Flankerman Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Not sure what the purpose is of that shroud aft of the main rotor. Filter over the APU intake ???? (although it's a bit BIG) Nice pics BTW - thanks for sharing. Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Filter over the APU intake ???? (although it's a bit BIG) Ken Nice and interesting photos 11BEE! Thanks for them. This would be an interesting conversion project for someone! As to the special cover after the rotor. Ken is right, it is situated exactly over the AI-9 starter engine compartment. The AI-9 is not used much apart from starting the engines on the ground and has a minimal air volume requirement. The original cover on the right side of the compartment (Mi-8 with TV-3-117) was designed with a “bulb†which was covered with strips of metal serving as an intake of the AI-9. The same was also on early Mi-24's but later on the “bulb†was covered up completely. I did ask the Mi-24 enginers about this and they said that it does not need so much air for that short period of operation and what it needs is available from the internal space of the AI-9 and the adjacent compartments. This particular cover on this Hip is fairly big and crude, dont think it is worth the conversion just for dust protection, but who knows. Would be interesting to see it from the other side. The “new†EVU or exhaust gas cooling “thing†is interesting, it is certainly a US design. Looks similar to the very first EVU that the Russians have used on Mi-8's back in early 80's. Best regards Gabor P.s. Oh yes, took the Hobby Boss Mi-17 kit out to a real helicopter to see it side by side with the original and note “some†differences. Should be able to post few photos of it soon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 So I took the Hobby Boss kit out for a walk. This is what I found. This is just a general note on the omissions by HB. I am sure they have seen a Mil helicopter but the problem is that they did not have a closer look. A lot of the panel lines are in wrong place or should not be there at all. On the tail for instance the panel lines on the two fuselage half’s don’t meet up by some 4.5 (!!!) millimeters. In some cases they just mirrored the two half’s, adding details and service panels where there are none. It was strange to see that the kit is a kind of civil version of the Mi-8MT / Mi-17 without the obvious frame for the weapon pylons. This is not a comprehensive review just a quick look at the real helicopter with the HB kit in hand. There should be no vent on the right side, it is a mirrored item (wrongly) from the other side The panel lines dont meet up. It has lots of “issues†if I want to be diplomatic, but lets say what they are: many problems on it! Still I say it is much better to start from this kit then from the old KP or any other. Most of the problems here are just on the surface, one can fill and rescribe the surface details and add the missing things. An average modeling work. Best regards Gabor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 It has lots of “issues†if I want to be diplomatic, but lets say what they are: many problems on it! Still I say it is much better to start from this kit then from the old KP or any other. Most of the problems here are just on the surface, one can fill and rescribe the surface details and add the missing things. An average modeling work. Best regards Gabor How disappointing. Of course, it all seems to be fix-able but you should not have to. It never fails to amaze me on how these companies will spend huge amounts of money for the tooling but will skimp on the basic research. It's not like they didn't have some of the real things readily available to study. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 On a semi-related note, just came across a nice article on civilian helo's used in Afghanistan. From the article: Pilots based at Bagram and Kabul cite the Mi-8MTV as the real workhorse in the stable. An upgrade to the first-generation Mi-8, the MTV can carry 2,600l of fuel, which is consumed at about 700l per hour. A typical mission lasts three hours. "Depending on outside air temperatures, we can carry four tons of freight inside the helicopter; or 22 passengers with the cargo version, 28 passengers with the passenger version," says a control chief. and Some Eastern European aviators do around three months in Afghanistan and return only if invited. The most popular helicopter among these crews is the Mi-8MTV, specially developed by the Russians for operating in Afghanistan - that is, at altitude and in unusually rugged conditions. The full article is here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-civilian-helicopters-get-in-the-line-of-fire-in-afghanistan-375078/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FM-Whip Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 On a semi-related note, just came across a nice article on civilian helo's used in Afghanistan. From the article: Pilots based at Bagram and Kabul cite the Mi-8MTV as the real workhorse in the stable. An upgrade to the first-generation Mi-8, the MTV can carry 2,600l of fuel, which is consumed at about 700l per hour. A typical mission lasts three hours. "Depending on outside air temperatures, we can carry four tons of