Flying the Hind before Xmas

No I think multi crew is not so important with the P.

I believe it drove Belsimteks choice between the V and P.

 

Now that we are getting the P, multicrew is not that important.

Door gunners are a must here, P or V... they are a must!

 

no matter what the argument..... door gunners set this bullying thug apart from the others.

that statement depressed the fck out of me.

I expect at least a jester level of multicrew 2 years after f14s release. I also reaaally will be mad if they neglect mp multicrew, im of the opinion that if the military expects 2 really highly trained men to be needed to perform the misssion of the jet or airframe truly sucesfully, than its ridiculous to make a game expecting the player to do EVERYTHING. at this level of detail we have at ED, without jester and he still has a lot of flaws, flying the f14 without and needing to jump seats would be miserable, and everyone would mostly suck. im very concerned if they try to make the mi24 multicrew very simple and chose it to do this (i read the claim itll be bettter than jester, but your theory would go otherwise)

Now that we are getting the P, multicrew is not that important.

The co-pilot is critical for Mi-24. The P didn't make Mi-24 less demanding for the Co-Pilot requirements than V would had, as if you want any means use Mi-24 to engage the most common targets in the DCS, you need to be able launch ATGM.

And as solo-pilot, you can't really do that well. The human co-pilot is critical because you can fly in +/- 60 degree angle from the target after launch, so you are there to maneuver and avoid the incoming fire.

In real life you are not at all spotted easily from a 1-3 km ranges if you didn't make it very obvious for enemy to track you around for a second attack run. So if you fly behind cover, you take distance to come again from other direction, then vehicle crews totally lose you and you have great opportunity to engage a target with ATGM. But in DCS this is not a case, the all-seeing-eye AI is turning turrets at you on the second you pop-up behind the terrain. They are there waiting ready at you even if you are 5-6 km range from them. And this means that on the moment you launch ATGM, the AI on MBT can just put a one SABOT on you as your helicopter is relative stationary on them.

With human co-pilot, you can start maneuvers and avoid the incoming fire while Co-Pilot guides missile at the target and destroy it.

The V would have been superior all the ways for DCS purposes, the 12.7 mm is more than enough effective to kill many APC, trucks and other soft targets, and with assistance of S-5 or S-8 rockets you can affect large areas, as main weapon. Then for harder targets that 12.7 mm or S-8 can't do, you use ATGM. The 30 mm cannon becomes obsolete in DCS as long there ain't proper damage model for ground vehicles and there is not possible have tens of thousands of infantry units on the ground with good logic as infantry would be trained. And in that moment that 12.7 mm would become very handy for anything else than targets behind a big rock walls or rocks that you just can't penetrate with 12.7 mm or its small explosive tip is just too weak, compared to 30 mm that is like a hand grenade.

The ATGM is one of the most important features for Mi-24. And it requires very good crew cooperation and tactics, as Mi-24 is not like a PAH-1 or Gazelle that is designed to sneak in behind tree line and pop-up to launch one missile at 3-4 km range as flight, where you have 4-6 missiles simultaneously flying at the enemy vehicles and then escape area and sneak in later from some other place. The Mi-24 is for full frontal assault with high speed and utilizing pop-up at range and then diving toward and turn away to retreat from incoming fire. To do that all alone is not just enough if you are not ready to just use rockets and 30 mm cannon. And in DCS you don't do much with those. You can already try that with Gazelle L variant and try to be somewhat effective without ATGM.

P or V, the Co-Pilot is really needed there from first day. That you can have the human pilot take the aim and destroy targets. It does take away a lot from the pilot player, as there is just the cannon and rockets and not the DCS required used of ATGM.

The Hind without multi-crew is a no-no for me and so is a rushed out release (yeah, looking at the Viper). I'd rather wait for mid-2021 and have a release that does not result in dozens of day-one threads full of tears.

The vast majority of users (myself included) are mainly single players that rarely venture near an MP server.

Of the people that do go online regularly, few would use the multi-crew feature regularly.

To them it makes no difference whether multi-crew is implemented or not, as long as there's a sufficiently competent AI option to hand some of the flying / fighting off to - & E.D. have said they're working on that.

