 | | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
|
(...) Or why not using this setup? (URL) then click in "General Layouts" It also uses 2 counter-rotating rotors as the Chinook , but very close one to another Luis (comments, instructions, death threats, etc. please remove all the X's) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
(...) but it's smart solution i'll use it in next ver of my hoist if you don't mind regards pixel (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
<snip> (...) I found an easy solution to piston stacking: (URL) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
|
(...) That's not actually right. The chinook has a shaft connecting the rotors keeping them in sync. It has to have one as rotor blades are very flexible. Otherwise their would be a danger of the front rotors bending upwards and hitting the rear (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
(...) Yeah, you're right! There seems to be a ball joint towards the chassis which don't make sence if it don't have suspension. (...) The old photo is of no help other then to verify the front wheel steering. /Tobbe (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
(...) There could still be a springless tilting suspension, the kind which always keeps all four wheels on the ground, even with some uneven surface. This is the kind you would typically see on the front wheels of a real vehicle like this. I don't (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
(...) I notice that the new valves and cylinders are more "technicified", i.e., they no longer have stud connection, but rather a connection via technic pins/axles. I think that this appears to be a good idea, it makes them easier to incorporate in (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
(...) It could, but I don't think so. Suspension and a pneumatic pump on top does not seem like a very good mix, but who knows? /Tobbe (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
"Tobbe Arnesson" <StPnAtM@lotek.nu> wrote in message news:H9u01y.Fpr@lugnet.com... <cut> (...) imo there is a part (URL) it mean the front wheels are suspensioned? :))) (...) in older pictures there was no engine (...) the (...) for me its about (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets
|
|
(...) Ahhh! That 7471 Mars rover is just screaming for me to add my RCX:s to it! I want it NOW! (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.space, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
(...) I had the chance to play with it at the Nurnberg Toy Fair, 10 piston, 2 pumps , no air tank :( It has new pistons and new valve. marco (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
(...) Indeed it seems like your right! Zoomes in some more on the photo... (...) I think as follow, front to aft pneumatics only: 1) Two pistons to tilt bucket, clearly showing, and new type of piston w/o bottom 2x2, I dislike it 'cause it will be (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
take a closer look at 8455 IMHO it has more than 9 pistons near the right rear stake there is one valve positioned in other way i think its valve to control rotation of arm so is has to have 10 or even 11 pistons (and there is 2 pumps) what do you (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets
|
|
(...) Indead. Some parts are special and very expensive on Bricklink (e.g. the 75 inverted slopes and 4 studs long pieces with round top). Very usefull! Dennis (22 years ago, 3-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.modelteam)
|
| |
| | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
|
"Ross Crawford" <rcrawford@csi.com> wrote in message news:H9tAp0.A1n@lugnet.com... (...) challenge 8?) i'm working on it i developed new fixed 3 blade rotor in a week or two i should be prepared to show you the results of my work regards pixel (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets
|
|
<<snip>> (...) I think the boat is part of the new creator line where you buy a box of LEGO and get suggestions for several models, one box focus on animals <set:4101> while others go towards robots, mecha, fishes etc.. That line is due in April. (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.modelteam)
|
| |
| | Re: 2003's gonna ruin my savings account...
|
|
(...) Yeah, as I thought earlier. I'm just happy I didn't go crazy standing there in the store aisle when I discoveed the new sets. :) The fourth series of adventurers sets definitely hits the mark here! (...) And the main reason I went to the store (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.modelteam, lugnet.adventurers, lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.space, lugnet.technic, lugnet.town, lugnet.year.2003)
|
| |
| | 2003's gonna ruin my savings account...
|
|
After seeing my Jan-Feb SAH Catalog and these three posts (and wiping the drool off my keyboard): (URL) I can say is... ...wait for it... WOW! COOL! SWEET! SUPERB! AWESOME! TERRIFIC! GREAT! YEAH! WHOOPEE! ALRIGHT! UH-HUH! YES! SUPER! *pant, pant* (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.modelteam, lugnet.adventurers, lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.space, lugnet.technic, lugnet.town, lugnet.year.2003)
|
| |
| | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
|
(...) The chinook gets around this by having the rotors on different levels - the rear one is sufficiently high to ensure it can't hit the front. (...) Yes, enough power to lift a LEGO helicopter would definitely be a challenge 8?) ROSCO (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
|
(...) Ross - The challenge I'd run into would be coordinating the blades so they don't chop each other to pieces. Or I'd have to space them out quite a bit - the rotor I used in my last try had a radius of about 16L. Another problem I'd face is (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
