AeriaGloria

That’s why their S-5M looks so bad. But it’s still no excuse that their S-24 can do over 700 kg of damage if it hits the right thing lol. I get fragmentation and the fact that not all weapons are pure TNT has to be made up for, but it’s really overkill. In Mi-24, the S-24 is powerful but has a small blast radius. Really need close to direct hit to make significant damage. Anyways, it would be fun having more variants of stuff. I think S-5s are way more powerful then S-8KOM in Mi-24 becuase of no recoil throwing off long range aim, and the LUAs don’t make it deal 50% damage like S-8KOM. And with OFP2, it’s ballistics are so bad since it uses same motor as KOM despite 50% more weight; it literally messes up the ballistics computer of the Mi-24 which only measures range from where boresight points.

Perhaps it is. Best case would be if Petro could do it. We would select a target or spot to bomb, Petro would tell us the altitude and speed to maintain that closest matches our current speed and altitude and fits one of the values in the tables closest to our speed and altitude, we have to manually adjust for side wind drift using drift gauge, Petro would automatically adjust for forward/backward wind component, and release when ready and hopefully hit if we follow the parameters close enough and correct for side wind correctly But I doubt that would happen I was reading the Mi-24V manual, it’s turret in the front has the same auto CCIP system our ASP-17V has, where it uses radar altitude, attitude, wind components from doppler, AOA and side slip from DUAS air data probe all together to calculate solution. Except in Mi-24V CPG it also works for bombing. CPG simply aims turret sight at bombing target, and as long as radar altimeter sees something the VSB-24 ballistics computer will drop bombs when the proper location is reached. I don’t know if it was able to correct for wind that way, but damn it was fancy. The CPG in the V even has a dial to adjust target altitude in relation to current terrain radar altimeter sees +/-250m!! I love the P, I’m glad we got it over any other variant. We have the biggest gun combined with retractable gear and big wings, no other variant has that. But the V would’ve certianly been fun as well even if not as much fun, with a 12.7mm gun that shoots as fast as a Vulcan with auto CCIP and automatic bomb release. The turret since it was from Tu-16, also worked as a gyro gunsight for air targets!

I honestly have no clue. Both the Russian quick start guide, of which there’s an English translation of on user files. And my real life Mi-24P manual says there is a “light in the PKI frame signaling the CPG to release bombs”

I’m surprised no one said autorotation or letting there be up flow through the rotor system. Going low on the collective is fine, but you can full on put it at minimum, if you go too fast just nose up, control speed with cyclic like autorotation.

Always heard this was becuase of engine governer. As you yaw left, compared to helicopter the governor sees more RPM, and decreases power. And as you yaw right, it sees decreased RPM, and increases engine power. But of course this is with a steady yaw in a hover, rapid changes before yaw builds up will definitely still see the left pedal increase power and right the opposite. And as you speed up and possible yaw rate decreases. The effect goes back to how you expect, left pedal increasing power and right pedal decreasing power. You would think rotor would accelerate with the yaw, and IIRC i heard something about the governor only caring about RPM compared to earth surface. So idk

Yes, for example we could use S-5M from MiG-19P module in Mi-24P, but who knows if it would be up to ED standard in graphics, accurate motor/drag performance. There is an S-5M from Magnitude 3 for MiG-21 with .5 kg explosive, with 1.5x warhead multiplier for direct hit and 2x warhead multiplier for ground hit M1 and MO by Razbam with .285 kg explosive, and much lower power motor Technically, our Mi-24P should be able to use both Razbam variants despite them being worse then our KO in every way. And by the time the P entered service, M1 and MO were old news and not best, but the V was made to use them according to the manual, so it stands to reason the P could also. However my P manual from 2011 only mentions KO. In addition, Magnitude 3 has there own S-24B with worse graphics, that can do up to 7.5 times more damage then ED S-24B depending what it hits

