Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am thinking about building a Thunderhawk gunship, but I'm having a problem with the layout of the vehicle. I've never seen the model kit, full size or Epic, only photos and plans online.

Why is the center engine mounted low in the aft of the ship? I'm assuming to leave clearance for the primary weapon, but where is the engine intake? Are the wing mounted engines ramjets for atmospheric flight and the center engine some sort of rocket for vacuum maneuvering?

How does this vehicle hover? It's obviously using it's wings for payload mounts, not for lift. The engines have no vtol rotation ability I can see. My assumption is that gravitic technology in the Imperium uses some sort of modules or plates connected to the drive systems and controls, to allow lift and descent. These plates would be mounted in the decks or dorsal section in the appropriate size and configuration for the vehicle. The Landspeeder is the smallest vehicle that Imperial technology can achieve for military purposes then, and would be more difficult to maintain and repair. Thunderhawks, having a much larger frame than Landspeeders, would present less difficulty with gravitic equipment. In the largest applications I imagine the same technology used for artificial gravity on naval starships and fortresses. This would solve the problem of modeling VTOL realistically.

My ultimate problem though is with the dorsal mounted primary weapon. I've been looking at the photos on the Forge World website. As I see it, the Thunderhawk is primarily a delivery system for marines and equipment, and secondarily a strike aircraft. In some cases the Thunderhawk would drop it's compliment away from the thick of the fighting, but generally I imagine it roaring in, guns blazing and hatches down, marines and vehicles deploying, then dusting off. Most of the time then it would be dropping almost straight down on the target. How then would a weapon mounted on top of the craft be able to effectively fire on targets below it? One of the two weapons is an energy type that would require a straight line of fire. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the centerline engine mounted on top, and the primary weapon attached in some sort of cargo pod slung underneath? Otherwise the Thunderhawk is forced to fly inverted or in an extreme nose down attitude to fire.

In addition, such an airframe configuration might allow for an underslung primary weapon, or if removed, the ability to deliver Rhinos or a Land Raider. More tactical flexibility with the same number of Thunderhawks.

I think I answered most of my own questions here, but I'm not all knowing when it comes to Space Marines (or anything else). If there is some storyline, background or fluff regarding the Thunderhawk that would explain lift, engine or weapon placement please let me know. I wan't to build at least one this winter for my Eagle Warriors.

Dude, you are going to drive yourself crazy if you try to figure out how GW or Forgeworld models would behave in a real-life environment. None of the imperial flyers would be able to generate any lift. Of course we can make a brick fly with enough thrust behind it so I guess they either are forced to no more than 5 minute flight time before refueling is necessary or they have some kind of super-lightweight-long-burning-fuel that can neatly fit into a 1,000 gallon tank. Anti-gravity technology could be used to explain the mysterious lift that these vehicle seem to be able to generate but then how could troops ever walk under them without being crushed? Certainly if there is some force acting underneath a vehicle that weighs at least as much as an automobile, and that force is generating force to lift it, then there must be an amazing amount of force acting against the surface that it is hovering over! RIGHT!? And don't even get me started on aircraft that has the ability to transfer from atmospheric to non-atmospheric environments at will regardless of the molecular makeup of the atmosphere or the fact that there are troops and equipment that need to not be crushed or subjected to rapid presure changes!

Oh man! I'm starting to rant. Just take my word for it: Build the model in it's widely recognized form even if that means that reality has to be put on the shelf. there isn't a GW kit made that could function in real life as it is supposed to so it's best just to put form over function and call it good.

Function over Form
Function over Form

Also remember that the Thunderhawk is a space faring vessel also used as a fighter-bomber by marines. A top mounted weapon would allow a better forward fire-arc considering the T-hawk's under-side shape as well as good strafing runs on enemy frigates/carriers/cruisers, since up and down are relative in a Zero G environment.

I actually get a kick out of reverse engineering and problem solving this sort of thing Glaive. As far as a gravitic vehicle squashing stuff underneath, isn't it possible that the tech simply suspends gravity's pull on the vehicle itself? That would explain grav tanks being able to move over their own troops. The vehicle simply gets lighter till it lifts away from the gravitational pull. The alternative for the Thunderhawk would be enormous VTOL engines that would fry or blow away anything in the landing area.

And I see your point about firing arcs Platuan4th. In that circumstance a dorsal mount would allow the Thunderhawk to maintain it's pitch and fire on enemy targets. I think though that a belly bay mount with doors would allow vastly better planetary performance, and in space would simply require a slightly nose up pitch for forward targets. This would also serve to present the enemy with the heat shielded sections of the 'hawk, which would be of some benefit against energy weapons. Certainly not against capital ship's lance batteries but smaller weapon systems. This would also increase it's profile, but at space ranges I don't imagine the extra visible area would be a signifigant disadvantage. In space combat I imagine straight line thrust would only be required for short "burns" to accelerate or correct course. Most of the time the ship would simply be "coasting" towards the target. In a dogfight situation I can't see the primary weapons or bombs being used at all.

Your observations are exactly what I'm looking for, it helps me see the Thunderhawk in action, in my mind's eye. Thanks guys!