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.

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I have to wonder, in light of all the praise this design has received, if the praise is due to GW gradually conditioning folks' aesthetic judgment RE: fliers over the years. To my eyes, it's another brick. Now, I like it - but I have never really objected to flying bricks in 40k.

It's got the Valk-like wings, engine and twin-tail in a relatively balanced configuration. It's less brick than the SM stuff, nor the Valk cargo hull. It looks a bit like a lifting body with stubs.

Pretty much this.

Most of GW's Space Marine flyers to date, it's like they've designed from the front backwards, got to the tail and said 'Crap, that's not going to fit on the sprue...' and chibified it to fit.

This is still chunky, but is far less cartoony and more 'blocky scifi dropship'.

I still hate the Storm Talon, and the Storm Raven is silly looking... But aside from GW's continued insistence on putting short-ranged weaponry on the roof of flyers in a predominantly-ground combat game (which in this case is at least an optional upgrade) I love this flyer with almost all of my body parts.

Most real fliers I've seen have a wingspan 2-3 times the length of the body. But, if GW didn't chibify them, they'd take too much space up on the battlefield just for the wings (which you couldn't target anyway...). Fluff-wise, 40K technology is advanced enough with gravity control and the like that actually putting the wings on these things is more an aesthetic thing than anything else. All the marine flyers are (excluding Forgeworld) really a VTOL.

Anyways, I'm planning to pick up one or two, and yeah, it's because of the resemblance to the Aliens dropship. Go figure.

PS: It's interesting the sprue doesn't have a plastic canopy, nor interior details that I see ... wonder if that is why the price is lower?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
To be fair, this is only 2 sprues, where the Valk is laid out across 3 sprues. The Valk had to replicate the external resin engines, the door gunners with the articulated guns, the option bitz - that extra sprue is why it was priced like a Land Raider way back when it originally released. Now, those molds are long amortized, so it's cheap for GW. This kit being only 2 sprues is why it's priced the same. If it were 3 sprues, GW would likely charge $85 or more.

If I'm not mistaken, the Heldrake and Void Raven also only have two sprues, but cost way more than the Valkyrie. Same goes for the Ravenwing Dark Talon (which also costs more), which I actually classify as a smaller class of flyers considering it's suppose to be analogous to the Storm Talon.

The Blackstar, all things considered, is still fairly cheap for a flyer of it's size and class.

 Stormonu wrote:
Most real fliers I've seen have a wingspan 2-3 times the length of the body.

But, if GW didn't chibify them, they'd take too much space up on the battlefield just for the wings (which you couldn't target anyway...). Fluff-wise, 40K technology is advanced enough with gravity control and the like that actually putting the wings on these things is more an aesthetic thing than anything else. All the marine flyers are (excluding Forgeworld) really a VTOL.


PS: It's interesting the sprue doesn't have a plastic canopy, nor interior details that I see ... wonder if that is why the price is lower?

Well... How about the F-104?

Wingspan is less than half the length.

Yeah, those interior details are more parts and cost that GW was able to shave.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Well... How about the F-104?

An exceptional design that was notoriously bad at a lot of things* in exchange for raw straight-line speed and climb performance. Most other aircraft, especially the kind of slow ground attack aircraft that should be relevant in 40k, have very different proportions. In any case, I think the issue is less the wingspan and more the length of the model. Short wings and VTOL engines would be fine if the body was actually long enough to hold the weapons, fuel tanks, etc, instead of being a cockpit with a bunch of guns bolted around the outside.

*For example, landing with the flaps inoperative was terrifying and you'd probably rather eject.

They are in the future and the Tau definitely use anti gravity on almost everything. Only the spirits know what the Imperium could be using when they think all they have is the thrust causing it to fly.

I just hand wave it away like that.

The Emperor's throne-farts?

I wouldn't actually be surprised if that was the case. The byproduct of the golden throne can apparently kill psykers, the farts being able to give a metaphorical middle finger to gravity would not be surprising in the least.

 Stormonu wrote:

Most real fliers I've seen have a wingspan 2-3 times the length of the body. But, if GW didn't chibify them, they'd take too much space up on the battlefield just for the wings (which you couldn't target anyway...).

My issue isn't with wings. It's with designs that make the tail look at least 50% too short. I don't care about aerodynamics, just aesthetics.

The Corvus is much better proportioned.

Agree. Proportions are pretty good. What's interesting is what people are reading into the shape.



Without the tail, I kinda got a Cylon Raider vibe from it.

Looks like an aliens drop ship sorta with a VTOL jet/helicopter. I love it. Easily my second favorite aircraft from a pure visual spectacle. Those rugged lines.

it actually reminds me of another favourite ship of mine. The F7CM Super Hornet from Star Citizen.

