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 still think it's cute. I want one.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Quite frankly, why couldnt they have done something like this? http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5540/stormraven1.jpg.

Linky no worky - please fix.
____

Amaya wrote:Yeah, really. I think GW gets their rocks off by making crappy models that sell for obscene amounts just to see how many people will buy it.

This is probably the biggest major failure I've seen from GW in quite a while. Most GW models are pretty good, but this is a major disappointment.
____

Mr Nobody wrote:I've been thinking about this, and I figured out what the problem is: it's half a model. The front looks just like a thunderhawk, but the the thunderhawk has a back end, balancing out the model. The stormraven is a decapitated thunderhawk, giving the impression of a giant head with a tiny body. This is very awkward and unnatractive to the human eye.

Sure, that's another way of looking at it, for those who see it as a "chibihawk".


Out of curiousity, what do you guys think of my rework?

Amaya wrote:The BoLs one is better.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=6013

That thing is awesome!

Am I the only one who thinks the Stormraven is just adorable?
I like it! I would make it a bit longer if I could, but that's really the only thing. Does its design make sense? No, not for ground support.
But I like it. Blocky = power for the SMs, so making it sleeker would just look like a borrowed IG or Navy design.

On another note, Blame Canada!

Lot's of people like the Stormraven.

This thread is for people who don't like the Stormraven to discuss what they think are better designs.

Coming into this thread to post how you like the Stormraven, of how we ought to like it, is on topic.

Back on topic, I like the JohnHwangDD design a lot better. The only thing it needs is for the wings to sweep forwards to join the fuselage above the side hatches, or else if straight to be positioned above the side hatches. Otherwise it still looks as if the vehicle is too front heavy.

Lord_Inquisitor wrote:I would make it a bit longer if I could, but that's really the only thing. Does its design make sense? No, not for ground support.
But I like it. Blocky = power for the SMs, so making it sleeker would just look like a borrowed IG or Navy design.

As you can see, my version is just as "blocky" as the iconic SM Land Raider, and retains the SRG elements like wings & engines & tail. But it is longer (like a Valkyrie). It's about as sleek as a Thawk Transporter, except the cargo is enclosed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, I like the JohnHwangDD design a lot better.

The only thing it needs is for the wings to sweep forwards to join the fuselage above the side hatches, or else if straight to be positioned above the side hatches.

Otherwise it still looks as if the vehicle is too front heavy.

Thanks for the feedback.

The wings are the way they are because I'm keeping the stock engine/wing parts (sorry). Those engines, with their wrap-over wings are a pretty strong constraint on how they attach to the fuselage. In my case, I was kind of going for someting of a Harrier feel in how I laid out the fuselage / wing / tail ratios, and I wanted the side doors to be relatively unobstructed for SMs to charge forward out of. Also, so people could see and use Chapter-specific doors.

Yeah, it's still somewhat front-heavy, and that was partly by design - the GW kit is extremely so, and I wanted to preserve most of the basic design. The trailing edge of the fuselage does extend behind the rear wing to help balance the fuselage. Potentially, the Dread stowage could be extended a bit further yet again, along with a longer leading edge extension at the root of the upper tail. But that reduces space for the Dread to walk under the rear of the SRG. Also, if you look at a "modern" helicopter or most "ordinary" aircraft, they tend to be somewhat lighter in the tail of the plane.

The "wings" are a bit small then.
Its generally a start.
The "helicopter" design is what makes the GW kit a shortbus/chibihawk.
The birdview of the "official" kit isnt so bad. But it direly needs a broader rear.

Maybe move the rear steering thrusters to the body?
Enlarge the wings?


I agree it should transport the dread inside, but the codex actually said otherwise.

Hoped for design like that:

Mr Nobody wrote:I've been thinking about this, and I figured out what the problem is: it's half a model. The front looks just like a thunderhawk, but the the thunderhawk has a back end, balancing out the model. The stormraven is a decapitated thunderhawk, giving the impression of a giant head with a tiny body. This is very awkward and unnatractive to the human eye.

hence the moniker Chibihawk

Also, here's the source of the link. I didnt upload it, but Image Shack apparently hates hotlinking http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Stormraven

@1hadhq: When you're saying the shortbus is like a helicopter, most helo's have a pretty long tail. Look at a Hind:



Ignore the rotor. The basic Hind is similarly "front heavy", with a long tail, but slimmer wings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Also, here's the source of the link. I didnt upload it, but Image Shack apparently hates hotlinking http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Stormraven

Ahh... The Valk/Raider!

