 | | 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)
|