freight inside the helicopter; or 22 passengers with the cargo version, 28 passengers with the passenger version," says a control chief. and Some Eastern European aviators do around three months in Afghanistan and return only if invited. The most popular helicopter among these crews is the Mi-8MTV, specially developed by the Russians for operating in Afghanistan - that is, at altitude and in unusually rugged conditions. The full article is here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-civilian-helicopters-get-in-the-line-of-fire-in-afghanistan-375078/ If you look at some of the DOD contracting info you will see where some of the newer equipment on these helicopters is US-designed, US-built, and US-contractor installed. The world has been turned upside-down - we now have Russian-built helicopters with US-made equipment or modifications, flown by pilots who have been trained by American service or contractor pilots, and often the aircraft are maintained by US contractors. John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 If you look at some of the DOD contracting info you will see where some of the newer equipment on these helicopters is US-designed, US-built, and US-contractor installed. The world has been turned upside-down - we now have Russian-built helicopters with US-made equipment or modifications, flown by pilots who have been trained by American service or contractor pilots, and often the aircraft are maintained by US contractors. John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com) If you scroll up a few pages in this thread, you'll see a nice pic of a Hip with US ASE / communications gear and M-134 miniguns, with a bunch of SEAL's climbing into it. Pre-2001, who would have thought that we'd ever see anything like this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bashace Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Anybody know how they hang R-400 CW bombs on the Mi-8? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Anybody know how they hang R-400 CW bombs on the Mi-8? The Mi-8/17 was designed to release bombs too, not only UB blocks can be attached to the pylons on the outriggers. The Mi-8TB and the Mi-17 family have a bombing sight to the right of the second pilot. If oyu look at the right side of the heli you will see a fairly big hole under the nose which is where the head of the sight is "looking out". Bombing training was / is regualr part of the training program for Hip crews. Best regards Gabor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) The Mi-8/17 was designed to release bombs too, not only UB blocks can be attached to the pylons on the outriggers. The Mi-8TB and the Mi-17 family have a bombing sight to the right of the second pilot. If oyu look at the right side of the heli you will see a fairly big hole under the nose which is where the head of the sight is "looking out". Bombing training was / is regualr part of the training program for Hip crews. Best regards Gabor The sight itself is pretty interesting. When I modeled it on my Hip, I thought it might be a relief tube :) Dropping iron bombs from a helo is definitely a Russian thing. I can't find any pics of the real thing, you can somewhat make out the sight in the picture below, it is behind the cyclic, against the fuselage wall: Can't imagine how accurate the drops would be...... Edited August 18, 2012 by 11bee Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 The sight itself is pretty interesting. When I modeled it on my Hip, I thought it might be a relief tube :) Dropping iron bombs from a helo is definitely a Russian thing. I can't find any pics of the real thing, you can somewhat make out the sight in the picture below, it is behind the cyclic, against the fuselage wall: Can't imagine how accurate the drops would be...... There are excellent photos of the sight in the Czech WWP book on the Mi-8/Mi-9 (TV2-117 equiped Hips) installed in its place to the right from the leg of the second pilot and also showing it from the outside. It was stored behind his right shoulder and when fitted the round panel on the floor had to be opened. The sight was as accurate as any optical aiming sight today! Of course you need training to use it just as with any military equipment (apart from the AK-47). Best regards Gabor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 There are excellent photos of the sight in the Czech WWP book on the Mi-8/Mi-9 (TV2-117 equiped Hips) installed in its place to the right from the leg of the second pilot and also showing it from the outside. It was stored behind his right shoulder and when fitted the round panel on the floor had to be opened. The sight was as accurate as any optical aiming sight today! Of course you need training to use it just as with any military equipment (apart from the AK-47). Best regards Gabor :D, In a fit of humour I thought of a way that helicopter bombers could be more accurate than fixed wing bombers. Just hover at high altitude over or near your target (to allow for wind drift of the weapon) and any reasonable form of bombsight has to accurate. I used to have a mate who was a WW2 RAAF pilot and after his elementary training on Tiger Moths at Narromine he was streamed towards bombers doing his advanced training on Airspeed Oxfords at Point