The aesthetics of helicopter design

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!

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.

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...

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.

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

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

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!

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

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

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:

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...

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.