I would be very happy to have this feature

Anyone know what the washout on the Mi-24 rotor is? The twist from root to tip? On Mi-8 I believe it is 5 degrees. On Mi-35M about 7.2 degrees. There has to be some amount on Mi-24, and a small amount can be seen in real life pictures. You can see it modeled in the DCS AH-64. If anyone knows, I would be very interested EDIT: Not sure I can delete the thread but might as well keep it up if anyone else is interested. Have been translating a technical/maintenance manual for Mi-24D/V. Now, when I said Mi-8 has 5 degrees of twist, what it actually is is the first 20% of the rotor is 5 degrees up, and after 20% of the rotor length it steadily changes until it is 0 degrees at the tip. It is same for Mi-24D/V/P except that it is only 3.5 degrees for the first quarter of the blade, then changes linearly after that until the tip is 0 degrees. This is why at even 1 degree collective there can be significant lift. And the use of this twist/washout is to even out the lift generated across the rotor, as well as allowing portions of the wing to remain unstalled if the center stalls, such as in autorotation or high AOA maneuvers. During autorotation having this twist allows different parts of the rotor to be at different AOA, increasing the efficiency of the section around the center that provides lift in autorotation In aircraft wings, this helps reduce the severity of stalling, instead of it happening all at once it happens gradually starting at the root. And since the stall happens at the root with the tips being a lower angle and less/not stalled, you still have airflow over the ailerons allowing control. This also increases directional stability This gradual stalling likely also helps our helicopters, during RBS and high alpha/mushing. During mushing maneuvers you notice this in other helcipters, but in the Mi-24 is harder to notice as almost any positive AOA causes the wing to stall, which causes a rapid pitch up, since the wing is behind the center of gravity and creating a pitch down force that goes away after stalling. This increas in alpha as the stalled wing makes the helicopter rapid pitch up completely stalls the rotor. But this washout probably makes it easier to control and recover. You can hear the rotors begin to slap and start to stall sometimes(which is slow and gradual thanks to washout, even if it is less then other helos), and can use that to “ride the edge” of the maneuver limit where the wing is at maximum AOA without stalling Thank you for coming to my aerodynamical TED talk

Reading a Mi-24V manual, goes slightly more in depth in types of rockets allowed. S-5K1, KO, M1, MO, S S-8KOM, S, B, KO, and DF. So pretty much the main high explosive S-5 variants, flechette rounds of both sizes, concrete penetration and the modernized thermobaric round

Lol glad to help. And I agree, I mainly want a heli Cold War server. Yes there are many Cold War servers out there that cater to Helis, but they are primarily fixed wing. And I would like to not have to worry about fixed wing more then APCs, IFVs, tanks, and AAA

It’s not dedicated, but there’s almost always Hueys on Rotorheads. We often have Huey Gangs doing CSAR, logistics. And light combat. CSAR is usually armed anyways as they are going into a hot zone. There’s just not as many Hueys since Apache, like any other helicopter

This is slightly off topic but out of curiosity, do you happen to know where the ARC antenna is in the Mi-24?i always assumed it was the flat bottomed dome in between the landing gear wells. As I don’t know of anything else in that compartment.

It says solved by me. I don’t understand why this happened? It is not a personal issue but I thought something that ED might want to tweak as a possible bug/issue. Especially as it would be expected to see the warning occur at 240 L. But if this is real life behavior that also happens because the fuel level sensors are measuring the 240 as including the unusable fuel of 30-40 L (as it is 40 L according to manual), I completely understand. And if ED decides that this is fine and not something they desire to tweak, I have no problem with that either. Just wanted to bring it up in case it was something that might warrant tweaking as I haven’t seen it brought up before. I will upload a short track showing what happens below 12% fuel

I took some photos. First photo is right before low fuel warning for 240 L comes on. You can see that Fuel gauge for tank 1 is just above 100 L, as tank 1 and 2 are kept equal, the actual fuel capacity is a little over 200 L which you can check by switching fuel gauge to tank 2 or total. Tank 1/2 is used here since it uses the scale that’s easiest to see small differences Second picture shows the moment the 240 L fuel warning comes on, just above 200 L. Third picture shows moment the entire helicopter runs out of fuel, you can see that the gauge needle is below zero about the same amount that it was below the 120 L mark on the Tank 1/2 part of the gauge. i apologize for the quality, but it was needed to bypass the file size limits

Only place I fly, and it’s difficulty will pretty much prepare you for anything. I used to take four rocket pods, but rotorheads got me to only take two and use 8x AT-9/9M120. When pressured by lots of deadly targets using gun and rockets at 3 km in large salvos. Being able to use the terrain and speed to your advantage. Using other people as cover or performing top fire by firing on whoever shoots the guy in front of you. Having the situational awareness to stay ahead of a changing battle space. And even air to air anti helicopter engagements. I’ve had to do everything there but engage fixed wing. And if it wasn’t for rotorheads, I wouldn’t be as addicted to the Mi-24 as I am

