![]() |
![]() |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 243 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Abu Dhabi Member No.: 318 ![]() |
At the moment I am playing in an on/off game of SR. My character, a greasemonkey vory v zakone is looking to restore and upgrade a scrapped Eurowar-era attack/transport chopper. The only problem I am having is deciding what chassis to base it on. Throw down your vote to help me decide, and if you're so inclined, particular design or customisation options that you'd suggest.
|
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 30-May 03 From: Tulsa, OK Member No.: 4,652 ![]() |
I say go with whichever chassis gets you closest to what you're looking for from the thing. I'd probably try building it using all three and then take the one that fits what I'm looking for the best.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,763 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Special Hell Member No.: 284 ![]() |
When I converted the design, I used the attack helicopter chassis.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|||
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 243 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Abu Dhabi Member No.: 318 ![]() |
I have been leaning that way, though I have been trying to find a way to get 3 folding bench seats in within the cf |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#5
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Pueblo Corporate Council Member No.: 2,020 ![]() |
From what I remember in my days designing helos, Attack helecopters are things like Apaches & Cobras: small two-man units. Autogyros are the one-man biting flies.
Cargo Helicopters are things like Chinooks, Sea Stallions & Jolly Green Giants... enormous behemoths that can lift multiple tonnes. So it settle on Utility helos, which seem to cover everything from JetRangers (your average TV helo) to BlackHawks... and a HiND is pretty much an armoured BlackHawk: transports a platoon, but can kill tanks if it has to. Also, I think that SoTA:63 has a good section on European Mercenary gear... and the EuroWars leftovers that you speak of. Check it out, it might help resolve your quandry! BaronJ |
|
|
![]()
Post
#6
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 118 Joined: 20-June 04 Member No.: 6,423 ![]() |
Really, I'd probably build it using a Utility helicopter frame or a Cargo frame, since it's so large. It might be a bit difficult to build using Rigger 3 that you might have to custom build it.
Off the stats I'm looking at on the Federation of American Scientists website, the Hind would probably have a Load of 3000kg (11,500kg Max. Takeoff Weight - 8,500kg Dry Weight; if you must know, as a comparison, the Apache has a dry weight of 5.9t and a MTO weight of around 7t, give or take 200kg depending on the block), have a Body of 6 (it's dry weight is within the 7.5 to 20t range). The Hind's engines were taken off the Mi-8 Hip, which is a high-endurance multi-role transport helicopter, so they're really powerful engines. A wingless prototype of the Mi-24 Hind, known as the A-10, broke the airspeed record for helicopters when it was introduced (which was set at 368km/h). The Hind itself was designed for combat transport, with it's best western counterpart being the Bell Iroquois (in fact, the early mockups of the Hind looked very much like the Huey in "Bushranger" mode). It ended up being good at both transport and combat, since the weapon pylon wings were a design standard, not an add-on like on many transport copters. *on edit* With a combined internal fuel store of 3047liters (which is internal tank plus aux tank in cabin (not sure if it's optional or not)) and a range of 450km (900km total distance, back and forth), fuel efficiency comes to 0.29km/l. Also, comparing the stats with the Chinook, it would be a medium lift cargo helicopter. The Hind is a bit larger than the Chinook with it's tail, and it's max TO weight is just a smidge over the Chinook's (Chinook Max TO weight: 11,032kg) and the Chinook's Load would be 2270kg (external load). The Hind would probably be considered a cargo helicopter. BTW, with wings, max airspeed is 295km/h. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#7
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 243 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Abu Dhabi Member No.: 318 ![]() |
I'd kiss you Freund if you weren't an internet avatar. :)
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#8
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 ![]() |
http://invision.dumpshock.com/index.php?sh...t=0entry93534
About Young Freud's stats: dry weight doesn't include fuel, max take-off does, so Load rating should probably be lower than 3,000kg (since in SR fuel isn't part of Load). I personally think the Aux fuel systems are better left for the external fuel tanks. There's not much room to play around with the Body, unfortunately, so you're really stuck with BOD 7. Lots more explanation and other crap in the linked post. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#9
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 637 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,528 ![]() |
Given that the MI-24 is no longer the prime attack helicopter IRL (It still fills the role due to budget reasons) and the current models where in service back in the 1980s! you should cast a look at current model russian attack choppers like the Mi-28 and Kamanov Ka50/52. Those are closer to the western breed (single/double seaters)
Birdy |
|
|
![]()
Post
#10
|
|
Knight Templar ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 212 Joined: 20-June 04 From: Ipswich, UK Just South of the Stinkfens Member No.: 6,424 ![]() |
The Hind wasn't designed as a pure attack chopper. The Hind was designed for the KGB Border Guards to stop entry into the old Soviet Union, particularly in the south to stop drug runners. That's why it has passenger carrying capacity, for a unit of Border Guards. The Red Army wanted an attack chopper but took what there was at the time.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#11
|
|
Shooting Target ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,840 Joined: 24-July 02 From: Lubbock, TX Member No.: 3,024 ![]() |
The handling on it should suck total ass though. Like 6 or 8.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#12
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 ![]() |
Remember that a Handling of 6 would mean that an average, non-rigger piloting the Hind, flying Nap-of-Earth at 240km/h, might take minutes to stop the vehicle. With a Skill of 4, there's a 48% percent chance of failing any unmodified Handling test when the Handling is 6. With a Handling of 8, taking the Hind beyond cruising speed would be suicide without a high-rating VCR. Anything beyond Handling 4 is a flying brick. At 6 or higher, we're talking wingless A-10.
