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.

Hi all,

I've had a stormraven lying around for a while now. It was an impulse buy, but with the new grey knights out, I decided to see if I could turn the flying tadpole of doom into a decent assault craft.

Things I don' tlike about the current model:
1. the tail end. Too weedy and illogical.
2. All the stuff on top. Both the air intake and the turret with the servitor don't look right to me.
3. The short rear end.
4. The dreadnought attachment system
5. the weedy landing gear straight underneath the body. Mine will go to the side.

First thing I did was easy: I lenghtened the sides to give the ship some oomph and look less like a tadpole.





Nothing all that spectacular, right? Astute readers will have noticed the messing around I did with the front flooring. I did this becasue I intend to move the servitor turret in front of the cockpit, creating more of an apache look. Because there's a gun port underneath the cockpit as well, the servitor 'turret' will be blocking the regular front ramp. So, I decided to make the front floor the front ramp . It solves the problem of the gun turret, and it means the inside of the stormraven isn't wide open and vulnerable when the door opens - silly I know, but I can be like that.

here's how it looks:





The plasticard has been attached because the turret won't block the whole front ramp and because the marines need some room to get out. Now, a terminator could easily use the door.

Next on the menu is detailing the in- and outside a bit, find a way to fit the landing gear inside the front thrusters, and how (and where) to attach the gun turret bit so it becomes an integral part of the hull.

So, opinions?

CommisarKhaine,

I've got a couple of these projects underway myself. So, hats off for taking a stab at it.

I think the deployment ramp idea is interesting. From a game perspective, you aren't really losing anything by moving the access ramp door to the bottom, and the weapon mounting may become more forward, but you'll lower it so you will potentially lose some hieght advantage as a counter balance. I personally like the thunderhawk nod that the front of the stock vehicle offers, but I've seen a few forward mounted gun turrets that look appealing. I'll be interested to see how yours shapes up.

The extension of the vessel's fusilage looks very nice. I'm hopeful you maintain the 'depth' changes in the side profile of the vehicle as marines seem to use stacked metal bulk in many of the vehicles. I like the integration of the various stock amror plates and grates into the plasticard extension. Looks like you nailed that bit, hats off.

Since you don't like much of the top of the vessel, I'll be interested to see how that shapes up.

Great start on the project

Tac

Front-mounting the turret and moving the door is a really, really good idea. Can't wait to see how this looks all finished-up!

Looks interesting CK!

I've not been following any of the stormraven builds apart from a quick dip into MajorTom's, so not got a feel for the 'as is' chibi-hawk yet, mainly to avoid the temptation they'll give me

The extension looks good, and like the idea of the drop ramp, I suspect I'll keep an eye on this.

Tactica: I've noticed, bene studying your design to see what I could nick . The deployment ramp is the logical progression from wanting to mount the guns in front. I agree that gamepplay-wise, it won't make much difference. The fact that you mentioned the nod tot he thunderhawk has got me thinking. At first I intended to simply add the turret bit, but right now I'm exploring adding plasticard to make it match the front a bit more; the turret has a very different shape.

I'll definitely be keeping the depth changes on the stormraven (check out the pic below for the start of this).

For the top, I'll be keeping things simple: some comms stuff, and a different rear fin; maybe a hatch where the turret went to fix things up.

I'll be interested to see how yours shapes up.

Right back at ya!

Savnock: Thank you! I'm debating right now whether I should stick stuff together (and make painting difficult), or paint the inside first and then add the front bit.

monkeytroll: It's a model simply screaming for improvement - I'm sure you could improve on the orginal design .

So, small(ish) update. Since I have the front ramp dropping from the floor, the regular landing gear won't work. Good, since I don't like it anyway. Bad, because the model is pretty high on it's legs now. I've added some landing gear and started detailing one side. As soon as I get this one nailed down, I'll do the other side and get to work on the top and the front turret. Top, tail fins, and dread attachment will probably be last.

Anyway, piccies:

First, a scale shot with a marine inside. The front bit still needs detailing but I'm debating a grid pattern or something different. The stormraven is a bit crooked because I supported it with a paint pot. The final version will be straight



Then, a side shot, showing the start of the detailing and the landing gear. The rear bit is just stuck on and need some more pistons at the very least.



So, what do you guys think? It's pretty high on it's feet, but the side doors aren't really what matters to me - even without hurricane bolters. Front and rear ramp should be fine. The bit where the rear landing gear went will house a thruster, since there's no more room in front.

Ahh, the sketched pannels help. I see where you are going there. Good.

Are you going to replace the front thrust-stabalizers with landing gear? I actually like the front stabalizers... but just trying to understand your design plan for the propulsion bits in hopes to better comment on the landing gear. I'm with you, right now, it seems pretty high.

Depending upon how you approach the front mounted turret, you may consider a 3-legged approach or mounting the front gear on the side of the front turret when added.

