Two requests for Mi-8 MTV2

[heli3]

Hi there.

 

Last night I was wondering... it would be great to be able to remove the rear clamshell doors from Mi-8 since they are somewhat heavy and usually are removed.

 

A quick example:

 

 

I don't know the actual weight of both doors to be correctly simulated but I'm sure i'll know soon, if you don't before :D

 

 

Sling load simulation would be also great, and you guys did a great job on the Huey so I believe it should not be so difficult to simulate on Mi-8.

 

 

Also, would be really appreciated if the powerplant intake filters could also be uninstalled :rolleyes:

Edited January 20, 2015 by heli3

[Slazi]

Also, would be really appreciated if the powerplant intake filters could also be uninstalled

 

You're not talking about the IR Covers are you? They can be removed.

[Cibit]

NRG Vampire IIRC posted screenies of the mi-8 without rear doors. Done in modelviewer and changing arguments.

 

In ME you can remove hardpoints IR suppresors and additional armour plate. They are just check boxes:)

[heli3]

You're not talking about the IR Covers are you? They can be removed.

 

I mean those "boobies" right in front of the engine intakes:

 

 

So it would look like this:

 

NRG Vampire IIRC posted screenies of the mi-8 without rear doors. Done in modelviewer and changing arguments.

 

In ME you can remove hardpoints IR suppresors and additional armour plate. They are just check boxes:)

 

Yea, but intake filters and rear cargo doors canot be configured :D

[AlphaOneSix]

The rear clamshell doors are not heavy, maybe 40-50 pounds per side, so maybe 100 pounds total. I could probably look up the actual weight, I'm just guessing based on how heavy they feel. They are easily lifted by one person, except it's awkward as heck due to their size.

 

The dust protectors on the front of the engines are a feature of the TV3-117 series engines, and are removable for maintenance but are required for flight. Your picture above is an older model Mi-8 with TV2-117 series engines. They did not have the dust protectors as an option, as far as I know.

[heli3]

The rear clamshell doors are not heavy, maybe 40-50 pounds per side, so maybe 100 pounds total. I could probably look up the actual weight, I'm just guessing based on how heavy they feel. They are easily lifted by one person, except it's awkward as heck due to their size.

 

Sorry, I have not expressed correctly in my first post. Sometimes the doors are removed because they need free way in order the soldiers or parachutists to jump off the aircraft (like the video I posted), but sometimes they are removed for weight reasons.

 

Here is a better example about it:

 

 

The dust protectors on the front of the engines are a feature of the TV3-117 series engines, and are removable for maintenance but are required for flight. Your picture above is an older model Mi-8 with TV2-117 series engines. They did not have the dust protectors as an option, as far as I know.

 

Allright then, I ignored this :thumbup:

[AlphaOneSix]

I've never heard of the clamshells being removed for weight reasons. They don't weigh enough to make a difference, and they reduce the top speed of the helicopter. They are, as you already mentioned, routinely removed to make access easier for things coming into and out of the rear of the helicopter.

[heli3]

Probably in the last video they were removed to load big cargoes, who knows.

 

Anyways, it would be nice to remove them, isn't it? :rolleyes:

 

That ship looks way different without those big doors.

[FlyingHighAU]

or a ramp option :) might be a different variant though

[heli3]

or a ramp option :) might be a different variant though

 

You mean the flat ass variant? But that would require modelling! Whatever it would be definetly great LOL

[press]

The dust protectors on the front of the engines are a feature of the TV3-117 series engines, and are removable for maintenance but are required for flight. Your picture above is an older model Mi-8 with TV2-117 series engines. They did not have the dust protectors as an option, as far as I know.

 

The PZUs can be installed also on TV2 engines.

 

We are operating 3 Mi-17s for 12 years without PZUs.

[Toxic]

So in the very first video we see a Mi-8 (or Mi-17) descending rapidly down towards the water to drop off troops. Now, in the current patch the Mi-8 would immediately get into its rotor wash and lose almost all lift! How can we have this problem solved? I feel like it is very easy to get into your own rotor wash in the Mi-8 and crash your balls off! Also, what about that fancy IR jammer at the base of the tail, does it work? Or is it just for looks right now.

[heli3]

So in the very first video we see a Mi-8 (or Mi-17) descending rapidly down towards the water to drop off troops. Now, in the current patch the Mi-8 would immediately get into its rotor wash and lose almost all lift! How can we have this problem solved? I feel like it is very easy to get into your own rotor wash in the Mi-8 and crash your balls off! Also, what about that fancy IR jammer at the base of the tail, does it work? Or is it just for looks right now.

 

Completely agree with the VRS. That effect is too excessive simulated.

