Quick question to the list hive-mind......
I'm going to be doing a troop-carrying version of the Mantis VTOL (in
15mm), in response to many requests, but I'm torn between two basic design
ideas"
1) keep the Mantis cockpit off the Gunship, and have a troop "pod" behind it
(a box that is either a fixed part of the main fuselage or
could be demountable/deployable?) so that there is no direct access
between troop bay and cockpit, or...
2) sculpt a complete new cockpit as an integral part of a much wider
troop-carrying fuselage, in the style of most modern helis, so that
the grunts in the back have direct access to the crew in the front.
Especially for those of you who have real-world military experience,
if you're (say) a squad leader riding in the back of a helo, is it
advantageous to be able to move "up front" to see what's going on and talk to
the pilot, for morale if not tactical reasons? I know that this is SF and we
can just say that the guys in the back can have complete VR views relayed from
the cockpit, and of course anyone can talk to each other via commlink at any
time, but does it make a difference on any level? Is the pilot considered part
of the unit (by the grunts themselves, not necessarily on the TO&E chart), or
do they just look on him as a taxi driver....?
> On Tuesday 25 November 2008 07:54:58 Ground Zero Games wrote:
So the Aliens coming up the loading ramp have direct access to the crew?
Would deploying in exotic environments affect the design decision? If the
troop area needs to open to the environment for fast deploy, then sealing off
the cockpit may have a benefit.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 23:54, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Quick question to the list hive-mind......
This is pretty much the regime I was brought up in.... Or as long as there is
a com link personal contact isn't a requirement
--
Evyn
> 1) keep the Mantis cockpit off the Gunship, and have a troop "pod"
Without any military experience: go for option 1 with separate pods. This way
you can also transport vehicles, and even with some slight tweaking a 'twin
pod' transporter.
In my experience (limited) pilots are "Bus Drivers", we only see them during
the lift, if then. I would expect some mobility for the crew chief to move
about the cabin in order to check/adjust things. Modular sounds good in
concept, but I think fails in execution.
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 12:54 AM
To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: troop-carrying VTOLs....?
> Quick question to the list hive-mind......
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lFun
ny how I read "this is SF" and interpreted this as "this is a Special Forces
vehicle"...
The crew might now want the grunts to have such free access. The crew might
have a separate armored compartment, increased crew protection since they fly
in and out, are potentially under fire both ways.
Plus it probably costs more to train a aircrew than a bunch of grunts, so the
government might want to armor the crew compartment.
F.P. Kiesche III "Ah Mr.Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always,
scribble, scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented
with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at The
Lensman's Children and TexasBestGrok!
> --- On Tue, 11/25/08, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
Subject: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: troop-carrying VTOLs....?
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008, 2:54 AM
Quick question to the list hive-mind......
I'm going to be doing a troop-carrying version of the Mantis VTOL (in
15mm), in response to many requests, but I'm torn between two basic design
ideas"
1) keep the Mantis cockpit off the Gunship, and have a troop "pod" behind it
(a box that is either a fixed part of the main fuselage or
could be demountable/deployable?) so that there is no direct access
between troop bay and cockpit, or...
2) sculpt a complete new cockpit as an integral part of a much wider
troop-carrying fuselage, in the style of most modern helis, so that
the grunts in the back have direct access to the crew in the front.
Especially for those of you who have real-world military experience,
if you're (say) a squad leader riding in the back of a helo, is it
advantageous to be able to move "up front" to see what's going on and talk to
the pilot, for morale if not tactical reasons? I know that this is SF and we
can just say that the guys in the back can have complete VR views relayed from
the cockpit, and of course anyone can talk to each other via commlink at any
time, but does it make a difference on any level? Is the pilot considered part
of the unit (by the grunts themselves, not necessarily on the TO&E chart), or
do they just look on him as a taxi driver....?
Jon (GZG)
Funny you should mention this. I was eye-balling the Mantis to see if I
could extend the fuselage to turn it into a carrier for combat walkers.
I would rather see the Mantis stay a gunships and see something different
sculpted for the troop carrier. Troop transport aircraft have completely
different needs than gunships. I would love to see the cargo area left modular
so that in the future new modules could be added. I am imagining something
like a scaled down Sky Hook where the fuselage is mainly a frame that sits
over the attached module. Some module ideas...
