Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
I'd have said that the Ka-50 has more bulletproof glass in it than the Mi-24 because of the cockpit shape, IIRC bulletproof glass is hard to make in a bended fashion, so the curved parts of the Mi-24 are plexiglass, but the cockpit design of the Ka-50 has more flat glass panes and there's also the titanium bath-tub on both the Mi-24 and Ka-50 which help protect the pilots undercarriage (  ). Of course, a few good rifle sized hits on the engine and you're still going to be checking EKRANs but in regards to getting your brain matter repositioned by a Muji, I'd say that the likelihood was lower than in the Mi-24, which is probably why they ditched the bubble canopy in both the Ka-50 and Mi-28, although quite what they were thinking with the Ka-52 is anyones best guess...  |
I think the bubble plexiglass canopies got ditched by most everyone.You'll notice that the AH-64 also lacks blown shapes because it also has armored glass.The later AH-1s also have flat or minimally blown glass depending on the model your looking at.
I think the primary reason they do not bother to use blown glass has more to do with ease of maintenance.Like any armor once it has taken a hit it is compromised and must be replaced.It is much easier for a ground crew to pull out a straight section of widescreen than a curved one.I bet it takes only a few minutes for a US Army or Royal Army Apache crew to swap out a section of damaged glass.
The Soviets also learned from Afghanistan I'm sure just how many hits a helo takes.The Us learned that lesson in Vietnam and responded accordingly with its next generation of helo designs.The Soviets most likely observed what the US was doing and also took notes from their own experience.