Can you talk about the original shortcomings of the mi-24 helicopter design?

[Sacarino111]

On 5/12/2021 at 1:45 PM, Quadg said:

take torque, the west uses torque. the east uses engine pressure ratio.

engine pressure ratio automatically adjusts for outside air temp and pressure.

torque does not.

you dont need a chart for maximum allowed torque at different altitudes. (like the one stuck to the gazelles dashboard)

the EPR gauge does it for you.

Uhhh, interesting...

Good point!

Saludos.

Saca111

[Fri13]

On 5/12/2021 at 12:22 PM, huchanronaa said:

I have the mi-8 module, and the two have similarities, so I can say that the first one is that the cockpit design is messy and the buttons are too many. The American helicopter uh-1h and mi-8 are products of the same era, but uh-1h  feel The cockpit design is much better

 

I don't find Mi-8 cockpit messy. It is well organized for three personnel inside a cockpit. The workload is share dynamically so one doesn't need to do everything - like in DCS.

 

How do you fly in Mi-8?

 

Do you sit in the left seat and then from there operate everything? 

If so, then it totally will be messy.

 

What I do is that I have one hat for each for seat that there is:

Left = Pilot

Right = Co-Pilot

Up = Flight Engineer

Down = Door Gunner

 

When I fly, I am mostly the pilot. For a combat operations you need sometimes tell to your co-pilot that what weapons you want to use (so jump to the right seat) and they select the pylons that are energized for you. They as well have navigation responsibility (N430 as well doppler navigation) that they would tell you to assist you to fly the course and route.

The start-up or shutdown process is easy with the flight engineer assisting you.

 

Alone the Mi-8 is totally different compared to fly it together with two other players.

So in solo flying you need to do some role playing, so as you are role playing being a pilot, you need to role play as well being co-pilot, flight engineer and door gunner.

Getting use to the idea that you are playing as all roles makes it easy when you just jump to proper seat and then understand that it is someone else meanwhile operating other seats.

 

If you want to experience more of co-op flying but alone, you need to make a voice commands scripts using third party software that will do the wanted things by voice. Like "Ivan, I need the 30mm grenades" as pilot, and the software will read the status of the co-pilot control panel and adjust them to proper modes. Your task as pilot would be to set your upper head panels as wanted. 

 

As well Mi-8 like any other requires effort to first time to sit down and just look and understand every panel, button and switch there is to generate the overall picture of everything. Then it makes very much sense what Mi-8 is and how much easier it is compared to UH-1 example.

 

 

What I like in those systems is that once you see them, you know what they do as they are so well shared across vehicles or their logic is. So it becomes easy to fly MiG-21Bis and then Mi-8MTV2 as they basically share majority. And Mi-24P will be same, but from its unique parts (tank periscope, controls etc). 

 

What I like in Mi-8 and expect to like in Mi-24P as well, is the capability to react and work quickly in emergency situations. The cockpit layouts are such clarity that you don't need to think but you just perform. 

 

 

 

[Fri13]

On 5/12/2021 at 1:15 PM, molevitch said:

Having said that, sitting in (my reproduction) pit, the layout is no better or worse than many other aircraft. Some switches are awkward to reach, requiring a twist to the left to use a right hand, or reaching blindly back with a left hand, peering underneath the door closing-piston to access the anti-icing or Aircon, or trying to see and activate the correct weapons switch while holding the cyclic in active combat flight! 

 

And that Ladies and Gentleman, is the beauty of the simpit and VR when used with hand tracking devices that requires you to move hand on switch/button/knob position, instead using a mouse, keyboard or voice commands....

 

You learn these only small things only by moving hands around to reach something.....

But you will as well learn faster, and more efficient manner as your muscle memory builds up very quickly. It is like trying to explain someone what it is to drive a bicycle instead driving the bicycle....

 

A such knowledge or reason answering to questions like "Why this is here at left and not there at right?" is what makes VR so fun. 

 

[Fri13]

On 5/13/2021 at 4:17 AM, rogorogo said:

And btw.. that "too small cargo compartment" has seen a lot of use, standardized, highly specialized, clandestine use. And its airframe also was never intended to be a "true troop transport", or any form of "troop transport".

 

It was from the start deigned to have purpose carry troops. It was the "Flying BMP-1". 

from 08:00 - 14:05 https://youtu.be/JZ5je96v8H8?t=472

 

It was not designed to be a cargo helicopter like Mi-8, just to be able carry 8 men with their equipment and some rockets like two rocket pods on both wings (maybe even the AT missiles in wingtips).

