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.

Hey I just saw this this morning! It looks great with a fantastic walk through talking all about the assembly and articulation. Check it out, it's a great article and the pics are fantastic, even size comparison pics!
Capture and Control: The Stormraven - Built and Reviewed!

Ohhh nice read, thanks for sharing. Loving the fact it's got a techmarine pilot and servitor in the gun box.

Still just looks wrong.

The front looks alright, but the rear and how the wings go... just no.

Very interesting, I am relieved to see there are a lot of options to put things together, in terms of leaving things on and off. However, this particular angle made me throw up in my mouth a little, just horribly off balance and out of proportion in my personal aesthetic tastes...



The best angles for me are top and direct front, it looks nice and bulky/boxy as marine tech should be, but it doesnt have that gaping hole in back to turn the impression of the rest of it from blocky and strong to lumpy and off-balance.



and top is best for me!






Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't think I've ever seen another model that can make such a different impression nearly every time you turn it a few degrees... some angles make me think that looks awesome as is! and others... the aforementioned puke in mouth and cry...

MajorTom11 wrote:The best angles for me are top and direct front, it looks nice and bulky/boxy as marine tech should be, but it doesnt have that gaping hole in back to turn the impression of the rest of it from blocky and strong to lumpy and off-balance.

I agree. If I ever got one I would have to stretch the main body and fill in the gap at the rear.

I think we will be seeing a lot of that... If I figure out how to do the version I photoshopped back in the first leak, I plan on releasing the templates as downloads.

Btw, bryan40kman2000 thanks this is a great article btw! Nice of you to share!

lol a Storm Raven is a cut down version on a Thunderhawk Mark 6.....lol it was made for small unit action and its cheaper than a larger ship.

I think I will do what another poster has mentioned, and strap the wings to a rino body....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-ni66Nct_tY/TTqNqn0peaI/AAAAAAAAAbg/VdmV8JjKPhk/s320/sr19.jpg

Looks good in this pic

I dont think it is a bad as people make out, its not exactly beautiful, nor does it look sleek like the name suggests, but it is squat and ugly and looks like it is designed to get the job done. Similar to the bumblebee, airodynamically it shouldnt be able to fly, its body is too big, and its wings are too small but it does, because it is designed to be efficent and get the job done not for looks. The bee is pretty much unrelated, but I just wanted to bring it up, but the point still stands! (I think)

winnertakesall wrote:...its not exactly beautiful, nor does it look sleek like the name suggests, but it is squat and ugly and looks like it is designed to get the job done.

Yup, form follows function & doubly so when it comes to military equipment.

Is anyone else scratching their heads about the glaring issue of WHERE IS THE DREADNOUGHT ATTACHMENT?!

tldr wrote:Is anyone else scratching their heads about the glaring issue of WHERE IS THE DREADNOUGHT ATTACHMENT?!

the question is asked/answered in at least two of the dozen other threads about the storm raven on the front page of news and rumors. with so many threads (OMG>> here's the left landing gear pic.. lets start a new thread!) about the same damn thing, it's hard for someone to keep track of what has or hasn't already been posted... multiple times...

theres a winch with coiled cable attached to a magnagrapple tip under the tail boom visible in some of the pics and is where the dread is supposed to attach. i would have preferred a hook of some sort but eh...

winnertakesall wrote:I dont think it is a bad as people make out, its not exactly beautiful, nor does it look sleek like the name suggests, but it is squat and ugly and looks like it is designed to get the job done. Similar to the bumblebee, airodynamically it shouldnt be able to fly, its body is too big, and its wings are too small but it does, because it is designed to be efficent and get the job done not for looks. The bee is pretty much unrelated, but I just wanted to bring it up, but the point still stands! (I think)

That bumblebee bit is actually myth. We covered it in one of my flight engineering classes, they are actually very aerodynamically capable, thank you very much.

not from a lift-drag ratio.., thank YOU very much lol.

Formosa wrote:not from a lift-drag ratio.., thank YOU very much lol.

I don't know where you got that from, but it does in fact produce more lift than drag. Insect flight is a very complicated area of study, filled with a lot of peculiarities that don't come into play with aircraft.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/march00/aps_wang.hrs.html

The author of the blog posted this tutorial 9 hours earlier in this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/341439.page

Thanks for linking the article Bryan! Yet again you beat me to it and have proven to be our sites biggest Cheerleader.

I have seen the model in person guys and while odd from some angles is quite impressive still. I will be getting several even for my Wolves and Salamanders with or without a WD article letting me use them!