Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+10
miketheterrible
Hole
The-thing-next-door
magnumcromagnon
PapaDragon
JohninMK
GarryB
The_Observer
TMA1
Daniel_Admassu
14 posters

    The aesthetics of helicopter design

    avatar
    Daniel_Admassu

    Posts : 120
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2020-11-18
    Age : 40
    Location : Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  Daniel_Admassu Tue Mar 23, 2021 6:58 pm

    PhSt wrote:So did they just removed the nose antenna or simply moved it elsewhere?

    Maybe the rotor mast antenna took over its role. Whatever the case, I can't say I terribly miss the pinocchio nose on the hunter. Russians military designers may be competent in any number of things, but aesthetics probably isn't one of them.
    TMA1
    TMA1

    Posts : 213
    Points : 215
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  TMA1 Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:22 pm

    Haha I love ruskie aesthetics it is what first drew me to their weapons, but I can see where you are coming from. To each their own I guess!

    TMA1 likes this post

    avatar
    Daniel_Admassu

    Posts : 120
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2020-11-18
    Age : 40
    Location : Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  Daniel_Admassu Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:30 am

    TMA1 wrote:Haha I love ruskie aesthetics it is what first drew me to their weapons, but I can see where you are coming from. To each their own I guess!

    Well, there are exceptions for me too. The Flanker series for instance have the best appeal among all the fourth generation fighters. But I generally hate how their helicopters look, especially the Mi-8/17 derivatives. My nation operates a number of them and I have had a chance to closely examine a few at a civilian airport. It is as though they took a barrel and stuck a boom on it. Neither do they look terribly aerodynamic, so no functional argument there. Maybe there is a cost one there. But it seems to me they could have spent a little more effort to make them less ugly. A little bit of form doesn't hurt even in military gear.

    But things seem to be changing. The Mi-38 is definitely an improvement.
    avatar
    Daniel_Admassu

    Posts : 120
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2020-11-18
    Age : 40
    Location : Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  Daniel_Admassu Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:23 am

    Hmmm.... I don't have data for this but I am kinda sure the more aesthetic appeal a military product has, the more customer are interested in it because in every business there are PR people who want to make their organization look good, including militaries. That in turn can fuel R&D.
    The_Observer
    The_Observer

    Posts : 81
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2021-01-03

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  The_Observer Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:53 am

    Daniel_Admassu wrote:Hmmm.... I don't have data for this but I am kinda sure the more aesthetic appeal a military product has, the more customer are interested in it because in every business there are PR people who want to make their organization look good, including militaries. That in turn can fuel R&D.

    I have to disagree.

    Aesthetics of military equipment are rarely judged in the conventional sense of the word. As Garry said, military equipment "looks good" when it effective at what it does.
    I don't think military brass making decisions on which equipment to buy worry too much about appearance as they do about the efficacy of the said weapon. Now, on the subject of appearance and aesthetic appeal of military equipment; my sense is that they are not at all judged in the conventional sense of the word.
    Besides judging how effective the weapon is, it's also important for the weapon to "look the part". If you build a killer weapon, it better look like a killer weapon. Take the Hind (mi-24) as an example. Ugly ass mother**** in the conventional sense, but looks like a remorseless killing machine. This "mean" appearance makes it a runway model in the military sense.
    avatar
    Daniel_Admassu

    Posts : 120
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2020-11-18
    Age : 40
    Location : Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  Daniel_Admassu Wed Mar 24, 2021 6:55 am

    I agree that form needs to follow function in any machinery. If a back ramp adds more value to a military chopper, even if it makes a fat rear end, do so by all means. But whenever function allows for some aesthetic liberty, why not? In addition  to the obvious rugged reliability, Russian military gear sells worldwide because of;
    1. They come with no strings attached
    2. They are less expensive
    If they made at least some effort in the exterior design and trimming, I am sure that their sales will further improve without compromising function. What is wrong with that?
    The Mi-24 is, in my opinion, not ugly at all in overall form. Obviously it is designed with more speed and maneuverability in mind but even the bubble canopy isn't enough to ruin its general appeal.

    This all depends on personal taste of course. But in general I believe traditional Russian gear lacks in presentation. However,  recently Russia seems to put some effort in this regard with its clean sheet designs. Look at the typhoon class MRAP for its army, or Gorshkovs for its navy. They look way better and better reflect the times.

