How similar is the Mi-24 to the Mi-8 in flight characteristics?

So the Mi-24P is coming out eventually, and I was wondering how similar are the flight characteristics and systems of the Mi-8. the overally chassis, engines, and systems seem similarish, and aside from speed armor and the use of guided munitions, are there a lot of differences between the 2 aircraft?

They're 2 diferent aircrafts, everything is different

They're 2 diferent aircrafts, everything is different

I agree, but NOT eveything is different...some systems remain the same like radios, IFF, doppler systems, some weapons, voice warning, ADF, ARK-15, normal TO weight and many others...

On the russian forum the developers said that the Mi-24 is a bit more stable when firing rockets and generally its a little easier to aim because of the smaller rotor disk apparently.

But i think the general feel will be kind of similar.

Biggest difference for me is (apart from the atgms) the new gun sight which calculates a CCIP fo rockets and, as i have read, even a CCRP solution for bombs.

On the russian forum the developers said that the Mi-24 is a bit more stable when firing rockets and generally its a little easier to aim because of the smaller rotor disk apparently.

But i think the general feel will be kind of similar.

Biggest difference for me is (apart from the atgms) the new gun sight which calculates a CCIP fo rockets and, as i have read, even a CCRP solution for bombs.

Yeah I figured the "wings" on the Hind would make it more stable allowing for easier rocket runs. Man that is nice to hear having a CCIP for rockets. I was using the Sight in the Mi 8 and it's tricking shooting anything over a kilometer out. even with the tables in the chucks guide.

Yeah I figured the "wings" on the Hind would make it more stable allowing for easier rocket runs. Man that is nice to hear having a CCIP for rockets. I was using the Sight in the Mi 8 and it's tricking shooting anything over a kilometer out. even with the tables in the chucks guide.

Yeaahhhh, next week I will do my own tables during different tests... :thumbup:

I "think" the tilted rotor head is what maintains good rocket fire.

If you look at photos of the hind from head on, the airframe tilts to starboard as if the starboard wheel is flat and the entire chopper tilts to its right by 7 odd degrees.

But if you look even closer the starboard wheel is the same as the port wheel and the bubble canopies look perfectly perpendicular to the ground.

After the pilots rear bubble canopy the upper airframe tilts to starboard including the engine intakes, rotor mast, hub and blades. It then straightens out again to ground perpendicular for the entire tail boom.

I believe this canting of the lift system allows better level flight (roll) for unguided rocket release.... like the Kamov.

Of course this means when entering the curve, there is a weakness between left or right turn.

If this tiny detail is missed by ED then there will be F£%*ING HELL TO PAY!

It is little stuff like this that is the very essence of the USSR design bureaus finding a simple solution to a complex problem.... with caveats.

She is also sleeker and faster than the MI-8 (world speed record holder at one time).

The large weapon wings produce lift at speed and hence off load work from the engines.

She is better armoured.... really well armoured!

But she is old school, she will have difficulty holding a hover with her weight.

Hot and high in Afghanistan, she will carry a shockingly bare minimum of weaponry into combat!

In winter She will make them pay alright!

I think, but do not know, if you drop her into the slightest hint of VRS then her sheer weight will have such momentum that you may find yourself on the elevator to hell.... going down!... get your side slip out of VRS sorted just in case, it requires much less inertial weight to pull the chopper sideways than bringing that heavy old nose down from the flare into forward flight!

I "think" the tilted rotor head is what maintains good rocket fire.

If you look at photos of the hind from head on, the airframe tilts to starboard as if the starboard wheel is flat and the entire chopper tilts to its right by 7 odd degrees.

But if you look even closer the starboard wheel is the same as the port wheel and the bubble canopies look perfectly perpendicular to the ground.

 

After the pilots rear bubble canopy the upper airframe tilts to starboard including the engine intakes, rotor mast, hub and blades. It then straightens out again to ground perpendicular for the entire tail boom.

 

I believe this canting of the lift system allows better level flight (roll) for unguided rocket release.... like the Kamov.

that tilt is to reduce the side slip caused by the thrust of the tail rotor,

the huey is also canted to the side slightly for the same reason.

its just harder to see because it has only 2 rotor blades.

but its the reason you need to pull back and to the side to maintain a stable hover.

instead of just back.

you need to counter the tilt in the rotor, in both the huey and mi-8.

back for the forward tilt for cruise and to the side for the tilt to counter the tail rotor.

because it is trimmed for cruise speed.

so its not a special feature in the mi-24.

Really.

you think Quadg?

You think the Huey and Mi8 have anything like the actual 7 degree mechanical tilt to starboard for the entire lift engines, main rotor shaft, hub and lift blades?

Have you actually looked at a picture of the hind head on?

I suggest you start searching for pictures mate because you will find its stance on the ground very wierd.... you will see no helicopter like it from the head on.... look hard lad!

