why was it not made it would a easy way for transport
wren, e-mail, 28.05.2015 08:43
I know it wasnt designed for it, and it would cost a fortune to put together, but picture a flight of these toting MBT's into battle
Me, e-mail, 17.10.2014 10:27
The Weir's planned the helicopter's blueprints during their military service.
jack, e-mail, 23.01.2012 05:55
well john actually we have haven't you heard of the triangle shaped ufo's
1337painless, 08.03.2011 15:23
You don't rotors on the back to turn. The three rotors can also turn the helicopter like the chinook.
1337painless, 08.03.2011 15:20
Riou_, you think that it's a fail when it gets shot, but it was not design for a gunship or to go to the battlefield. it was designed to carry materials, vehicles and troops far behind the frontlines.
Kiril, e-mail, 12.11.2010 13:33
a flying triangle
villaran, e-mail, 01.11.2010 21:32
Bonjour a Vous,
Je vous avoue que cela me ferait plaisir de vous conffiez mon heritage ( une malle metallique) qui se trouve dans une compagnie de securité, je souhaiterais sincèrement vous rencontrez et vous connaitre davantage, voilà pourquoi je souhaiterais vivement que vous m'aidiez a transferer ma malle metallique dans votre pays. Je pense que vous êtes digne de la recommandation de ma prière donc une personne honorable de confiance que je peux esperer sur sa confiance. Ainsi je n'ai aucune hésitation à me fier à vous pour solliciter votre assistance Simple et sincère,je tiens à me présenter à vous. Je me nommes madame Mme villaran Nenita, et je suis en Philippines ,si possible reponder moi je vous donnerai tous les details pour faire sortir ma malle metallique vers votre pays,je vous suis reconnaissant et je vous remercie dans l'attente de vous lire d'une suite favorable. Madame villaran nenita .
DANILO, 17.07.2010 15:06
BELL X-22A and BOEING CH-47. Nothing New under the sky.
sevedsky soyuz, 04.07.2010 03:31
It does not have any roters in the back,turning would be difficult.
Mukama, 14.03.2010 22:50
This would be great for lifting heavy equipment.
yasshri, e-mail, 31.10.2009 14:03
make this Aircrafts angles as 30deg,75deg,75deg then which can manage air and gravity
nick, 28.06.2009 16:46
i really like thes russian ideas they are pretty imaginative
CessnaPilot4Fun, e-mail, 27.03.2009 19:43
I love how imaginative the Russians can be when it comes to rotary wing aircraft. I would have loved to see this thing built and fly. The US would not need such a beast as much, this helo was designed with the Soviets large amounts of hard to reach no infrastructure areas such as Siberia. No roads, no landing strips, etc. Bearing that in mind it would have been practical for them to use in those areas. Battlefield not so much, and the times when the benefit would outweigh the cost in the US would probably be slim.
dan, e-mail, 07.02.2009 10:42
Actually, if the rotors are tilted slightly, the torque will cancel itself at. Let's not for get the cierva-weir w.11 air horse. IT was a moderately successful helicopter which operated under the same basic principles--but in the 1950s! Although, it was more than a tad smaller, but the three rotors spun in the same direction. Weirdly, this worked.
dan, e-mail, 07.02.2009 10:42
Actually, if the rotors are tilted slightly, the torque will cancel itself at. Let's not for get the cierva-weir w.11 air horse. IT was a moderately successful helicopter which operated under the same basic principles--but in the 1950s! Although, it was more than a tad smaller, but the three rotors spun in the same direction. Weirdly, this worked.
merco1959, e-mail, 21.12.2008 04:16
This is why I love the Russian imagination. If they had enough capital and money, then I assure you this giant flying triangle would be built.
Nikos, e-mail, 18.08.2008 20:24
3 rotors? Does not make sense to me... unles 3 pairs of counter-rotating were used. With this litle correction it could be a magnificent crane of very heavy objects.
Wee, 03.07.2008 19:59
This is really trully amazing, but too unpractical.
fly in sky, 09.02.2008 06:35
omg its like a tripod
Chuck Anderson, e-mail, 18.12.2007 05:42
This is a very fascinating machine, and it would have been quite a sight flying overhead. If the Mil Mi-32 had gone into full-scale production and operational service, and remained in production for many years (like the Lockheed C-130), I wonder what improvements they would have made in that time. I've always liked Soviet and Russian helicopters, as they have so many interesting types, and they've always pushed the boundries of rotary-winged flight.
Mr. 9MM, e-mail, 02.12.2007 05:47
Very freaky-deaky, would have been cool to see flying above you. Prolly would have scared the hell out of a lot of people to.
Patriot, e-mail, 23.10.2007 07:40
Truth is the machine is massive, not something that will work all too great. Not to count the fact the power needed to produce it, the rotors come way to close to one another so there's an accident waiting to happen if something goes wrong. Then what is so massive that you need to lift with that....Besides we have the chinook and it's replacement the Boeing Osprey to lift things. So this plan would most likely be a bust. Also not to count the fact something that big is easy to shoot down from the ground, or air.
