Bushmanni

The video has an example of aiming Vikhrs with HMS. I had trouble locking the second Apache or following him with ministick with previous attempts as the range reading would start reading wrong and Shkval would go crazy because of it. It would be so nice if this range estimation feature would get disabled in AtoA mode. Anyway I tried aiming with HMS instead and it worked like a charm.

Made a new video of Ka-50 in air to air fight.

The pieces of sabots will do wonders to the engines.

I have figured out the math required to produce cruise charts from flight data but I'm not capable of producing the data myself. Tacview is able to record everything else except torgue or fuel flow. One of them is required to get all the data. My question is if someone is able to create a script that is able to extract either of those from the sim and put it in a file with some other data in similar fashion to the script tacview uses. If neither is available directly then maybe the fuel flow can be calculated from fuel amount by comparing how much was taken from the tanks during certain time interval. With the charts it would be possible to accurately determine speeds for maximum endurance and range in different conditions, fuel flow and endurance time and also the optimum cruise altitude for different weights and distances. This is an example of what I'm aiming for:

CLOS missile keeps itself in a line between target and launcher. Thats what the missiles did seem to do in the video while engaging high flying targets. Unless the target dives into the ground the missile will also stay above the ground. While errors in the flight path might make it fly into the ground if it has to fly at low altitude, it will do so lot less likely than missile with PN trajectory. The low flying target wasn't engaged with pure CLOS trajectory but I didn't say it was. Also against the high flying target the missile initially flew a terrain following trajectory (or something like that, can't say for sure based on a video) until the target elevation angle rose above the missiles elevation angle and it switched to CLOS. As long as the tracking and guidance sensors are in the launcher the accuracy is reduced with range regardless of the trajectory used. If the sensors are in the missile the tracking accuracy increases as the missile gets closer to the target. Tracking accuracy has nothing to do with trajectory. I didn't say CLOS is superior, only that it would be better choice. What I meant with that is that it would be more effective against player who tries to do all kinds of tricks to evade the missiles while still being deadly against AI. It was a personal opinion based on considering the pros and cons of PN and CLOS trajectories.

I checked how Tor missiles navigate in DCSW and they do fly PN trajectory now, happily flying to the ground if you make a steep dive. I think the CLOS is better choice if only one can be had until improvements are made to allow different trajectories for different types of target.

Was the Tunguska out of missiles already or why he didn't shoot at you? I thought that was gonna end badly. Nice job. And nice formation flying with someone who doesn't fly in formation with you. :lol:

Apache Dawn by Damien Lewis. Another book about British Apaches in Afghanistan. The writing style is a bit annoying, like a literature version of Modern Weapons, but the stories itself about flying and different ops are interesting. Towards the end of the book the style gets fortunately more factual. Dressed to Kill by Charlotte Madison. If you don't know, Charlotte was the female pilot in the Ed Macy's squadron. The book is best described as a female perspective to the Army, flying Apaches and War. It has a strong feel of womans diary to it. If stories about hot CO, self reflection and emotions are annoying it's better not waste your time with this. On the other hand the stories about ops and flying are great and it covers more recent years as she did two more tours after the one with Ed. General situation on the ground was quite different in her last tour and it's reflected by some new tactics. I'm a chopper nut so take that into consideration with my opinions. I wouldn't consider these books unless already read Ed Macy's Apache and Hellfire and still wanting more.

I'd like this.

DCS FARP is ridiculously big and visible. While it may be realistic for the kind of FARP where choppers stay when pilots sleep or plan missions, there's also a need for plain refueling and arming point that has only few guys with fuel and ammo trucks or maybe only pallets and nothing else. You usually have a bigger base farther from the enemy where you keep sleeping quarters, headquarters, field maintenance facilities, etc. Then you may have, depending on the situation, some smaller refueling and arming points with minimum personnel and equipment to provide more ammo and weapons to keep the chopper from flying back to base and waste time, fuel and pilot flying time. In a high intensity conflict you would have these mini FARPs randomly scattered near the front lines and reqularly shifting positions to stay safe from enemy observation and artillery or airstrikes. It could be a patch of road with trucks hiding in a forest beside the road. Chopper lands on the road, trucks move to the chopper, chopper is re-fueled and -armed and takes off and returns back to its mission. In a low intensity conflict (like Afghanistan) you might use these to support some big ops or remote areas where you temporarily need attack helicopter support and can't afford long flight times to and from the main base.

