The aesthetics of helicopter design

[ADVANCEDBOY]

I know a lot you here are professionals, so ,please, help me out with this one. Firstly when I watched the unveiling of this brand new helicopter [the Bell 525 Relentless—Mod.], it left me with split feelings. It left a feeling as if it was not a new helicopter but a mishmash of older versions that has been stretched. It strangely reminded me of something that I have seen before. I haven`t done a scrupulous research to establish that, but my guess would veer towards Agusta-Westland, you know, somewhere towards AW-139. Besides, they have a facility in Philadelphia. When looking at Relentless in profile it seems too unnaturally skinny and stretched, and it doesn`t have solid design flow of lines from snout to tail section. If it was a brand new design, I believe designers would have made a smoother flow of skinny front section into thickenned middle section. Sorry to say that, but it reminds me somewhat the poor US truck industry, where a brand new truck is nothing else but a remastered front cowling and grille, while the front windshield and thick gasket around it reveals its aging mesosoic genome. Talking about beancounting hidden behind loud slogans. What was also suspsicious is the landing gear. Where else have I seen such an unproportionately skinny chassis? I don`t know, and I don`t want to sound like sour grapes, but my hunch makes me feel nervous about this one. Any comments?

 

[Stargazer]

You are right about one thing: it looks stretched and a patchwork of ideas. It lacks the coherent and sturdy aspect of all previous Bell designs.

 

[VTOLicious]

Quote from the brochure:

First commercial helicopter to incorporate Bell's LATD Tail Boom technology for improved HOGE performance.

Sounds interesting, but I couldn't find any further information explaining LATD in detail ...any ideas?

Regards Michael

 

[TomS]

This article describes it somewhat. Basically, the boom is shaped to produce some countertorque in hover and reduce the power that has to be sent to the tail rotor.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/hai-convention-news/2012-02-12/relentless-525-be-largest-bell-helicopter

 

[yasotay]

Money rules everything. The reason the 525 looks like other helicopters is for the same reason most fighters have twin tails, twin engines and all flying elevators; they are all designed to the same core parameter. Bell went for what would sell helicopters in the lucrative off shore market. Aesthetics takes third place when it comes to selling helicopters to budget wary oil companies. They invested in making the helicopter easier and cheaper to operate which is what the buyer wants. It is bigger because the buyer wants to carry more people per flight, thus reducing the number of flights needed, thus reducing the number of flight hours.


Then there is the fact that Bell is a VERY conservative corporate organization. They are not going to go for big risk. Note they have divested themselves of any future tilt-rotor programs at the moment. They wil allow the rotorcraft companies with deeper pockets (Sikorsky and Eurocopter) to investigate high speed and see if there is a market. Bell will accept risk in the cockpit with advanced systems because it is much easier to recover from any discoveries that the technology or methodology is not functional. Much easier to redesign the software than the aircraft.


Finally Bell is expecting the civil market to overtake the military market for the next decade. There focus will be on the civil market as their share of the military market dwindles.

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

Quote: "Money rules everything. The reason the 525 looks like other helicopters is for the same reason most fighters have twin tails, twin engines and all flying elevators; they are all designed to the same core parameter. Bell went for what would sell helicopters in the lucrative off shore market. Aesthetics takes third place when it comes to selling helicopters to budget wary oil companies. They invested in making the helicopter easier and cheaper to operate which is what the buyer wants. It is bigger because the buyer wants to carry more people per flight, thus reducing the number of flights needed, thus reducing the number of flight hours."
[/size]
Somehow these rules don`t apply to Russian helicopters. If they design a new helicopter it is a unique design and doesn`t resemble a mishmash of predecessors akin to Bell 214 and AW 139. 525 reminds me of Eurocopter x3 which is also not a new helicopter , but contains redesigned elements. It gives mixed feelings, as if the company was counting beans on innovation and engineeering. Ditto the chinese fidgetting around with Superfrelon to create their own design. I do not endorse that kind of activity. It truly disappoints me, and I will cross out 525 from the list of new helicopters unless you can prove that none of the exterior panels are a direct transfer from existing choppers. And I ain`t talking here landing gear or blades which ,of course, could share common architecture. Pardon my criticism, I don`t want to ruin your day, but these are my honest thoughts in reference to Relentless. This is what would Relentless look like, had I been given a chance to redesign it. Thank you, have a nice day!

 

[Jemiba]

Somehow these rules don`t apply to Russian helicopters. If they design a new helicopter it is a unique design and doesn`t resemble a mishmash of predecessors ...

Are you sure ? Than you're fit for a test ! Name those helicopters, of which I've just shown the noses.
And remember, all are just projects, where giving every new type a new shape still doesn't really matter with
regards to money. If it comes to building it, of course, financial issues shouldn't be totally neglected, I think.
And counting a new design as "old", because it has a resemblance to others of the same manufacturer,
maybe a kind of marketing, too, don't you think ?

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

One in the top left corner is Ka-92( a superb design in my opinion), another one that has a scale model photo is MI-X-1. The rest of them seem to be irrelevant as I could identify them by going to wiki page. Most of them were hatched in mid 80ies early 90ies and never went off the proposal or ideation sketchbook. Being similar and identical is rather a big issue. You see when you take an old 737 and modify it endlessly( and then call it brand-new) it gives an unpleasant impression of engineering scrooginess. In post Soviet area we consider it an engineering weakness and inability to overcome `short term profit snow blindness`. There were some interesting Russian choppers released in modern chopper history, which I set to have started in 1980. But that is just me. There was Ka-62, and Mil -38, the latest was Ansat from Kazan. yet I never considered their exteriors to be ripoffs of existing older choppers. Everything seemed to exert solid engineering and new design. The only half baked farce was Ka -226 which seemed to be an iteration of a previous Ka 26 chopper yet designwise it was very solid and consistent. Even when you take 2 somewhat similar choppers like Mi-6 and Mi-26, by peering deeper into their exterior designs you can clearly see that each of them is an original and not a copy -paste . Of course, there have been cases of nosejob engineering like Su-34 which contained too many elements from Su-27, etc. I am not critical just to US aviation , I am critical to rebadge engineering, because it not only makes products obsolete it also waters down engineering expertise depriving engineers of solid engineering practice and challenges. For example, I totally dig F-35 design and conider it one of the most solid exterior designs in aviation history, but I would hate to see this platform being derived in next 40 years and rebadged as brand new under different nomenclature. A company that is a benchmark in exterior designs is Anotonov bureau, which cosnsistently cranks out new products with unmatched product diversity. If US had this attitude they would leave Airbus or Eurocopter sh**less. It is not stocks that make a company strong, it is the superb core of alfa engineers that have skills to design and create solid products.
In the end if I had suspicions about 525, there must be something that made me feel in such a way. Convince me of the opposite.

 

[RavenOne]

I know a lot you here are professionals, so ,please, help me out with this one. Firstly when I watched the unveiling of this brand new helicopter, it left me with split feelings. It left a feeling as if it was not a new helicopter but a mishmash of older versions that has been stretched. It strangely reminded me of something that I have seen before. I haven`t done a scrupulous research to establish that, but my guess would veer towards Agusta-Westland, you know, somewhere towards AW-139. Besides, they have a facility in Philadelphia. When looking at Relentless in profile it seems too unnaturally skinny and stretched, and it doesn`t have solid design flow of lines from snout to tail section. If it was a brand new design, I believe designers would have made a smoother flow of skinny front section into thickenned middle section. Sorry to say that, but it reminds me somewhat the poor US truck industry, where a brand new truck is nothing else but a remastered front cowling and grille, while the front windshield and thick gasket around it reveals its aging mesosoic genome. Talking about beancounting hidden behind loud slogans. What was also suspsicious is the landing gear. Where else have I seen such an unproportionately skinny chassis? I don`t know, and I don`t want to sound like sour grapes, but my hunch makes me feel nervous about this one. Any comments?

Hi there and belated happy xmas, according to one of my clients back there at HAI, they could've waited another year for the test flight and revealed first working prototype. On top of that, its set to rival the AgustaWestland AW189 in that class.

Cheers

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

I decided to rework the front of 525 as well. Here is my redesign of it. I do not own the original photo.

 

[Jemiba]

Begging your pardon, but I think, crews and passengers, too, would curse you.
Much more framing, less view, less safety ! :
Honestly, that's often a problem with nowadays designs, starting with a lot of household appliances,
over to clothing and cars and maybe aircraft, too.

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

I was considering frame strength and torsional rigidity. If the glass area is too big it compromises the frame structure and and would make the nose part slightly move/wobble jeopardizing windshield . My 2 cents.

 

[Jemiba]

Don't you think, that the Bell engineers had the same thoughts ? :
I recently started a thread about the theme "Influence of aesthetics on aircraft design"
(http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,17730.0.html ), which maybe is
a better place for this discussion. What's the margin left for pure "designwork", that means,
without bothering of function, in aviation today ? To my opinion, in the field of helicopters,
it's even smaller, than for fixed wing aircraft, because two totally different flight regimes have
to be incorporated in one airframe. And if you have a look at the way, even small details are
designed (in reality !), because they can severly influence flight characteristics, I think such
a redesign, to my opinion, is better suited to the "Theoretical and Speculative Projects"
section.

 

[yasotay]

Begging your pardon, but I think, crews and passengers, too, would curse you.
Much more framing, less view, less safety ! :
Honestly, that's often a problem with nowadays designs, starting with a lot of household appliances,
over to clothing and cars and maybe aircraft, too.

While I would never curse anyone Jemiba, I agree with you that the current 525 configuration would be far better received by the flight crew.

 

[Jemiba]

My use of this word was just meant as a kind of joke, of course. But honestly, I already burnt my fingers, when
using a stylishly "designed" electric water kettle and changing a bulb of the headlights of our car is a midsize repair,
because of the stylishly "designed" shape of the front. So, yes, I admit, I'm often feeling somewhat impaired by "design" !
And here, I think, "function" was neglected a little bit against "form".

 

[Retrofit]

Begging your pardon, but I think, crews and passengers, too, would curse you.
Much more framing, less view, less safety ! :

Especially true for an helicopter targeted for the oil & gas market, where the passengers windows are jettisonable to be used as emergency exits in case of ditching, or else.

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

Alright let`s go back to the basics of rigidity and torsional rigidity. Once a chopper is airborne and does pitch and yaw and stuff , it is exposed to g-loads to the frame. You have to consider that window areas are the weak spots for frame rigidity. While the whole structure of a fuselage is flexible in all directions glass area is much more fragile and can move within the tolerances of window gaskets and window framing that is why large window areas on airplanes and choppers as well aren`t that welcome.
Another issue is `the sense of safey net`. People actually don`t want to have large windows on aircraft( they want the window to be moved slightly upwards!), especially going downwards their waistline. It reduces the safety perception and people feel more exposed and jeopardised. What I have noticed people tend to agree with having larger window areas above, but not beneath or on side planes. We can see this development on cars as well. The window area on cars` side planes has been constantly reduced and the window area has become more and more narrow. The opposite effect has happened to the roof glass area, it has been streched from a tiny optional sunroof to a full panorama roof like on many cars today, Audi A2, Ford S-max, etc. For cars rigid frames allow narrower tolernaces between panels and thus improves fit and finish and reduces rattles and squeks once the vehicle ages. By applying latest advances in new types of strengthened steel and alloys it has become feasible to apply large panorama roofs today. VW`s Piech was obsessed with tolerances and understood that the only way to achieve it is to make the body of a vehicle very rigid, which he tried to implement in VW Phaeton. the vehicle became heavy, yet was VW` benchmark in quality at he time of its release. Fit and finish is a key factor in creating effect of a trustworthiness of a vehicle. If a client sees that a company can`t manage even exterior panels to be aligned, it would be unlikely they would be much better dealing with movents unseen to the eye of a customer. Airplanes are different, unless we are talking here private customers. propbably choppers dealing with rescue or forest fires could have larger window areas. If you think that a pilot might hit a pole or electrical wire while landing in a cramped urban area, for God`s sake, install back-up sensors or beepers on tips of rotor blades, like they do it on your car bumpers. Just my 2 cents