So while it may be an important feature to you, saying they should sit on the release until they've finished a feature that < 5% of module owners will ever use is ... let's say "not community spirited"

The AI is important, but like Weta43 said, if it comes to a point where the ability to play with two people on the same helicopter on the same server is the thing holding it back, I'd rather have it out of the door. Those for whom multicrew is an absolute must can always wait until it's implemented to buy it, if that's the case.

The Hind without multi-crew is a no-no for me

Same. No multicrew, no Hind!

 

The co-pilot is critical for Mi-24. The P didn't make Mi-24 less demanding for the Co-Pilot requirements than V would had, as if you want any means use Mi-24 to engage the most common targets in the DCS, you need to be able launch ATGM.

 

And as solo-pilot, you can't really do that well. The human co-pilot is critical because you can fly in +/- 60 degree angle from the target after launch, so you are there to maneuver and avoid the incoming fire.

In real life you are not at all spotted easily from a 1-3 km ranges if you didn't make it very obvious for enemy to track you around for a second attack run. So if you fly behind cover, you take distance to come again from other direction, then vehicle crews totally lose you and you have great opportunity to engage a target with ATGM. But in DCS this is not a case, the all-seeing-eye AI is turning turrets at you on the second you pop-up behind the terrain. They are there waiting ready at you even if you are 5-6 km range from them. And this means that on the moment you launch ATGM, the AI on MBT can just put a one SABOT on you as your helicopter is relative stationary on them.

With human co-pilot, you can start maneuvers and avoid the incoming fire while Co-Pilot guides missile at the target and destroy it.

 

The V would have been superior all the ways for DCS purposes, the 12.7 mm is more than enough effective to kill many APC, trucks and other soft targets, and with assistance of S-5 or S-8 rockets you can affect large areas, as main weapon. Then for harder targets that 12.7 mm or S-8 can't do, you use ATGM. The 30 mm cannon becomes obsolete in DCS as long there ain't proper damage model for ground vehicles and there is not possible have tens of thousands of infantry units on the ground with good logic as infantry would be trained. And in that moment that 12.7 mm would become very handy for anything else than targets behind a big rock walls or rocks that you just can't penetrate with 12.7 mm or its small explosive tip is just too weak, compared to 30 mm that is like a hand grenade.

 

The ATGM is one of the most important features for Mi-24. And it requires very good crew cooperation and tactics, as Mi-24 is not like a PAH-1 or Gazelle that is designed to sneak in behind tree line and pop-up to launch one missile at 3-4 km range as flight, where you have 4-6 missiles simultaneously flying at the enemy vehicles and then escape area and sneak in later from some other place. The Mi-24 is for full frontal assault with high speed and utilizing pop-up at range and then diving toward and turn away to retreat from incoming fire. To do that all alone is not just enough if you are not ready to just use rockets and 30 mm cannon. And in DCS you don't do much with those. You can already try that with Gazelle L variant and try to be somewhat effective without ATGM.

 

P or V, the Co-Pilot is really needed there from first day. That you can have the human pilot take the aim and destroy targets. It does take away a lot from the pilot player, as there is just the cannon and rockets and not the DCS required used of ATGM.

+1

also Id ask the community, well unless the people who are against multicrew or totally dont care, to include these remarks and demand that we want multicrew to ED. make it clear another gazelle (Heavy promises, crap delivery ,multicrew promised took years and never happened as promised. huey multicrew... I love the uh1 module but it rlly should have had multicrew)

We ARE THE CONSUMERS. they would be making barbie dolls if the entire forum decided they wanted barbie dolls.

If people keep saying its unnecessary or they dont care... we may keep seeing BS like the gazelle or multicrew (even with AI) delayed endlessly until its been years. Seriously I love the mi24 but its 2020, if ED announced now they arent making an AI gunner/multicrew I would NOT buy then. Indeed, when they let slip the AI gunner wont be present at first they lost my money for a prepurchase.

To me, after the F14, its non negotiable. this game is VERY complex. to the point where we use many real life procedures etc. To me then, if a military deemed it totally necessary for a plane (f14, mi24, whatever) to have 2 men then they're NOT superfluous in DCS and by now should start being added.

