DeMonteur

After takting closer look at anti ice system panel and rotating test ammeter I find out stragne behaviour. After turning on generators and turning on rectifiers, anti ice system ammeter indicates consumption from main rotor blades and tail rotor. After some testing I find find out that this indication starts after turning on first rectifier not generator. I know the system is not yet completed but anti ice system is connected to generator bus not rectifier bus. Moreover system should be activated in automatic mode, when the icinng sensor finds icing not just after turning on rectifier. Mi24_ColdStart_AntiIceBug.trk Mi24_HotStart_AntiIceBug.trk

As far as I now Hip is not prone to retreating blade stall in operating speeds. This means Vne=250kph under 1km of height under 11,1t weight. However I know about the accident where the factory crew with full brand new helicopter transporting it to customer. Weight about 12t. They flew about 280kph all time. After 45minutes the rotor head broke from mast and they crashed. I believe that Mi-8 woud sooner get catastrophic destruction of main rotor than retreating blade stall. Another theory is that advancing blade is in transsonic speed so lift decreases and drag increases.

Because if you try to start the engine up if there is more than 7% you will break the transmission rod from starter to engine.

You can tune on R1155 NDB station frequency and in cockpit you have instrument. Also you can set custom beacons wich will transmit on freqs which can R1155 recieve. For more info look here

You forget to turn on inverter 115V

Well if you think that you encounter the VRS on steep approach with high descend speed you are probably wrong. I also thought that it is VRS than I found out that it is probably just too slow engine governor. Helicopter modelled here feels really light comparing to the real one. When I want to descend at 150-120km/h i need to lower the collective pitch under the 3°of pitch setting while IRL you are at 4-5°. Plus when you go under 3° of collective pitch setting engines go idle and it took ages when you need power back and set up like 5° col pitch setting. Thats definitely too slow comparing to RL. Mi-8 have a limitation in manual to do not exceed 4 m/s vertical descend speed when you are flying slower than 40km/h. Entrance to VRS would be at least 6m/s maybe more however, I have never encounter it RL (thank's god)

It isn't allowed cofig. Last time our force tested it, the Mi-24 changed to expensive one time lawn mover with tree-cutting ability.

I reproduced it in cold start in both SP, MP.

After cold and dark startup in multiplayer after T/O DISS shows slow speeds turned by 90 degrees to the right. Moving forward - indicated moving right; Moving right - backward movement indicated; Moving backward - left movement indicated; Movement left - forward movement indicated. This also affects Moving map. cross is moving roughly 90 degrees from track flown. Also ground speed and also sideslip indication shows 40+ degrees sideslip. server-20210617-214904.trk

I checked the axis inputs no duplicities. Moving controls before pressing fly also didnt help. Only help is moving collective axis. Then it sets to correct position. Mi24StrangeBehavior.trk

None. It is limitation of weapon control system.

After starting SP empty mission with only players Mi-24 the collective lever goes quickly up and then slowly moves down. Morover collective lever moves with cyclic stick imputs until I move throttle joy. Then collective set to correct position and do not move with cyclic anymore. Mi24Airstart.trk Mi24Airstart2.trk

Yes, DISS uses GMK as heading reference.

Occurs when fuse is not on safe I found out that this bug occurs when you have fuse set to all other options than safe

Because design. Well Mi-24P is pretty different version. I think they choose this one because they are unable to make 12.7mm gun turret work with satisfactory results in near time with multicrew as well as in single player. So there is no close version to P. You are right about Mi-35 it is export marking of Mi-24V. Main versions I am familiar somehow with: Mi-24A first production with different cockpit and without 12,7mm gun turret. Instead of torret it looks like id has only forward firing machinegun. Mi-24D upgraded version. Modernized engines TV3-117MT with increased power, Phalanga ATGM, Doppler navigation system with moving cross over the paper map (russian style moving map) Mi-24DU training version from D model- doubled controls without gun turret. Mi-24V modernized version. Newer more powerful engines TV3-117VM (already modelled in Mi-8MTV2 and Ka-50) with electronic regulator ( only regulates limits not to damage the engine ). Shturm ATGM missiles. Mi-24P version which has 30mm fixed cannon instead of 12,7mm turret My theory why Mi-24 is so fast is that at max speed wings create 30% of lift. Thus it needs smaller main rotor Ø. This means that decrease in advancing blade tip airflow velocity . This means that advancing get to transsonic flow at wingtips at higher airspeed of the helicopter.

Yes we need an easy AAR option. Because actual state is easy one. If you uncheck it, it will add the wake turbulence disturbance to the boom. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your estimation would get pretty huge inaccruacy after first Kitty refuelling. Now imagine a flight of thirsty tomcats.

Look like noone noticed this bugreport. I probably chosed wrong name for the problem.

When started mission airborne, RWR did not indicate threats unless they are way too close. Tested on MiG29A; start indication at about 28km For F14 start indication about 38km For JF17 it was also about 30km. For S-300 indication started only after missile launch. Surveilance and tracking radar was not indicated. RWR-AJS37vsMiG29A.trk RWR-AJS37vsF14B.trk RWR-AJS37vsJF17.trk RWR-AJS37vsS300.trk

RWR have now too low sensitivity I plan to post a bugreport due to this also. Tested it with few fighters and S-300. I didnt get any indication until 28-38km and from S-300 only after missile launch

That could be the problem. Navigation system usually needs some alignment just after take off. Do your TERNAV status shows 5- TERNAV got the position and sending automatic fixes to navigation?

Recently I tested RB15 in ANF mode with VALB so options from adresses 81-88 TAKT. I found some things I consider as bugs: adresses 83x and 86x seems to doesen't have any effect. Regardless of preseted code 831000 for flying in 30m above sea the missile fly in about 10m. This was overriden only by code 800004 where it climbs to 30m above sea. Also overflying logic above ground does not work. Missile should fly in 80m according to manual, and flies in about 9m above low land and hit any obstruction higher than 10m instead. The last thing is missiles hitting wather after the Bx7 turn or defensive turn just before ship. I cannot find any way how to prevent it. In first trackfile is test of 860000 code which should set for missile target approach in 10 meters instead it was in sea skimming. Second track file I tested if codes 831000 and 860000 together with 800004 have any effect. Missile flies in 10m and hop in 30 only for bearing search and when aqired target descend to sea skim. Third trackfile shows missile hitting the wather after turning defensive turn. I think here could be problem with 135 degree limit of turning but the on board computer allow the release of missiles. RB15code860000notwork.trk RB15codeBEARING30mAppTA10.trk RB15hitWater.trk

Not a Bug This is not a bug but it is RL behaviour. Engines do not need electric pumps to be running to start up and keep working until ~6k ft alt without service fuel pump on because they have mechanical fuel pumps. Only problem is that you will deplete fuel in service tank in about 20 mimutes when at least one fuel pump is not on. If only one is on, it is no big deal again since fuel tanks are interconected.

Agree. It is not advised to hover higher than 20m AGL because of Dead man’s curve. But sometimes you cannot avoid it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because VRS entry is modelled too soon with too low vertical speed. And engine reaction delay seems to me to be also longer than IRL. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk