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.

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.

When I converted the design, I used the attack helicopter chassis.

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

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.

I'd kiss you Freund if you weren't an internet avatar.

http://invision.dumpshock.com/index.php?sh...t=0&#entry93534

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.

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

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.

The handling on it should suck total ass though. Like 6 or 8.

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.

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

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.

The hind is the result of a strange mid-air collision between a Blackhawk and an Apache.

Already done for you Johnny...

Check 3rd post

Mi-28
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/...elo_mi28_08.jpg
looks like Goofy!

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

That and it has the annoying tendency to crash and kill everyone from what I've read. Really cool idea from what I've heard, crappy implementation.

from what info i have available (a nice book covering most modern military aircraft, be it rotor or wing) the originalhind version had a 5 seat crew compartment and was retrofitted with a manual gun in the crew compartment (similar to the machinegun in the nose of some ww2 bombers) andsome stub wings for rocket pods. in fact not that dissimilar from the blackhawk. then a later version came along and it hand gotten the well known 2 seat tandem layout we know form the hueycobra on up. some early versions had a fixes machinegun munted on the side of the aircraft (below the pilot) but later ones got a chin turret.

so basicly the hind is a story of taking a base frame troopcarryer and utility copter and partialy converting it into a attack helo. master of none bit still e very interesting hybrid.

and then there is the fact that it was armored like a tank. from what i understand it could have taken a beating that would ground a apache and still do its mission, kinda like a helo version of the a-10

btw, didnt they make a plane called the frogfoot for mutch the same use as the a-10?

looks like it camo, looks like it

The Osprey sucks in any role.

My unit had the dubious honor of being the first Marine grunts on the West Coast to survive flying in an Osprey. The Osprey is good for two things:

1) Exploding in midair.
2) Killing Marines.

Whoever designed the seats must have grabbed the smallest WM he could find, and stuck her in the seat with no gear on, just cammies. We had trouble fitting, needless to say. There is more room on the benches in the back of an amtrac than the seats on the Osprey, and you dont have to buckle up in the amtrac. Its fun trying to squeeze yourself in so that you can sit down and buckle up when you're an average size guy, wearing a flak jacket and deuce gear. Try to suck your gut in all the way to your spine, and you'll see how hard it is to get that belt on. Now imagine that you're wearing a semi-flexible piece of body armor that adds considerably to your overall girth.

Someone got some serious kickbacks on the Osprey program.

The only good thing I have to say about that damn POS is that its fairly quick once you switch to flying like a plane. Minimizes the amount of time you have to spend in the air, which means your chances of exploding are reduced a little.

The CH-53, or Shitter, as its also known, is a much better helo, IMO.

Why the hell did they name a utility helo after a bird of prey, anyway? I guess it sounds better than the "V-22 Aerial Fireball", huh?

After reviewing the Body and Power Plant tables, the Attack Helo chassis may well be better for one that stresses the attack-side more and isn't supposed to transport more than a squad of infantry. The better starting ratings in electronics, and the incredible speed, really help in that regard. It has a better maximum Load than a Utility Helo as well. The only possible problem is the max CF rating, which should still be quite adequate for up to 10-15 troops -- and it only costs 75,000 to cap it.

The base price of a Jet Turbine Attack Helo is insane, though, at 625,000 vs 287,500 for a Jet Turbine Cargo Helo.

Yeah I noticed that. I'm trying to keep the base model under 1,000,000. It shouldn't be too hard as I want to make something thats a fair bit behind the SOTA curve that can be easily retrofitted.

One suggestion then: don't put any guns on it by default. Even the cheapest decent aircraft weapon, the Vanquisher HMG, is likely more expensive than you can fit in that budget. I know I would be humiliated to pilot an attack helo with a basic HMG on a turret or external mount...

You can probably pack several tons of payload, which means 10-20 Outlaw Block III heavy ATGMs, on the chassis though. The ready-made designs are just really lightly armed. Consider the "ground attack" fighter jet with a maximum payload of 2100kg of missiles/bombs -- a pitiful amount compared to any modern jet fighter. But you can design new aircraft with reasonable payloads.

I'm not saying that the vehicle design rules are perfect or anything, but it seems to me that the weak armament of ready designs hasn't got to do with the rules as much as them simply being weak builds.

[Edit]And remember, you can make a really heavy attack helo with the Cargo Helo chassis -- all you're losing is a bit of acceleration and 1 Sig, and you gain near-unlimited cargo space, 7000kg more load, 2 points of Body and a better fuel economy.[/Edit]

5 missiles? that depends on the missiles. allso rember that your not limited to one missile pr missile mount, in fact you can stack on as many missiles as it can handle based on weight if you want to. 4 reinforced missile mounts have a carry capacity of 1500 pr mount. 4 outlaws (to me thats hellfire in sr) takes about 200 eatch or 800 total. attack helos have a max carry weight of 5000 and can take 5 missile mounts (remeber that while they use body for max the same way the hardpoints and firmpoints do they have a seperate count).

3200 i load for the missiles and then its time to stack on the rest. 1-2 hardpoints used for a turret, 1-3 (depending on what turret you take) launch control systems and then stuff it wil armor and electronics. rember that the apache have never been anything more then lightly armored (it uses nap of the earth flying and hit&run tactics to stay in battle).

I was comparing the Outlaw MK III with the AGM-114 Hellfire as well, but Hellfires actually weigh just 45-49kg. You could fit 6 Hellfires per standard External Missile Mount -- 24 on 4 mounts for only 1200kg of Load. SR helos fare pretty well in that regard, actually. The amount of LCSs sucks ass, but I guess that's explained by the Crash of '29 (ie game balance).