 

But why to use it normally for that when you get more men in the Mi-8 and you can better support Mi-8's by attacking the enemy?

If needed, it could do those many things well. 

 

 

[rogorogo]

vor 35 Minuten schrieb Fri13:

 

It was from the start deigned to have purpose carry troops. It was the "Flying BMP-1". 

from 08:00 - 14:05 https://youtu.be/JZ5je96v8H8?t=472

 

It was not designed to be a cargo helicopter like Mi-8, just to be able carry 8 men with their equipment and some rockets like two rocket pods on both wings (maybe even the AT missiles in wingtips).

 

But why to use it normally for that when you get more men in the Mi-8 and you can better support Mi-8's by attacking the enemy?

If needed, it could do those many things well. 

 

 

Ahem... that was exactly what I typed, unless the nuance and the use of quotation marks evaded you.
I am very much aware of the original design outline, later realities and - as I typed - the extent of application in the originally intended purpose.
But - unrelated - being an integrated squad with its own support (literally as the "BMP" methapor implies) is different from the definition of "a" or any form of "troop transport".

But apart from that, it is futile to attempt to discuss either of the two topics in an exchange in a DCS forum, there is extensive factual information about it readily available. For those in error a simple pointing out, a hint where to look and/or what to look out for suffices. 
Which is what I did.

Edited May 26, 2021 by rogorogo

[Fri13]

On 5/14/2021 at 1:42 PM, Apok said:

Mi24 "flaws" were addressed in Mi35M. They shortened the wings to help with hovering, maneuvering and fixed landing gear to reduce weight.

But new problems arose - top speed fell form 335 to 300km/h and it became less stable in flight according to pilots.

On Mi35P Phoenix they dropped all those changes and retained original design. 

 

Very interesting...

 

Sounds like a new generation of engineers got a plan to sell a Mi-35M as "improved", without really realizing that what they were modifying. Result was then a unwanted characteristics that they were required to fix by simply rolling back the changes that previous engineers made with experience from years, by going as well the rough experimenting route....

 

 

[lmp]

14 hours ago, Fri13 said:

I don't find Mi-8 cockpit messy. It is well organized for three personnel inside a cockpit. The workload is share dynamically so one doesn't need to do everything - like in DCS.

 

It is messy, at least parts of it are. The radio controls are everywhere, you have some on just about every panel in the cockpit. The R-863 alone has some controls on the commander's overhead, some on the navigator's pedestal. This doesn't make the workload sharing dynamic, in fact it makes it more rigid. Operating a lot of the avionics can only be done from one of the seats. We can argue all we want how the Mi-8 is more complex but the bottom line is, the UH-1H - also a helicopter designed to be operated by a crew rather than a single pilot - has a much more logically organized cockpit.

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, lmp said:

It is messy, at least parts of it are. The radio controls are everywhere, you have some on just about every panel in the cockpit. The R-863 alone has some controls on the commander's overhead, some on the navigator's pedestal. This doesn't make the workload sharing dynamic, in fact it makes it more rigid.

 

If the radio systems would be correctly modeled in single player, you would have separate sets for both pilots. Same time they can talk to each others over ICS because the PTT is in the dual-stage trigger. The Net 1-2 is not modeled in the module, so you can't perform these things and why it looks so messy that both have the panels and you have only one radio to use.

 

8 hours ago, lmp said:

Operating a lot of the avionics can only be done from one of the seats.

 

Yeah, because that is co-op operation. Like example the helicopter is operated normally with the pre-configured channels for radio communications. Both pilots has their own sets to be configured so they can talk to different (or same) people. But in a emergency or special situation you can manually set the frequency and that is the flight engineer task front of him. It can be done by the co-pilot as well as the thing is next to him, but it is easy for flight engineer to set from Channels to Manual and then set the custom frequency while pilots are flying and navigation so they don't need to do three tasks at the same time (flying, searching, communicating and handling the situation).

 

The Intercom system has six points: pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, troop commander, door operator and cargo door station. 

The navigation system is tied for one as that is responsibility for co-pilot to navigate so he does all that work. 

Pilot and Co-Pilot both talk to own external channels, 

 

8 hours ago, lmp said:

 We can argue all we want how the Mi-8 is more complex but the bottom line is, the UH-1H - also a helicopter designed to be operated by a crew rather than a single pilot - has a much more logically organized cockpit.

 

UH-1 is more limited and restricted capabilities and designs. Mi-8 has better logic and organization between the crew members for the helicopter operations in all stations.

