SA-43 Hammerhead Fighter

[Revell-Fan]

I have just checked the proportions of the model. They are wrong.

This is a quick overlay of orthographic renderings of the original CG model:



You can clearly see that the outlines do not match.

You should not start unfolding before making some changes to the mesh.

Source of the original renderings:
http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=741

 

[zathros]

Yup, this happens all the time. You can get away with it on fictional stuff though , and it would be a cool model nonetheless, many would build it too, as there is nothing else, but for reality based models, no way. Valiant effort though.

 

[Sky Seeker]

I need to clean up some stuff and create the interior of the drop-in cockpit but this one is do-able and has the landing-gear and I re-worked the rest of the mesh and it has been cleaned up to unfold. Going to take some careful work around the intake area and wing join but when is that ever NOT the case.. Who wants to unfold this beast? or at least help out?

View attachment 157980

This design looks sharp! I'll be happy to do a test build of it, after the Vorchan is done of course!

Sky Seeker
:tank:

 

[Gandolf50]

I have just checked the proportions of the model. They are wrong.

This is a quick overlay of orthographic renderings of the original CG model:

View attachment 157985

You can clearly see that the outlines do not match.

You should not start unfolding before making some changes to the mesh.

Source of the original renderings:
http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=741

It is not the same model! Just a variation that is buildable with ( cockpit in the works ... DROP-IN as in the TV show) and fold up workable landing gear and such! This one is buildable!

You are comparing to this one...SAAB Wildcard version...
it is still off a slight bit. as the intakes are not slanted as far as the original, and the fuselage is a bit narrow but matches your comparison fairly well. Trouble with the real version ( I know we want the REAL DEAL) it is UGLY! and almost impossible to make buildable. Was looking at references and these lines are Nasty for paper! and the landing gear! acckkk!! That rear gear will NEVER WORK!
Got some of the original concept sketches...and the mesh in the TV show is fairly close.. but not the TV full scale version ..they goofed on a lot of things..

... Hard to tell but in this screen grab looks like the intake is flattened more like my version ... this screen grab view shows the curves of the rear sections that will play hell with a paper version...

So all and all I'll chalk this one up to an exercise and file it away to the Maybe Someday If I GET AROUND TO IT FOLDER...

 

[Revell-Fan]

Ahh, I see! Now I got it!

I agree about the ... (cough) "landing gear" (cough) on the mockup. It looks like a pair of tooth picks...

 

[zathros]

Worse than the Boeing B-17's!!!

 

[Gandolf50]

Ahh, I see! Now I got it!

I agree about the ... (cough) "landing gear" (cough) on the mockup. It looks like a pair of tooth picks...

Yep.. just for show...actually...not for show...just to haul the thing around from location to location...as these things would never fold up into the craft...it would be a physical impossibility.

Worse than the Boeing B-17's!!!

Well at least the B17 would fold up...

but most of the time when landing the plane....
lots of belly flops.

Hey...doesn't the hammerhead remind you of the SR-71B Blackbird in away?

 

[Revell-Fan]

I think more of the Grumman X-29, paired with the F-117.

The landing gear you have designed reminds me of the fictional F-19. It too has a very low profile and angled "legs":

source: http://fantastic-plastic.com/TESTORS F-19 LOW FRONT.jpg

 

[zathros]

I think even a bad model of the Hammerhead would be widely accepted. Make one wheels up to avoid that hassles. People would eat this up.

 

[Revell-Fan]

I think even a bad model of the Hammerhead would be widely accepted.

I don't think so. If you make a model, just do it "right". Not "bad". I would consider a "bad" model having lots of intersections, parts which are unfolded in a way that you may break your fingers during assembly and which is too simplified (e. g. edgy and flat). This one looks like a fairly good interpretation of the subject.

 

[Rhaven Blaack]

I have to say that this one looks better than the ones that are available. If someone is willing to unfold it, I would be willing to do the test build.

 

[Ron Caudillo]

I think even a bad model of the Hammerhead would be widely accepted. Make one wheels up to avoid that hassles. People would eat this up.

I wouldn't consider it "bad". My models tend to be "close enough", can never get it 100% due to the limitations of paper anyway. I for one, have always wanted one!

Ron Caudillo

 

[Revell-Fan]

INDEED!

 

[zathros]

This is true, with using water forming techniques I described a long time ago, many limitations can be overcome. You must have a printer that uses Pigment Ink only, or be willing to pain the part by hand. Dan B King used water forming on his Discovery model, and the front is a multi-compound curves, the makes the ship prop worthy for any movie.

 

[Gandolf50]

Left lots of "Room" for greebles as well as advanced or basic...like include the landing gear or not.. open or closed.. cockpit or not ( not created yet BTW ) or at least.. not fitted as a drop in unit. lots of fiddly bits.. that need attention to check fit and workability...

Landing gear with doors removed and open interior shows all the available space to fold them up...( got the interior surround but removed to show space)..

only areas that will be problems are the intakes and the nose... but the nose is broken down to basic elements so won't be that difficult...

 

[dirkpitt289]

I'm a HUGE fan of S,AAB and would love to find a model of the Hammerhead in any medium.