[Slazi]

So in the very first video we see a Mi-8 (or Mi-17) descending rapidly down towards the water to drop off troops. Now, in the current patch the Mi-8 would immediately get into its rotor wash and lose almost all lift!

 

Not sure that's true. Would be interesting to know how fast he was descending there.

[Ce_Zeta]

The PZUs can be installed also on TV2 engines.

 

We are operating 3 Mi-17s for 12 years without PZUs.

What version?

I only saw new Mi-17V5 without PZU and in winter only.

 

In my opinion. remove the clamshell doors is an interesting option but remove PZU not.

[FlyingHighAU]

So in the very first video we see a Mi-8 (or Mi-17) descending rapidly down towards the water to drop off troops. Now, in the current patch the Mi-8 would immediately get into its rotor wash and lose almost all lift! How can we have this problem solved? I feel like it is very easy to get into your own rotor wash in the Mi-8 and crash your balls off! Also, what about that fancy IR jammer at the base of the tail, does it work? Or is it just for looks right now.

To me it looked like he was still moving forwards while rapidly descending, so maybe he was just on the edge of VRS. But even so, I still agree it's much to easy to do currently but then agian I've seen this, which represents my DCS experience almost exactly.

 

[press]

What version?

I only saw new Mi-17V5 without PZU and in winter only.

 

We have two Mi-17-1V and one Mi-17-1VA. It was opted to remove the PZUs to take gain of the 7% engine power loss during PZU operation.

[AlphaOneSix]

The only savings I can see is a very slight weight difference. You aren't *required* to turn them on.

 

And it's NOT a 7% power loss. No way. I'd be curious about how that number was determined. I would calculate a 1.5% power loss with PZUs operating. No power loss with them not operating.

 

The weight savings is 33.8kg for both PZUs combined.

[GunfighterSIX]

The only savings I can see is a very slight weight difference. You aren't *required* to turn them on.

 

And it's NOT a 7% power loss. No way. I'd be curious about how that number was determined. I would calculate a 1.5% power loss with PZUs operating. No power loss with them not operating.

 

The weight savings is 33.8kg for both PZUs combined.

 

 

I agree with you, the weight advantage is not much. Even if the power loss was that high, it is on the top end because of the loss in bleed air or "cooling air". What most players don't understand is unless your are flying in your max power range you are not going to see a power loss. You will Hit VNE before you hit engine parameters. And like you said, if you need the power, then turn them off.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2015 by GunfighterSIX

[KaspeR32]

So in the very first video we see a Mi-8 (or Mi-17) descending rapidly down towards the water to drop off troops. Now, in the current patch the Mi-8 would immediately get into its rotor wash and lose almost all lift! How can we have this problem solved?

 

You must remember when viewing the helicopter from this angle, it looks like he's descending a lot faster. The DCS Mi-8 can do this maneuver, I doubt he's descending more than 300 ft/m.

[heli3]

You must remember when viewing the helicopter from this angle, it looks like he's descending a lot faster. The DCS Mi-8 can do this maneuver, I doubt he's descending more than 300 ft/m.

 

Everything is up to the wind intensity and direction.

 

[press]

Between 2100HP and 2200HP is around 5% difference. And that's for ideal case. I will check with my manuals later with the exact numbers there.

 

@GunfighterSIX: PZUs are used during take offs and landings at heights bellow 50 meters. Above 50 meters you don't have particles to ingest so no sense of keeping PZUs ON.

[Ce_Zeta]

We have two Mi-17-1V and one Mi-17-1VA. It was opted to remove the PZUs to take gain of the 7% engine power loss during PZU operation.

Interesting Press.

 

I don't see the advantages of remove PZU...The exact % of power (5%, 7%...Depends of the turbine's state, less % if the turbine is new...) isn't the key point here because when the PZU's are off they don't extract power from the turbines.

 

Sure, you removed the PZU for good reasons, but in DCS, using the Hip as a general purpose chopper in a war environment ....we land in the most recondites places of the map. An the risk of particles inside the turbines is too high.

[AlphaOneSix]

Okay, I see where the numbers come from now. I was looking at a different chart. Our organization would never consider removing them, since we land off-field all the time, but I can see how it might be helpful if all you do is fly near max weight from improved airfields.

[GunfighterSIX]

Between 2100HP and 2200HP is around 5% difference. And that's for ideal case. I will check with my manuals later with the exact numbers there.

 

@GunfighterSIX: PZUs are used during take offs and landings at heights bellow 50 meters. Above 50 meters you don't have particles to ingest so no sense of keeping PZUs ON.

 

 

As required. 50 meters or not I Don't need them if landing to an improved surface with no dust. For example an airport ramp. There is a reason the check list is written that way, so as not to limit the pilot.