The aesthetics of helicopter design

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

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!

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mean of course hearty sized bear vs wimpy insect

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

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

Haha you HATE that bastard!

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.