Isn't there a way to make it happen instantly instead of 10 seconds wait.

Just add a rule to the trigger zone that requires the unit to be alive in order for it to work.

Can Tor missiles be dragged to ground in DCS? Can any other missiles besides IR SAMs be dragged to earth in DCS? Last time I tried with Tor in 1.1.0.8 or something they flew CLOS trajectory that keeps them on a line connecting the target and the launcher. Unless the target flies behind a hill it would be most probably the target that hits the ground first if it tries to drag the missile into the ground. Question to the OP: Was there any countermeasures involved when the Tors missile went into the ground or was it only maneuvering that made the missile to fly into the ground? To my knowledge only missiles using PN trajectory can be in theory fooled to fly into the ground. I would expect IR missiles to do this in the real life but radar command guided ones can have a feature in the guidance radar system that keeps them over the horizon until close enough for a final dive. Air launched missiles are rarely launched in a situation(very low alt target and launcher and long enough range) where it would be possible to try to fool the missile into the ground despite PN trajectory. In the video you can see several engagements by Tor M2 against different training targets. Against high flying target it flies CLOS trajectory and against low altitude target it flies at a set altitude and then dives to the target when sufficiently close. Relevant stuff for the discussion at 0:50 and 3:15. Tor in DCS is the oldest one which I'm not sure uses this min altitude method to avoid colliding with ground but I know it's not used in DCS. CLOS trajectory makes it still very hard to make the missiles to fly into the ground though. z_Rg5Oot8aY

I made couple of tracks showing the gun and missile procedure. There's couple of fumbles in both of them but got the job done anyways. In the gun version I forgot to switch to high ROF in the end game but fortunately got good hits with the few shots I got and brought him down for good. In the missile version I got distracted for a while and forgot to turn on laser soon enough and got my missiles off a bit late but not too late. It was still a bit more close call than I would prefer. With the latest version the Apache will open fire only at 1km and at that point you can't dodge it. But you do have more time to score a hit on him. AtoA with guns.trk AtoA with missiles.trk

It's quite possible to beat them in a gun fight or missile fight pretty much always as long as you don't fumble anything and follow the correct procedure. The main problem is to find them before it's too late. In a missile fight there's not that much time to find the Apache after laser warning before his hellfire catches you. General air-to-air preparation is to dim the HUD and HMS so that they are as dim as possible while still easily readable. This way you can see the target and shell tracers better when using HMS. If you know there's enemy attack helicopters around you should have some plan prepared on what to do when you find them and what to do if they find you first. If you get laser warning from a possibly airborne platform try to find it by scanning it visually with max zoom. If you can't find it in 15 seconds or the laser warning goes to guidance mode immediately extend with maximum speed and fly away until enough time has passed from not getting laser warning anymore that you have enough time to reverse and find the bugger before he's in range again. If you still can't find him and you get the guidance warning extend again and repeat until you succeed. You can also use this tactic to bleed the AI aircraft out of missiles and get an easy kill but it will be time consuming. You will need to constantly reset the LWR to know when the laser isn't painting you anymore. You can find enemy helicopters from quite far away with Shkval if you know their approximate location. Get low enough to skyline the possible enemy helos against sky or distant mountains that give a nice high contrast to any flying dots. Scan by moving the display incrementally stopping it to see any movement. They will be quite visible in Shkval even from 30km out but of course you can't usually tell what the dot is, only that it's there. Don't just fly towards the enemy when you find him as he might be around some AD units that will shoot you down when you are focused on him. Attack with a sound plan. Missile procedure goes as follows. Trim for level flight at the same altitude with enemy or slightly lower, master arm to arm, select outer pylons, laser off, A-A mode on, salvo length long, firing consent to manual, auto turn to target on, HMS on. Find the target, target him with Shkval and lock him up. When you get laser warning, turn on your laser and measure range. Fire two missiles at the same time as the enemy. The Vikhr is much faster than hellfire so you will get him well before the hellfire is even near you. If your missiles miss for some reason you could try to dodge the hellfires with a well timed sharp climb but most probably you will get killed. When and if you can see the hellfire in the Shkval it's good time to do the rapid climb maneuver. Your main priority should be to dodge the enemy missiles and after surviving that to fire a new pair of your own missiles. Gun procedure: Trim for level flight at 200-250km/h, master arm to arm, select gun, laser on, A-A mode on, turn to target on, HMS on, gun ROF to slow, gun ammo to HE. Find the target and lock him up with Shkval. After initial range measurement the range reading might become erroneous with time as the rangefinder fire only for three seconds and after that range is estimated by an algorithm meant for ground targets. Fire the range finder manually if the range reading seems to jump suddenly or creep too fast or slow or it seems off for some reason. When the target is about 2km away fire the range finder and immediately after that open fire. Apache will open fire at 1.5km so be ready to dodge his tracers by rolling 45 degrees to either side while pointing nose to target if he manages to get some shots off. It's useless to fire farther than 2km as the firing computer doesn't consider the targets approach speed and he will be too much closer to you when shells arrive at the point where computer aimed that they will overfly the target. At 2km the trajectory is flat enough and time of flight short enough to score a hit despite this. Using high ROF is also useless as at that range the gun recoil will spoil the aim sufficiently that you won't score as many hits on target as with low ROF. Against aircrafts only direct hits count as missed shells will fly harmlessly past the target. When he gets hit he will immediately abort the attack and do an evasive maneuver. At this point you should try to maintain the lock, keep firing and simultaneously try to get behind him using lag pursuit. After 90 degree turn he will "recover" from the evasive maneuver and try to engage you again and if you happen to be inside the guns traverse sector you will be toast. You will need high speed to get behind him before he recovers. If he's still flying at this point and you have lost lock on him, turn laser off and and finish him by aiming the gun with HMS. Laser must be turned off or the firing computer will "adjust" the gun aim with erroneous range data and overshoot the target or prohibit firing entirely. If HMS feels too hard then use fixed forward mode by resetting the targeting computer. With practice the HMS is more effective method though. These procedures are meant to be used against AI helicopters. They completely disregard proper tactics and over emphasize weapons delivery as that's all that matters against current AI.