Cook. He was telling me one day that one of his crash mates was in the nose while he flew the aircraft and his mate was giving him directional corrections to the target using a simple "Y" sight. His mate wsa saying things like "Steady, steady, left a bit, left a bit, steady, steeeaaadyyy, back a bit." :lol: In other words he'd missed the target. Nothing to do in the Oxbox but go round and have another go. In an Mi-8/17 you could just back her up a bit and drop your bombs right where you wanted them to go. So "back a bit" wouldn't be impossible. :lol: , Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 :D, In a fit of humour I thought of a way that helicopter bombers could be more accurate than fixed wing bombers. Just hover at high altitude over or near your target (to allow for wind drift of the weapon) and any reasonable form of bombsight has to accurate. I used to have a mate who was a WW2 RAAF pilot and after his elementary training on Tiger Moths at Narromine he was streamed towards bombers doing his advanced training on Airspeed Oxfords at Point Cook. He was telling me one day that one of his crash mates was in the nose while he flew the aircraft and his mate was giving him directional corrections to the target using a simple "Y" sight. His mate wsa saying things like "Steady, steady, left a bit, left a bit, steady, steeeaaadyyy, back a bit." :lol: In other words he'd missed the target. Nothing to do in the Oxbox but go round and have another go. In an Mi-8/17 you could just back her up a bit and drop your bombs right where you wanted them to go. So "back a bit" wouldn't be impossible. :lol: , Ross. :D :D :D :D :D :D But seriously. If gouing back to the original question (of this R400 CW) if it was a Chemical or Biological warfare bomb then the "very" precise hit would not be that much of an importance. The ones I have seen dropen from our helis were conventional 50 and 100 kg iron bombs. The Russians did not do stupid things and the system worked, they would not introduce is otherways. Best regards Gabor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 The 'bombsight' is present on the very latest Mi-8 in Russian service - the Mi-8AMTSh. I took these photos at Zhukovsky last Friday........... You can make out the hole for the periscopic sight just under the external armour plate on the nose.... Here's a close-up.... Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Hi Ken, You Lucky . . . So how was it at Zhukovskij? I see that on static there was a fence set up in a "safe distance" from the helis. They had a plan on doing a local museum with all the old pieces of aircraft previously used by LII. Have they made it??? Yeep, that's the one. This is the opening for the sight, the instrument is only fitted when there is an intention to use it. I like this Dolphin nose on the AMTS and thinking about doing it. Will see what I can measure in three weeks time . . . Best regards Gabor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 There are excellent photos of the sight in the Czech WWP book on the Mi-8/Mi-9 (TV2-117 equiped Hips) installed in its place to the right from the leg of the second pilot and also showing it from the outside. It was stored behind his right shoulder and when fitted the round panel on the floor had to be opened. The sight was as accurate as any optical aiming sight today! Of course you need training to use it just as with any military equipment (apart from the AK-47). Best regards Gabor Guess I messed up on my model. Didn't know that the sight was detachable, thought it was a permanent fixture on armed Hips. Sounds like since I don't have the fuselage panel opened and also since my Hip is carrying rocket pods, not free-fall bombs, the sight should not be installed. Oh well, I doubt that anyone in my realm will ever catch this mistake! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Guess I messed up on my model. Didn't know that the sight was detachable, thought it was a permanent fixture on armed Hips. Sounds like since I don't have the fuselage panel opened and also since my Hip is carrying rocket pods, not free-fall bombs, the sight should not be installed. Oh well, I doubt that anyone in my realm will ever catch this mistake! I would say that you are OK, no one is reading this thread :D :D :D so they will not know that you have made a mistake! Anyway your kit is excellent so there should be no problem! Best regards Gabor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Hi Ken, You Lucky . . . So how was it at Zhukovskij? I see that on static there was a fence set up in a "safe distance" from the helis. The fence was about 5.5 foot high - so, if you were tall enough you could just raise your camera above it. One good think was that the mesh size was open enough to poke a lens through - unlike last years MAKS airshow when the mesh was too small to do that. The show was excellent - apart from the fact that you are shooting into the sun from where I was and it was very hazy. If I wasn't answering questions on here - I'd be sorting out my photos They'll be ready soon....... They had a plan on doing a local museum with all the old pieces of aircraft previously used by LII. Have they made it??? The aircraft are gathered inside a fenced enclosure - but not much progress since I took this photo at MAKS 2011.... Ken PS - We visited an ARZ at Kubinka - I took some photos of ejection seats for you - including a KT-1 PPS - Sorry for the off-topic post. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Hi Ken, Its good to have you back. Look forward to any photos, stories from Zhukovskiy. Havent you ever tried to go to the other side of the runway? It is an excellent place with the sun in your back. Have been to the control tower a few times and it was magical for photography. Back to the helicopters. Did you ever take good, right angle photos of the nose section for the Mi-8AMTS and the Mi-175 (is it 5 with the dolphin nose?) from a distance to avoid distortion as much as one can. They look similar but the shape of the nose is completely different. Best regards Gabor P.s. Where are the ejection seat photos?????????????????????????????????????? :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Back to the helicopters. Did you ever take good, right angle photos of the nose section for the Mi-8AMTS and the Mi-175 (is it 5 with the dolphin nose?) from a distance to avoid distortion as much as one can. They look similar but the shape of the nose is completely different. Not completely side on - but I took these at MAKS 2011...... Ulan-Ude Mi-8AMT (same as Mi-8AMTSh)..... Kazan-built Mi-17V5 (same as Mi-8MTV5).... As you can see, the Ulan-Ude nose is much 'beakier' and pointed, the Kazan nose is more dolphin and blunt. There are lots of other differences between the two - different sliding doors, different shaped rear ramps, different shaped cabin heaters etc. I took some more photos at the 100th show - I'll post some images showing the differences later. P.s. Where are the ejection seat photos?????????????????????????????????????? :D Patience you need, young Skywalker....... Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I've been playing around with some photos I took at Zhukovsky - to show the differences between the Mi-8AMTSh and Mi-8MTV5. The Mi-8AMTSh is configured for ground attack (the 'Sh' is for Shtormovik). It has a bomb sight and vibration dampers on the rotor head (though these can be fitted to any variant). The Mi-8MTV5 is just used in the transport role (although it can carry weapons as well). The Mi-8AMTSh is built by Ulan-Ude Helicopters and has a single sliding door on the port side and a double door to starboard. The Mi-8MTV5 is built by Kazan Helicopters and has a double sliding door to port and a single door to starboard. There are lots of other subtle differences..... Note the bombsight opening under the front armour plate, the vibration dampers and the additional scabbed-on armour plates aft of the exhaust. The shape of the external cabin heater is different.... The rear ramps have a different shape....... Rear view of the cabin heaters..... (note the different shapes of the chaff/flare dispensers) These photos show the external differences between the first generation Mi-8T and second generation Mi-8MT... Hope this helps..... Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ya-gabor Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Hi Ken, Thanks for the photos, very interesting. I have to say that it was fairly easy up till now to make a difference between the Mi-8 and the Mi-17 as we call them (Russian Mi-8T and Mi-8MT). Even though I have to say that even back in the good old days there were considerable differences between even the simple Mi-8T's (we had some where around 5-6 subtypes with in those few dozen examples that we had). Just as well with the Mi-17 there are several subversions. But still one can identify them. If it was only so simple as you have illustrated on the last two photos. The brake between Ulan-Ude and Kazan complicated the matters very much. The third generation Hips (all the 171, 172 . . . and the AMTS and the rest) are basically of modular construction and you will hardly find two identical. It all dependes on the buyer and what he wants, the size of the doors, which side and how big, the KO heater, the dispensers, the armour, the EVU, fuel tank versions, the position of the DISS, of the recorders, main struts . . . Will try to make some precise measurements of the nose and the ramp soon . . . Look forward to any reports from Zhukovskiy and any ejection seats. Take you time with sorting, but be quick! :D Best regards Gabor Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dæn Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) Interesting stuff guys...can't wait to see an model 1/72 scale from the 171- or 172-versions! As already said, your model of the 171 is fantastic Ken. Daan Edited August 21, 2012 by dæn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dæn Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Hee everybody, a question about the CIA/SF-Hips in use in Afghanistan. In this pic it's clear the Hip is armed with a GUA-17. What about the other side? Dshk's or MG-240? I can't see which gun this helo is armed with. I can't find it on the web. Please help me out :) Thanks in advance! Daan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tank Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) Anyone have any photos of this bird? Edited September 11, 2012 by Tank Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.