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

One in the top left corner is Ka-92( a superb design in my opinion), another one that has a scale model photo is MI-X-1. The rest of them seem to be irrelevant as I could identify them by going to wiki page. Most of them were hatched in mid 80ies early 90ies and never went off the proposal or ideation sketchbook. Being similar and identical is rather a big issue. You see when you take an old 737 and modify it endlessly( and then call it brand-new) it gives an unpleasant impression of engineering scrooginess. In post Soviet area we consider it an engineering weakness and inability to overcome `short term profit snow blindness`. There were some interesting Russian choppers released in modern chopper history, which I set to have started in 1980. But that is just me. There was Ka-62, and Mil -38, the latest was Ansat from Kazan. yet I never considered their exteriors to be ripoffs of existing older choppers. Everything seemed to exert solid engineering and new design. The only half baked farce was Ka -226 which seemed to be an iteration of a previous Ka 26 chopper yet designwise it was very solid and consistent. Even when you take 2 somewhat similar choppers like Mi-6 and Mi-26, by peering deeper into their exterior designs you can clearly see that each of them is an original and not a copy -paste . Of course, there have been cases of nosejob engineering like Su-34 which contained too many elements from Su-27, etc. I am not critical just to US aviation , I am critical to rebadge engineering, because it not only makes products obsolete it also waters down engineering expertise depriving engineers of solid engineering practice and challenges. For example, I totally dig F-35 design and conider it one of the most solid exterior designs in aviation history, but I would hate to see this platform being derived in next 40 years and rebadged as brand new under different nomenclature. A company that is a benchmark in exterior designs is Anotonov bureau, which cosnsistently cranks out new products with unmatched product diversity. If US had this attitude they would leave Airbus or Eurocopter sh**less. It is not stocks that make a company strong, it is the superb core of alfa engineers that have skills to design and create solid products.
In the end if I had suspicions about 525, there must be something that made me feel in such a way. Convince me of the opposite.

Well for one thing Russian Helicopters are not that innovative. As we talk about "rebadge engineering" I must ask if Mil ever developed a tilt rotor like the V-22? How about intermeshing blades like the K-Max or husky? How about Tandem Rotors like Chinook? (I know Yakolev built some prototypes in the old days). Kamovs are not exactly ground breaking either. Its the same Co axail system over and over again until they redid the Dauphin and called it Kasatka. For as long as I have been alive its easy to describe a Mil Helicopter: Cabin with a tail, twin engines mounted over the cabin, conventional main/tail rotor layout. The Mi-28 broke "new ground" when it had the engines mounted on each side of the fuselage, which was a first for them, but not for Western attack helicopters and of course the Mi-28 uses the same engines found in the old hip and hind. I guess my definition of "copy paste" is very different from yours.

If you want to talk about how windows and external looks are what make true "alfa" engineers you are welcome to that. But helicopters are about dynamic components (thats where the engineering goes) of which Mil and Kamov are extremely stale in their conventional layouts. Their layouts are always the same. Bell and Boeing made the Osprey, you seem to be confusing "innovative looks" with "innovative engineering"

 

[yasotay]

Alright let`s go back to the basics of rigidity and torsional rigidity. Once a chopper is airborne and does pitch and yaw and stuff , it is exposed to g-loads to the frame. You have to consider that window areas are the weak spots for frame rigidity. While the whole structure of a fuselage is flexible in all directions glass area is much more fragile and can move within the tolerances of window gaskets and window framing that is why large window areas on airplanes and choppers as well aren`t that welcome.
Another issue is `the sense of safey net`. People actually don`t want to have large windows on aircraft( they want the window to be moved slightly upwards!), especially going downwards their waistline. It reduces the safety perception and people feel more exposed and jeopardised. What I have noticed people tend to agree with having larger window areas above, but not beneath or on side planes. We can see this development on cars as well. The window area on cars` side planes has been constantly reduced and the window area has become more and more narrow. The opposite effect has happened to the roof glass area, it has been streched from a tiny optional sunroof to a full panorama roof like on many cars today, Audi A2, Ford S-max, etc. For cars rigid frames allow narrower tolernaces between panels and thus improves fit and finish and reduces rattles and squeks once the vehicle ages. By applying latest advances in new types of strengthened steel and alloys it has become feasible to apply large panorama roofs today. VW`s Piech was obsessed with tolerances and understood that the only way to achieve it is to make the body of a vehicle very rigid, which he tried to implement in VW Phaeton. the vehicle became heavy, yet was VW` benchmark in quality at he time of its release. Fit and finish is a key factor in creating effect of a trustworthiness of a vehicle. If a client sees that a company can`t manage even exterior panels to be aligned, it would be unlikely they would be much better dealing with movents unseen to the eye of a customer. Airplanes are different, unless we are talking here private customers. propbably choppers dealing with rescue or forest fires could have larger window areas. If you think that a pilot might hit a pole or electrical wire while landing in a cramped urban area, for God`s sake, install back-up sensors or beepers on tips of rotor blades, like they do it on your car bumpers. Just my 2 cents

I'll be blunt. Regarding your proposition that "People actually don`t want to have large windows on aircraft" as a helicopter pilot of twenty (+) years you are dead wrong. In fact if all helicopters I flew could have had Hughes/MD/Boeing H-6 visibility that would have been great! As far as passengers, depending on the weather we mostly flew with the doors open. However, to be fair, my experiance is limited to military aircraft. I will defer on civil rotorcraft, although I am very comfortable saying that civil rotorcraft pilots are just as keen on more visibility than less. It may be true that civil passengers prefer higher windows...

I will defer on your arguments on torsion issues as I am not an engineer. However having spent time around a number of them for a few years and being familiar with the work that they do and the systems they use to develop the aircraft, I am pretty sure they very well aware of the dynamic limits of the fuselage they are designing. Of course if you think them to be the nefarious evil MIC types, in most countries that have an industry their data is reviewed by government engineers (military and civil).

 

[Stargazer]

Topic split from the Bell 525 thread, as I believe this is a much more general discussion we're having here.

 

[yasotay]

So to be fair I have attached two pictures of the Sikorsky S-97 effort. The first is of the mock-up (posted by Triton), that took into account the desires of the expected user community. The second is the most current open source illustration of the S-97 that I am aware of. Note there is a significant reduction in the amount of unfettered windscreen on the design. It is accepted as a necessity of design, but I promise you it is not a "preferred" design point by those who might get to fly the aircraft.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Helicopters in the tourist industry can't have enough windows.

If you look at a Bell 206 they are almost nothing but glass up front, the doors are not "structural" either in any way, and are easily removed after popping a couple of pins. and of course there is the 500 series...

Most helicopter doors are easily removed and do not contribute at all to the aircraft's structure.

This idea that more glass means the aircraft is less structurally sound is far fetched. I actually look at a helicopter that has a lot of glass and think "Wow they built it so strong in all the right places that there is plenty of room for visibility!" So when I look at those other small window designs and think "hey what gives?" not to mention the 206 series had its first flight in 1962.

 

[Jemiba]

As we talk about "rebadge engineering" I must ask if Mil ever developed a tilt rotor like the V-22? How about intermeshing blades like the K-Max or husky? How about Tandem Rotors like Chinook?

Tilt rotor, yes, the Mi-30. Tandem rotor, yes, the M-3 (quite old !) and, in another way the Mi-12 or one of the pre-projects to the Mi-28.
None of them developed to series production, of course, or not even to the prototype state. But it seems not to have been due to a lack
of ideas.

 

[Bill Walker]

Oh, where to begin?

Alright let`s go back to the basics of rigidity and torsional rigidity. Once a chopper is airborne and does pitch and yaw and stuff , it is exposed to g-loads to the frame. You have to consider that window areas are the weak spots for frame rigidity.

Yes, but - what looses the frame rigidity is openings. Windows or otherwise. Every door and access panel looses rigidity. Famous quote from my first airframe design boss: "structural access panels aren't, after you undo them once".

While the whole structure of a fuselage is flexible in all directions glass area is much more fragile and can move within the tolerances of window gaskets and window framing that is why large window areas on airplanes and choppers as well aren`t that welcome.

Does anybody use glass for helicopter windows anymore? Plastic, especially polycarbonate with a double curvature, is very stiff, and can be (and regularly is) made part of the load bearing structure. A properly attached pre-formed plastic window is WAY stronger than a removable sheet metal door of the same size - unless you use a lot of weight reinforcing the door frame. And by properly attached, I mean the "gasket" is NOT part of the load path.

Another issue is `the sense of safey net`.

Others have dealt with this. It depends on the customer, and what they want. I regularly do STC test programs for people who want to fly their helicopters with the doors off. And are willing to pay money in order to do so. ;D

If you think that a pilot might hit a pole or electrical wire while landing in a cramped urban area, for God`s sake, install back-up sensors or beepers on tips of rotor blades, like they do it on your car bumpers. Just my 2 cents

So, the blades rotate, cone, change pitch , and move in-plane (lead-lag). The helicopter needs to, at various times, move up, down, forward, backwards, left and right. Maybe several of these at the same time. What direction should the "back up" sensor point?