Assign a FAC task to first waypoint or to the one when you want the JTAC to activate in advanced actions dialog. From command category you can find tasks to assign radio frequency, callsign, etc. This works for both aircraft and ground vehicles.

A-10 Cuba was and still is extremely good simulator. The physics, flight model, avionics and AI are better than in Flaming Cliffs 2. I tried it some time after DCS Warthog was released and found its FM to have very similar feel both lightly and heavily loaded. Engine performance in the A-10 Cuba is better than in reality and ability to carry HARMs is another big unrealism but both are of course something every warthog pilot would love to have. If it had TrackIR support, more missions and fancier graphics it would still be one of the best sims out there. The missions in A-10 Cuba are the best in any simulator yet and very challenging. I can still remember how I got my wing clipped by a flying tank turret after strafing run.

On a second thought the slow speed danger portion of the H-V diagram must be due to rotor having insufficient energy to arrest descent from hovering descent, not due to VRS. But that doesn't mean that you can't get into VRS in autorotation. Other thing I should emphasize is that VRS during autorotation is going to be very short lived and encountered only in situations you shouldn't get in the first place if you are flying properly. As such getting into VRS from autorotation is purely an academic issue. I also tried how DCS Ka-50 handles in hover autorotation descent and what you know, it will enter and maintain proper VRS for about 5 seconds before rotor RPM drops too low to produce enough lift for VRS.

What I could gather from a Navy helicopter aerodynamics course book is that during normal autorotation descent the rotor is strictly speaking in a VRS condition (airflow both up and down through the rotor disk) as pure autorotation state would produce ever increasing RPM and destroy the rotor. Outer portion of the disk is producing lift and drag (driven portion of the rotor) while mid portion is pulling the blades forward (driving portion) and inner portion is stalled. By balancing the driven and driving portions of the rotor by adjusting blade pitch, RPM and rate of descent a pilot can establish a steady autorotation. From a perspective of aviator the normal autorotation descent state is called autorotation as the aircraft behaves like it's in autorotation instead of VRS while technically it's in VRS. Helicopter can enter a stable straight vertical autorotation descent but according to H-V diagram (aka. Dead man's curve) you can't land from it but need to transition to forward flight autorotation to land. The requirements for VRS is some induced velocity, descent rate of 0.7-1.25 of induced velocity to descent with vortices and low airspeed. There's nothing to keep you from entering a VRS from autorotation if you do it wrong as rotor inertia is clearly enough to produce lift ie. induced velocity. This VRS would be short lived though as RPM would decrease rapidly leading to increasing descent rate which would bring the rotor back to autorotation if not stalled first.

