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.

Thanks, If you have see my post directly above yours you will see my poor effort is lacking by an order of magnitude. As soon as it is daylight I'm going to fire up the band saw and do a major revamping on the hull. I would look askance at the PDF plans circulating on the 'net purported to be Thunderhawk templates because they are grievously out of scale. Now that I have these 3D images I am going to stretch my model to conform to them and forgo the FW scale altogether (The green image). Using the forward end of the superstructure as my baseline it appears I need to lengthen the aft hull a few inches and reduce the depth of the forward cargo bay. Raise the point of the bow about half an inch. I'm going to leave the superstructure height as it is as that is a minor deviation.

I had to do much the same to Lucie and you would have thought I'd learned from that experience.

"Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them."

H ah ha, truer words are seldom spoken! Going really well though dude, after seeing that link I really wanted to do my own, but then seeing all the other attempts all around the net I just got more and more scared. I'm afraid I just wouldn't have the patience to complete it therefore I won't even start, I am in awe of your efforts good sir!

I really want to replicate the 3D Thunderhawk posted above. It may be outsized but it looks more airworthy than any Thunderhawk rendering I've yet seen. I can't wait to get to the fine detail. The layered armour and the beveled edge on the fuselage really makes this thing come alive. I'm also opening up the cargo bay so it will have an interior as well.



"One step forward two steps back," that's my motto.

Best of luck to you man! It looks like it is coming along great, I really do like the 3D image over the FW one, like you said it does look more air worthy, and a bit meaner too.

Looking good, cant wait to see the finished project.

Wow, another great T-hawk scratchbuild. Looking forward to your progress - that 3d render you're working to is gorgeous...

Since this beastie will have a full interior of the cargo bay including the side hatches I have to be careful all is right dimension wise. I am taking meticulous care building the nose hatch/ramp.

Nice progress, too bad about the scale

Awesome, I really loved the detail on your Warhound, can't wait to see the detail you'll be putting on this, especially if it's going to be on par with those renders! I don't have the dedication to scratch-build any FW vehicle, but I'm happy to see projects like your's come around for inspiration!

Haonn wrote:Nice progress, too bad about the scale

The scale is fine just that the cargo bay was too deep and short and the after part of the hull was too short. I wasn't satisfied by the stumpy look once I saw the 3D images anyway plus I wanted to do the cargo bay interior detail (No not the flight station level; I'm not that insane.)

I'm willing to bet that most Thunderhawks from FW are built with the flight deck access glued down so it can't be seen anyway.

Awesome interior detailing, that looks choice!

I know you all are getting tired of the same picture but I want to demonstrate the necessity and the technique to insure the hull is as square and true as humanly possible because with a model of this length a twist of 1.0 mm will show up as 6.0 or 8.0 mm over the entire length and ruin the overall beauty of the work. I once bought a FW 'Lightning' fighter that had a twist in the lateral line airframe and had a devil of a time straightening it. To this day it still has about a 1.0 mm twist in the overall length an I see it every time (Although no one else has seen it.)

Well enough of my obsessive mania; the next ho hum image:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jirc wrote:Awesome interior detailing, that looks choice!

Notice that the "£400!" FW Thunderhawk looks like it was moulded of modeling clay instead of resin. I know that their models aren't for amateurs but really they need a good come-uppance in their quality control. Just pityful.

I've been real busy at work this week not much to show for it. Yesterday I started on the cargo bay interior. Getting smarter in my old age I'm building the interior first so I don't have to work inside out.

Thanks for the encouragement I hope this next post doesn't put you off. A while back possibly not on this forum I asked if a T'hawk could transport a Rhino in it's cargo bay and was told no a special transport T'hawk slings them under the belly. Well I didn't mention it before I had conformation and I guestimated the size required to fit a Rhino and as my son is home from college for the Summer I borrowed one of his. Guess what! room to spare and I mightn't need to make the front doors clamshell as in the C5A. I stand before you ready to suffer your slings and arrows for this, The Blackadder's 'Super Thunderhawk'

Really exciting to follow this Blackadder, I only caught up with the Warhound half way through.

I like the idea of a rhino disembarking from the front ala the APC in the Aliens movie.

Looking good!

Whew at least one approval Yea. I was afraid everyone would chide me for building a monstrosity but hey aircraft are stretched all the time The MD90 is almost twice as long as the original DC9 and the 747 was stretched and plans were in the works for a two deck model. As soon as they could find a thousand people who all wanted to go to the same place on a regular basis.

You could always just say that the STC template design was corrupted slightly on the particular forge world that this craft came from.

Just for fluffy purposes, IIRC the thunderhawk mounts either an upgunned battlecannon or a turbo laser, both of which fire on the move effectively =)

Mind, it totally makes W40k sense that the TH should be able to mount a volcano, because, well, it's space marines.

The thunderhawk has a thunderhawk cannon, its very similar to a turbo laser.

