Subject:
|
Re: New MOC: Moller M400 Skycar
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Sep 2001 05:08:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
684 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.build, Mark Chan writes:
> Keep on trying! I'd love to see your MOC. First isn't always better -
> modifications to existing models are what makes LUGNET great - and I've
> learned a lot from studying the designs of great "small space" model makers
> such as Bram Lambrecht.
Ah, yes, thanks for jogging my memory. I should go check out Bram's stuff
again. All those minifig-scale sports cars...
[...]
> In lugnet.build, John J. Ladasky, Jr. writes:
> > Unlike Mark's excellent model, I've copped out a little on modeling the
> > engines -- I'm just using the Lego turbofan parts
> > <http://img.lugnet.com/ld/7/4868.gif>, which are about the right size for a
> > minifig-scale Skycar. Attaching the Lego turbofans to the model presents
> > its own interesting set of challenges...
>
> Thanks for the complement! Did you try using two 1x1 "headlight" bricks in
> the fuselage?
Perhaps I'm artifically restricting myself, but I'm insisting on using a 4 X
4 top triple and a 4 X 4 bottom triple for the nose. And I've decided that,
if I separate these with more than two trapezoid plates, it just looks
bulky, not sleek like The Real Thing. Therefore, there's *no room* for a
full-sized headlight brick in the nose -- I have just a two-plate clearance.
Yes, I got the front engines attached. It's fragile, and getting it to work
involved thinking *way* outside the box. Think light-saber blades. I don't
have a digital camera, otherwise I'd take a picture.
I'm also insisting on an airtight cockpit, which creates its own set of
headaches -- particularly with the Naboo Fighter canopy. In my current
iteration, the fuselage walls are SNOT. Not sure whether it will remain
this way.
> I agree with some of the earlier posts that my engines could
> be bigger, but they don't make 3 stud diameter cylinders. I think the part
> you suggest would look really good. However, you might have to give up on
> the vectored duct fans at the rear if you did this.
Yes. I decided to let this detail go.
> Do they make these turbofans in red?
As far as I know, they are only made in white (various aircraft) or dark
grey (the Destroyer Droid).
> > I have a retractable front wheel, like The Real Thing, but I haven't figured
> > out how to enclose it. I am considering doing violence to existing Lego
> > parts to make what I want. Stop me, stop me!
>
> I'm begging you, Don't do it! IMO, if I ever crossed that line, there would
> be no logical place to stop, and I might as well give up Lego and start
> carving models out of balsa wood. The challenge of Lego is to use what they
> give you, and the beauty of Lego is that there are so many different parts
> to use - as long as you have the wherewithal to get them. I don't even use
> stickers that are non-Lego, although I've been sorely tempted after seeing a
> lot of the great Train MOC's....
I guess I can understand using stickers for custom rolling stock -- when you
want to say, "this is MY railroad." Personally, I don't use stickers at
all. A Lego model should be able to say what it is without stickers.
Besides, I hate cleaning the residue off of parts when I disassemble a model...
> My trick to retractable gear in a small space is to not bother to "reclose"
> the fuselage so it is flush when closed. Check out my X-wing. From most
> standard viewing angles, you can hardly tell that it's not 100% enclosed.
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=2562
I see it. Very nice. It's somewhat easier with the X-wing, of course,
since the landing gear is a foot rather than a wheel. The foot is,
essentially, its own door.
[...]
> I read that they are 63 decibels on takeoff,
Only 63 dB? Somewhere I had a newspaper article that said something in
excess of 80 dB. Louder than a lawnmower (but quieter than a rock concert).
> and that they could be modified to run on natural gas or hydrogen fuel cells.
I'm an enviro type. I'd love to live on a roadless piece of property. The
major sociological change that I see occuring in a Skycar-based world is
that roadless living becomes practical, which would bring about a
renaissance of rural society and interest in the land. But I couldn't
justify traveling that way, if my vehicle burned gasoline and got SUV-type
mileage. Right now, I drive a 38-mpg car six miles to work, and my son
carpools with me most of that way.
> I'm hoping they become
> practical, not only because it would be cool, but also because it would be a
> contemporary example of the determined individual scientist/inventor making
> a grand technological and social change (which is nearly impossible for an
> individual to drive in today's complex development world). To think that all
> of Detroit and the aerospace industry have laughed at him for 30+ years....
They'll be outrageously expensive when they first appear. Moller said he's
hoping to get them down to $60K/vehicle eventually. That's still a lot. I
wonder, too, if that price includes any contribution toward developing the
air-traffic control infrastructure.
Consider this: there are perhaps a few thousand aircraft operating in U.S.
airspace at any given moment. At that same moment, several MILLION cars are
being driven. If just one in a thousand people automobile trips were
replaced by Skycar trips, the existing air-traffic control system would be
overwhelmed. Given recent events, I'll bet that the air-traffic control
system will be vigorously protected from any changes.
> For better or worse, the Skycar would also make an ideal military vehicle
> for "low intensity" conflicts such as the one the US is considering.
As long as your opponent hasn't already been supplied with U.S.-made Stinger
surface-to-air missiles... oops...
> This
> may also spur funding and development, and although I don't think Moller
> would (or should) take any more help in developing the skycar without his
> 100% control of it, he'd probably welcome funding to produce the skycar.
>
> I hope he makes his dream a reality - it's a very inspirational story.
>
> Mark Chan
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New MOC: Moller M400 Skycar
|
| (...) Keep on trying! I'd love to see your MOC. First isn't always better - modifications to existing models are what makes LUGNET great - and I've learned a lot from studying the designs of great "small space" model makers such as Bram Lambrecht. (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.build)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