I think you can download a demo for X-Plane and see for yourself. At least with previous versions it was possible. It's actually the full version of the game but joystick get's ignored after 5 minutes and you need to restart it.

While blade drag for given AoA is less at higher altitude so is lift. By increasing AoA you get further away from the AoA sweet spot ie. to make up the lost lift you need to increase AoA which increases the drag even more due to decreased efficiency. Helicopter fuel efficiency depends on two systems, rotor and engine. Turboshaft engine efficiency increases as air temperature decreases ie. it gets better at high altitude. Rotor efficiency decreases with altitude due to increased profile drag which results from increased blade AoA. Which one has more "authority" depends on rotor system performance characteristics, engine performance characteristics and gross weight. Rotor system and engines are what you have so the only variable is gross weight. By determining specific fuel consumption (fuel/distance) as a function of gross weight for the helicopter in question at different altitudes gives a set of curves that usually coincide at some point. That crossover point is the gross weight that gives the same fuel efficiency at all altitudes. With lower gross weights you get better fuel efficiency at altitude and with higher gross weights you get better fuel efficiency at sea level. This is because at low gross weight the blade AoA is lower and the increase required when going higher is also less so the loss of efficiency at high altitude is smaller than with higher gross weight. Rotor system design operating RPM is usually the highest structurally possible minus some safe margin so increasing the RPM isn't usually possible. As the aircraft weight decreases during mission so does the required AoA. Rotor system properties are designed so that the blades operate as close to the optimum AoA as possible during typical mission. This means that the AoA is more than optimal at high gross weight and less than optimal at low gross weight. Due to this at low gross weight reducing RPM would allow using higher AoA that provides better efficiency. RPM reduction has one nasty side effect as the tail rotor RPM is also reduced which leads to reduced tail rotor authority and increases chances of tail rotor related loss of control.

It seems there's been some work done on the flight model. You will need more collective in hover and high speed performance is slightly reduced. Cyclic control is also reduced more than before when collective is lowered. Cyclic is also less twitchy than before. Has anyone else similar observations? It would be cool to know from ED what has been actually done.

I have a vague memory that the UH-60's were shot down by AMRAAM's which would also be more logical as with AIM-9's it might have been possible to see the target was friendly. Heat seekers have no problems tracking helicopters if they are silhouetted against sky which is the situation in most cases of SAM engagements hence DIRCM. Interesting, is this low altitude wandering some kind of gamey thing or does it simulate some real phenomenon and does it apply to all missiles or only heat seekers?

Yes, most likely rear-aspect only. During winter there was no problems with locking up helicopters so there's obviously the question of environmental factors which were not disclosed by the author any more than that. If you look at TADS videos from apache you can see that during the day the Apache isn't much more warmer than the ground and there's plenty of random hot spots for the missile to choose from, depending on terrain of course. Has any helicopter with suppressed exhausts been downed by heat seeker? During the test it was found that radar will see the choppers quite well and only way to stay hidden is to get something between you and the radar so radar missiles would be the preferred choice. Regarding Stingers in DCS: I once got shot from behind three times with Stingers from 2-3km away while I was hovering on a slope of a hill doing nothing about the Stingers. I had no idea I was engaged but first heard explosion when one of the Stingers hit the hill next to me but I couldn't spot the explosion yet. Next one also hit the hill and this time I saw the explosion and realized I was being shot at from behind. The third one also hit the hill. Afterwards I checked with Tacview and all of the Stingers guided on to the hill, ie. they seemed to be locked locked to a point on ground. They didn't go ballistic when they lost lock but switched target from me to the ground. So it would seem there's some kind of thermal interference from ground modeled in DCS. He's mostly critical about the price tag of NH90, not the chopper itself which he concluded to be more than what would have been needed. He would have preferred Russian choppers and more tanks and artillery with the rest of the money.

In transverse flow effect that Effte is referring the rear sector of the disk has reduced angle of attack due to coning and transverse flow and this causes the advancing side of the disk to tilt down. In Ka-50 we see advancing side tilt up.