Hello let me know if a track is needed. The low fuel warning lights in Mi-24 both turn on simultaneously at 240 L left, or 120 L left in tank 1 and same amount in tank 2. However currently it seems to turn on around 200 L. It seems this might be Becuase of the unusable fuel capacity of 40 L being useable in DCS, which I believe happens with some other modules. It might be easier to see this happen with the fuel tank Selector in the 1 or 2 position rather then total, as the tank 1/2 scale on the gauge is easier to see small changes with. I do not mind being able to use unusable fuel of 40 L, but I wanted to post this just in case it was desired to have the low fuel warning light actually appear at 240 L indicated. Currently there is no problems compared to real life procedure with the exception of the fuel tank gauge being about 40 L lower then actual fuel level. I think it would be nice if either fuel tank warning happened at 240 L indicated (even though that would give you slightly more time until empty then stated in manual), or if the fuel warning was moved to 240 L as it is suppossed to be and the un-useable fuel capacity of 40 L eliminated Just wanted to bring this up. If track is needed or video I can do so right away

Interesting, the user mod one has the EVU painted. ED still has them sand color

Yup. And unlike anti icing, where we can switch, bind, and have them suck our power. It’s just that the whole anti icing/pitot heat/heating system doesn’t work completely yet

This usually happens if your gyros aren’t turned on by the radio switches. Or some other electrical things like generators isn’t on

Imagine how nice it would be to have it estimate and call out range very .5 km. Or to call out missile launches and even flare all on its own.

Hello, for the longest time I thought this was a real life feature. However I can not find it documented in any real world literature, and after consulting with others believe it may be a bug. I have recorded a track. First I enter active paused, reset trim, test controls in each axis. Then try moving pedal with full back cyclic, left pedal is limited. I then hold in left pedal while moving my cyclic around, and you can see the pedal deflection change as cyclic position changes. I then turned off the pedal dampener and did the same test to verify it wasn’t the dampener. I hope this is helpful, thank you very much Rear cyclic limits left pedal.trk

Nope. Perhaps your headset has the “helmet” volume low. If so you wouldn’t be able to hear Rita bark at you about fuel pumps and low gearbox pressure. The switch to the left of the one you circled turns it on, the right controls volume. It can be easy to mix them up. I just have volume bound

It wouldn’t be less power, as I can have full pedal in, and my pedals physically move farther towards centers as I move cyclic back, and can see the according movement on R control + enter menu. It seems to be almost half left pedal available at full back cyclic But what’s odd is it seems to be, not just the left quadrant so to speak. If I move my stick the left, it seems to begin to cause it or come close. And same if I move it back or even all the way back and right. But the closer you get to that maximum bottom left position, the more your pedal is restricted I also sometimes wonder if G has something to do with this, as it usually happens while I’m pushing 2 G in high speed turns. Going to record a track and make a big post. Can’t find anyone else that think it might be a real mechanism and it’s not in any of my real life Mi-24/35 material

I did not test the lower collective settings. I have always noticed it in flight from cruise to take off power. And I’m pretty sure the rest cyclic pitch stop CAN engage when below 7 degrees pitch. So yes, in my active pause testing I didn’t test probably 1-7 degree collective pitch range

I’ve had times where it seems my max left pedal decreases and increases in a turn. I did a test in active pause and found that if I trim the stick, any movement from from trimmed center backwards, caused my maximum left pedal travel to decrease. If I changed trimmed point, the amount it limited my left pedal with rear cyclic changed accordingly. I have read every Mi-24 manual I can find. D, V, P, M, and cannot find any mention of this in it or anywhere else. If it is a bug, it would be a strange bug. i also have a hunch it might also decrease your left pedal in accordance to vertical G, but I would need to test that again I would think if this was real, perhaps it was like the movable stop system that stops you from moving the cyclic too far backwards on the ground under 7 degrees of pitch to stop rotor from hitting the tail. But I have no idea what possible function a stop of this nature would do. You can literally see your pedals move as you pull the stick backwards (if you have a decent amount to full left pedal input), and your pedals travel go back to normal when cyclic is back to center. I wouldn’t want to make a bug report unless I was as sure as possible, and asked if anyone knew what this was or had experience of it. Ever since I noticed it, I assumed it was something real that just wasn’t never talked much about becuase most people aren’t pulling the stick too much in Mi-24 and constantly using trim to zero out any forces