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

As to attacking Russian choppers on lacking innovation or diversity- don`t even go there. They offer full spectrum of solid engineered platforms be it mi-26 which would probably not even notice S-97 or X-2 if it landed directly on top of them. I will not mention tinier choppers like mil-34, etc which have rails instead of landing gear. I don`t consider them even choppers, merely a joke, a playaround in chopper industry. What I want from helicopter industry is new products. I want them not to be tweaked botox injections in late 60 Kyowas but a brand new design. I am tired of seeing all these Bell derivatives which seeem to be spinoffs of each other. There are some things which I consider engineering `poverty` and will always consider inferior to solid `engineering`. Here are some of them that I despise- rails instead of landing gear. 2 blades on the main rotor. removed doors or lack of them. Unfinished design elements on exterior( for example, Sikorsky crane). Small size( God only knows how I hate tiny choppers). And extremely outsourced engineering outside US ( see S-92 Helibus). That is just me.
As to S-97 Raider, I believe once it goes active prototyping stage the glass area will be reworked and reduced, as an attack/scout chopper it would be too much exposed for enemy shells, etc.
Of course, your pics of cabins with removed glass/dooors is convincing. The question is what percentage these constitute of the total choppers manufactured within the due category.
Oh, the issue with sensors on blades. make them work all directions 4 meters or so( so that the cabin underneath is not exposed to it) . Once the blades approach a hurdle, make them activate a `clacker` similar to civilian jet planes.
As to large glass canopies, they can be retained if reinforcing pillars are considered which would strengthen the fuselage.
And finally my personal view on modern choppers that have been churned out from US. I consider only a few to be such= Comanche, S-92( beep , beep -outsourcing). And that`s it. X-2 -too tiny, for Russia it is just a munchkin sized scale demonstrator, Tonka chopper. Mattel rotor, you get the idea. 525 is questionable, as I am not convinced of its `unique` design. Raider- uhm, it might work albeit it fiddles on verge of being puny. Oh wait v-22 is a looker too, although it transcends its chopper category a notch.
Don`t you guys miss the days when engineers had guts to build the biggest, heaviest and fastest? Well I do. I want Boeing to build a chopper bigger than mil-26, and then Kamov fight back . I want the blood to be splashed all over the battlefield of engineering, where jumbos like 380 would be smashed by hyperjumbos from Boeing and then again falcon punched by even larger birds from MCDonnelDouglas or Antonov. I want them birds being built goddamit. I want them pelicans not bluejays. I want them raptors and liopleurodons and not lemmings or shrews.
I want to see those virgin maiden flights, where the fathers of their birds stand on the landing strips and watch them hatch away from the nest for the first takeoff to embrace the sky. I want to see their eyes and those droplets of tears they are hiding once their metal offsprings leave the family hangars. Those moments of exult once the chief enginners observe their children leave with their hands shaking , those are the moments you want to scream- the life is worth living.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As to attacking Russian choppers on lacking innovation or diversity- don`t even go there. They offer full spectrum of solid engineered platforms be it mi-26 which would probably not even notice S-97 or X-2 if it landed directly on top of them.

we seem to be talking about 2 different things:

Engineering to you is how pretty the helicopter looks on the outside based on your personal preference.

Engineering to me is the construction of the important elements that make a helicopter fly, safely.

I will not mention tinier choppers like mil-34, etc which have rails instead of landing gear. I don`t consider them even choppers, merely a joke, a playaround in chopper industry.

But guess where the market is?

What I want from helicopter industry is new products. I want them not to be tweaked botox injections in late 60 Kyowas but a brand new design. I am tired of seeing all these Bell derivatives which seeem to be spinoffs of each other.

Because those spinoffs continue to work, and at a very attractive price.

There are some things which I consider engineering `poverty` and will always consider inferior to solid `engineering`. Here are some of them that I despise- rails instead of landing gear.

Easy to maintain. cheap.

2 blades on the main rotor.

easy to store the helicopter, fix, and balance. two blades means you only have to replace two blades instead of say 5.

removed doors or lack of them.

utility

Unfinished design elements on exterior( for example, Sikorsky crane).

No need to have covers on the engine, its just added weight.

Small size( God only knows how I hate tiny choppers).

Again thats where the money is.

That is just me.

Thats fine but none of that is "engineering" its looks. Its not very fair to judge books by their covers, especially when your cover criteria is so biased

As to S-97 Raider, I believe once it goes active prototyping stage the glass area will be reworked and reduced, as an attack/scout chopper it would be too much exposed for enemy shells, etc.

Even if its covered its not armored my friend. Helicopter skin is thin and light.

Of course, your pics of cabins with removed glass/dooors is convincing. The question is what percentage these constitute of the total choppers manufactured within the due category.

Every helicopter I have ever seen or worked on has removable doors. Right down to the Mi-17's removable clam shell doors.

Oh, the issue with sensors on blades. make them work all directions 4 meters or so( so that the cabin underneath is not exposed to it) . Once the blades approach a hurdle, make them activate a `clacker` similar to civilian jet planes.

That would drive the pilots I worked with insane, they were constantly close to objects.


As to large glass canopies, they can be retained if reinforcing pillars are considered which would strengthen the fuselage.
And finally my personal view on modern choppers that have been churned out from US. I consider only a few to be such= Comanche, S-92( beep , beep -outsourcing). And that`s it. X-2 -too tiny, for Russia it is just a munchkin sized scale demonstrator, Tonka chopper. Mattel rotor, you get the idea. 525 is questionable, as I am not convinced of its `unique` design. Raider- uhm, it might work albeit it fiddles on verge of being puny. Oh wait v-22 is a looker too, although it transcends its chopper category a notch.

Don`t you guys miss the days when engineers had guts to build the biggest, heaviest and fastest? Well I do. I want Boeing to build a chopper bigger than mil-26, and then Kamov fight back . I want the blood to be splashed all over the battlefield of engineering, where jumbos like 380 would be smashed by hyperjumbos from Boeing and then again falcon punched by even larger birds from MCDonnelDouglas or Antonov. I want them birds being built goddamit. I want them pelicans not bluejays. I want them raptors and liopleurodons and not lemmings or shrews.
I want to see those virgin maiden flights, where the fathers of their birds stand on the landing strips and watch them hatch away from the nest for the first takeoff to embrace the sky. I want to see their eyes and those droplets of tears they are hiding once their metal offsprings leave the family hangars. Those moments of exult once the chief enginners observe their children leave with their hands shaking , those are the moments you want to scream- the life is worth living.

Plant your money trees. People buy what they can afford. Companies produce what people can buy. Even those old Kiowas as you like to think of them still fetch around $1 million US dollars each. the Biggest, heaviest, and fasted are also the most complex and expensive which why very few civilian operators use such machines, and in very small numbers.

 

[TomS]

Back to fundamentals -- I know we've all seen a bunch of pretty designs out of the Russian helicopter industry since the 1990s, but how many truly new designs (i.e., not based on airframes or dynamics components from the 1980s or earlier) have reached production? I know of the Ka-60 family, Ansat, and Mi-34, but I'm sure I'm missing something.