Picture of F7CM


Video


Edit
The lines of the Barracuda say A10 (which is my second fav aircraft of all time. After the Japanese Zero. The real life Super Hornet is my third fav and fourth is the SU-37 Terminator).

Just a small engineering note, but its the wings that bear the weight of the aircraft in conventional aircraft design. In conventional spacecraft design, its the fuselage that bears the weight due to how we currently align the propulsion. 40k appears to use the fuselage as the weight bearing structure, with the wings for steering and/or aesthetics.

SJ

This is a definite purchase for me. It just has a great profile and it fits my needs exactly.

That Corvus Blackstar man...it's like an Alfa Romeo or something. Too pretty to be a mere machine.

I've been wanting to do marines for years. I think it might have to be the Death Watch.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a small engineering note, but its the wings that bear the weight of the aircraft in conventional aircraft design. In conventional spacecraft design, its the fuselage that bears the weight due to how we currently align the propulsion. 40k appears to use the fuselage as the weight bearing structure, with the wings for steering and/or aesthetics.

SJ

So, what is the difference between wings bearing weight or fuselage ? Why do we use the wings ?

 godardc wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a small engineering note, but its the wings that bear the weight of the aircraft in conventional aircraft design. In conventional spacecraft design, its the fuselage that bears the weight due to how we currently align the propulsion. 40k appears to use the fuselage as the weight bearing structure, with the wings for steering and/or aesthetics.

SJ

So, what is the difference between wings bearing weight or fuselage ? Why do we use the wings ?

In the atmosphere? Because its the wings that are generating the lift necessary to counteract gravity, i.e. the aircraft's weight (or in the case of the far cooler helicopter, the rotor disk). Alternatively, a handful of aircraft are of a flying wing style where the whole body is designed to generate sufficient lift so that smaller or no wings are required.

The only way I can explain the fact that the imperiums flying bricks can fly is...anti-grav plates or something.

 godardc wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a small engineering note, but its the wings that bear the weight of the aircraft in conventional aircraft design. In conventional spacecraft design, its the fuselage that bears the weight due to how we currently align the propulsion. 40k appears to use the fuselage as the weight bearing structure, with the wings for steering and/or aesthetics.

SJ

So, what is the difference between wings bearing weight or fuselage ? Why do we use the wings ?

As an actual aerospace engineer, that post is kind of nonsense and I'm not sure what he's getting at. Nothing about that flyer suggests the "fuselage is bearing the weight due to how the propulsion is aligned," whatever exactly that means.

Anyway, I would say that the Imperium must rely *heavily* on anti-grav to make their designs fly, rather than generating lift through their wings or any sort of lifting body design.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a small engineering note, but its the wings that bear the weight of the aircraft in conventional aircraft design. In conventional spacecraft design, its the fuselage that bears the weight due to how we currently align the propulsion. 40k appears to use the fuselage as the weight bearing structure, with the wings for steering and/or aesthetics.

I would observe that 40k craft are shaped akin to aircraft, and have control surfaces like aircraft, but they are not at all aerodynamic like aircraft, with their square-edged barn door wing surfaces. Further, while 40k craft use wings, they're really more pylons / hardponts for mounting things on. Also, they're rather under-braced for the tip thrusters - if you look at something like a Harrier or other VTOL aircraft, the thrust directs more directly under the body, not at the tips, because that would snap the wings off...

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 godardc wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just a small engineering note, but its the wings that bear the weight of the aircraft in conventional aircraft design. In conventional spacecraft design, its the fuselage that bears the weight due to how we currently align the propulsion. 40k appears to use the fuselage as the weight bearing structure, with the wings for steering and/or aesthetics.

SJ

So, what is the difference between wings bearing weight or fuselage ? Why do we use the wings ?

As an actual aerospace engineer, that post is kind of nonsense and I'm not sure what he's getting at.

Anyway, I would say that the Imperium must rely *heavily* on anti-grav to make their designs fly, rather than generating lift through their wings or any sort of lifting body design.

Or just obscene amounts of BFFI.

 Blacksails wrote:

Or just obscene amounts of BFFI.

The Imperial way

Seriously though, even ignoring the hideous lack of aerodynamics, thrust alone isn't the answer. Look at the tiny thrust vectoring nozzles on Storm Ravens etc. They wouldn't be sufficient for hovering and vertical takeoff. If Land Speeders have anti-grav, I see no reason other things wouldn't too. In that case the thrust vectoring could be for added maneuverability at very low speeds, which might be something anti-grav can't provide well enough for a gunship.

My $0.02 anyway.