Oscar, 09.10.2007 19:52
lol. Come to think of it, you do have a point. This beast would be a magnet for enemy fire and if any one of the blades had a transmition failure then it would crash, but I guess the same is true of any helicopter. It may have potentially as a civilian heli crane that could lift enormous objects where no ground crane could but as I said before, if the jobs pay is less or equal to the aircrafts running cost then it simply isn't worth it.
Mirvra, 28.09.2007 20:31
Correction riou we're talking about a helicopter and actully i can think of one thing this design whould be good for it chould help getting heavy armour around when the are of landing was safe it chould help tanks get agross rivers that are too deep or mountains that whould take days to get past otherwise but i agree that it whouldent be suited for lifting in armour into hot zones
riou_, e-mail, 26.09.2007 08:33
yep... i agree on the a/m guys. carrying a tank with this chopper? holy smoke. you better be joking. just a shot from a flak in the engines of this metal, and it will come back to earth like junk. well it can be used in civilian purposes but the design looks like a big flaw of metal flying up in the air. sorry for the political views. you guys should work your problems, coz were talking bout an aircraft here.
Surkill, 19.09.2007 18:22
This is one of the most unusual and interesting designs I have ever seen. I agree with kolshya, its not practical for military applications. It would be a magnet for AA fire. It could be useful for other purposes such as large construction projects. It is highly creative. If the Russians do want to have a good military, they should improve their military logistics.
kolshya, 10.09.2007 20:13
Oscar, would you really air lift tanks into a battle? Generally speaking, it is unsound to carry anything heavier than a light APC under a helicopter. If you wished to carry tanks when this would have been built, you would have been more likely carrying T80s and T72s, weighing 46 and 42 tonnes respectivley. Where this helicopter may have been planned to carry 140 tonnes weight, the idea of transporting heavy tanks through the air in anything less than an Antonov-124 becomes a little impractical. As a guy of military experiance I'm not sure I could see much use for it on a battlefield, it'd be a magnet for flak, small arms and SAMs. If it's anything like a lot of Mil manufactured helicopters then it would have very exploitable weakpoints. I can imagine if one rotor fails then the other two would not be able to compensate due to the shift in the centre of mass. If you were a lucky passenger or pilot then you land with just a bump, but more likely it would become an incredibly expensive explosion!
You're right in saying it would be very useful, but probably more for a civilian or engineering role. I don't think this is really cut out for military service :)
Oscar, 10.09.2007 19:07
I think this helicopter would be practical if the job it was doing could cover the cost of its maintanence requirements. If a battlefield commander needed to have heavy loads such as tanks air lifted into battle, this would be the rotorcraft for the job.
p.s All the people who have left partiotic, arguementative (and stupid) comments are as bad as each other. Every country in the world has a combination of smart people, stupid people, greedy people and good people and to say that one country is more stupid than the other makes you no better than the people you're saying are stupid. I personal believe that you (anyone who has left an arguementative comment) all need to grow up. By the way, the Vietnam war was a mistake on the United States behalf. Those soldiers may have called themselves the good guys but actually they spent their days there raping the women and dropping napalm and a variety of other bombs on innocent people. This doesn't make the whole of America bad, it show that there were bad individuals and mistakes were made.
If the Soviet Union didn't collapse, i think they should have made this aircraft, not only because it's potentially practical (if used for the right jobs) but also because it would advance and revolutionize helicopter technology for the better.
kolshya, 07.09.2007 23:15
that's an interesting design, but i agree with murch, it's not a very feasable design.
creative though, I'll give them that!
milly 0's, 23.08.2007 10:50
thats a BIG helicopter
Benny, e-mail, 26.07.2007 01:50
Has anyone seen any more blueprints?... anywhere? ...Or were you too busy flaming each other?
emmanuel_evangelist, 20.06.2007 02:05
Watching this machine lifting up would have been rather impressive, I would say... On the other hand, I must agree with Platon and mack: this design, applied in a context different to that in which it was conceived would be simply impractical in all ways.
And kids, this is not a lecture on politics... Leave the ideological crap for other websites!
WTF, e-mail, 13.04.2007 14:39
E.C. are you high or something? What has Americans got to do with this? This was (or wasn't...) a russian prototype helicopter.
murch, e-mail, 24.03.2007 12:50
Why would the Americans waste their time on something that has NO feasibility? This was a total waste, and probably put a lot of people in the grave due to waste of money!!
ifuckrussian girls, e-mail, 13.03.2007 21:57
Maybe because this design is not practical.
john, e-mail, 10.02.2007 17:22
how come the yanks havent tried to build one like this, after all they are supposed to be bigger and better than everyone else?