This will also just grow as problem, an apache without gunner??? What if they made an a6? if anyones ever seen an a6 cockpit the bombardier has his head in a shroud literally when looking at radar. etc etc.

I firmly believe - if the military felt the plane needed a guy to operate the weapons AND navigate, than we need at the minimum some AI gunner or something.

Jester belongs to HB but theyre so close to ED, I know ED wants their own AI for this, but if it comes to yes or no for multicrew Ill be highly disappointed if we dont even get an obvious jester copy even called jesterski.

 

Same. No multicrew, no Hind!

+1000000000

SAME

The AI is important, but like Weta43 said, if it comes to a point where the ability to play with two people on the same helicopter on the same server is the thing holding it back, I'd rather have it out of the door. Those for whom multicrew is an absolute must can always wait until it's implemented to buy it, if that's the case.

If its people holding it back, I wouldnt mind them releasing it w.o the human functionality. However I find it hard to believe thatd be the problem if a SP can already switch seats, as theyve gotten multicrew on a few modules now and this should have been in mind from day 1.

No AI gunner is a total deal breaker for me however. DCS is detailled enough that again I feel if a military deemed a plane NEEDED a 2nd person to fight correctly, its insane to ask us to fly the same alone.

 

The vast majority of users (myself included) are mainly single players that rarely venture near an MP server.

Of the people that do go online regularly, few would use the multi-crew feature regularly.

To them it makes no difference whether multi-crew is implemented or not, as long as there's a sufficiently competent AI option to hand some of the flying / fighting off to - & E.D. have said they're working on that.

 

So while it may be an important feature to you, saying they should sit on the release until they've finished a feature that < 5% of module owners will ever use is ... let's say "not community spirited"

multicrew doesnt mean solely MP to me to be clear.

I cant speak for him, but I can sadly accept the hind if you cant fly 2 people though itd be a huge shame as my best mp experience ever has been 2 seating f14s.

but no ai for gunner would be a deal breaker. I fly a lot of sp. and im a firm believer ( even firmer since the f14 with jester, where you are still limited, I cannot imagine without him) that if a military said 2 men are needed its unfair to send us in alone with 1 man, no ai support. Seriously you wont be able to fly the hind realistically in attack profiles, you wont be able to use the ATGMs to their full extent, its near endless why they *need* an ai gunner. jester is almost 2. for me itd be almost incompetent to not have a jester level ai gunner and iceman level ai pilot.

2. theres something to be said about letting these game companies 'off the hook' too much. how many times are we gonnna get announcements, have features slashed before release and not really say ****, then upon release be told x y and z will come.. and then they simply never do. or take like... 3 years (ridiculous)

things change with games and coding ,but i do believe in responsibility and accounting. if things are iffy maybe dont promise them. some will poo poo my statement, but if features like multicrew are slashed/ pushed back, whats to say more wont. Hell whats to say that they dont EVER release multicrew (cough cough gazelle) or something? Remember the disaster that was the Hawk?

 

If its people holding it back, I wouldnt mind them releasing it w.o the human functionality. However I find it hard to believe thatd be the problem if a SP can already switch seats, as theyve gotten multicrew on a few modules now and this should have been in mind from day 1.

No AI gunner is a total deal breaker for me however. DCS is detailled enough that again I feel if a military deemed a plane NEEDED a 2nd person to fight correctly, its insane to ask us to fly the same alone.

I agree with this sentiment. The AI co-pilot\gunner is crucial to the success of this module, probably because so many more people are into single player, or just casual multiplayer. However I want multicrew to just work, before I buy into the module, simply because I don't trust eagle dynamics to ever finish it if it's not available in early access. Im sorry I have to say that, but considering the state of the Huey and the HiP, it's something that had to be said.

