 | | Re: My 8002 Destroyer Droid didn't come with errata sheet!
|
|
(...) I've read that the extra sheet came in later in the production so it's probably one of the first in the series that you got. Call LEGO and ask them to send it to you. Best regards, /Tobbe (URL) SPAM when e-mailing) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Just an idea for an prop for a hovercraft
|
|
(...) Yes. It directs the air flow that would normaly be thrown outward from the spinning prop. and forces it down. This makes more lift. (...) Only helps the prop push air in the right direction. (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
|
(...) I am working on a couter rotating design using axels and a non lego covering as rotor blades. I don't think it's cheating if the "works" are solidly lego based. Paul (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: My 8002 Destroyer Droid didn't come with errata sheet!
|
|
Stephane, I bought a couple when they first came out, neither came with the additional pages (corrections?) However, a couple that I picked up recently did. I had no problems building from either set of instructions and they worked the same as (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | My 8002 Destroyer Droid didn't come with errata sheet!
|
|
Hello all, I read countless times on Lugnet that the 8002 set Destroyer Droid is supposed to come with a sheet that corrects errors made in the manual. I got mine MISB, but have no such sheet. I didn't have time to try to build the droid yet. Is it (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Just an idea for an prop for a hovercraft
|
|
Hello I've seen the marvelous creation of hovercrafts by Paul Kleniewski ( (URL) ) and that gave me some ideas. Here can you see a simpel construction of an propell that I made. I've not taken any photos yet, but here is one image made in Ldraw: (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
|
(...) There is a military helicopter with this shaft arrangement in the Russian armed forces. IIRC, the Kirov carrier had some of these choppers at some point in time. Pedro (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
|
(...) There's a small angle between the two rotor shafts, that's the solution. A clever one, indeed. Fredrik (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: flying helicopter? (was: orrery update)
|
|
(...) Ohh, thanks! Now I see it. I didn't notice the rotors themselves were tilted, I just thought that was the style of the covering around the shaft. I think now I've caught the bug -- I wanna build a Technic helicopter too! But alas, I don't have (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: new 2003 sets: 8455
|
|
(...) I had a few minutes free time while attending the show, so I took the chance ... Just the time to realize that is a very nice model but that without airtank, even with the two pump, you pump , make a movement, had to pump again before making a (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