And of these, how many have seen what most people would consider to be volume production (say 100 units)? I can't find precise figures, but it's not a large number, I think.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Back to fundamentals -- I know we've all seen a bunch of pretty designs out of the Russian helicopter industry since the 1990s, but how many truly new designs (i.e., not based on airframes or dynamics components from the 1980s or earlier) have reached production? I know of the Ka-60 family, Ansat, and Mi-34, but I'm sure I'm missing something.

And of these, how many have seen what most people would consider to be volume production (say 100 units)? I can't find precise figures, but it's not a large number, I think.

They are trying to cut into an established market.

We looked at the prices of some Mi-8s (Good workhorses) but the question marks on the logistics were just too extreme, and the stuff we did know we didn't like. Our helicopters are typically in pretty austere places, often we are the only helicopter at the airport. We have had cases where the helicopter is busted and we have to find the next nearest place that specializes in the fix and hope they can help us, it helps the odds of using a more common aircraft with well established logistics, plentiful spare parts, and people you can call at multiple levels. Even something simple like "can we find manuals in english?" are important questions.

In one of our contracts if the aircraft was down for maintenance or for whatever reason, AOG it cost us $10,000 a day. If you are down for 2.5 days thats $25,000 that you lose. So Russian helicopters were cheap initially but if they needed parts and those parts are 3 or 4 days away... you are in serious trouble. If they are roughly equivalent in performance, even similiar in operating costs, its still a deal breaker if the logistics and support isn't there. That's why there are divisions in Bell, for example "Bell North America" because you are establishing logistics and support nodes close by. If you need to pick up the phone and yell at somebody or work out a problem and you have to wait 8 hours for the office on the opposite side of the world to open, you are going to have a bad time.

If you look at Russia, even beyond helicopters its not the aircraft that have the question marks. I'm not an expert by any stretch of Russian aircraft acquisitions, but it seems to me the Russians do an excellent job of closing the deal on their system and then when support and maintenance comes up it starts to get ugly and the grind begins about cost and the limits of support.

I'll be the first to admit that the 525 isn't exactly ground breaking. Itsa bus. And I don't mean that in a bad way. Its a challenge in itself to make a helicopter that is optimized for quick maintenance and low cost and it has some interesting features that aid in that. It was pretty much custom built for PHI (from what I have read), who wants to move as many people as safely and inexpensively as possible. You don't need anything exotic for that. If you are a government spending other peoples money you can go out on a limb. If you are a private company and you are going to be "on the ground floor" or "on the cutting edge of" or "The only company to" or the "first operator of" You better have your ducks in a row. because life is going to be tough, if you are the "experiment"

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

Well they are not manufacturing much of anything. Now and then you can see them in some `engineering corners` designing things for others like Quest Helicopters of UAE with their AVQ. I guess the engineering will be done in Ukraine though. I admire their achievements and take my hat off in front of them, although I hate Russia as a nation and their people. Yet I have no rights to belittle their marvelous achievements, be it aviation, space or literature.
Speaking about helicopters, I would like them to renew a bit more serious attitude towards Ka50-2 Erdogan. They revisited the canopy of that chopper and it looks much more contemporary now. Will they manufacture it in bulk? I doubt it. Instead of that fake billionaires will be buying and selling football clubs and that will be all over the news, while the fundamentals of economy like strong, MEANINGFUL manufacturing will be neglected as extrinsic .In this case it is no different from US of A.
As to new designs they have a mockup of mil-54, which was released already some time ago, yet I haven`t heard ever since if they have proceeded with it. Besides, notice how 525 also doesn`t have a real main propeller , just a mockup one.
Unfortunately I see parallels of US helicopter industry with car industry. In US car industry there were major problems chasing the Big 3. One of them was rebadging. In simple terms it is faking product diversity under many brands by changing grilles and trim levels. It diluted each brand and made the loyal customer base dwindle. Next problem was poor product diversity. Basically there were more names than products. All imitated diversity was nothing more than rebadging or slight tweaks with body styles. Next issue- obsolete technologies. US has been famous in lagging behind Europe and Japan in innovative gizmos and technology . OHV blocks, leaf springs, just to name some of them . Next problem- veeeeeeery long product overhaul cycles. While Japanese managed to release the next generation vehicle within 5-7 years, it took almost a decade for Detroit to replace a car. Another killer has been poor fit and finish and subpar materials. This made people turn their heads towards Asian or Saxon products. The final nail in Us car industry` coffin was extreme complex component outsourcing. It seemed as if the part contained more than 2 moving details which had to be precisely aligned, it simply evaded US as if hit by bubonic plague. That is why today all car platforms are borrowed from Asia and Germany, ditto majority of gearboxes and engines, radios and actuators. Only simple panel stamping has been kept intact, unless it is a direct import rebadge. At least some of these factors have strong parallels with helicopter industry as well, you decide which ones. Oh, did I mention reliability issues and depreciation precipice? That was a factor as well.
Is there bright future for helicopter industry within post Soviet area? Nope. Not a chance. In US? Nope. Yet you had a chance. Once there was a man who had delivered more than 4000 babies. He was a physician. He is still around. He was your messiah and he could have made a comeback in manufacturing for US. A strong rebound. A homerun. Yet most of you scorned him and instead of one who could manufacture a revolution...chose one who couldn`t even bring a change.

 

[Stargazer]

My impression is that the Soviet Union always had an array of incredibly inventive and capable engineers, but fewer great designers (in the aesthetic sense of the word). For a long time they put out some amazingly diverse aircraft and rotorcraft of all kinds, but very few that were actually sleek and aesthetically pleasing.

