DCS: Mi-24P - What we know + Discussion

After seen the video from Syria Map whith the short of the what i belive is new 3D Model of the MI-24 it is complete without Lipa infared Jammer.

On the MI-8 it is there but only static without Function.

From what i read it was only effective against first Generation Manpads Redeye for example.

DCS consits only newer MANPADS, so this have not realy a use currently.

But in the longer run for Afghanistan Map would be not more usefull to make old MANPADS then completly remove the Lipa?

Pretty much. It's not even remotely similar to something like an Apache, and its principal mission does not involve tank plinking from several miles away. It is a treetop height screecher, pop up and dump a few thousand pounds of rockets and dumb bombs, then fly away at some of the highest speeds any helicopter is capable of kind of aircraft.

Boom n zoom helo. I like it. I predict many people wont. But thats what BS3 is for.

After seen the video from Syria Map whith the short of the what i belive is new 3D Model of the MI-24 it is complete without Lipa infared Jammer.

On the MI-8 it is there but only static without Function.

From what i read it was only effective against first Generation Manpads Redeye for example.

DCS consits only newer MANPADS, so this have not realy a use currently.

But in the longer run for Afghanistan Map would be not more usefull to make old MANPADS then completly remove the Lipa?

DCS manpads desperately need a rework. Imstant acquision boom n dead. It also needs some shitty gen1 manpads.

Why is there no dedicated forum section for the Mi-24Hind?

Its not 2 weeks out... Id expect to see one maybe 3-6 months prior to release.

It hasn't been mentioned here because it isn't true.

According to the table posted by S.E.Bulba in the link below, there is a minimum launch speed for S-8 of 100 km/h...

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4107373&postcount=12

From what i read the Mi-24 suffers from vibration on lower speeds and hover thus reducing accuracy, so that it was prefered to fire on the move to increase accuracy. So nothing prevents you from shooting in a hover but don't expect to snipe something. Maybe S.E.Bulba can clarify on this some more. ;)

Did you watch this through to the end ?

Edit - somewhere there's a post from Chizh I think (from memory - someone at E.D.) saying firing rockets from a hover causes flame-outs.

Did you watch this through to the end ?

 

 

Edit - somewhere there's a post from Chizh I think (from memory - someone at E.D.) saying firing rockets from a hover causes flame-outs.

I didn't even watch it at all(just skipped over it) because 140p, i only see pixels which should represent an Mi-28. I'm not claiming my guess is true but i never read about rocket pods having a minimum launch speed, that's why i asked if S.E.Bulba can clarify on this some more, i can read cyrillic but i can't understand it. All i read about that was from a book regarding the MI-24 about the S-8 rocket "...exhaust gases from the rocket might enter the air intake of the aircraft and cause engine failure, measures were also demanded to prevent such an occurrende from happening. This was achieved by development of the new...rocket pods." Maybe my english isn't that good and i just don't understand that text/misinterpreted it or it's a wrong statement? :dunno:

Edit: On the other hand, every YT video i saw of a Mi-24 firing rockets the Mi-24 was on the move. I never thought about it much because thats what it was designed for instead of hiding behind trees and sniping tanks.

a gunships role is to protect the troop transport helicopters and to prepare the landing zone for assault.

and provide support and supressing fire during the assault.

they also provide aerial rocket artillery to the forward edge of the battle area.

neither of these jobs are done standing still.

a new role is providing flank guards to landing and taking off fixed wing transport aircraft.

extra flare launchers and eyes for seeing MANPAD launches at bases in contested areas.

where a terrorist could be hiding at the end of the runway with a MANPAD.

the MI-24 is fast enough to be a useful flank guard while transports are at their most vulnerable.

see the latest video in the Russian section on the mi-24 for an example.

escorting mi-8 out to set up a rough airfield.

then flank guard for fixed wing transports landing and taking off from the rough airfield.

man I want the mi-24 today :)

I think you have to differentiate the weapon systems. The limitation on firing from a hover (should it exist, I don't know) might only apply to rockets. It makes no sense to fire unguided rockets from a hover anyway, as to aim them you would have to pitch/up and down (which doesn't go well with hovering and is terribly inaccurate). Other attack helicopters have tilting weapon pylons for that purpose.

The Hind can mount up to 8 ATGM and is perfectly capable of surprise anti-tank hover attacks from behind cover, as has been a practice in the Warsaw Pact.

(this is regarding the East German Army)

I think you have to differentiate the weapon systems. The limitation on firing from a hover (should it exist, I don't know) might only apply to rockets. It makes no sense to fire unguided rockets from a hover anyway, as to aim them you would have to pitch/up and down (which doesn't go well with hovering and is terribly inaccurate). Other attack helicopters have tilting weapon pylons for that purpose.