    Am I the only one with this opinion? Really?
    The_Observer
    The_Observer

    Posts : 81
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2021-01-03

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  The_Observer Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:30 am

    Daniel_Admassu wrote:I agree that form needs to follow function in any machinery. If a back ramp adds more value to a military chopper, even if it makes a fat rear end, do so by all means. But whenever function allows for some aesthetic liberty, why not? In addition  to the obvious rugged reliability, Russian military gear sells worldwide because of;
    1. They come with no strings attached
    2. They are less expensive
    If they made at least some effort in the exterior design and trimming, I am sure that their sales will further improve without compromising function. What is wrong with that?
    The Mi-24 is, in my opinion, not ugly at all in overall form. Obviously it is designed with more speed and maneuverability in mind but even the bubble canopy isn't enough to ruin its general appeal.

    This all depends on personal taste of course. But in general I believe traditional Russian gear lacks in presentation. However,  recently Russia seems to put some effort in this regard with its clean sheet designs. Look at the typhoon class MRAP for its army, or Gorshkovs for its navy. They look way better and better reflect the times.

    Am I the only one with this opinion? Really?

    Your idea of "presentation" seems to be heavily influenced by the western design paradigm. Russia and Soviet designs are quite distinct. To each their own.

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29931
    Points : 30457
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:42 am

    But whenever function allows for some aesthetic liberty, why not?

    Because it is an extra complication and cost that adds time and money to the development and who is to say you are making it look worse or look better?

    1. They come with no strings attached
    2. They are less expensive

    So why doesn't a country like Australia buy Russian weapons?

    The simple facts are that Russian military equipment is effective and not over priced and generally reliable and tested in hot and cold environments most countries don't have to worry about.

    If they made at least some effort in the exterior design and trimming, I am sure that their sales will further improve without compromising function. What is wrong with that?

    Nobody bought weapons they thought looked pretty. Even if every member in the Australian Army decided the current model Hind was awesome and cool and amazing no Australian politician would give it a second thought because suggesting Australia buys Hinds would be the end of the career of that politician in Australia.

    If the Army went to the politicians and said they needed a new attack helicopter... one that could carry a small number of troops and weapons at the same time it doesn't matter how pretty or how much trimming a Hind gets... it wont get considered.

    Conversely it doesn't matter how bad you make the F-35, how many problems there are with the fundamental design, or how much they are going to charge you for the privilege of beta testing their new fighter plane a died in the wool ass kisser like Australia will always go for F-35s despite Su-35s being a much better choice.

    The Mi-24 is, in my opinion, not ugly at all in overall form. Obviously it is designed with more speed and maneuverability in mind but even the bubble canopy isn't enough to ruin its general appeal.

    The Mi-24 evolved from the Mi-8 and originally had an Mi-8 canopy but it was not good for the job so they changed it to make it more effective in combat. Looks never came in to it.

    But in general I believe traditional Russian gear lacks in presentation.

    Countries who buy based on name and look... like Saudi Arabia end up buying useless shit and end up getting their asses kicked by flip flop wearing Houthie freedom fighters.

    Am I the only one with this opinion? Really?

    By all means please post a thread showing the ugly Russian stuff with the pretty western equivalent... perhaps Russian designers have something to learn from bullshit western consumerism PR men.

    I think the west would be in much better shape if western politicians had not fired all the advisers and accountants and smart people and hired all the spin doctors and lawyers.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29931
    Points : 30457
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:44 am

    Your idea of "presentation" seems to be heavily influenced by the western design paradigm. Russia and Soviet designs are quite distinct. To each their own.

    He is essentially criticising Russian systems for not looking western enough... how ironic considering Russia copies all its stuff from the west... and don't make anything...
    avatar
    Daniel_Admassu

    Posts : 120
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2020-11-18
    Age : 40
    Location : Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  Daniel_Admassu Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:36 am

    Well, just trying to start a lighthearted conversation on Russian aeronautic design aesthetic. Obviously this too is an untouchable sensitive topic.

    In general human beings have a shared sense of the visually appealing. It matters less from where you are. This is because most artificial design is subconsciously inspired by nature itself, and eventually tends to mimic it as technology and function permits. The lifting body and blended wing concept of aircraft is a good example.