Yeah, that's not a bad kitbash, probably the closest match to the classic Thawk. It's a good concept model, but it has some problems, tho, such as the control surfaces being reversed, and engines not being able to breathe...

A few minor details GW could have fixed in lieu of giving us Stumpyhawk thar.

@John:
The Hind is an example of Balanced design compared to that GW kit.
Long tail isn't the issue.

The broad front of the SR and the small rear is the imbalance. Its ok from above, but sideview of the SR sucks.

Plus the "magnetized" Dread idea of GW, is a badly executed. Clamps of the THT are fine. The Dread on a leash in the back of the SR is not.
I'd prefer to transport inside, or failing that to transport in the middle like already existing FW models do. (Valk/T-hawk).
The SR has either to cope with the weight of the dread or lack thereof, its rear ramp is blocked with a dread so your Jumppackers have to disembark through
the hatches ( sadly rhino sized ) or the front ramp which isn't beneficial "in the air", when opened.

I am aware dreads are today on bases and may look weird with "attached ground" on their feet at a SR on a flying stand.
Still no option to have the transported unit shown attached irks me.

1hadhq wrote:The "wings" are a bit small then.
Its generally a start.
The "helicopter" design is what makes the GW kit a shortbus/chibihawk.
The birdview of the "official" kit isnt so bad. But it direly needs a broader rear.

Maybe move the rear steering thrusters to the body?
Enlarge the wings?


I agree it should transport the dread inside, but the codex actually said otherwise.

Hoped for design like that:

Ha Ha, except for the gun turret you've drawn my Storm Raven! (which I really mean to finish someday but I've experienced technical difficulties)

1hadhq wrote:@John:
The Hind is an example of Balanced design compared to that GW kit.

The broad front of the SR and the small rear is the imbalance. Its ok from above, but sideview of the SR sucks.

The Dread on a leash in the back of the SR is not.

I'd prefer to transport inside, or failing that to transport in the middle like already existing FW models do. (Valk/T-hawk).

its rear ramp is blocked with a dread so your Jumppackers have to disembark through the hatches ( sadly rhino sized ) or the front ramp which isn't beneficial "in the air", when opened.

I am aware dreads are today on bases and may look weird with "attached ground" on their feet at a SR on a flying stand.
Still no option to have the transported unit shown attached irks me.

Agree, the Hind looks OK, partly because the shape was optimized so it actually flies.

Agree, the side view is the worst angle for the shortbus. The upright elements are completely at odds with its description as a fast vehicle.

It's like the magnet in a junkyard. Really bad.

Per my version, internal transport.

No problem disembarking through the side doors - skydivers use side doors all the time, so it's plausible. Tho the side doors should be on slides, or open vertically up, not downward. Agree that LR doors should have been used, along with a full LR front ramp set, simplifying the Chapter upgrade from Forgeworld - just by a LR set and you're complete (except for the rear). The front ramp would be for ground use only, of course.

A dread could be doubly-magnetized, with magneti feet to the base, and a magnetic top to the shortbus.

The biggest problem by far with the SR model is that the wings are in the wrong place. Wings always need to be at the aircraft's centre of gravity.

Even people that don't know that have an instinctive expectation of it from seeing actual aircraft. This is the main reason, in my opinion, why the SR looks wrong but the Valk looks right.

Generally agreed, tho if it's a delta wing, the wings can be set farther back...

The Valk is well-balanced, having a longer tail to put the wings at the middle of the craft.

In reality, the wings on the valk are too far forward for it to be properly balanced but it looks right. There's about the same amount of fuselage on both sides of the wings. The SR has pretty much the entire aircraft in front of the wing.


A delta wing looks further back but it's also generally much longer so the middle of the wing is deceptively far forward.

Here's a Mirage 2000 next to an F-16. The centre of the wing is almost identical on both. It's slightly further back on the Mirage but the weight of the wing means that the center of gravity is further back on the mirage also.