 

The Hind can mount up to 8 ATGM and is perfectly capable of surprise anti-tank hover attacks from behind cover, as has been a practice in the Warsaw Pact.

 

(this is regarding the East German Army)

This picture is used on the webpage nva-flieger.de. On that page they also state that you can use atgm from hover but the problem is reduced precision because of vibrations. On the same page i found also the statement:

in Hover: no unguided rockets, bombs, cluster bombs and "fire containers"

https://www.nva-flieger.de/index.php/taktik/arfk/angriffsverfahren-gefechtsordnung.html (german)

I must have overlooked that back in the days i visited that website, so question answered i guess. :beer:

....

man I want the mi-24 today :)

Me too!

Did you watch this through to the end ?

 

Edit - somewhere there's a post from Chizh I think (from memory - someone at E.D.) saying firing rockets from a hover causes flame-outs.

yeah, from what I read they also tested the S-24 on the Hind. But you had to reduce power (even while moving) so that the engine wouldn't surge. In the end they determined that it was too dangerous and that the S-24 is not a suitable rocket for helicopters.

you can google translate this for that information

https://military.wikireading.ru/54527

(last picture is a Hind firing two S-24s)

My guess is that the Hind can fire S-8 rockets from a hover most of the time but it is a little bit too risky so it is forbidden.

EDIT: I remebered the article incorrectly. The S-25 was tested only a few times but deemed not suitable for helicopters. The S-24 has seen regular but very limited use and only by the experienced pilots because it must be launched under specific conditions.

''Not a suitable rocket for helicopters''

Clearly, Soviets and Kerbals have different design philosophies.

Re: minimum speed of rocket employment

I recently heard that the British Army found that out in the Falklands Conflict flying Gazelles with SNEB rocket pods. As they are only mounted on one side on a Gazelle, employing them from a hover apparently resulted in the helicopter spinning around its axis (and consequently not being overly accurate). Not an issue in forward flight and a slight dive, although that of course brought its own problems.

Boom n zoom helo. I like it. I predict many people wont. But thats what BS3 is for.

Even the Ka-50 is suited for that though, and it's a good training since the thing does have a HUD, similar to the Mi-24, but more advanced. But the Russians apparently don't like TVVs. I've gotten best results myself by trimming the thing for a certain speed (around 200 IAS), enabling FD and then flying the thing with lots of pedal input and collective as well. Trying to get the pitch attitude by collective seems to be smoother and with that you'd be generally rather flying towards your aimpoint as well. Keep the pipper centered on that pitch ladder tape with the pedals, this literally translates to flying the ball.

Now in the Mi-8 this is a lot harder because of the basic collimator sight.

From what i read the Mi-24 suffers from vibration on lower speeds and hover thus reducing accuracy, so that it was prefered to fire on the move to increase accuracy. So nothing prevents you from shooting in a hover but don't expect to snipe something. Maybe S.E.Bulba can clarify on this some more.

That's definately something to keep in mind with the Mi-8 as well. Vibrates a lot when slow and the pitch axis is less smooth compared to flying at speeds.

Other attack helicopters have tilting weapon pylons for that purpose.

I remember from another sim that the AH-64 has that for the rocket pods. The Ka-50 OTOH just has this for the Vikhrs.

''Not a suitable rocket for helicopters''

Clearly, Soviets and Kerbals have different design philosophies.

This discussion:

Bill Kerman: Hold my SRB!

Google Translate

… I'm not claiming my guess is true but i never read about rocket pods having a minimum launch speed, that's why i asked if S.E.Bulba can clarify on this some more, i can read cyrillic but i can't understand it. All i read about that was from a book regarding the MI-24 about the S-8 rocket "...exhaust gases from the rocket might enter the air intake of the aircraft and cause engine failure, measures were also demanded to prevent such an occurrende from happening. This was achieved by development of the new...rocket pods."…

I tried to explain it several times, but unfortunately either my Google-Russian-English is too incomprehensible, or these explanations are not interesting to anyone, so I'm afraid that I am powerless to help with anything. :dunno:

If I'm not mistaken this was caused by firing Vikhrs or one of the heavier A2G missiles. I may be wrong though...

Add. For reference, a few details of this incident: Kommersant ("Ъ") No.120, July 7, 2009, p.4 (in Russian).

 

Original in Russian

 

Доп. Для справки, немного подробностей данного происшествия: «Коммерсантъ» («Ъ») №120 от 7 июля 2009 года, стр.4 (на русском языке).

… Лётчики должны были вести стрельбу из положения висения на малой высоте, когда вертолёт не имеет горизонтальной скорости. И во время выстрела неуправляемыми авиационными ракетами (НАР) в воздухозаборники двигателей попали пороховые газы ракет, что вызвало сбой в их работе (так называемый помпаж).

