j-7 hotdog, I think it was the EC 145, not sure about kazan. elbit was probably marketing on behalf of someone else, not just pushing an upgradde.

on the matter of price, we have to take that as the correct version of events. since it was straight from a GOI press release, if it wasn’t 100% true we would have heard denials from the other competitors by now. that certainly didn’t happen.
my last bit on this.

if you could provide, who were the contenders and how much did they want?

here you go :
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Dhruv-Helicopters-for-Ecuador-04950/
http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=39794

AL has bagged this order amidst strong competition from M/s. Elbit, M/s. Eurocopter and M/s. Kazan. HAL’s offer of $ 50.7 million for 7 helicopters was about 32% lower than the second lowest bid from M/s. Elbit.

the figures are from GOI’s press information bureau, which is as reliable as it gets.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/02/aero-india-2009-hal-to-hand-over-five.html

Not only did the Dhruv outperform rival machines from global majors like Eurocopter (the world’s biggest helicopter manufacturer), but HAL’s price of just $7 million per helicopter conclusively won it the contract.

yep, remembered rustom-H but forgot rustom-I. so wrote rustom-* rather than give wrong info. 🙂

A bit confused..

Its the LCRA which crashed..it is acting as a testbed for Rustom’s technologies?Why is everyone saying Rustom crashed?

its this thing which crashed NOT this.

apparently a lot of models are being called rustom-*, at least that’s the impression one gets from the outside. whether it is a case of DDM confusing things we don’t know.

I do think you are correct that it is the LCRA which crashed.

aerodynamics is same but internally it’s quite different, with a ufel tank replaced by 2nd cockpit and the 2nd set of controls. that will have serious impact on CG and overall balance of the aircraft. if they wanted to use the control laws for the single seater, they would have had to ensure that these parameters were close enough.
that, is not a trivial problem. factor in ADA’s inexperience and some time loss is a certainty.

Rahul, just curious. When do we have to start counting? I think the person is just as curious as me.

thing is, the 20 year flame is so ridiculous, I’m at a loss where to start. the 2-seat version was expected to fly in late 2008 to early 2009. you do the math as to how late it is.

as for the project, all talks and plans and announcements aside, the project itself started in actuality circa 1989-90. the IAF officers who were associated with the program knew even back then knew that a reasonable induction date would be nearer 2010, i.e 20 years from the start date. DRDO officials did put forward widely optimistic dates but that was well understood to be a funding tactic, India’s myopic politicians won’t have funded the project otherwise.
compare with the rafale or the EF, consider that a 4th gen program posed as much of a challenge to India’s MIC as rafale did to the french one or EF did to the consortium, 20 years is not extraordinary in anyway.
count in the 1-2 year delay due to the control laws being held back in US and the 2011 induction date sounds very reasonable indeed.

Don’t exactly understand the purpose behind such rides? Is it to bolster services morale? If so, does it really work?

USS.

publicity and ceremonial purposes.

it’s tejas, not teja. the article is most likely trash.