Simply because people without VCRs and 1-digit Rotorcraft skills have managed to pilot these things in combat, they shouldn't have a Handling over 5. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#13
|
|
Shooting Target ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,840 Joined: 24-July 02 From: Lubbock, TX Member No.: 3,024 ![]() |
I could go with 5, but every document I've ever read points out that the Hind flies worse then any bird in the air, man-made or otherwise.
It's effective because it's a flying tank, not because it handles well :) |
|
|
![]()
Post
#14
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 ![]() |
Handling 5 is still in the "does not handle well" range, Handling 6 and more is "does not handle, period". It'd be a bitch just to get in air, take forever to get accelerated to a decent speed, etc etc. Yet people have been flying them for years, and more dropped in Afghanistan because of SAMs than because they couldn't change their course with only a 5-minute warning that there's a mountain up ahead.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#15
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 944 Joined: 19-February 03 Member No.: 4,128 ![]() |
The hind is the result of a strange mid-air collision between a Blackhawk and an Apache.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#16
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 424 Joined: 11-May 02 From: Marauding the mighty North Saskatchewan Member No.: 2,720 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#17
|
|||
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 424 Joined: 11-May 02 From: Marauding the mighty North Saskatchewan Member No.: 2,720 ![]() |
Its largely because the Hind was designed as to date the world's only "assault helicopter" At slow speeds it handles incredibly poorly because it requires so much of its power just to stay aloft - that is to say less power is available for manuvering. In cruise flight however the Hind shines as its stub wings provide 30% of its lift - consequently the hind still holds the helicopter speed and altitude records. Keep in mind as well that a helo's handling diminishes significantly at altitude as air density decreases - example the mountains of Afghanistan - by comparison neither the Apache nor the Blackhawk can operate in that terrain - The Chinook is one of the few helos the forces in Afghanistan can deploy. The Hind's mission is to move fast to the target area, dump its payload of men or ordinance and then retreat to refuel and re-arm to return. In that aspect it was designed perfectly. Essentially fulfilling the same role as the old Il-2. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#18
|
|||
Traumatizing players since 1992 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 ![]() |
I actually relly, really like that design. It can fit 10 bench seats in it too IIRC. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#19
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 269 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 752 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#20
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 ![]() |
You'll need to modify lodestar's Mi-60 a bit to get it operational, though -- Launch Control Systems being #1 on the acquisitions list. Unless of course those are already calculated into the numbers but just don't appear on the Other Features -list. It's a great basic build-up for one from an Utility Helo chassis, though.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#21
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 424 Joined: 11-May 02 From: Marauding the mighty North Saskatchewan Member No.: 2,720 ![]() |
Launch control systems would depend on the ordinance installed, for various types of autocannon, MG or dumb rockets they wouldn't be necessary. For example the Hind itself doesn't usually have its UB-32s if its in the troop carrying role.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#22
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 ![]() |
In SR, those would be required with almost any load-out, since you cannot fire any rockets (dumb or smart) or missiles without them. Only cannons can be fired without. Certainly the amount required might vary, depending on whether you have batteries of smaller missiles or only a few heavier ones -- but adding Launch Control Systems can be a bit of a pain in the ass, especially if we're talking about an organised crime operative instead of military use. To save yourself bookkeeping, you might as well add a few LCS's right away. The basic version probably would anyway.
[Edit]Uh-oh. You'll have to do away with the external hard-points if you want to fire any rockets or missiles with the Mi-60 -- hardpoint/firmpoint restrictions. Better get rid of the other, have the other under the nose, and stick in 2 Medium LCS's by default.[/Edit] [Edit #2]I don't really believe in the hard-/firmpoint limited by Body crap, so if you don't feel a need to remain absolutely canon, and would like to use a low-Body chassis for this, I suggest you ignore that rule -- or at least run it so that LCS's don't take hard- or firmpoints.[/Edit #2] This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Sep 1 2004, 11:40 PM |
|
|
![]()
Post
#23
|
|||
Prime Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3,763 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Special Hell Member No.: 284 ![]() |
While true that a Hind utilizes its stub wings to provide a good amount of lift, it in no way can move faster than modern attack helicopters. A quick google search reveals that the current world speed record is held by a Westland Lynx, which clocked in at 249.1 MPH. Impressive given that conventional helicopters cannot fly faster than 250 MPH. Article here. Also, it appears that the altitude record is held by a modified SA-315 Lama, although I can't find any substantiation for that claim. The altitude specified is 40,820 ft. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#24
|
|
Target ![]() Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Reinbek, Germany Member No.: 72 ![]() |
If you want a nice design for an extrapolation of the Hinds tactical role into the tech of SR, you could take a closer look at the M-100 gunships in Ralph Peters' "The War of 2020":
Tilt-Wing design, armed with a railgun and a gatling, with heavy-duty EW-equipment and room to carry an 8-man infantry-squad. I posted a conversion of it in one of the earlier incarnations of these forums. Perhaps I have an offline-copy of that thread lying around somewhere. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#25
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 ![]() |
I've been close enough to a Hind to touch, and it is in no way a huge helicopter - it's bulky compared to an Apache but compared to something like a Blackhawk, it doesn't have a lot of useful cargo space.
Its ability to carry a squad of eight troops (in full combat gear, presumably) is a fiction. That troop compartment is tiny. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st July 2025 - 10:41 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.