    Good design philosophy and aesthetic form plays a great deal in healthy attachment of the user to the machine. That would be a great asset in any military. The more the airmen like their craft, the more they are likely to succeed in its use.

    Yes, extra careful trimming can make an aircraft more expensive. But most western systems are so expensive because of the corrupt industry/politics and bloated labor wages.

    If Australia wants a new gunship with a side hatch, the strings will come from Washington, not Moscow.

    Take the Boeing AH-64 and let's imagine it roughly compares to the Mi-28, which costs something like 3x less. If Russia produced the Apache with all the added armoure, what would be the cost for an export customer? Maybe more than the Havoc but not by a lot. And no pinocchio nose 😄

    elconquistador and Finty like this post

    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 8970
    Points : 9067
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  JohninMK Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:25 pm

    Daniel_Admassu wrote:Well, just trying to start a lighthearted conversation on Russian aeronautic design aesthetic. Obviously this too is an untouchable sensitive topic.
    I can't really think of an untouchable topic on here. Some, as you have found, posing an alternative view may generate a bit of flack but that is in general good, especially if it makes people think a bit. Don't let it put you off. thumbsup

    As to this discussion, it clearly comes from influence from the top. Just compare the looks of Shoygu with Stoltenberg. Laughing Laughing

    Daniel_Admassu and Finty like this post

    avatar
    Daniel_Admassu

    Posts : 120
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2020-11-18
    Age : 40
    Location : Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  Daniel_Admassu Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:55 pm

    😄 You mean of course hearty sized bear vs wimpy insect 😄
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11136
    Points : 11210
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  PapaDragon Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:40 pm

    Daniel_Admassu wrote:Well, just trying to start a lighthearted conversation on Russian aeronautic design aesthetic. Obviously this too is an untouchable sensitive topic.

    Oh you think that's bad?

    Try saying something bad about everyone's favorite Russian Elon Musk groupie AKA Dmitry Rogozin and see fanboys going psycho

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7326
    Points : 7475
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  magnumcromagnon Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:58 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Daniel_Admassu wrote:Well, just trying to start a lighthearted conversation on Russian aeronautic design aesthetic. Obviously this too is an untouchable sensitive topic.

    Oh you think that's bad?

    Try saying something bad about everyone's favorite Russian Elon Musk groupie AKA Dmitry Rogozin and see fanboys going psycho


    Derangement
    TMA1
    TMA1

    Posts : 213
    Points : 215
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  TMA1 Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:54 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Daniel_Admassu wrote:Well, just trying to start a lighthearted conversation on Russian aeronautic design aesthetic. Obviously this too is an untouchable sensitive topic.

    Oh you think that's bad?

    Try saying something bad about everyone's favorite Russian Elon Musk groupie AKA Dmitry Rogozin and see fanboys going psycho


    Haha you HATE that bastard!

    GarryB likes this post

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 956
    Points : 1008
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  The-thing-next-door Wed Mar 24, 2021 6:52 pm

    Daniel_Admassu wrote:In general human beings have a shared sense of the visually appealing. It matters less from where you are.

    This is evidently not the case with the disparity of opinions about the appearance of Russian equipment being an excellent example of differing tastes in visual design.

    The thing I have noticed is that preference of visual style is that it seems to be primarily determined by culture and psychological conditioning. For instance your typical dumb westerner who knows nothing about engineering or warfare and spends their time in ab office or watching crap on the latest online customer exploitation service will generally find the kind of nonsensical and moronic designs of modern sci-fi or whatever impractical plastic clad scam the western MICs are trying to push to be good looking military vehicles while viewing Russian vehicles and weaponry as somehow looking ugly, crude and dated.
    However to someone who have familiarised themself with Russian military equipment and is not under the influence of western propaganda induced delusions Russian military equipment generally appears to them as stylish and elegant (if sometimes only in function) while many of the things westerners view as attractive are considered simplistic and inelegant at best.


    All this said I have encountered westerners who appreciate the Russian military aesthetic, though these people are usually of far higher intellect than the average office cretin that comprises most of the western population.