<…>

… Другой источник в руководстве «Роствертола» сообщил «Ъ», что инцидент не связан с материальной частью вертолёта. Сбоя в работе его систем не было, и конструктивных недостатков в машине комиссия тоже якобы не зафиксировала. По его данным, одна из проверяемых версий – ошибочные действия экипажа вертолёта.

 

В то же время, по данным осведомлённого источника «Ъ» в Министерстве обороны, вина экипажа в данном инциденте не доказана. Военный говорит, что во время стрельб «неправильно сработала автоматика вертолёта», – вместо выстрела из пушки, который намеревался произвести экипаж, почему-то произошёл пуск НАР…

Compressor surge (French: Pompage, Russian: Помпаж).

 

Turbofan Engine Malfunction Recognition and Response by B737.org.uk.

<…>

Compressor surge

 

It is most important to provide an understanding of compressor surge. In modern turbofan engines, compressor surge is a rare event. If a compressor surge (sometimes called a compressor stall) occurs during high power at takeoff, the flight crew will hear a very loud bang, which will be accompanied by yaw and vibration. The bang will likely be far beyond any engine noise, or other sound, the crew may have previously experienced in service.

 

Compressor surge has been mistaken for blown tires or a bomb in the airplane. The flight crew may be quite startled by the bang, and, in many cases, this has led to a rejected takeoff above V1. These high-speed rejected takeoffs have sometimes resulted in injuries, loss of the airplane, and even passenger fatalities.

 

The actual cause of the loud bang should make no difference to the flight crew's first response, which should be to maintain control of the airplane and, in particular, continue the takeoff if the event occurs after V1. Continuing the takeoff is the proper response to a tire failure occurring after V1, and history has shown that bombs are not a threat during the takeoff roll – they are generally set to detonate at altitude.

 

A surge from a turbofan engine is the result of instability of the engine's operating cycle. Compressor surge may be caused by engine deterioration, it may be the result of ingestion of birds or ice, or it may be the final sound from a "severe engine damage" type of failure. The operating cycle of the turbine engine consists of intake, compression, ignition, and exhaust, which occur simultaneously in different places in the engine. The part of the cycle susceptible to instability is the compression phase.

 

In a turbine engine, compression is accomplished aerodynamically as the air passes through the stages of the compressor, rather than by confinement, as is the case in a piston engine. The air flowing over the compressor airfoils can stall just as the air over the wing of an airplane can. When this airfoil stall occurs, the passage of air through the compressor becomes unstable and the compressor can no longer compress the incoming air. The high-pressure air behind the stall further back in the engine escapes forward through the compressor and out the inlet.

 

This escape is sudden, rapid and often quite audible as a loud bang similar to an explosion. Engine surge can be accompanied by visible flames forward out the inlet and rearward out the tailpipe. Instruments may show high EGT and EPR or rotor speed changes, but, in many stalls, the event is over so quickly that the instruments do not have time to respond.

 

Once the air from within the engine escapes, the reason (reasons) for the instability may self-correct and the compression process may re-establish itself. A single surge and recovery will occur quite rapidly, usually within fractions of a second. Depending on the reason for the cause of the compressor instability, an engine might experience:

1. A single self-recovering surge
    
    
   
2. Multiple surges prior to self-recovery
    
    
   
3. Multiple surges requiring pilot action in order to recover
    
    
   
4. A non-recoverable surge.
   

For complete, detailed procedures, flight crews must follow the appropriate checklists and emergency procedures detailed in their specific Airplane Flight Manual. In general, however, during a single self-recovering surge, the cockpit engine indications may fluctuate slightly and briefly. The flight crew may not notice the fluctuation. (Some of the more recent engines may even have fuel-flow logic that helps the engine self-recover from a surge without crew intervention. The stall may go completely unnoticed, or it may be annunciated to the crew – for information only – via EICAS messages.)

 

Alternatively, the engine may surge two or three times before full self-recovery. When this happens, there is likely to be cockpit engine instrumentation shifts of sufficient magnitude and duration to be noticed by the flight crew. If the engine does not recover automatically from the surge, it may surge continually until the pilot takes action to stop the process. The desired pilot action is to retard the thrust lever until the engine recovers.

 

The flight crew should then SLOWLY re-advance the thrust lever. Occasionally, an engine may surge only once but still not self-recover.

 

The actual cause for the compressor surge is often complex and may or may not result from severe engine damage. Rarely does a single compressor surge CAUSE severe engine damage, but sustained surging will eventually over-heat the turbine, as too much fuel is being provided for the volume of air that is reaching the combustor. Compressor blades may also be damaged and fail as a result of repeated violent surges; this will rapidly result in an engine which cannot run at any power setting.