Practical physics may be something to shout and boast about, but the way they designed it at that time may offer a different solution to what you think you know... and they designed the MI-24 to kill.

What you talk about is setting the cyclic for a hover or balancing the weight of the chopper. Balancing the chopper in forward flight, and more importantly compensating for the rolling momentum of the retreating blades in forward flight.

What I talk about is minimising the rolling momentum into the cross section of the airframe during the high speed attack mode.... It is about reducing an induced rolling momentum into the unguided rockets.

I think we are talking about different things.

I am talking about the rolling rotation of the airframe during flight, finding a mechanical solution to perfecting unguided weapons delivery whilst pushing an aggressive weapon into the thick of the warzone.

I am talking about the MI-24P, it is a violent aggressive THUG.... Russian style!.... It is ultra violent with no finesse what so ever!

You are talking about the Huey and MI-8 transport helicopters.

Of course, pitch and speed is another problem when it comes to rocket delivery.

That cant is definitely what I'm most curious about as far as flight characteristics are concerned.

Like, can I expect that the drift angle indicator will read 0° throughout most of the speed range past full translational lift, or only within a narrow band good for attack runs? Likewise, how much is it affected by crosswinds and density altitude? Do the stub wings and balancing characteristics increase flight efficiency and allow lower fuel consumption or less collective pitch in forward flight? Will control inputs at hover differ less from neutral compared to the Mi-8 due to the airframe itself aerodynamically compensating more for unbalanced forces?

Do you have any good sources where I can read about that particular aspect myself? :D

You think the Huey and Mi8 have anything like the actual 7 degree mechanical tilt to starboard for the entire lift engines, main rotor shaft, hub and lift blades?

 

Have you actually looked at a picture of the hind head on?

I was also curious about this. I have tried to find some pictures (attached). For the most part, the lateral tilt (which some are calling cant) seems to be about 2 degrees at most. It is certainly nowhere near 7 degrees. Perhaps you meant forward tilt?

But I agree that the UH-1H and Mi-8 do not seem to have any lateral tilt. However, I've not found any definitive sources either. Anyone?

Tilt is 2.5° and because without it the hovering would move laterally as the counter-rotating rotor would push it to sideslip and roll. With the tilted rotor you get stable hovering without corrections required (and the auto-hover feature makes it super easy). The tail fin generates 2/3 of the force to keep aircraft heading at high speed. And that tilted rotor is that improves fixed weapons firing stability.

And Mi-24 ain't heavily armored. The pilots are in "armored bathtub" but unlike in KA-50 or Mi-28, only the flat front windshield is armored, while the bubble canopy is soft plastic, like in AH-64, AH-1 etc etc.

The cargo compartment ain't armored, why example many helicopters that were IIRC loaned from East Germany for Soviet Union combat use, came back with small arms bullet holes in the compartment.

So no, it will not be a "flying IFV" by the armored levels, but as pilot and functionality, you will be able fly it well.

Really.

you think Quadg?

 

You think the Huey and Mi8 have anything like the actual 7 degree mechanical tilt to starboard for the entire lift engines, main rotor shaft, hub and lift blades?

 

Have you actually looked at a picture of the hind head on?

I suggest you start searching for pictures mate because you will find its stance on the ground very wierd.... you will see no helicopter like it from the head on.... look hard lad!

 

Practical physics may be something to shout and boast about, but the way they designed it at that time may offer a different solution to what you think you know... and they designed the MI-24 to kill.

 

What you talk about is setting the cyclic for a hover or balancing the weight of the chopper. Balancing the chopper in forward flight, and more importantly compensating for the rolling momentum of the retreating blades in forward flight.

What I talk about is minimising the rolling momentum into the cross section of the airframe during the high speed attack mode.... It is about reducing an induced rolling momentum into the unguided rockets.

I think we are talking about different things.

I am talking about the rolling rotation of the airframe during flight, finding a mechanical solution to perfecting unguided weapons delivery whilst pushing an aggressive weapon into the thick of the warzone.

I am talking about the MI-24P, it is a violent aggressive THUG.... Russian style!.... It is ultra violent with no finesse what so ever!

 

You are talking about the Huey and MI-8 transport helicopters.

 

Of course, pitch and speed is another problem when it comes to rocket delivery.

if all the helicopters have the same feature then its not a special feature for the mi-24...

the only helicopter in DCS with a rotor that does not lean to the side is the ka-50.

because it has no tail rotor. (it does lean forwards to assist with cruise)

all the others lean to the side by varying degrees because they have tail rotors that push them to the side. as a side effect. which needs to be countered.

how much they lean has to do with cruise speed.

and the side lean. like the forward lean. is just an assist for the pilot.

it makes it easier to cruise.

it does not fundamentally change the way the helicopter works.

why you can stationary hover a helicopter that has its hardware trimmed for cruise. (the tilt in the mast) and this trim is why the stick is never centred in a hover.

what makes the mi-24 fast and stable at speed is the stub wings that generate lift.

they allow it to go faster than traditional helicopters.

because the wings provide lift that counteracts returning blade stall. so you can ignore it to a degree.

they also provide stability for firing weapons.

if the 7 degree lean to the side tells you anything. it tells you the mi-24 has a very high cruise speed. for the pilot to need that much assist.

but ii wont make it fly faster. or more stable.

that secret is in the wings.