    Though to get back on topic am I the only one who thinks that the new MI-28 is bloody ugly? I actually liked the old one with it's front mounted radar guidance apparatus.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11136
    Points : 11210
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  PapaDragon Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:05 pm


    Mi-28 is butt fucking ugly in all versions, it's not up for discussion

    It works but it's ugly

    Say what you want about Apache but it's looks amazing
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4301
    Points : 4293
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  Hole Wed Mar 24, 2021 8:31 pm

    With hiss ugly cheeks the Apache looks like Michel Obama before his operations.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 6027
    Points : 6005
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  miketheterrible Wed Mar 24, 2021 9:46 pm

    I'm of the other opinion. I don't really see ugly copters Besides that South African Hind upgrade. Apache, Commanche, Hind, Havok and Alligator are all nice choppers. I like the Mi-28, even the latest variant makes it look even better.

    But I suppose if one has to win any kind of smooth line beauty contests, yeah, Apache wins. Issue is, it's an OK chopper that's very expensive with poor armor. At the prices, and if I can't get the Mi-28, then it would be the Tiger. Even if it's overpriced.

    Finty likes this post

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7326
    Points : 7475
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  magnumcromagnon Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:27 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Mi-28 is butt fucking ugly in all versions, it's not up for discussion

    It works but it's ugly

    Say what you want about Apache but it's looks amazing

    The Asspache looks like a chimpunk with it's cheeks stuffed full of nuts, and it lacks bullet proof glass which is pathetic for a CAS aircraft.
    The aesthetics of helicopter design  7af0f68205ff7c3ebcb2d5897c8283d5--chubby-cheeks-sweet-cheeks
    The aesthetics of helicopter design  800px-RNLAF_AH-64_Apache_at_the_Oirschotse_Heide_Low_Flying_Area_36570605232

    So if you have a preference for having your 'cheeks' filled to brim with nuts then of course it looks amazing. The lack of bulletproof glass means that 'longrods' won't have trouble penetrating it's 'cockpit'. Wink
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29931
    Points : 30457
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  GarryB Thu Mar 25, 2021 5:22 am

    Well, just trying to start a lighthearted conversation on Russian aeronautic design aesthetic.

    If you were only joking then you should have highlighted it as such using emojis.

    Claiming Russian stuff does not sell well because it is not as pretty and they don't spend enough time and money making their stuff pretty is the sort of thing I would expect from a 16 or 17 year old girl... and that is not me trying to insult you.

    Girls are obsessed with looks... the makeup industry makes enormous amounts of money on that, but I don't understand why you think reshaping the Mi-8 or Mi-17 to make it more aesthetically pleasing is worth the extra money and time... especially when there is no guarantee you will make it look better.

    You might spend time and money only to find your traditional customers don't like the changes because now it just looks western... which is a total waste of time because western countries are not interested in buying Russian products so pandering to western markets by dressing the systems up to look more western is just pissing money down the drain and worse risking alienating your actual customers who would have bought western designs if that was what they wanted.

    Obviously this too is an untouchable sensitive topic.

    Why obviously... have you been banned and your posts deleted?

    Have you been given a warning by a mod to stop?

    You expressed an opinion, and you got some responses... now I think you are over reacting... but that is my opinion too.

    In general human beings have a shared sense of the visually appealing

    That is why everyone wears exactly the same thing and fashion and design are not things because everyone has exactly the same taste. Everyone hates this and loves that.

    In the echo chamber that is the west at the moment you are either with us or with the terrorists, but in the rest of the world there are still choices.

    It matters less from where you are. This is because most artificial design is subconsciously inspired by nature itself, and eventually tends to mimic it as technology and function permits.

    Have never seen an animal or insect that flys that looks like an Mi-8. Spinning rotary blades is the most unnatural form of flight there is...

    The lifting body and blended wing concept of aircraft is a good example.

    But so far only fighters have such designs in numbers.

    Good design philosophy and aesthetic form plays a great deal in healthy attachment of the user to the machine.

    There is a huge gap between looking nice and being a good design... surface shape often is dictated by aerodynamics alone and with a helicopter the flight speed range means any old shape will do.

    That would be a great asset in any military.

    Really?

    Lots of WWII reinactors I know like to get dressed up in old uniforms and the most popular tend to be the German uniforms... but when "playing" on cold days the Germans suffered while the scruffy Soviet troops seem very comfortable and happy. Perhaps looking good is not the most important thing when you are freezing your ass off because the metal hob nails through the soles of your boots freeze the bottom of your feet if you don't put felt or something to separate them from your skin.