 

Additional information is provided below regarding single recoverable surge, self-recoverable after multiple surges, surge requiring flight crew action, and non-recoverable surge. In severe cases, the noise, vibration and aerodynamic forces can be very distracting. It may be difficult for the flight crew to remember that their most important task is to fly the airplane.

• Single self-recoverable surge
   
  The flight crew hears a very loud bang or double bang. The instruments will fluctuate quickly, but, unless someone was looking at the engine gage at the time of the surge, the fluctuation might not be noticed.
   
  For example: During the surge event, Engine Pressure Ratio (EPR) can drop from takeoff (T/O) to 1.05 in 0.2 seconds. EPR can then vary from 1.1 to 1.05 at 0.2-second intervals two or three times. The low rotor speed (N1) can drop 16% in the first 0.2 seconds, then another 15% in the next 0.3 seconds. After recovery, EPR and N1 should return to pre-surge values along the normal acceleration schedule for the engine.
   
   
  
• Multiple surge followed by self-recovery
   
  Depending on the cause and conditions, the engine may surge multiple times, with each bang being separated by a couple of seconds. Since each bang usually represents a surge event as described above, the flight crew may detect the "single surge" described above for two seconds, then the engine will return to 98% of the pre-surge power for a few seconds. This cycle may repeat two or three times. During the surge and recovery process, there will likely be some rise in EGT.
   
  For example: EPR may fluctuate between 1.6 and 1.3, Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) may rise 5 degrees C/second, N1 may fluctuate between 103% and 95%, and fuel flow may drop 2% with no change in thrust lever position. After 10 seconds, the engine gages should return to pre-surge values.
   
   
  
• Surge recoverable after flight crew action
   
  When surges occur as described in the previous paragraph, but do not stop, flight crew action is required to stabilize the engine. The flight crew will notice the fluctuations described in "recoverable after two or three bangs," but the fluctuations and bangs will continue until the flight crew retards the thrust lever to idle. After the flight crew retards the thrust lever to idle, the engine parameters should decay to match thrust lever position. After the engine reaches idle, it may be re-accelerated back to power. If, upon re-advancing to high power, the engine surges again, the engine may be left at idle, or left at some intermediate power, or shutdown, according to the checklists applicable for the airplane. If the flight crew takes no action to stabilize the engine under these circumstances, the engine will continue to surge and may experience progressive secondary damage to the point where it fails completely.
   
   
  
• Non-recoverable surge
   
  When a compressor surge is not recoverable, there will be a single bang and the engine will decelerate to zero power as if the fuel had been chopped. This type of compressor surge can accompany a severe engine damage malfunction. It can also occur without any engine damage at all.
   
  EPR can drop at a rate of .34/sec and EGT rise at a rate of 15 degrees C/sec, continuing for 8 seconds (peaking) after the thrust lever is pulled back to idle. N1 and N2 should decay at a rate consistent with shutting off the fuel, with fuel flow dropping to 25% of its pre-surge value in 2 seconds, tapering to 10% over the next 6 seconds.
  

<…>

now there is new forum section for A-10C II hopefully same thing for hind soon

now there is new forum section for A-10C II hopefully same thing for hind soon

+1 :thumbup:

Are they any system for Flare on the MI24P from ED?

Or is it just a flying target for IR Threads and SAMS?

There should be flare dispensers yes, I think they were available even on older variants.

There should be flare dispensers yes, I think they were available even on older variants.

Additionnaly, I hope that the Ispanka IR jammer system will be modelled on the Mi-24P, which is not the case on the Mi-8MTV2:cry:

Additionnaly, I hope that the Ispanka IR jammer system will be modelled on the Mi-24P, which is not the case on the Mi-8MTV2:cry:

By IR jammer, I assume you mean something like the dazzler on the Su-25T. As I understand, these only work on old missiles, and can actually attract newer ones.

It should have the IR shrouds/diffusers, though. That's those big boxy things over the exhaust (they're toggleable on the Mi-8, if I remember).

I wonder if either one actually functions in DCS

Additionnaly, I hope that the Ispanka IR jammer system will be modelled on the Mi-24P, which is not the case on the Mi-8MTV2:cry:

:no:

панель управления Л166В в кабине имеется, но клеммы от устройства мы пока что отсоединим)) именно по причине неэффективности против большинства УР с ИК ГСН, которые применяются в игре

Are they any system for Flare on the MI24P from ED?

Or is it just a flying target for IR Threads and SAMS?

Yes there are flare dispenser on the MI-24, also on the MI-8. Attached is a picture, the old style of attaching them was under the tail boom with tension straps, the newer style is behind the wings.