Jump to content

Can you talk about the original shortcomings of the mi-24 helicopter design?


huchanronaa

Recommended Posts

I have the mi-8 module, and the two have similarities, so I can say that the first one is that the cockpit design is messy and the buttons are too many. The American helicopter uh-1h and mi-8 are products of the same era, but uh-1h  feel The cockpit design is much better


Edited by huchanronaa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mi-8's cockpit is a bit messy, agreed, but they "cleaned it up" a lot in the Hind

 

Imagine taking all the switches from Huey's overhead and pedestal and putting them in one place, wouldn't be much different than the set of switches on the left here.

The circuit breakers are behind you, so they don't look nearly as intimidating as the ones in the Hip, where they're right above you, always in sight.

 

1198357.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One aspect of the Mi-24's design that should be understood, is that it took place under the aegis of Soviet ministerial management. Mil himself wanted to design unique systems for the Mi-24, for avionics, navigation, comms and weapons management. However, he was told by government departments to make use of many existing equipment, already in use and in stock. Consequently, these systems had to be integrated, requiring more complex electrical systems, and design difficulties for integration between them. 
Having said that, sitting in (my reproduction) pit, the layout is no better or worse than many other aircraft. Some switches are awkward to reach, requiring a twist to the left to use a right hand, or reaching blindly back with a left hand, peering underneath the door closing-piston to access the anti-icing or Aircon, or trying to see and activate the correct weapons switch while holding the cyclic in active combat flight! 
But with practice, familiarity will settle in, and we will all intuitively know where to look, where to switch, which knob to turn, etc. 

Personally, I cannot wait for this beauty to be EA ready!

  • Like 6

SCAN Intel Core i9 10850K "Comet Lake", 32GB DDR4, 10GB NVIDIA RTX 3080, HP Reverb G2

Custom Mi-24 pit with magnetic braked cyclic and collective. See it here: Molevitch Mi-24 Pit.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] www.blacksharkden.com

bsd sig 2021.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, huchanronaa said:

The design of Russian helicopters originated from the former Soviet Union, so friends who often fly American or European helicopters think it will take some time to adapt.

 

embrace the differences.

 

the things they do differently may actually be done better. and it improves your understanding of the western helicopters.

 

take torque, the west uses torque. the east uses engine pressure ratio.

engine pressure ratio automatically adjusts for outside air temp and pressure.

torque does not.

you dont need a chart for maximum allowed torque at different altitudes. (like the one stuck to the gazelles dashboard)

the EPR gauge does it for you.

 

  • Like 8

My Rig: AM5 7950X, 32GB DDR5 6000, M2 SSD, EVGA 1080 Superclocked, Warthog Throttle and Stick, MFG Crosswinds, Oculus Rift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think there's 2 fundamental flaws to the hind.  first is the cargo compartment, which seems too small to serve as a true troop transport.  i have trouble seeing a squad fit inside with all their weapons and gear.  on the flip side it adds dead weight and bulk even when unoccupied.  should've kept separate things separate, especially when they're all but mutually exclusive.  the US solved this problem by using a dedicated utility helicopter (huey) alongside a dedicated gunship (cobra).  in practice the hind and mi-8 worked together in the same fashion

 

the 2nd flaw is the aerodynamic design.  it feels like the soviets didn't fully appreciate the possibilities of helicopters, but rather viewed the technology in the context of old doctrine and tactics.  the mi24 was basically a VTOL shturmovik. the rotors were a means to enable forward deployment; once airborne it morphs into a fixed-wing aircraft. the typical attack profile was to approach the target low and fast, then pop-up and strafe with cannons and rockets.

 

by this time the US had already mated the TOW missile with a huey to create the "attack" helicopter concept.  instead of risky head-on attacks with marginally effective dumb weapons, attack helicopters would shoot and scoot with precision missile from standoff range.  the hind could never be adapted for this profile because it was too large and heavy and has trouble hovering without the lift generated from its stub wings.  the designers obviously understood these problems and decided to fix them with proper, dedicated attack helis like the ka50 and mi28.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, naizarak said:

the hind could never be adapted for this profile because it was too large and heavy and has trouble hovering without the lift generated from its stub wings.  the designers obviously understood these problems and decided to fix them with proper, dedicated attack helis like the ka50 and mi28.