    The more the airmen like their craft, the more they are likely to succeed in its use.

    Airmen like planes that are easy to fly and will protect them in combat... you can learn to love the ugliest woman if she is great fun to be around and can cook. Over time beauty fades, so falling in love on looks is shallow and can only lead to disappointment. Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder.

    Yes, extra careful trimming can make an aircraft more expensive. But most western systems are so expensive because of the corrupt industry/politics and bloated labor wages.

    Very true, but there is no incentive to make F-35s cheaper or better because the customers are politically bound to buy them.

    If Australia wants a new gunship with a side hatch, the strings will come from Washington, not Moscow.

    Mil cannot make a helicopter that Australia would be allowed to buy. Look at what is happening with Turkey and India buying S-400s. Turkey is in HATO, and is being bullied by the US.

    Aesthetics have nothing to do with arms purchases.

    Take the Boeing AH-64 and let's imagine it roughly compares to the Mi-28, which costs something like 3x less. If Russia produced the Apache with all the added armoure, what would be the cost for an export customer? Maybe more than the Havoc but not by a lot. And no pinocchio nose

    The Mi-28 is already better armoured than the AH-64. The side cockpit canopy on the Apache is plexiglass... AK47s fired from the ground... ie 200-300m away can penetrate the side glass easily. Around the outside of the nose of the Apache is the Avionics boxes which are placed there to act like spaced armour to try to protect the crew compartment. The Mi-28 avionics are between the engines... there is a small door and crawl space... you could fit 2-3 people in there if you wanted... all protected by ceramic and metal armour from ground fire.

    There is video footage of a 14.5mm heavy machine gun placed 5m away from the door of an Mi-28 and fired directly into the side window panel. The glass cracks but the inside surface is smooth. No penetration at all. 14.5mm HMG rounds have twice the muzzle energy of a 50 cal HMG round.

    The Mi-28 is much better protected from ground fire than the Apache.

    Russia can't produce Apaches because Apaches are made up of western systems and equipment... all of which make up the high cost of the Apache.

    Russian engines are more powerful than the Apaches engines, the Russian radar mounting on the new Mi-28 has longer range than the Apaches radar, the Mi-28NM seems to have all the best things the Apache has except its maintenance does not seem to be such a problem.

    You mean of course hearty sized bear vs wimpy insect

    Reminds me of this:

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Fgdfg12

    Try saying something bad about everyone's favorite Russian Elon Musk groupie AKA Dmitry Rogozin and see fanboys going psycho

    And you are not banned either.... go figure.

    You can say any dumb shit you like and you wont get banned for it, but don't expect everyone to shower you in glory like you just noticed the emperor is not wearing any clothes and were teh first to point that out.

    You can say the US moon landings were faked... the people saying it happened have cried wolf so many times and there is so many other clear cases where they have lied that they can't demand to be trusted any more on anything.

    Look at them shifting the defeat of the nazis away from the Soviets and towards lend lease and winter and d day and any other crap they can think of...

    They have no credibility.

    I think you solved the riddle! That's it! I'm sure that's what was seen on the zvezda doc.

    Deleted your double post...

    Haha you HATE that bastard!

    It is true... he does.... and that is fine... but if he wants anyone else to take him seriously in that regard he needs to come up with rock solid reasons if he wants anyone to agree with him (who does not hate Rogozin of course).

    However to someone who have familiarised themself with Russian military equipment and is not under the influence of western propaganda induced delusions Russian military equipment generally appears to them as stylish and elegant (if sometimes only in function) while many of the things westerners view as attractive are considered simplistic and inelegant at best.

    A good example would be the Bear bomber. Most western observers who are not interested in military equipment might think it was a WWII bomber like a B-29.

    In fact many in the west insist that a Tu-95 is actually an upgraded B-29.

    They immediately assume the Tu-95 is inferior to the B-52 because the B-52 is a jet.

    The irony is that because the Soviets were smart and designed constant speed propellers whose tips are not supersonic, the Tu-95 is actually about 150km per hour faster than the west calculated it was.

    The Bear is the worlds only propeller driven aircraft that requires a swept wing, it is also still the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft.