1) Troop Transport
2) Vehicle Carrier
3) Infantry Support (think Spectre gunship w/ side-mounted weapons or
maybe even and underslung turret)
4) Utility
Just some thoughts for you exciting new idea.
-Eli
> At 7:54 AM +0000 11/25/08, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I would suggest that you use components from the mantis to represent the troop
carrying version. Tail engine pods, landing gear components,
cockpit, etc and make the pod for the dismounts/cargo to be more
integral with the rear section vice an 'attached' pod.
BAsed on what's gone forwards so far for aircraft, podded segments are VERY
unusual. Perhaps the strength leaves something to be desired. But cargo
versions of attack helicopters generally have entirely separate airframes with
common components (not really a help for your purposes I know).
> At 9:28 AM -0800 11/25/08, Fred Kiesche wrote:
If they're Special Forces, I would argue that a military probably has a
similar amount of time and money invested in their training as they do in the
pilots and crew chief. Even regular infantry in a modern 1st world military
has a LOT of time and money invested in their workup.
> At 10:00 AM -0800 11/25/08, Eli Arndt wrote:
Anything larger/heavier than the weapons packs on the base model will
shorten the range, lower the service ceiling and lower the speed. Large
increases will have LARGe bites of your performance envelope.
A LARGER version with MORE fuselage and say, 4 or 6 engine pods would make
more sense I think. It allows modular components for commonality with the
existing craft.
> 3) Infantry Support (think Spectre gunship w/ side-mounted weapons or
Well, Gunships like that are good because they have high loiter time. VTOLs
won't necessarily have that.
> 4) Utility
Same function as the troop transport model I think.
I think this comes down to how modular is accomplished. There is no reason
that the module couldn't dock up with the cockpit once engaged. A pressure
door could seal the two compartments away from one another, but still allow
access in case of emergency or for the crew chief to check things on missions.
-Eli
"In my experience (limited) pilots are "Bus Drivers", we only see them during
the lift, if then. I would expect some mobility for the crew chief to move
about the cabin in order to check/adjust things. Modular sounds good in
concept, but I think fails in execution."
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lPil
ots do tend to be 'bus drivers'. HOWEVER....
Most modern military craft have to be multi-mission capable (unless
you're in a really big military that can afford spec purpose gear for all
scenarios). Even a 'slick' may have occasion to mount some ordinance or to act
in as casevac role or cargo transport role as the situation on the ground
demands it.
Think of your average troop carrying chopper nowadays: Most can or will mount
some form of defensive suite as well as some form of limited offense (or at
least can do so). Most will also be used for extractions. Most have onboard
crew gunners who help to clear LZ's and cover people moving to the LZ or the
vehicle extracting from the LZ. If they're a CSAR or Medevac configuration,
they'll have some dedicated medical personel. And they will need to be in or
around the troop compartment.
I know you're trying to keep a look, but a useful troop transport should
handle at least 8 troops and maybe as many as 12. That augurs for a bigger
vehicle. I think the Mantis is too small and streamlined. You might want to
think about a whole independent design.
I don't know about anyone else but I liked the old CMD BoxCar and SuperBoxcar
designs. I always wanted to see them in resins in the bigger lines.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lRya
> n Gill wrote:
It's more a matter of weight, I think. The pod has to be a
self-contained structure for the times it's on the ground by itself, and
the lift vehicle has to be a complete structure for when it's not carrying a
pod. So at the connection between them, there's twice as much
structure as there needs to be if it's a non-podded design, which is
heavy.
> But cargo versions of attack helicopters generally have entirely
Oh, I dunno... As someone suggested earlier, why not use the "dynamics"
of the Mantis -- engines, tail, even the cockpit if you think in-line
seating is appropriate (though most transports have side-by-side
seating; not all, though -- look at the Mi-24 /Hind/ which, though famed
as a gunship, could also carry troops) -- and add a custom-built
fuselage for the transport mission. To take another example from the
real world, think H-1 "Huey". The original Huey gunships were converted
transports used to cover "slicks" (unarmed troop transports) on
insertion and retrieval missions; later, the AH-1 HueyCobra was
designed, replacing the UH-1 fuselage with a specialist body for the
gunship role. Why not do something similar for the Mantis, only in reverse?