I'm not up on 40K weaponry but aren't these cannon line of sight energy weapons as opposed to trajectory projectile weapons? Even if firing a plasma bolt being energy it would not be much effected by an earth normal gravitation and there for not subject to the laws of ballistics. Then to fire at a ground target the T'hawk would have to dive toward the target. Fine at long range but hair raising in close combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as upsetting the FW purists, it is my contention that the prototype or concept Thunderhawk was meant to carry a Rhino or similar sized vehicle but the FW production bean counters realized the size and cost of the model vehicle would be prohibitive to produce and much too expensive for a healthy retail market. I base that on the scaled down Landraider side doors which are >10% smaller than that which are on the Landraider.



Ergo we have the diminutive T'hawk that is primarily a troop transport and far too over engineered for that mission of delivering 30 or so troops to the ground and which in fact would be packed into the cargo hold like sardines at that density.

Hmm, I ran into this same question when I was building my T-hawk (is a T-hawk meant to carry a Rhino(s)?). The first T-hawk model was the Epic flying brick, which is what I based my T-hawk on, I have no idea what the rules were for 1st edition epic, so your theory may be spot on, seeing as the old flying brick looked like it had quite the cargo hold. By 2nd edition 40k the 30 troop transport idea was already established. I just recently acquired Citadel Journal 10 from 1995, which states 30 troops, no vehicles. I'm only writing this because I enjoy talking T-hawk fluff, I certainly have no stand against any build that goes against fluff or convention. Your T-hawk will be great, can't wait to see more progress!

great work thus far,more please?

The main role of the T-Hawk cannon iirc is to target enemy fliers and punch holes in the sides of enemy space ships, rather than target ground troops - and it can be upgraded to a Turbo Lazer.

It's capacity is based more on it's battlefield role, in that it would deliver ground troops and bikes or drop jump-pack troops and speeders - plus as you have noticed, the standard door would not accomodate a Rhino very well and certainly not a Predator! Doesn't mean it can't be adapted, the White Scars use modified thunderhawks that allow a full bike squad to sit in the main bay (I think that's why the T-Hawks look so weird on the front cover of "Hunt for Voldorius")

I really like the idea of a super thunderhawk, genius. to you recon that you could also post the link to lynks thunderhawk.

Thats quite big!

You're really getting me pumped to work on my discarded effort now, curse you!

Not to make this even more work than it undoubtedly is...

...But, as well as the cargo hold and cockpit, are you going to make any other detailed internal areas? It would certainly give you carte blanche to indulge your imagination.

I have found the internal detailing really inspires me to believe that vehicles in 40k are 'working' pieces of hardware! Not sure why, but perhaps I'm a little strange like that! (All of my models have fully painted interiors, just for my gratification!)

I'm going to stick with the cargo bay cockpit and under the air brake flaps. That should be sufficient. I know there is a wealth of detail in the FW kit, (They should invest some of that energy in making their moulds stable.) but what I have seen in most of the resin kits I've rescued is that the hatches are glued shut, the doors are inoperable and if there is a panel that can be removed to veiw some internal component it is invariably cemented in place for eternity.

Not so with the Jumbo 'hawk; the interior is coming along nicely but is a chore. Sometimes I wonder why I start these things, they monopolize a lot of time plus I ran out of crucial styrene for the floor ribs and had to make a hobby shop run this morning. I thought I'd never find a use for this size strip but I ran out two strips short of finishing and had to buy more. Now I have more than when I started. (Poor baby Blackadder.)

Any way the floor is done and the side panels are clamped in place but I won't be gluing just yet because I still haven't figured out where the landing gear cylinder goes when the nose gear is retracted. Someone's in for a bit of a shock when that nose gear bursts thru the cargo compartment floor (All together now, "Poor engineering planning FW, nowheres near as well thought out as the Warhound. And where are the actuators for the forward cargo hatch/ramp?) All these problems will have to be addressed before the interior detail can be afixed.

Here's the result of a mis-spent Saturday morning:

Awesome scratch work! A good way to keep the costs down as well!

Have you figured out a paint scheme yet?

Paint is the least of my problems, designing a viable landing gear was paramount on my mind for the past weekend until I saw this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7u8_r07-3s&feature=youtu.be

On further watching the video I see that both forward and back actuators pivot on both ends and double as hydraulic cylinders to extend the pad and shock struts (No small feat of engineering that!) but when the strut is full extended down the front and rear cylinders become shock struts and are able to compress and absorb the landing shock.

And very little room is taken up when fully retracted.

Below is my interpretation of the landing gear mechanism:



My solution to the landing gear dilemma:



This model should be much simpler than the Warhound. Not having to design positionable joints strong enough to take the movement but still be the proper size so as not to look ungainly was extremely difficult with Lucie and took a lot of time. I had to rebuild the joints a few times until they were satisfactory. This retractable landing gear problem was a much easier nut to crack once I saw the scissor mechanism displayed in the video. My problem was not thinking outside the box. A background in aircraft experience would not allow me to think of an dual oleo strut/hydraulic cylinder combination (I still question the feasibility of such an appliance?) but the manufacture should be child's play compared to Lucie's toe joints; I still have nightmares about those. #-o. I may use a spring mechanism and trigger lock to deploy the gear so they do not collapse when sitting on them and not have to be pried out of the wheel well each time they are to be lowered. I'm thinking ball point pen springs should be sufficient. Once I get the proportions right on this beastie it will be a simple matter of gluing on all the fabulous detail exhibited in those 3D drawings above.