    Because of the state of air defence systems modern strategic bombers will actually try to get close to their launch positions at low altitudes and in such flight regimes the Bear is actually faster than the B-52.

    Most importantly the B-52 was designed and built in the 1950s and 1960s, while the currently in service Bears were actually produced in the late 1980s and early 1990s and use a new wing design developed for the Tu-142.

    I'm of the other opinion. I don't really see ugly copters Besides that South African Hind upgrade. Apache, Commanche, Hind, Havok and Alligator are all nice choppers. I like the Mi-28, even the latest variant makes it look even better.

    Not really sure what ugly means in this context...

    I think an aesthetic improvement for the Havoc would be to replace the 30mm cannon with a twin barrel 23mm cannon and revise the entire belly of the aircraft as a belt feed mechanism for a few thousand 23mm cannon shells.

    The smaller calibre gun has much smaller rounds but a nice potent HE round... but then now they have air burst 30mm cannon shells I think they should improve the current turret arrangement with a belly magazine for large numbers of ready to fire rounds.

    The lack of bulletproof glass means that 'longrods' won't have trouble penetrating it's 'cockpit'. Wink

    Pistol bullets wont have trouble penetrating the plexiglass...



    avatar
    Daniel_Admassu

    Posts : 120
    Points : 122
    Join date : 2020-11-18
    Age : 40
    Location : Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  Daniel_Admassu Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:03 am

    With all due respect GarryB, I think you are the one acting childishly here. We are all adults (I hope) and should entertain differing opinions easily. I got mostly negative reactions from most replies, as I generally expected, but your tenacious response is something else. If you love Russia so much maybe a rational assessment of its achievements is the best way to go about it.

    As much as we here mostly love Russia, it is not a nation of gods. Most of its military hardware was designed in isolation from the west during the cold war and so looks different. But now the world is in the information age and people, including Russians, can have an opinion on how their gear compares to the rest out there. And as much as we mostly fault the west for much ill in the world, they are not all dumb. They are superb engineers and designers and Russia, keeping its strengths, has a lot to learn from them.

    If you were only joking then you should have highlighted it as such using emojis.

    Lighthearted doesn't mean jokes. Or I could be wrong. English is a second language for me.



    Why obviously... have you been banned and your posts deleted?

    Have you been given a warning by a mod to stop?

    You expressed an opinion, and you got some responses... now I think you are over reacting... but that is my opinion too.

    You know exactly what I meant. If we didn't mind irrational confrontations, we could have joined some F-35 adoration forum.



    Have never seen an animal or insect that flys that looks like an Mi-8. Spinning rotary blades is the most unnatural form of flight there is...

    That is why I said 'as technology and function permits'. You should read the things you reply to.



    Lots of WWII reinactors I know like to get dressed up in old uniforms and the most popular tend to be the German uniforms... but when "playing" on cold days the Germans suffered while the scruffy Soviet troops seem very comfortable and happy.

    Germans got into that conundrum because they didn't come prepared for a winter long offensive, not because they were trying to look good. And who says there no good looking winter clothing? I wouldn't know of course living in the African temperate.



    The Mi-28 is already better armoured than the AH-64. The side cockpit canopy on the Apache is plexiglass... AK47s fired from the ground...

    That is also what I said. Again, read the things you reply to well first.
    Finty
    Finty

    Posts : 248
    Points : 256
    Join date : 2021-02-10
    Location : Great Britain

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  Finty Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:33 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Mi-28 is butt fucking ugly in all versions, it's not up for discussion

    It works but it's ugly

    Say what you want about Apache but it's looks amazing

    I disagree, I've liked the look of the Havoc for years know although I've heard it being compared to a rat before and the rotor-mounted ball did impact the looks in a bad way but form follows function. Nevertheless for it me it's part of the holy trinity of gunships- hind, havoc, apache.

    As a Westerner, of course I like Western designs but I also like Soviet/Russian stuff too, they've got their own classics. I think the latest flankers all look good (ignoring the 'beavertail' chute holders) whilst the mig 31 is probably the best looking design Russia has come up with. Regarding helicopters, I'm also a fan of the hind (already mentioned) and original-fronted Hips.
    Finty
    Finty

    Posts : 248
    Points : 256
    Join date : 2021-02-10
    Location : Great Britain

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  Finty Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:48 am

    Daniel_Admassu wrote:Hmmm.... I don't have data for this but I am kinda sure the more aesthetic appeal a military product has, the more customer are interested in it because in every business there are PR people who want to make their organization look good, including militaries. That in turn can fuel R&D.