In the Soviet era, financing a project was not a problem because the State supported the OKBs. After the breakup, all these design bureaus tried to reorganize as proper companies but the commercial market was sparse locally, the foreign markets were not particularly enthusiastic, funding was insufficient, and the promise of international collaboration soon faded out of view.

Mil and Kamov have some amazing design on their shelves, many that could more than match the Western productions, many unique and original. But without a proper market and funds they all amount to naught.

Just my two cents.

 

[TomS]

As to new designs they have a mockup of mil-54, which was released already some time ago, yet I haven`t heard ever since if they have proceeded with it.

No signs of progress.

Besides, notice how 525 also doesn`t have a real main propeller , just a mockup one.

The mockup for airshows doesn't have a real rotor, but Bell certainly has built one -- a rather novel one for the company, being the first five-rotor design and the first with a fully articulated head that Bell has used in a production design. They've even flown it on a Bell 214ST testbed. Unfortunately, they also crashed it, but this stuff happens in flight test from time to time.

The rest of your remarks I'm reluctant to even address, since they're fundamentally political (and incredibly naive, I think). Let's just say that your "messiah" strikes me as more of a "false prophet" and leave it at that.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Also:

Cars and helicopters are not the same and shouldn't be compared.

That is all.

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

Tomcat, they should be comapred as both represent complex mechanical engineering. The evolution of complex mechanical engineering has a discouraging pattern all across the industries within US. All of them have similar symptoms. I will give here all stages that lead to demise of a manufacturing company.
1. The company has a strong engineering core, and majority of engineering tasks are executed domestically. No major complex components are outsourced.
2. Due to lack of new products, quality issues and short term profit goals, company starts to eat it its tail- beancounting cuts deep into engineering core, expertise dwindles.
3. In order to retain competetive edge, major products receive rebadge and regrille strategy, imitating innovation. Real product overhaul is postponed. expertise dwindles further.
4. Due to stagnating expertise and funding cuts , a company starts to outsource major engineering components abroad. The components are not ASSEMBLED abroad but are physically ENGINEERED abroad by foreign companies. Expertise continues to spiral in abyss.
5. Outsourcing goes viral. Foreign engineering goes bonkers. All major complex components get outsourced leaving only simple panel stampings and services domestically. Expertise agonises.
6. A company loses its ability to construct a product independently. A new strategy is absorbed- using completely foreign engineered products and selling them along with company`s own aging products under a single brand name. Expertise diminishes to survival level.
7. Foreign products overtake all product range , leaving domestically engineered products a dying species.
8. A comapny represents nothing more but a badge engineering, a foreign company that sells their products under an American sounding name in order to appeal to local customer base. Expertise has evaporated to mere zilch. Domestic capacity is reduced to deplorable service category. Workforce is reduced dramtically, wages are reduced dramatically due to lack of added value .
9. Joblessness wipes out the local community , a company loses any ability to scramble skilled engineers. Local factories are shut down and completely removed to Asia, or shuttered indefinitely. Only HQ is retained with minimum workforce. Salaries for CEO balloon. Local communities continue to be demolished, all adjacent industries and service sectors are reduced or shuttered due to lack of purchasing power of the local community.
This pattern is similar , be it wristwatch industry, industrial tooling, truck, trains, motorbikes, cars, consumer electronics or airplanes . Be it MDD, Zenith Electronics, Cincinnatti-Milacron or Kodak.
That is why you need me in power, I will address only the backbone structure of United States, meaning complex , added value manufacturing sector.)))

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Tomcat, they should be comapred as both represent complex mechanical engineering. The evolution of complex mechanical engineering has a discouraging pattern all across the industries within US. All of them have similar symptoms. I will give here all stages that lead to demise of a manufacturing company.
1. The company has a strong engineering core, and majority of engineering tasks are executed domestically. No major complex components are outsourced.
2. Due to lack of new products, quality issues and short term profit goals, company starts to eat it its tail- beancounting cuts deep into engineering core, expertise dwindles.
3. In order to retain competetive edge, major products receive rebadge and regrille strategy, imitating innovation. Real product overhaul is postponed. expertise dwindles further.
4. Due to stagnating expertise and funding cuts , a company starts to outsource major engineering components abroad. The components are not ASSEMBLED abroad but are physically ENGINEERED abroad by foreign companies. Expertise continues to spiral in abyss.
5. Outsourcing goes viral. Foreign engineering goes bonkers. All major complex components get outsourced leaving only simple panel stampings and services domestically. Expertise agonises.
6. A company loses its ability to construct a product independently. A new strategy is absorbed- using completely foreign engineered products and selling them along with company`s own aging products under a single brand name. Expertise diminishes to survival level.
7. Foreign products overtake all product range , leaving domestically engineered products a dying species.
8. A comapny represents nothing more but a badge engineering, a foreign company that sells their products under an American sounding name in order to appeal to local customer base. Expertise has evaporated to mere zilch. Domestic capacity is reduced to deplorable service category. Workforce is reduced dramtically, wages are reduced dramatically due to lack of added value .
9. Joblessness wipes out the local community , a company loses any ability to scramble skilled engineers. Local factories are shut down and completely removed to Asia, or shuttered indefinitely. Only HQ is retained with minimum workforce. Salaries for CEO balloon. Local communities continue to be demolished, all adjacent industries and service sectors are reduced or shuttered due to lack of purchasing power of the local community.
This pattern is similar , be it wristwatch industry, industrial tooling, truck, trains, motorbikes, cars, consumer electronics or airplanes . Be it MDD, Zenith Electronics, Cincinnatti-Milacron or Kodak.

And all of this because you feel the aircraft are not pretty or daring enough for your taste.

Tomcat, they should be comapred as both represent complex mechanical engineering.

