 | | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
(...) Yes, I agree. However, I'd rather see them with axle holes instead of smooth holes. Regardless, I'm amazed and very happy to see this new set! -TJ (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
|
(...) The shafts of the rotors are angled outwards. Look at the pictures on the general layout page. There's one of the machine looking from the front- you'll notice the shafts are angled. TJ (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
I'm envious that you got to play with this already Marco. I'm certainly buying it. It will be interesting to see what else I can make with that list of parts. 10 pistons is a lot! Kevin (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
(...) Thanks. It is strong also. (...) Be my guest. (...) Kevin (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
|
(...) Hi Luis - Checked out that page, and the experimental helicopter you have shown seems like an impossible setup. How do the two rotors, the way they are mounted, keep from chopping each other's drive shaft to bits? Even if they're at different (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
