Why not put a dummy in the cockpit? or no one?
did it have to be tested during flight for some reason.
this makes no sense
It makes a lot of sense if you understand the evil mindset of communists.
They may very well have done all those tests, now they were doing a final test.
Is the author saying that the US helicopters were sent out without ever having a real fire test, and that the first real test with real people was done on the battlefield?
It makes sense if the occupant of the cockpit is the "quality assurance" manager who signed off on the thing meeting specifications. It increases motivation to make sure it's made right.
In Mother Russia test dummies are expensive, life is cheap.
This wasn’t a “test” at all. It is a pure psyops demonstration aimed at Rissia’s foe’s pilots.
They knew with certainty the cockpit wouldn’t fail because it had been tested a zillion times during development and early production.
“Why not put a dummy in the cockpit? or no one?
did it have to be tested during flight for some reason.
this makes no sense”
Well, it sure would instill a sense of confidence.
There was a dummy in the cockpit.
It's a PR stunt, pure and simple. There is no engineering reason to put a person in the test article for this test. Lots of good reasons not to.
Wasn't there a company that makes bullet-proof (well, bullet resistant) glass for cars that did this? I seem to remember a commercial or YouTube video of the company president getting in one of their cars and having it shot with live ammo.
Best guy to put in the cockpit during a test is the leader/head of the design team. You talk about "incentive to succeed"...but that is about as strong a one as you can get.
In Russia, dummy is more expensive than person.
A dummy didn’t design the cockpit glass - an engineer did. Putting the engineer inside for the test ensures that you’re getting his highest quality work.