When a very basic car costs over $1 million to buy or a helicopter only costs around $20,000 to buy we can talk. If you think that cars and helicopters are at the same level of engineering (let alone safety and regulatory guidelines) as a car, there really isn't a way to see eye to eye on anything here.

The abosolute cheapest helicopters you can buy in the US, the Robinsons hit 10,000 aircraft produced after 21 years of production. Russia in 2009 produced just 141 helicopters. on the flip side of that, last year alone over 50 million cars were produced world wide... do you see how Car sales and Helicopter sales might be really different things? I would be shocked if worldwide more than 1,000 helicopters total were built last year. compared to 50 million cars.

 

[Jemiba]

To my opinion, the importance of "aesthetics" in the design of helicopters and cars are two very different
animals ! Cannot think, that soemone buys, say, a Eurocopter instead of a Bell heli just to impress his competitors,
but if I would get just 1€ for every "car with star", that was just bought, because of the neighbours, well, my future
would be at least financially secured !
For many people cars still are status symbols. Would be interesting to know the percentage, fuel consumption for some
cars could be lower, IF the producer would just dispense with those typicals grills with the star or those shaped like
kidneys .. But of course, like hell they will, because at least for higher priced cars the value of brand recognition
has to be paid for with quite a lot of bucks ! And that's something, you won't find in aviation, I think.

 

[Stargazer]

To my opinion, the importance of "aesthetics" in the design of helicopters and cars are two very different
animals !

Absolutely. As I always say, a car is a car, even if it has no shell. If an airplane is not well designed, however, it will fall like a brick.

 

[Reaper]

I agree with Tomcat. Aesthetics design in the automotive sector cannot be compared to aircraft design. If there are aesthetical considerations then they concern the interior. Maybe a conceptual / configuration designer thinks indirectly about aesthetics when designing an aircraft, but at the end it has to work with structural, aerodynamical considerations, maintenance issues...

Also it is easy to calculate: design a new 737 successor for x mio$ with 60% improvement or redesign a 737 für 1/5*x mio$ and 40% improvement. Airlines will take the redesigned, because it will be cheaper and earlier available and the improvement is also acceptable. Aesthetics doesnt matter for Airlines.

My question is: who has a more design freedom and can maybe think a little about aesthetics - fixed wing aircraft or helicopter?

 

[Stargazer]

My question is: who has a more design freedom and can maybe think a little about aesthetics - fixed wing aircraft or helicopter?

You have more freedom with a helicopter because basically you can shape it the way you want. Indeed, unless you plan to do a high-speed rotorcraft with stealthy characteristics, a helicopter can be shaped like a brick and it still will fly (take the Fiat 7005 as a case in point). Aesthetics are merely a means of attracting the customer to the product. But design a fixed-wing aircraft like a brick and it will NOT fly well! So a fixed-wing designer is more constrained and has therefore less leeway to be creative design-wise.

 

[yasotay]

My question is: who has a more design freedom and can maybe think a little about aesthetics - fixed wing aircraft or helicopter?

You have more freedom with a helicopter because basically you can shape it the way you want. Indeed, unless you plan to do a high-speed rotorcraft with stealthy characteristics, a helicopter can be shaped like a brick and it still will fly (take the Fiat 7005 as a case in point). Aesthetics are merely a means of attracting the customer to the product. But design a fixed-wing aircraft like a brick and it will NOT fly well! So a fixed-wing designer is more constrained and has therefore less leeway to be creative design-wise.

I am not sure that I agree with you on more flexibility for rotorcraft design. AH-64 and Mi-28 very similar. UH-60and NH-90 very similar. I have spent a considerable amount of time with rotorcraft designers and while they certainly are not keen on designing bricks (it still takes a lot of power to push that much flat plate drag through the air), they go to pains to explain the functionality of the aerodynamics they propose. Fancy adds weight. Issue #1 is weight. It is the biggest factor because the bean counters have formula that tells them how much a rotorcraft will cost based on weight. Getting fancy with the design likely get cut out by the Corporate HQ cause they are also all about the bottom line.

Sometimes you can get nice lines on the cargo box (S-76, H-60, A-109) sometimes you can't, AH-anything.

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

I am not against standartisation of certain design elements and cues due to coefficient of drag, etc. What I am against is- desperate acts of rebadging and upgrading an old junk in order to compete with overseas competitors. And instead of launching new products , resorting to marketing and publicity stunts. What I want is what Airbus is doing- having balls to invest and launch a new product. A380 cost I guess about $12 bn. And here we can see that develeopment costs of airplanes are comparable to cars. For example, Ford Mondeo global platform , when launched in 1993 cost about 6 billion. Going back to A380, Boeing could compete only the old American style- endless versions of 747, while their publicity stunt was a giant brand new single deck jetliner. Of course, as usually, it couldn`t pass the reality check. Neither could their Pelican or other CGI stunts.
As to helicopters, all I want is solid design which is unique and doesn`t make me suspicious if it actually might be just a botox injection in an old junk. Even if they are similar, they have to be solid and unique. For example, if you take Ka-62 or NH-90, you can see that those are solid machines even if NH-90 reminds you of other existing helicopters. I am not that much convinced of Bell 525. While I am convinced that S-97 Raider is a unique design, I don`t believe that it is mature. I believe it will be heavily redesigned, including the glass canopy.
As to freedom of design, I do not dare to declare which one is more limited, but my hunch tells me the faster the craft goes, the more limits are imposed to its design.
I am for the beauty of a machine. When you saw Bird of Prey being released were you stunned by its design or rather dissapointed by its subpar performance? How about Tacit Blue? How about A-12 Avenger II? What would you like to see- F-15 with improved performance or F-19 declassified and released even if it went no faster than Mach 1 ?