 

 

[lmp]

23 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

If the radio systems would be correctly modeled in single player, you would have separate sets for both pilots. Same time they can talk to each others over ICS because the PTT is in the dual-stage trigger. The Net 1-2 is not modeled in the module, so you can't perform these things and why it looks so messy that both have the panels and you have only one radio to use.

 

 

Now I believe you're talking about the intercom and I really have no gripe with how it is designed (unless I'm greatly misunderstanding something about the Mi-8 and the real aircraft has two R-863 sets?). What I don't like is the odd splitting of the R-863 controls into two panels. Would it have hurt if all the controls were on the central pedestal, within reach of all three crew members?

 

12 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Yeah, because that is co-op operation. Like example the helicopter is operated normally with the pre-configured channels for radio communications. Both pilots has their own sets to be configured so they can talk to different (or same) people. But in a emergency or special situation you can manually set the frequency and that is the flight engineer task front of him. It can be done by the co-pilot as well as the thing is next to him, but it is easy for flight engineer to set from Channels to Manual and then set the custom frequency while pilots are flying and navigation so they don't need to do three tasks at the same time (flying, searching, communicating and handling the situation).

 

 

What if the situation is not normal?

 

This is a rigid distribution of tasks, not a dynamic one. If for whatever reason the pilot-navigator is flying (instrument failure on the commander's side, hand injury...), he will still have to operate the R-828 and Yadro sets and all the navigation equipment alone because nobody else can reach it. In the Huey all radionav controls are on the central pedestal, each of the two pilots can perform pretty much all the radionav related tasks depending on who's pilot flying and who's pilot monitoring. The Huey crew has this flexibility, the Mi-8 crew does not.

 

32 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Mi-8 has better logic and organization between the crew members for the helicopter operations in all stations.

 

How's the Huey worse than the Mi-8?

[Fri13]

9 minutes ago, lmp said:

 

Now I believe you're talking about the intercom and I really have no gripe with how it is designed (unless I'm greatly misunderstanding something about the Mi-8 and the real aircraft has two R-863 sets?). What I don't like is the odd splitting of the R-863 controls into two panels. Would it have hurt if all the controls were on the central pedestal, within reach of all three crew members?

 

Have you thought that DCS doesn't model more than single radio operation regardless how many radios you really have? That is real limitation for all modules.

And anyways to operate radios in the Mi-8MTV2, you don't need to do more than use a one radio panel as pilot, that is above you, you don't need to go around cockpit. 

It is odd as well that in the hot-starts you have radio set to Manual model instead Presets. Why you can't operate radio channels straight away above you as .

 

In a western modern fighter like AV-8B it is simple as you have two radios and radio channels to communicate, you select the radio with a hat (Aft/Forward or Left/Right) and you have no way to talk to more than one at the time. 

In a one pilot old plane like MiG-21Bis you have only one radio channel selector in the cockpit, and you need to be switching it between channels depending do you want to talk to wingman, ATC, GCI or what ever. You don't have two radios there as you are single pilot.

 

In a Mi-8MTV2 it is multiple radios split for two (R-863 for pilot and flight engineer and R-828 channels for Co-Pilot). Why?

All have capability to select what radio to use for communications, just like in UH-1 if would have all four panels (two for pilots and two for rear).

 

You can listen always two channels, master channel and monitor channel. You can choose which one is ICS and which one is another radio. You switch between them with your cyclic trigger that is dual-stage trigger, first pull is one radio and full pull is a another. 

 

When this switch is set to the СПУ (ICS) position and the unified ICS RADIO PTT button on the pilot or copilot cyclic control stick is pressed to the first position (one click) or second position (second click) intercom is used.

When this switch is set to the РАД (RADIO) position and the unified ICS RADIO PTT button on the pilot or copilot cyclic control stick is pressed to the first position (one click), then intercom is used. When pressed to the second position (second click) - radio is used.

 

When in РАД (RADIO) position, broadcast transmissions are heard at a normal volume level, while crew is heard with reduced volume. To adjust volume, pilot should use the ОБЩАЯ (MASTER) and ПРОСЛ (MONITOR) knobs.

When the SPU-RAD switch is set to СПУ (ICS) position, intercom volume is controlled by the ОБЩАЯ (MASTER) knob and radio volume by the ПРОСЛ (MONITOR) knob. When the SPU-RAD switch is set to РАД (RADIO) position, intercom volume is controlled by the ПРОСЛ (MONITOR) knob and radio volume by the ОБЩАЯ (MASTER) knob.