Not the case. The Mi-24 has no issues hovering, to the point that in a cold day you can stay in a hover on continuous power all the way until the fuel runs out. The Falanga, Shturm and Ataka can be fired in a hover by the Mi-24 just fine, the only reason why you see fast pop-up attacks as the norm is because they are inherently more survivable than sitting stationary within range of main guns and ATGMs.

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lucas_From_Hell said:

Not the case. The Mi-24 has no issues hovering, to the point that in a cold day you can stay in a hover on continuous power all the way until the fuel runs out. The Falanga, Shturm and Ataka can be fired in a hover by the Mi-24 just fine, the only reason why you see fast pop-up attacks as the norm is because they are inherently more survivable than sitting stationary within range of main guns and ATGMs.

sure it can, but at what weight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 5 Stunden schrieb naizarak:

i think there's 2 fundamental flaws to the hind.  first is the cargo compartment, which seems too small to serve as a true troop transport.  i have trouble seeing a squad fit inside with all their weapons and gear.  on the flip side it adds dead weight and bulk even when unoccupied.  should've kept separate things separate, especially when they're all but mutually exclusive.  the US solved this problem by using a dedicated utility helicopter (huey) alongside a dedicated gunship (cobra).  in practice the hind and mi-8 worked together in the same fashion

 

the 2nd flaw is the aerodynamic design.  it feels like the soviets didn't fully appreciate the possibilities of helicopters, but rather viewed the technology in the context of old doctrine and tactics.  the mi24 was basically a VTOL shturmovik. the rotors were a means to enable forward deployment; once airborne it morphs into a fixed-wing aircraft. the typical attack profile was to approach the target low and fast, then pop-up and strafe with cannons and rockets.

 

by this time the US had already mated the TOW missile with a huey to create the "attack" helicopter concept.  instead of risky head-on attacks with marginally effective dumb weapons, attack helicopters would shoot and scoot with precision missile from standoff range.  the hind could never be adapted for this profile because it was too large and heavy and has trouble hovering without the lift generated from its stub wings.  the designers obviously understood these problems and decided to fix them with proper, dedicated attack helis like the ka50 and mi28.


hmm.. not that I have any noteworthy opinion but I think you might want to be a little more differentiating and factual there.
The "Huey" as pop-culture defines it was there first - and thought to be the one solution for anything.
The "slickships" came later, as an actual solution, first field mod, then bandaid, then production run.
The "Cobras" came even later as the evolution of the application outpaced the evolution of existing airframes, an original design for the problem.
And they all worked together in any combination at all stages, or not, as there was nothing else.. jut like the other two you mentioned (and there was not just those two there either).

You also kind of overstress the lift generated by the weapon pylon collection framework. They are wings, they generate lift, the provide an additional characeristic to the flight envelope. But neither is the hind-family a sturmovik nor is it an autogyro-envelope heli beyond walking pace. The tactics were develope based on what needed tactics and defined by the envelope the airframe had after solutions for its mandated requirements had been found. Not the other way round. Not for any other rotocraft, any craft.

And as others have pointed out - the third paragraph needs a litte more research. It is all over the place. The Hokums, the havocs, the Apaches, the Tigers (ouchie, fail) exist as an inevitable original design for an everchanging enviroment creating new eras. Also scenarios and theatres. None of which is about "good, bad, better", it is about scenario, theatre, mission -  suitablity, flexibility, unforseen or intended for.


As a DCS product the Hind will - by likeliness, all outliers and distribution nonwithstanding - attract those that like how an asset with character and quirks translates as a module that has you involved in all aspects of your DCS loop. 
Just as many other modules are more likely to attract those appealed by clickplaying weapon system management instead of flying, piloting.