The rotor system on the Mi-24 is canted 2.5 degrees to the right (starboard). No other helicopter in DCS has a tilted rotor system to the side like this.

The wings on the Mi-24 don't help at all with retreating blade stall, that's purely a function of rotor speed (specifically, at the rotor tips) and forward airspeed. The wings help with lift in forward flight, which does unload the rotor system and allow more power to be used for forward speed.

The wings help with lift in forward flight, which does unload the rotor system and allow more power to be used for forward speed.

OK! Which is just the thing that makes it one of the fastest, if not THE fastest, serial production helicopter in existence, isn't it?

The Mi-24 that set the helicopter speed record had its wings removed to save weight. That speed record was beaten by a Westland Lynx, which was also a modified version.

But even with the wings installed, the Mi-24 is still faster than most helicopters. Some production versions of the Mi-24 can outrun production versions of the Lynx, for example. I guess it depends on what source you're using for the speeds.

OK & thanks for the insights. All ears however, if you want to give us your interpretation of the results though.

The Mi-24 that set the helicopter speed record had its wings removed to save weight. That speed record was beaten by a Westland Lynx, which was also a modified version.

 

But even with the wings installed, the Mi-24 is still faster than most helicopters. Some production versions of the Mi-24 can outrun production versions of the Lynx, for example. I guess it depends on what source you're using for the speeds.

The Mi-24 is again unofficially fastest helicopter. But to get it official might be impossible as world is brainwashed so much against Russia that everything they do is twisted to bad...

To make it official it would have to beat the Lynx record set back in 1986. I don't think that will ever be beaten by a conventional helicopter.

To make it official it would have to beat the Lynx record set back in 1986. I don't think that will ever be beaten by a conventional helicopter.

It did best it.

AHS International congratulates Russian Helicopters for its Mi-24LL PSV demonstrator, which has now established a new unofficial level flight speed record of “greater than 405 km/hr (219 kt).”

 

This exceeds the official (and still officially unbroken) pure helicopter record of 400.87 km/hr (216 kts) set in 1986 by the British G-LYNX Westland Lynx helicopter. Like the G-LYNX with its British Experimental Rotor Programme (BERP) blades, the Mi-24LL PSV demonstrator uses very similar fore/aft swept blade tips.

 

Unconfirmed reports are that the high speed Russian flight(s) actually occurred more than a month ago in early October (or late September) and achieved 407 km/hr in steady level flight.

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/534771

To make it official requires you to get a official authority of the record booker to visit and confirm the measurements.

That is political problem.

I have quite a bit to say about that, but I'll just say I don't agree with your conclusion.

The book "Mil Mi-24 Hind Attack Helicopter, by Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Komissarov, Page 11" states

A curious design aspect of the Mi-24 was that the entire center fuslage, including the powerplant/main gearbox/main rotor assembly, was inclined 2°30´ to starboard. This significantly reduced bank and sideslip in forward flight, increasing the accuracy of unguided weapons.

24.12.2019 в 19:04, AlphaOneSix сказал:

The rotor system on the Mi-24 is canted 2.5 degrees to the right (starboard). No other helicopter in DCS has a tilted rotor system to the side like this.

 

The wings on the Mi-24 don't help at all with retreating blade stall, that's purely a function of rotor speed (specifically, at the rotor tips) and forward airspeed. The wings help with lift in forward flight, which does unload the rotor system and allow more power to be used for forward speed.

Not only the rotor is tilted in relation to the fuselage but also the cockpit is also tilted oppositely in relation to fuselage. 

In a mi 8 if you fly straight level and ball centered you have like 5-6 degrees left side slip because the tail rotor drags you left. So you fly slightly to the left. This produces lateral miss if you fire rockets: they deviate left from cross hairs. 

To counteract this in a mi8 you have to roll right slightly and apply some left pedal. This way you fly straight with no side slip but now your ball isn't centered because you have like 1-2 degrees right roll. Slightly uncomfortable for the crew.

So in a mi24 they made it so that your cockpit is vertical while the fuselage and rotor have roll angle in flight. This roll compensates laterally for tail rotor's action. 

Very clever! I wonder why don't others do the same mi28 ah64. Perhaps ballistic computers solved all problems of side slip. 

Regarding mi24 and speed. I flew at 2500 m 350 kmh true speed it's pretty amazing. That with some weapons.