 

Now think about the workload that it takes to talk between crew members, flight members, ground units and something else? Sharing all to different people makes it more efficient.

 

9 minutes ago, lmp said:

What if the situation is not normal?

 

This is a rigid distribution of tasks, not a dynamic one. If for whatever reason the pilot-navigator is flying (instrument failure on the commander's side, hand injury...), he will still have to operate the R-828 and Yadro sets and all the navigation equipment alone because nobody else can reach it.

 

This is same thing as "what if a pilot dies in the Apache?" or "what if RIO dies in Tomcat?".

There are more important task at that moment, as he already has the navigation systems ready for the task and pre-set channels for requirement than continue the mission and handle everything alone.

 

Mi-8 is meant to fly with a crew, not solo. If you kill either one, it is changing situations like killing another engine or something.

UH-1 fits for DCS limited single player experience as you don't have the multi-crew capability modeled so well in DCS.

 

9 minutes ago, lmp said:

In the Huey all radionav controls are on the central pedestal, each of the two pilots can perform pretty much all the radionav related tasks depending on who's pilot flying and who's pilot monitoring. The Huey crew has this flexibility, the Mi-8 crew does not.

 

You can't have both pilots operating all radios same time as their hands are colliding.

 

9 minutes ago, lmp said:

How's the Huey worse than the Mi-8?

 

How is the Hip worse than the Huey?

In Hip each crew member has their own responsibilities (like in Apache, Hind etc) even when they are in the same cockpit, you don't do duplicate things or try to decide what someone wants to do and when. Everyone knows well their tasks and it makes it simpler as you don't try to do all by yourself.

Having a crew helps you a lot and makes everything easier and simpler. 

 

[lmp]

I am aware that each crew member can select which radio to listen to and transmit on in the real machine on his very own panel and that's great, but that's not the point.

 

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

In a Mi-8MTV2 it is multiple radios split for two (R-863 for pilot and flight engineer and R-828 channels for Co-Pilot). Why?

 

 

The Mi-8 has multiple radios because each set provides a different (non overlapping!) frequency range and different capabilities. Not for redundancy or to give each of the pilot's "their" radio set.

 

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

This is same thing as "what if a pilot dies in the Apache?" or "what if RIO dies in Tomcat?".

 

 

No it isn't. There's a multitude of reasons why the crew might swap (before or mid flight) the roles of pilot flying and pilot monitoring. They don't have to be crazy edge cases such as the ones you listed above, it may be a simple case of somebody having more experience in certain conditions or being more familiar with a certain airfield or landing area. This is not my idea, this is done all the time and everywhere.

 

And even in extreme cases which would lead the crew to abandon their mission, flying, navigating and communicating are the three key functions needed to get you home and on the ground - and where you want as much redundancy as you can get.

 

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

You can't have both pilots operating all radios same time as their hands are colliding.

 

 

You also can't have both pilots flying at the same time yet there are two sets of flight controls. They're there to give both pilots the ability to fly the aircraft and in the same vein they ideally should have the ability to perform other crucial functions such as communicating and navigating.

 

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

How is the Hip worse than the Huey?

 

 

The radio and navigation controls in the Huey are all in one area (cleaner and easier to memorize) and accessible to both pilots (more flexible).

 

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

In Hip each crew member has their own responsibilities (like in Apache, Hind etc) even when they are in the same cockpit, you don't do duplicate things or try to decide what someone wants to do and when.

 

In our Mi-8MTV2 Hip yes. In this newer Mi-8MTV5 not so much:

 

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Kazan-Helicopter-Plant/Mil-Mi-17V-5-Mi-8MTV-5/1320605/L

 

Notice how each pilot has his own FMS console? As soon as glass cockpit technology freed up some panel real-estate the designers chose to do exactly what you said "you don't do" - duplicate controls. And you know what? Same is true for the AH-64A and AH-64D. In the latter, a lot more can be accomplished from either cockpit. This high specialization in the earlier versions is a design compromise made because you can only fit so many physical controls within sight and reach of a single person. As soon as glass cockpits alleviated the problem, designers started moving away from this solution. On both sides of the curtain, so to speak.

 

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Everyone knows well their tasks and it makes it simpler as you don't try to do all by yourself.

 

This is true, but this is enforced by procedures and crew resources management not by inflexible cockpit design.

 

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Having a crew helps you a lot and makes everything easier and simpler. 

 

 

It can also compensate for cockpit shortcomings.