Probably no suprise, but for me the landing gear was the least of my concerns (and still is) when working on my ravens... worst case, I figured I would just glue all the gear up and leave it on the flying stand! After all, I want it to be flying most of the time and so it will stay on the stand... and thos piston bits could come in handy in a future ork project... but I digress...

Do you have a draft or sketch of the turret placement and final look of the bird's overall profile when complete? That would help me gain an appreciation for your final vision and future suggestions...

In fluff / game terms... for your army, do you see this being more of a reinforced armored high speed and streamlined jet rapidly deploying the force or do you see this as more of a high manouverability / hovering / utilitarian or tactical design when completed? That may help the suggestions...

Also, if you mount the back legs into those bays noted in the photos, what are you going to do with the old landing gear repositories in the back by the door?

Design question, what is the purpose for the 'lip' on the ramp? When it deploys, it's parrellel with the ground anyway. Seems like the ramp without the lip would be just as functional, and removal of the lip may avoid a future interference with the bits you mount on the front.... just a thought...

OK, sorry for all the questions... lol,

Tac

I never mind questions . so, let's go through them:

Ahh, the sketched pannels help. I see where you are going there. Good.

Thanks

Are you going to replace the front thrust-stabalizers with landing gear? I actually like the front stabalizers... but just trying to understand your design plan for the propulsion bits in hopes to better comment on the landing gear. I'm with you, right now, it seems pretty high.

The front landing gear was originally on what is now the new ramp, so they needed moving. The front stabilizer housing seemed like a nice place to do so. I've added the propulsion tot he rear landing gear bit, but I'm not happy with it, so it'll get torn off. It' s pretty high, but it it looks fitting, so I'll see how it works out.

Depending upon how you approach the front mounted turret, you may consider a 3-legged approach or mounting the front gear on the side of the front turret when added.

You mean 3 legs on each side? Just 3 seems a bit unstable, knowing my talent for bumping into tables . I want the turret to look slim, so adding the gear there doens't seem to fit. Also, the gear to the side looks like it could almost fall the last few metres and just take the impact instead of sleighing around like you would with the regular gear.
Here's a pic of a dropship I like:

Probably no suprise, but for me the landing gear was the least of my concerns (and still is) when working on my ravens... worst case, I figured I would just glue all the gear up and leave it on the flying stand! After all, I want it to be flying most of the time and so it will stay on the stand... and thos piston bits could come in handy in a future ork project... but I digress...

That's my consolation as well; if I don't like it, I'll rip it all off and close the hatches

Do you have a draft or sketch of the turret placement and final look of the bird's overall profile when complete? That would help me gain an appreciation for your final vision and future suggestions...

I suck at sketching, but here's a try:


The turret will be lowered a bit probably, not sure on that yet. Not sure I will be using the turret or just plasticarding it, at this point, mainly because of:

Design question, what is the purpose for the 'lip' on the ramp? When it deploys, it's parrellel with the ground anyway. Seems like the ramp without the lip would be just as functional, and removal of the lip may avoid a future interference with the bits you mount on the front.... just a thought...

It was there to close where the front ramp was and to add some more disembarking place, but you're right, it doens't serve any purpose bar aesthetics when the ramp is down. if I halve it's length, I can play arround some more with the turret.

In fluff / game terms... for your army, do you see this being more of a reinforced armored high speed and streamlined jet rapidly deploying the force or do you see this as more of a high manouverability / hovering / utilitarian or tactical design when completed? That may help the suggestions...

Option two; I want a close-in support craft capable of transporting a squad to the front lines. More an apache with transport capability, really

Also, if you mount the back legs into those bays noted in the photos, what are you going to do with the old landing gear repositories in the back by the door?

Right now, I've mounted an engine in there, but I'm not sure I'll keep, still on the fence for that one.

3 Landing Gear - I was thinking of just three... but you are right, that will be too unstable and looking at your drop ship reference piece, I can now see where you are going. That is a very 'front heavy' vessel and a 4 engine design. Are you looking at incorporating that into your project? I completely understand that very large and oversized piston driven landing gear with the additional bulk added to that kind of a look.

Sounds like your bottom mount exit hatch is dependent upon the turret final design and placement. Sounds like landing gear is also contingent upon final ramp, turret placement and possibly wing design as well... after all, you want the marines to 'look' like they can exit the ramp and you want the landing gear to look like it can support the bulk of the vessel.

The sketch helps. Scale seems to be off though in the sketch, unless you are drastically reducing the size of the turret... I'll be interested in your mock ups on that part.

(<snip> purpose of lip on ramp question...) It was there to close where the front ramp was and to add some more disembarking place, but you're right, it doens't serve any purpose bar aesthetics when the ramp is down. if I halve it's length, I can play arround some more with the turret.