 

I agree with this sentiment. The AI co-pilot\gunner is crucial to the success of this module, probably because so many more people are into single player, or just casual multiplayer. However I want multicrew to just work, before I buy into the module, simply because I don't trust eagle dynamics to ever finish it if it's not available in early access. Im sorry I have to say that, but considering the state of the Huey and the HiP, it's something that had to be said.

and though they were third party the gazelle and hawk come to mind as well. unfortunately because the mi24 is like.. I swear to god, if it talked Id probably try to f*** one, I love them so much hahaha...

but as much as I love them, and as fond as memories are of that mid 90s mi24 game after experiencing multicrew done right in dcs (f14) I refuse to willingly go backward on a weapons system specifically designed for 2 men to use. And I play single player more than MP still, to me an AI jesterski is VERY important.

I dont know what to make of ED about this subject. On the one hand they made a very bold IMO claim that their AI gunner would be 'much more sophisticated than jester' (That boggles my mind, if you get down to brass tacks theres A LOT of jester commands and stuff, and there still need to be several more really bad like IFF, lgb etc) but THEN ED goes on later and says something like 'it wont be available until late early access' which broke my heart when I read it.

and now we are talking about it, Im curious as well - did they mean *MP multicrew will come later* or the AI gunner? Ill give ED a shot if they have a AI gunner and people show hes good. If they mean both the AI gunner and multicrew, theyre going to have to prove it to me, and I dont mean any disrespect but it is what it is. Furthermore than some trust issues is the fact that after seeing the F14 jester in action, and knowing that the game makers now *can* do this its a question of will - Im simply *not willing* to play or fly games that are as realistic as possible but want me to man 2 or 4 or 5 positions. No, no more. Ill happily fly single seats where appropriate, like the excellent Jf17 and the EF2000 will be awesome, but Im very concerned, and thus obnoxious to some, about this issue with the Mi24. Itll just be too much for me otherwise and ruin the fun. Itll require hovering to use atgms usually, and other stuff that wouldnt happen IRL, I can name 50 other things a single person flying it would do diff than 2, and Im just not willing to sacrifice that anymore, especially knowing that 2 years ago a company associated with ED made a fully capable second man AI for the F14.

Its a different air frame and helos are a lot different, I also am not a coder I admit. However to my mind its all moot, after the success of the F14 especially if ED was going to do the Mi24 IMO they would have been very conservative and not forward looking to go 'thumbs down' on ai multicrew and mp multicrew. and yes yes, no one need point out that this part sounds silly as they said theyll have it. my response is I get wary whenever I hear something is 'for later in EA' or 'not until release' because the last 7 years on and off with DCS Ive seen some bold developer statements that melted into literally nothing, like you cant even read the posts anymore.

/end rant (congrats if you read this stream of conciousness!)

Itll just be too much for me otherwise and ruin the fun. Itll require hovering to use atgms usually, and other stuff that wouldnt happen IRL, I can name 50 other things a single person flying it would do diff than 2,

The Mi-24 doesn't require hovering as it use Ataka-V missile complex that is radio controlled instead wired.

It would be nice that wire snapping would be simulated in gazelle, cobra and others that has it, if you move much at all from the launching position further in time as missile extends and release wire from it rear.

This would be one benefits over others in western side.

 

The Mi-24 doesn't require hovering as it use Ataka-V missile complex that is radio controlled instead wired.

 

It would be nice that wire snapping would be simulated in gazelle, cobra and others that has it, if you move much at all from the launching position further in time as missile extends and release wire from it rear.

 

This would be one benefits over others in western side.

from a source I read from this forum about hinds fighting AH1s it said US pilots found Hinds couldnt hover with their wings at all really, and special models with drastically reduced wings had to be made for it to hover. the pilot (us) added it was the most fun helo he ever flew and to fly it you had to act like you were flying an airplane.. and a helicopter. it sounds awesome to fly

the hovering thing was just an example in general. Here then let me be more specific. if you have a helo that is very hard to hover, and we dont have an AI gunner to direct the radio guided missile... I mean jesus sounds like a recipe for disaster, a lot of work, and forced unrealistic tactics.

further lets say the hind hovers and the source was wrong. doesnt matter, to me, if the russian military (which after all kept autoloaders just to field more tanks by not needing a 4th crewman) decided the Mi24 NEEDED 2 people, im firmly convinced that yes, you needed 2 people. Just because one could fly it in an emergency... well so can USAF 2 seaters. USN planes dont have pilot controls in the back USAF do.. just because a F15 E or F4 could be flown from the rear seat doesnt mean they ever were intended to be flown in their roles as single seaters.

