 | | Re: New angled beam —Eric Brok
|
| | | (...) That's not the one that was meant in R2-D2, if i'm right. That one's not 45 degrees. Eric (25 years ago, 23-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: New angled beam —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | (...) No, it isn't. It is the one Huw Millington talked about in the post I followed up on. Let me review: It's the new "liftarm" part which was introduced earlier this year in the connectables set. (...) Of course it isn't. It's 90°, as Huw (...) (25 years ago, 23-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Eric Brok
|
| | | | Fredrik Glöckner wrote in message ... (...) Sorry. i meant to say that the R2-D2 piece Fredrik originally meant was not *90* degrees, but about 45 degrees. It's not the liftarm but a one-bend beam, shorter version than before. Meanwhile this also (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | (...) It's not 45° or even 135° (as you probably meant). Rather, it has the same angle as the original one bend beam (6629), that is 143.13°. This is according to Huw Millington, who has the part in questions himself. (...) In LDraw, we call these (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New angled beam —Huw Millington
|
| | | | Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:m33dvyhu3r.fsf@....uio.no... (...) I will post a scan of the piece in question later to settle this once and for all :-) Huw (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.technic)
|
| | | | |
