 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
