 | | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) As far as I understand it, having had a chance to chat with the set designer in Billund during the inside tour, the "buggy" motor is cheaper than the smaller one you are referring to. The buggy motor uses a conventional iron cored armature (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
On Fri, July 1, 2005 10:17 am, Gyl said: (...) I replaced the single pair of pneumatic cylinders with two pair of pneumatic cylinders. It's a very easy change (except for securing the two cylinders end-to-end) That allows the boom to hold much more (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
Yes. When I built the crane, I had the same problem. This can be fixed however. All you have to do is attach the extra tubes. (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) Thanks for the info. Still, I don't see the need to use this motor in the 8421. It only uses one motor, and it is not a very demanding application. They could have used the minimotor easily. It would have been smaller and less expensive, and (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) Hmm - not a lot more torque, but a huge amoutn of additional consumption, and fairly highly reduced efficiency. The 5292 appears to definately be the American SUV of the Lego motor range. I take it that for heavier torque - it is still better (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
