Jump to content

1/72 Commanchero gunship


captain america

Recommended Posts

September 13th update.

I've spent most of the day drafting the blueprints from the Commanchero, so far so good.

One of the things that troubled me about this gunship is its size: it seems to have an arsenal similar to that of an AH-64,but is literally almost as large as an Mi-24, and is actually wider at the fuselage than a Hind, due to the lateral placement of the engines. This was causing me some concern, as I couldn't for the life of me understand why the bird needed to be so large.

By scrutinizing the line art, there didn't seem to be any sort of troop carrying capability; no room for a lateral door, sliding or otherwise, once again due to the engine placement. As a result, I came up with an interesting idea: why not give the Commanchero an internal weapons bay? So I did! I figured that this little option, while not necessarily canon, would justify the use of such a large helicopter,giving it substantially greater either air-to-air or air-to-ground attack capbilities.

I will likely finish the dagrams by tomorrow, and will be committing to Ren-Shape by Wednesday. Stay tuned :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Captain, in the link you posted it says 1 x forward firing large internal missile launcher (mounted port), isn't that what you were looking for?

Edited by Grayson72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I interpreted that to mean that the port-side (helicopter's left) fairing contains a missile firing mechanism, as evidenced in the below image by the black, circular muzzle-looking thing. Nothing new there. What I added to the design was a centrally-mounted ventral weapons bay, similar to what you'd have on an F-111: it would be just deep enough to hold two drop-launch missiles or iron bombs.

comanchero.bmp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I interpreted that to mean that the port-side (helicopter's left) fairing contains a missile firing mechanism, as evidenced in the below image by the black, circular muzzle-looking thing. Nothing new there. What I added to the design was a centrally-mounted ventral weapons bay, similar to what you'd have on an F-111: it would be just deep enough to hold two drop-launch missiles or iron bombs.

not to pooh-pooh your cool idea...but I just assume the fuselage is where they'd keep the missiles for the port launcher. That launching sponson-thing isn't very big, so I imagine it is supplied with missile ammo from the actual body...thus eliminating the "what do to with all that space" problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It IS a BIG helo for what it is supposed to do. I've looked at doing one in 1/200. Four oversized engines for what? You can only go so fast in a rotory wing aircraft before the blades stall; that's why there's the v-22 Osprey tilt rotor.

Oh well, it's just an animated idea - right!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not to pooh-pooh your cool idea...but I just assume the fuselage is where they'd keep the missiles for the port launcher. That launching sponson-thing isn't very big, so I imagine it is supplied with missile ammo from the actual body...thus eliminating the "what do to with all that space" problem.

That's where I was heading, but maybe there's a loading bay underneath for the missile launcher, that might be cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not to pooh-pooh your cool idea...but I just assume the fuselage is where they'd keep the missiles for the port launcher. That launching sponson-thing isn't very big, so I imagine it is supplied with missile ammo from the actual body...thus eliminating the "what do to with all that space" problem.

Yes, that's totally feasible and logical. As Grayson72 mentioned also, they would still need a means by which to get the missiles into the helicopter, hence the need for the lower weapons bay. At the very least, there could be a type of automatic breach-loading system allowing missles to be transfered/fired out the port-side pod for air-to-air missiles, but alternately, that weapons bay could also be configured to carry air-to-ground ordinance, depending on the specific mission. Either way, I feel that the Commanchero gains from that weapons bay.

MechTech: yup, I agree, the design doesn't really make sense, but oh well, I didn't design it, I just have to make it believeable :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It IS a BIG helo for what it is supposed to do. I've looked at doing one in 1/200. Four oversized engines for what? You can only go so fast in a rotory wing aircraft before the blades stall; that's why there's the v-22 Osprey tilt rotor.

Oh well, it's just an animated idea - right!?

I have no knowledge about helicopter design but here's a theory. the commanchero is huge so it can carry more ordinance. so when it's fully loaded it's heavier than a fully loaded hind. and from what I've read the hind is so heavy as it is that it can't take off vertically fully loaded, it needs to taxi first.

maybe the 4 engines are to provide extra power to the rotor so it gets better lift.

again, just a theory form someone who knows nothing about helicopters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mi-28 has too many angles to be used for anything with this.

Even the mi-24 could probably only lend a few mechanical bits like a modified rotor head assembly and cockpit details.

Sadly, not even that: I picked-up an Italeri Hind kit yesterday, just to see if there might be some parts I could borrow, but it's essentially useless junk. Oh well, more scratchbuilding for me ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the comparison photos you posted captain, although it's hard to tell but it looks like the main body of the Com. is a bit skinny and the canopies may be a bit too bubbly.

With regards to being too skinny, I would have to say no, as my own plots were made directly off of the scaled lineart of the frontal view, and I even added an extra mm in thickness just to be safe. The canopies on the other hand are a tad bubblier (as seen in profile) than what the lineart depicts; I told myself that it would be safer to start off with something that has more volume, and depending on how they start to look when I flesh them out, I still have the option of flattening them a bit; always easier to remove than to add.

At any rate, once I start posting progress pics, you'll be able to see things more clearly. As with almost everything else in the Macross lineart, the 3/4 front and 3/4 rear views of the Commanchero contradict themselves on certain shapes/proportions, so creative interpretation is a necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup totally understand what your saying, I've got the line art books and in the front view the sides of the main body look straight up and down. Then if you look at the front 3/4 view it looks like the sides start to curve away just aft of the front cockpit giving it that mean beefy kick ass look.

So if you have to interpret it one way or the other I'd go with the mean beefy interpretation LOL

I'm sure you're sculpt with be beautiful however it comes out.

Here's a pic of what I'm talking about with the sides curving away as opposed to straight up and down.

post-198-1224120791_thumb.gif

Edited by Grayson72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with almost everything else in the Macross lineart, the 3/4 front and 3/4 rear views of the Commanchero contradict themselves on certain shapes/proportions, so creative interpretation is a necessity.

I agree with what Captain said. There is always contradiction when comparing schematic views and linearts in the modelling world. It is just like sculpting a F-16 using photographs and a F-16 using schematic diagrams, there will be differences in the outcome. There will always have some distortions when using only photographs as references. And with difference of how our eyes and the camera capture the real image, there is also differences when we are looking at the real thing and comparing it with the photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup totally understand what your saying, I've got the line art books and in the front view the sides of the main body look straight up and down. Then if you look at the front 3/4 view it looks like the sides start to curve away just aft of the front cockpit giving it that mean beefy kick ass look.

So if you have to interpret it one way or the other I'd go with the mean beefy interpretation LOL

I'm sure you're sculpt with be beautiful however it comes out.

Here's a pic of what I'm talking about with the sides curving away as opposed to straight up and down.

Yup, I know exactly what you mean. It looks like the sidewall flares out toward the bottom in the 3/4 view because of the panel line, but the font view the sides look flat. The natural conclusion: the panel is not perfectly vertical, but oblique. See my previously posted diagrams ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah baby! You can never have enough ordnance (unless your aircraft can't get off the ground)! I'm still trying to figure out why they put four massive engines on this design. Maybe "Tim the Toolman Taylor" was his inspiration! - MT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...