    I'd disagree to a large extent as doing the job is more important than looking pretty, but then I remembered the Boeing X-32. Looked absolutely sh*t although they didn't manage to have a supersonic and vtol aircraft as one which probably was more influential in selecting the rival X-35.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29931
    Points : 30457
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Beauty in the design of weapons.

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:03 am

    With all due respect GarryB, I think you are the one acting childishly here.

    What sort of discussion were you expecting... I like this and that and think that one is ugly... what have we learned?

    In the context of weapons and equipment and vehicles what does ugly or beautiful even define... you want to marry a tank or a plane?

    But I am being the child?

    What does disagreeing even mean in this context.

    This is not the first time I have seen people say Soviet stuff/Russian stuff looks bad or ugly or uncool... it is just boring.

    We are all adults (I hope) and should entertain differing opinions easily.

    As I pointed out... do adults discuss which plane they want to fuck, or is that adolescent girls at a pyjama party...

    Maybe you are just taking things too seriously... you were expecting everyone to agree and when they didn't you got upset perhaps?

    I got mostly negative reactions from most replies, as I generally expected, but your tenacious response is something else.

    Tenacious? Or descriptive and clear?

    Like I said, this is not the first time I have seen such a topic on a web forum.

    If you love Russia so much maybe a rational assessment of its achievements is the best way to go about it.

    Perhaps a better discussion would be why someone who finds inanimate objects attractive or unattractive based on where they were designed.

    It seems Russian helicopter makers need to pay more attention I presume to western helicopter makers who while making inferior aircraft seem to be more appealing to one person on this forum... possibly more.

    Certainly discussion of visual appeal might be worth its own topic, but not this thread.

    As much as we here mostly love Russia, it is not a nation of gods.

    What use would gods have for helicopters?

    Most of its military hardware was designed in isolation from the west during the cold war and so looks different.

    I would say the opposite, it has been the west that has been threatening the Soviets and forcing them to produce more and more unnecessary military hardware... the Russians didn't make a 5th gen fighter for fun... they made it because their self declared enemies were making 5th gen fighters too.

    But now the world is in the information age and people, including Russians, can have an opinion on how their gear compares to the rest out there. And as much as we mostly fault the west for much ill in the world, they are not all dumb. They are superb engineers and designers and Russia, keeping its strengths, has a lot to learn from them.

    I disagree. Most of the flashiest western stuff is crap... the F-35 is an excellent example... appearance over substance... if they spent as much money making it work as they did on PR it might have fewer problems.

    Lighthearted doesn't mean jokes. Or I could be wrong. English is a second language for me.

    This started when you said:

    Russians military designers may be competent in any number of things, but aesthetics probably isn't one of them.

    Not sure about you but claiming Russian military designers are incompetent and make ugly things is a difficult thing to process, and following it up with comments about the Mi-8 family being an unattractive helicopter didn't really help... have you seen a Puma?

    You know exactly what I meant. If we didn't mind irrational confrontations, we could have joined some F-35 adoration forum.

    You state that Russian military designers can't make attractive looking products... how irrational is that?

    You even later admit that you like a few of their designs too so you contradict yourself.

    That is why I said 'as technology and function permits'. You should read the things you reply to.

    Nature is not very useful in terms of vertical takeoff animals that are supersonic or carry multi-ton payloads thousands of kms, in fact mother nature really can't compete with most of the stuff the Russians require for their military.

    Germans got into that conundrum because they didn't come prepared for a winter long offensive, not because they were trying to look good

    They were more interested in how their uniform looked than how it fitted and felt and how well it kept the wearer warm and comfortable.

    I'd disagree to a large extent as doing the job is more important than looking pretty, but then I remembered the Boeing X-32.

    Can't remember the last time I read a country has chosen this or that platform... it wasn't as capable as the other options we had but I am sure you will all agree it is the prettiest...

    Most of this is way off topic so I will probably have a nice clean up of this thread to take all this OT BS.

    Sponsored content

    The aesthetics of helicopter design  Empty Re: The aesthetics of helicopter design

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:31 am