Indeed the fact the F15 started single seat and the strike variant added a seat, to me speaks volumes about that plane and whats needed.

But TLDR - DCS is complex enough as it is, especially if youre really trying to fly realistically. forcing people to do all the work will sadly make me not purchase the module.

Ill probably purchase and constantly bitch about it if they dont make it MP multicrew. but unless/until theres a 'jesterski' I will not be flying a hind.

im also curious, will we be using ataka, falanga, shturm, or vikhrs? all have been used.. I believe the ataka (or shturm? which ? ) was designed for the hind but took so long to come out they used the Falanga until about 1980

TBH i think itd be cool if they made all of them optional, however I can see the falanga being X'd out because they almost certainly werent using them when the model we have was introduced. a Hind D Id argue falangas would be a necessity for correct modelling.

from a source I read from this forum about hinds fighting AH1s it said US pilots found Hinds couldnt hover with their wings at all really, and special models with drastically reduced wings had to be made for it to hover.

That is just misinformation, like it was about T-72 that it was required to use hand cranks to turn turret and adjust elevation of cannon. The Hind will hover just fine until you get it to heavy weight and fly at 4000 m altitude etc. That is in Afghanistan where take-off was better to be done by rolling as the high temperature and high altitude makes all helicopters suffer more or less. That is as well why KA-50 was superior choice as it maintained capability to fly normally because co-axial design, even in high gust mountains at high altitude.

There are plenty of videos showing Hind hovering just fine without any problems.

 

That is just misinformation, like it was about T-72 that it was required to use hand cranks to turn turret and adjust elevation of cannon. The Hind will hover just fine until you get it to heavy weight and fly at 4000 m altitude etc. That is in Afghanistan where take-off was better to be done by rolling as the high temperature and high altitude makes all helicopters suffer more or less. That is as well why KA-50 was superior choice as it maintained capability to fly normally because co-axial design, even in high gust mountains at high altitude.

 

There are plenty of videos showing Hind hovering just fine without any problems.

hey man, just going off what the articles people linked me on the AH1 vs hind thread in this forum said.

I dont know why a post cold war pilot who flew it would say its misinformation. he also clearly stated that hinds with shorter stubbier wings could hover, whatever model he had (d i believe) had the regular (or maybe bigger? who knows) wings and he claimed they couldnt. Again, ive seen hinds hover as well, but he seems to imply the wings hurt that a lot, and a combat loaded Hind,at least the model he flew, couldnt hover very easily or at all

as far as 'like it was with the t72' Ive never said that whatsoever.

http://www.airvectors.net/avhind_2.html

"Stayton was also impressed by the machine's idiosyncrasies. One was that the helicopter's APU had a tendency to blast out a gush of flame when it was fired up, which was startling but harmless. Another eccentricity was that the big wings on the Hind prevented it from hovering, at least for any length of time, because they blocked the rotor downdraft. Apparently the cut-down wings on variants such as the Mi-24PS are to permit a hover capability.

Stayton quickly learned to regard the Hind as a hybrid of a helicopter and a fixed-wing aircraft. It was very fast but not maneuverable, and in fact in a banking turn the dropped wing lost lift, which tended to flip the helicopter over onto its back. Stayton had fixed-wing flight experience and was able to compensate the first time he ran into this difficulty by putting the nose down to build up speed, but this maneuver would not be possible in low-level "nap of earth" operations. Stayton judged the Hind's unusual flying characteristics as design trade-offs, not design flaws. More Hinds were obtained for US Army service, operating as aggressor training machines, and Army pilots have praised it -- saying it is quiet, gives a very smooth ride, "like an old '62 Cadillac." Stayton felt it was more fun to fly than any other helicopter he ever got his hands on.

Stayton was also impressed by the machine's idiosyncrasies. One was that the helicopter's APU had a tendency to blast out a gush of flame when it was fired up, which was startling but harmless. Another eccentricity was that the big wings on the Hind prevented it from hovering, at least for any length of time, because they blocked the rotor downdraft. Apparently the cut-down wings on variants such as the Mi-24PS are to permit a hover capability.