I like the idea of using pods/modules, but I also have to admit that it
will have its drawbacks.
Phil
> At 9:04 PM +0000 11/25/08, Phillip Atcliffe wrote:
of the Mantis -- engines, tail, even the cockpit if you think in-line
seating is appropriate (though most transports have side-by-side
seating; not all, though -- look at the Mi-24 Hind which, though famed
as a gunship, could also carry troops) --
It's really an extra large Gunship with some extra room for troops. The
MI-8 HIP which uses a LOT of the same components (engines, avionics,
rotors, gearboxes) has a different airframe and is a full on trashhauler.
It would seem that the VTOL in question, as a small 2 man unit would have
scant room in it's performance envelope to keep weapons AND carry
infantry/cargo.
> and add a custom-built fuselage for the transport mission. To take
That's my point. A pod under the existing airframe with retained weapons would
likely have little extra performance.
> I like the idea of using pods/modules, but I also have to admit that it
Pretty much what I was saying.
Hmmmm,
I think I could live with a dedicated vehicles as long as the moel
construction was still modular. Perhaps the vehicles is not modular, but the
construction is? What this means is that new configurations can be made
without the having to redesign the whole vehicle.
This would allow John to produce a number of models off the same basic model
much like he has with the armored veicles. If people want to play them as
totally modular, then fine, but you could easily say they are all varient
models.
-Eli
> I think this comes down to how modular is accomplished. There is no
The point is more about the design of the Mantis gunship cockpit; it's a
narrow tandem seat module accessed via an opening canopy, not
a "flight deck" like a Huey or Blackhawk with two side-by-side seats
and room for someone to squeeze between them from the rear compartment.....
I think that for this particular design, I'm going to stick with the current
cockpit and a small separate troop pod (for around 8 grunts) behind it; I may
at some point also do a slightly larger VTOL with a more conventional layout.
Jon (GZG)
> "In my experience (limited) pilots are "Bus Drivers", we only see them
> >I think this comes down to how modular is accomplished. There is no
Further to my own post, when I refer to a separate troop pod I DON'T
necessarily mean a demountable one - simply that it's isolated from
the cockpit module (a very valid point was made earlier about operations in
hostile environments, where it may be advantageous to keep the cockpit sealed
and only open the grunts' bay to any noxious
nasties....).
With reference to weaponry, if I keep the Mantis cockpit (or even if I
redesigned it) I will keep the chin gun, but the missile pods will go to make
room for the troop bay. Of course, the troop pod could
also have some armament of its own, perhaps a pair of ball-mounted
tribarrels on the front corners for suppression of a hot LZ...?
Jon (GZG)
> "In my experience (limited) pilots are "Bus Drivers", we only see them
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 01:48, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Of course, the troop pod could
How about the back corners for those tri-barrels. That way one could
have close to 360 degrees of coverage. That would be the request if I where
doing the procurement.
--
Evyn
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 01:48, Ground Zero Games
OK, good point! :-)
Jon (GZG)
> --
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJon
said...
> Quick question to the list hive-mind......
<snip>
Pretty late in the day, but my 2 pennorths as good as anyones. I say option 2.
You could still have a tandem cockpit layout (it worked for the dropship in
Aliens), but the separate module style would be better for a loadlifter or
civvy version in my mind. You could still use the same engine pods and
defensive tribarrels for a "wholebody" VTOL.
What I would like to ask though, is are there any plans to
revise/"re-imagine" the classic AV6 VTOL from the 25mm and 6mm lines
(SF25-35 and DSM-102 for those who don't know)? The original was pretty
much an iconic design and graced many a mailorder catalogue cover and magazine
advert, at least as far as my flaky memory tells me. If things like the
Paladin, Phalanx and Wombat have received the 15mm "treatment", why not the
AV6? It still looks the part to my mind even today. I guess
there's an element of "stuck-record" with all these requests for
personal favourites to be re-done in 15mm, but I think it could be
warranted in this case.
Steve.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 06:04, Stephen Bond <daibaka2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> What I would like to ask though, is are there any plans to
I agree I would love to see the AV6 in 15mm
--
Evyn