Game Rules: Unless I am mistaken by what you meant by "disembarking place", from my understanding of the game rules, one deploys from the base of skimmers. So, how you model the doors and/or its openning should not effect how the vehicle is played. Thus, if I am reading the quoted section correctly, the 'lip' will not add or reduce actual game play deployment / embarking or charging distances to/from the base of the skimmer... but maybe I completely misunderstood what you are saying here...

Apache with transport - got it, that helps.

Tac

Couple more thoughts, with the forward mounted turret... have you thought about recessing it into the hull at all? I see a few different mechanical 'mounting options' for the rotating portion of the turret, but everything I can think of and keeping the ramp in mind, is a turret mount placed forward on the vehicle or recessing the turret into the hull... similar to the front mount of an A-10 Warthog (thunderbolt).

Anyway, here's some photos I found, and one quick and dirty drawing I put together to explain my question.

This will be awesome!

You are going to make mine look like a p.o.s lol!

Brilliant stuff. This is going to look awesome when you finish up.

On a side note when reading your thread title I envisioned a space marine actually tackling a storm raven... I chuckled out loud and earned a disapproving glance from a customer... Oh well... ^_^

Tactica: The front heaviness will be there, the four engines less. It would involve totally rebuilding the SR, and in that case I might just as well build it from scratch .

Sounds like your bottom mount exit hatch is dependent upon the turret final design and placement. Sounds like landing gear is also contingent upon final ramp, turret placement and possibly wing design as well... after all, you want the marines to 'look' like they can exit the ramp and you want the landing gear to look like it can support the bulk of the vessel.

Yep. Haven't sorted the turrt out quite yet, so I'm kinda stuck. I'm going to build the roof first to see how it all goes together, and then decide on a design.

Game Rules: Unless I am mistaken by what you meant by "disembarking place", from my understanding of the game rules, one deploys from the base of skimmers. So, how you model the doors and/or its openning should not effect how the vehicle is played. Thus, if I am reading the quoted section correctly, the 'lip' will not add or reduce actual game play deployment / embarking or charging distances to/from the base of the skimmer... but maybe I completely misunderstood what you are saying here...

I agree. Also, I now remember why I need the lip on the ramp: it creates enough clearance for marines to exit the vehicle without bumping their head

The sketch helps. Scale seems to be off though in the sketch, unless you are drastically reducing the size of the turret... I'll be interested in your mock ups on that part.

I blow at sketching; turret will fie the overall design (I hope)

Thnaks for the pics, they're quite inspirational! The recessed turret mount is interesting, I'll have to look into that; it would fit witht he gun emplacement above. A-10s are cool, so that's not a bad plance to look like

MajorTom11: I sure hope it 'll be awesome. And don't bring yourself down, your design looks great,a dn you'll be painting it ten times better as well, so...

vent: Thank you! Glad it made you laugh!


So, very minor update, and a question. I've added some more detailing to the side. Easy bit. next time though, I'll do the detailing before I glue the basic card structure to the side, since now I can't modify the underlying shape. Learning point for the next SM vehicle I'll be building.

Also, I found some pred sponsons in my bitz box. Since the doors on the side look a bit silly this high up, how do you feel about these? If I ever need hurricane bolters, I figure I could do something with these with the help of a few magnets . If I don't, I might attach the door to the front of these plates.

Anyway, one measly piccie:

I'm with you, didn't care for the default doors myself. I went with the hurricane bolter sponsons myself. I think they'll paint up nice, look more punishing and in game, they are quite effective I have found. I don't leave home without them. Guess that's a long way of me casting a vote for the sponsons....

Looking forward to the wings and cockpit getting added. Hard to make heads or tails of it with fusilage and landing gear alone.

Keep up the progress,

Tac

Tactica: I'm not sure of their in-game effectiveness, but I think it would look coul -though I'd have to do a different cowling since I used the hurricane bolter's cowling for the landing gear

Hard to make heads or tails of it with fusilage and landing gear alone.

Agreed, but I needed to get some stuff right before I could move on.

So, I got something important figured out (to me anyway): The placing of the turret! At first, Iwas lookign to keep the orignal lines. Then, I realized the whole flying brick thing never did it for me, and that a small cockpit in front might be cool. I just need it forward far enough so the ramp can still open, and looking decently attached.

The pics below are just there for placement, so the plasticard work isn't all that neat. Also, I realize the vehicle has a different aesthetic then the regular marine stuff, which only seems fitting since a land raider with wings (which the regular SR is) feels a bit silly to me .







The interior of the turret will need major reworking, and the gun placement is obviously not done yet - even the gun's position isn't quite final yet. Still, I like the bug-like feel it gives the stormraven. It also makes it look more heavy-set and more menacing IMO. Anwyay, opinions?

I like the way you´ve moved the turret down. The top mounted turret is a weak point of the original, it seems out of place on something that´s supposed to be an orbital drop, I feel.

This turret kind of reminds me of the side turrets on the Drop ships in the newer Starwars movies. But in a good way.

It´s difficult to say more without the wings, but it looks good so far.

thisis very promising.. keep it up !!