And btw.. that "too small cargo compartment" has seen a lot of use, standardized, highly specialized, clandestine use. And its airframe also was never intended to be a "true troop transport", or any form of "troop transport".
But again.. that is yours to read up on, that simply exceeds what a short exchange in a DCS forum is able to provide for.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, naizarak said:

i think there's 2 fundamental flaws to the hind.  first is the cargo compartment, which seems too small to serve as a true troop transport.  i have trouble seeing a squad fit inside with all their weapons and gear.  on the flip side it adds dead weight and bulk even when unoccupied.  should've kept separate things separate, especially when they're all but mutually exclusive.  the US solved this problem by using a dedicated utility helicopter (huey) alongside a dedicated gunship (cobra).  in practice the hind and mi-8 worked together in the same fashion

 

the 2nd flaw is the aerodynamic design.  it feels like the soviets didn't fully appreciate the possibilities of helicopters, but rather viewed the technology in the context of old doctrine and tactics.  the mi24 was basically a VTOL shturmovik. the rotors were a means to enable forward deployment; once airborne it morphs into a fixed-wing aircraft. the typical attack profile was to approach the target low and fast, then pop-up and strafe with cannons and rockets.

 

by this time the US had already mated the TOW missile with a huey to create the "attack" helicopter concept.  instead of risky head-on attacks with marginally effective dumb weapons, attack helicopters would shoot and scoot with precision missile from standoff range.  the hind could never be adapted for this profile because it was too large and heavy and has trouble hovering without the lift generated from its stub wings.  the designers obviously understood these problems and decided to fix them with proper, dedicated attack helis like the ka50 and mi28.

Well if you read up on the cobra you'll realize that it couldn't hover at combat loads in various conditions and was generally underpowered, much more so then the Hind. So it had to do run in attacks and pop-up before aquiring targets and firing it's TOW missles. To be fair almost all attack helicopter engage targets while being on the move, as being stationary in a helicopter is when your the most vunerable. As for the cargo compartment it adds a degree of versitility, and has found use in various circumstances. Most people look how it was utilized in the soviet war in Afgahnistan into what worked or didn't work for the hind, but really that's doing a disservice to the aircraft as it's been used in many different conflicts and has been succesful enough that Mil continues to build them in the Mi-35m and Mi-35phoenix varients.


Edited by CrazyGman
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lucas_From_Hell said:

It can hover in combat weights just fine for enough time to locate and engage targets. The aircraft's tactics manual covers ambush attacks from a hover position dating back to the Mi-24D.

what's the name of the manual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mi-24 variants, 2648 built, in service in 48 countries, plus Russia. Still being produced today in much the same configuration as its original design.... 

Not that flawed then.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

SCAN Intel Core i9 10850K "Comet Lake", 32GB DDR4, 10GB NVIDIA RTX 3080, HP Reverb G2

Custom Mi-24 pit with magnetic braked cyclic and collective. See it here: Molevitch Mi-24 Pit.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] www.blacksharkden.com

bsd sig 2021.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, naizarak said:

the hind could never be adapted for this profile because it was too large and heavy and has trouble hovering without the lift generated from its stub wings.

This is a common misconception that keeps getting perpetuated. In reality the Hind is not that much larger when you compare it to other attack helicopters espessially the Ka-50 and Mi-28. It's power to weight is greater then the Sea Cobra and comparible to the Super Cobra. The wings mostly effect it's ability to manuver at high back angles at high speed. While they do have some effect with the downwash in a hover, when you compare them with helicopters like the Ka-50 the wings are not overly large in comparison. 

 

As you can see in this video the Mi-24P Hind has no trouble with low speed manuvering and hovering.

 

 

You might say that the weight on the hind in this scenario is pretty light and the conditions are in a ideal regime, (This video was taken mid summer in Hungary) but these are always factors for any helicopter.

While not widely advertised the AH-64D was a little underpowered compared to A versions, due to all the additional systems. Part of the reason they removed the radar in Afgahnistan was that it removed a decent amount of weight, but even with this, combat loaded AH-64 would have to at times make rolling or hopping takeoffs in Afgahistan when the conditions were high and hot, which is also why they often didn't carry full combat loads. However even with these factors by the time the AH-64 arrived on station it would have burned up enough fuel to manuver and hover if required. The same is true for the hind. Plan for the mission and gear it up so that it's at a good combat weight when it arrives on target (the hind carries a ton of fuel, but doesn't have to carry a full load) and it's more then capable of hovering if required and employing it's weapons at stand-off ranges

 


Edited by CrazyGman
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

notice how the application of a contemporary and NATO-associated paintscheme transforms the airframe into something more contemporary itself in perception (hello recently repainted Iranian tanks with fake add-ons).