"

You also didnt mention the source or time at all so I have to ask, what the heck does a T72 turret have to do with this?

All that cannot hover issues has been rebated time and time again, simply not true.

All that cannot hover issues has been rebated time and time again, simply not true.

rebated is the wrong word fyi, it means like a discount for a price. you mean debated over and over I assume. Im just going off the quote, Im not here to declare it could or could not. Ill also add it didnt say it couldnt, it said it couldnt for any appreciable period of time, which means basically it could hover for a moment but then have issues.

youll also note if you read the link that it says the issues seem to have been resolved by the PS models. If Im not mistaken those came out in the 80s so theyve been around awhile.

Im not so certain its simply untrue that perhaps early models could not hover. Why? For one I dont really know either way, so Im going on what I have as documented. This wasnt some relic of info to change perceptions. it was complimentary of the hind actually. Im just saying we have this info, and I generally find individual test pilots accounts - whatever the country - pretty reliable, when quoted directly. Especially when theyre not 'downing' the enemy plane but complimenting it.

but further, its insisted upon ( indeed its almost being acted like I came in and announced thats how it is, instead of me very clearly saying well Idk just going off this info some one shared ) that 'this has endlessly been debated' 'debunked' 'misinformation' even. Yet, for something thats so debated, why hasnt anyone sent me a link to show me otherwise?

Again, Im not saying what it can or cannot do. I dont fly helicopters IRL, nor have I ever seen a real Hind flying around in person. I AM saying, where are the links? if its hot bs, thats cool, Id much prefer the hind to be able to hover too when i fly it (if ED does the right thing with multicrew... IF...) but wheres the links?

why am I posting links and quotes, and the next 2 people assertively say its either misinformation (like I made it up myself) or that its been debated forever. I didnt ask anyone to take my mere word for it, I provided evidence that says it didnt hover well. how about some evidence to the contrary? I could spend the time searching myself, but Im just pointing out this is a one sided debate academically.

You can see its flight characteristics, including hovering.

From what i read it said the MI-24 suffers from vibration while hovering because of the big wings interfering with the downwash of the rotor, later versions with the smaler wings (MI-35M) doesn't have that problem anymore.

About the "Hover" subject in this thread:

In this old book:

"Soviet Helicopters, design, development and tactics" ISBN 0 7106 0259 6 by John Everett-Heath, page 90, 3rd paragraph it states:

Quote:

"With experience gained from the "Hook", the Mil OKB examined in depth the use of stub wings on helicopters to augment lift and stability in forward flight, and extend the performance envelope.

In this particular instance, by offloading the rotor by perhaps as much as 25% or more at optimum speed, payload and range and speed can be raised and turn radius can be reduced.

...In the hover, however, the wings interfere with the rotor downwash and relatively more power is required.

End of Quote

My understanding is that he is talking about the Mi-24A model, since this book is from 1983 and the A-model is mentioned several times before.

So the wings DOES makes hover harder, but not impossible, it sound more like its the engine power thats the limiting factor, not the wings themselves.

Regarding the Multi-crew function, I agree with you guys that Multi-crew would be great.

It should theoretically be easier to implement as there are 2 distinct cockpits that will not allow co-pilot and pilot to cross share one control panel as in the Gazelle.... which causes real problems in multiplayer with the gazelle.

Also coming into attack with a pair of hinds and heavily weaponized MI-8s would be superb if the co-pilot could call out the range over the radio for increasing the accuracy of the MI-8s rocket delivery.

But if it is not there on delivery.... I will be wheels up and transitioning within minutes of release!

My VR skull rotating and admiring that perfect ED VR cockpit that surrounds me... and there I will be, sitting at the back of the bus, all armoured, solid and safe feeling.

A New DCS heavy weight attack chopper..... I will be there!

About the "Hover" subject in this thread:

In this old book:

"Soviet Helicopters, design, development and tactics" ISBN 0 7106 0259 6 by John Everett-Heath, page 90, 3rd paragraph it states:

Quote:

"With experience gained from the "Hook", the Mil OKB examined in depth the use of stub wings on helicopters to augment lift and stability in forward flight, and extend the performance envelope.

