microswitch constantly pressed as it in real life, so as long as it allows you to fly normally with it pressed and only trim when released, it might be a good option For the trim blending, I would assume if developed would only enable AP at the moment the blending is complete

Nice new feature

The tires do depress with weight, AFAIK this is true for all DCS modules, and is usually based on specs in the manual that provide weights that would push down the tires a certain amount. I think what we’re seeing here is that instead of the 3D object of the tire being cut off and deformed, they’ve modeled it in higher fidelity for the CH-47 to actually bulge outwards and look more realistic But if you look at what the manuals mention, they do line up to DCS

It’s so that you can toggle if Petro automatically flares when it sees a missile

Aw, makes sense. Since guidance uses a 6 bar scan instead of 4 bar, and also tighter bar spacing and less azimuth coverage the farther target is, leading to even faster scan cycle then 4 bar normal scan, would mean picking up the target earlier. I see now thank you

I have never seen this. Radar is being automatically steered but detection is the same. Is there a reference manual I can read for this or something?

As mentioned, your stick is too far forward. Yes you kept your stick still after the first trim, but that first trim was far forward enough that it kept touching down and AP couldn’t keep it level You need to stabilize it intended attitude, say -5 degrees for cruise, then trim 2-3x to even it out. That way you won’t have your stick too far forward. I if you want to trim while pitching down at the same time, you have to also expect that your are giving enough forward stick to cause the pitch down in the first place, and move stick back while trimming. If you rapidly move collective in stable flight (which would rotate the elevator up and down, causing pitch), you will see that the 9% control authority of the pitch can’t stop very much movement. It is not like many modern airplanes where trim has 60-80% of the authority of your stick As your most recent post indicated, pressing trim and maneuvering also works. But I don’t prefer it. I have FFB so it’s different, but I like the dampening of the autopilot to smoothy my maneuvers, and the way it copies/exaggerates my inputs to give me more control during maneuvers. It’s all personal preference Note: you can see how it exaggerated/copies your stick by moving the cyclic on the ground with autopilot on and watching the indices follow your cyclic, or doing the same in active pause. In real life, this is how you check that AP works before you make sure that trim re aligns the attitude hold/cyclic copying Yes I would say the AP is well aligned here. it It will never be perfect as it can be quite sensitive, you just want it near center, and eventually you will get a very good feel for it But what’s a bigger effect here then what Miki mentioned, if you were to press trim reset at this point, is your stick is trimmed behind center, which makes sense at 200 kmh. So trim reset will push your cyclic back to center, causing a pitch down.

Yes that’s what I mean, your initial pitch down was too much for the autopilot to stop. After you trim; the stick is stuck too far forward unless you were to move stick back And then the pitch rate changes as your toggling AP on/off with trim

And you have return to center trim with spring stick? It just sounds like to me you were giving more input then the autopilot could stabilize when you trimmed the first time, and since trimming kept the stick forward, it was too much for the AP. It only has 9% authority in one direction. So 1/10th stick movement from what you need to fly stable is enough to override it and stop it from being able to hold an attitude

New doesn’t always mean extremely advanced. MiG has two tiers of their top end 29, you have the 29M/29K new builds, which aren’t too far from the MiG-35 Russia uses. But for these older airframes 9-12/9-13 being upgraded, the highest level of upgrade they can receive is SMT, with new Zhuk radar/KOLS and MFD. technologically, I would assume it’s in the same level as the original SMT, just no fuel and possible no jammer if they were originally 9.12