Suddenly even something as iconic and thus clearly associated as the Hind is perceived different, without or with different prejudice...

maintenance related quick gear operations too btw...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rogorogo said:

notice how the application of a contemporary and NATO-associated paintscheme transforms the airframe into something more contemporary itself in perception (hello recently repainted Iranian tanks with fake add-ons).

Suddenly even something as iconic and thus clearly associated as the Hind is perceived different, without or with different prejudice...

maintenance related quick gear operations too btw...

Personally I prefer the older paint schemes.

The gear did get deployed quickly, but in other videos I thought it deployed around at the same speed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2021 at 11:22 AM, huchanronaa said:

I have the mi-8 module, and the two have similarities, so I can say that the first one is that the cockpit design is messy and the buttons are too many. The American helicopter uh-1h and mi-8 are products of the same era, but uh-1h  feel The cockpit design is much better

 

The UH-1H is a fairly simple single engine machine from the late 60s. I believe ours has a few systems that were added later, such as the radar altimeter and countermeasures system - which are incidentally perhaps the "messiest" parts of the cockpit layout. The Mi-8MTV2 is a fairly complex twin engine model from the early 90s - compared to the base variants it has been reengined and a lot of the avionics and systems were added or replaced. They aren't really that close in functionality and era. Due to the avionics complexity the Hip was certainly more of a challenge in terms of cockpit layout.

 

The Hip and the Hind are some of the last pure steam gauges machines - with a lot of the complexity of modern aircraft but without the glass cockpits that greatly simplified management of all those systems. So yes, learning the layout and how to use all the cockpit controls effectively will be a challenge, but on the bright side, if you're familiar with the Hip, it should flatten the learning curve significantly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor einer Stunde schrieb CrazyGman:

Personally I prefer the older paint schemes.

The gear did get deployed quickly, but in other videos I thought it deployed around at the same speed?

I was not qualifying or judging or expressing preference, I was merely pointing out an observation.

Which applies to the 21er, the 29, a Hip, a Kamaz truck, a Moskvich too, anything if surplanted pop-culturally by spraypaint. And - unrelated to the observational phenomenon - personal preferences in DCS are often catered too by an abundance of available liveries and free choice of BORT numbering. Which is mostly feasible as even the involved scenarios are very AWACS, BVR and IFF at least in ID and merge. 

As for the gear, well.. random background footage in secondary applicant territory and lower-echelon units do show the inevitable - when you do not have the resources to constantly maintain, service, replace, pamper hydraulics.... but that applies globally, literally globally.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, naizarak said:

what's the name of the manual?

I'm not sure what manual they are referring to but this website is a goldmine of information, to include the various attack profiles


Edited by Britchot
  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

CPU - Intel 8088 @ 4.77 MHz; Memory - 128KB; 360KB double-sided

5 1/4" full-height floppy disk drive; 10MB Seagate ST-412 hard drive

JG-1 MiG-21bis Checklist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Britchot said:

I'm not sure what manual they are referring to but this website is a goldmine of information, to include the various attack profiles

 

Wow this is great. I'm not sure what missle they are referencing, or if it's just a general guideline since there are different engagement ranges for wire guided and semi auto guided missiles.

 

Edit:

Nevermind found it it's for the old 

9M17P Falanga-P

So for the missles the Mi-24P is getting like the SHTURM i'm expecting the ranges would be a little further


Edited by CrazyGman
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, molevitch said:

Mi-24 variants, 2648 built, in service in 48 countries, plus Russia. Still being produced today in much the same configuration as its original design.... 

Not that flawed then.

truly the lada of the skies...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mi24 "flaws" were addressed in Mi35M. They shortened the wings to help with hovering, maneuvering and fixed landing gear to reduce weight.

But new problems arose - top speed fell form 335 to 300km/h and it became less stable in flight according to pilots.

On Mi35P Phoenix they dropped all those changes and retained original design. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...