In this particular instance, by offloading the rotor by perhaps as much as 25% or more at optimum speed, payload and range and speed can be raised and turn radius can be reduced.

...In the hover, however, the wings interfere with the rotor downwash and relatively more power is required.

End of Quote

My understanding is that he is talking about the Mi-24A model, since this book is from 1983 and the A-model is mentioned several times before.

So the wings DOES makes hover harder, but not impossible, it sound more like its the engine power thats the limiting factor, not the wings themselves.

Try this book by Yefim Gordon & Dmitriy Komissarov, Mil MI-24 Hind attack Helicopter (ISBN 1-84037-238-9)

Take the cold war guess work out of the equation.

For sure the Hind will have some traits of the MI-8, perhaps very fast VRS when trying to get into a hover far too quickly.

But the Hind will Hover... it is almost crazy to suggest a helicopter will not.

 

Try this book by Yefim Gordon & Dmitriy Komissarov, Mil MI-24 Hind attack Helicopter (ISBN 1-84037-238-9)

Take the cold war guess work out of the equation.

 

For sure the Hind will have some traits of the MI-8, perhaps very fast VRS when trying to get into a hover far too quickly.

But the Hind will Hover... it is almost crazy to suggest a helicopter will not.

key word is almost crazy. i definitely wouldnt have suggested it, had not I read the link someone provided in another thread and i reproduced here. I only brought it up as a question, not as a statement, but i did ask why this US test pilot claimed the hind he was flying 'couldnt hover for appreciable amounts of time'

and before someone says 'cold war propaganda downing russian stuff' the guy said he saw it as a design trade off not flaw, that it was the most fun helo he ever flew, and all the us pilots realllllly liked flying it. soo.. however its almost certain he wasnt flying a PS or anything. im pretty sure it was a D model. who knows.

On the multicrew - look if its delayed for MP id be annoyed but whatever. if not at all for MP id be upset, but if they put an ai gunner (has to at least be as good as jester, and dont blame me for this, ED went and said itd be considerably better, which was a pretty rash statement as that may be harder to deliver than thought) but if they dont add AI multicrew I wont buy the module. after jester and the tomcat Im not going back to games where companies force me to do 2 or more mens jobs in a airframe that the government (all of them always going for saving money) deemed *needed 2 men to be effective* ill add especially with the soviets, they literally argued in favor of the autoloader in one way by noting itd save an crew member and every 3 tanks theyre fielding an extra tank with those extra men. Therefore, to me, it stands to reason if the USSR decided that the Hind needs 2 crewmen, it *does*.

It would depend on where he flew it, too. Helicopters are extremely sensitive to changes in air density, which are caused by heat and altitude. In Afghan, in particular, both were working against the Hinds, which often needed a runway to take off when loaded. Mi-24 is a very heavy helo, and it takes much less to deprive it of its hover capability than with most US helicopters. So it's quite possible that his flight was in conditions not quite suited for it, especially if he was flying the D model, which lacked the high altitude adaptations of the Mi-24V.

Regarding the Multi-crew function, I agree with you guys that Multi-crew would be great.

It should theoretically be easier to implement as there are 2 distinct cockpits that will not allow co-pilot and pilot to cross share one control panel as in the Gazelle.... which causes real problems in multiplayer with the gazelle.

The real problems for the co-piloting ANY aircraft (regardless tandem or side-by-side seated) is the axis controls.

Just like a real vehicle, if ANYONE flips a switch A to ON position from OFF, it is automatically synced with EVERYONE. Everyone know that A is now ON and they get proper modeling that what does that switch do.

Now anyone else can go and flip that switch A back from ON to OFF, and it will be just sent as data to everyone that A status is now OFF. And again everyone gets the proper modeling.

Be it a cabin light, a laser designator, a fan or even a landing gear, there is no problem what so ever with that regardless who operates it or what.

But there is a serious problem when there is a requirement for a constant input feedback. That is an AXIS and switches. Like any vehicle that has dual-controls, there is serious problem that WHO is priority for control and what should happen when SOMEONE ELSE changes input while other is giving input as well.

With helicopter the controls moves constantly depending the flight parameters. You simply can not have variable speed, attitude, rolls, turns etc and same time have stationary input (unless you want to crash and die) but you need to move controls constantly to compensate other two controls of three, and flight parameters requires compensate again all three etc. So it is constant three controls balancing.

Now what happens if Pilot lowers collective, while Co-Pilot keeps collective stationary?

A co-pilot keeps the joystick still as it is spring loaded centering joystick that doesn't move, but pilot moves cyclic that is springless and extended one used to make a turn?

A co-pilot has a pedals that has some ghosting or jittery, constantly jumping +-1-3 percentage from its current position, who has the control of the pedals? The pilot that does give the input by adjusting anti-torque rotor, or the co-pilot that has again centering spring to keep pedals still but input is still given?

The only way to have two players giving AXIS input that is given from both players, is that either one gives voluntarily the controls for another.

- Pilot say: You have the control. -> Offers Co-Pilot to have access for controls if approved.

- Co-Pilot say: I have the control. -> Receives Pilot offer for controls and Accepts them.

- = Pilot controls are ignored and Co-Pilot controls are only accepted one.

This can be done either direction, where in this system both players are required to request/offer and accept/ignore the control.

But, it can be done like in trainer aircrafts as well, that there is still a priority on other pilot (in L-39 it is a instructor, in helicopter like Mi-24 it is Pilot at rear, and in Gazelle it is the pilot at right) at any moment to simply say "I have the control" and automatically input is only accepted from that player, instead the trainee/co-pilot/gunner.

In a real helicopter the inputs are shared. Collective, Cyclic and pedals moves simultaneously. The other person knows not to touch the controls. For safety reasons in various aircrafts some controls can be removed, like for a tourist flights in helicopters the co-pilot controls are removed as there is too high risk that a tourist in co-pilot seat would grab or touch any of the controls accidentally/mistakenly and cause accident.

In some aircrafts the co-pilot controls can be stoved away, like cyclic can be pushed down to floor so it is not accidentally touched and it is not on the way. Or it can be just smaller, so it is not on the way but still accessible if required. In safety reasons as well like with small aircrafts like Cessna the person next to pilot is required to have possibility grab the controls in emergency situation like if pilot passes out or something. But it is good way to anyways tell every passanger in the front to learn grab something in the cockpit already when expecting turbulence or something, and while landing, as in sudden movement the person might try to grab something to hold on, and it can be at the front the flight control and that way give dangerous input that might surprise the pilot in controls.

But like in real helicopter, both pilots could fight for the authority of the controls, but who would do that? It would be like a two kids fighting who is the captain.

But for technical reasons in simulator that has two different controls, it just can't be solved if both are transmitting input same time.

Either one needs to be blocked out, and it has nothing to do with the order of seats.

Then comes other problem, a switch that is constantly sending its status, these are the ON-OFF-ON switches. So one player has set the switch to be three position one, while other has just two buttons. Who has the priority?

A player sets landing lever to one button as Up/Down. While other has it in two position switch for On-Off. What happens when pilot has Landing Gear switch DOWN, and the other player press "UP"?

In such cases the only way would be to fully separate controls that player A can never operate the control 123. No matter what keyboard or joystick input is given.

In some modules like F-14, there is no problem as the RIO doesn't have all the same controls like landing gear lever (IIRC). The Pilot doesn't have same radar controls. They are in real life separate controls and it is easy to program. But when you have an access to same controls (radio is between players) or two controls inputs same (cyclic, pedals etc) then there is a problem, regardless the cockpit layout.

And that problem is easiest to solve by discussion between players that what gets binded and how, and then programmed "I have the control/You have the control" axis transfer.

This is same problem as if someone would go and bind same functions to multiple different ways to same HOTAS. Like have a centering mini-joystick as a Pitch and Roll axis, same way as the joystick itself for it. Now who is last one to send input will override the previous control position. Like one can fly an aircraft with just mini-joystick while joystick itself is in other position. Bind the throttle to Pitch axis as well and everyone will find that it might be challenge to fly when throttle position sends input that confuse the joystick position. So even a aircraft just with a one player (like Hornet or Viper) can have the same problems as dual-seater.