Subject:
|
Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:57:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2075 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Thomas (T. J.) Avery writes:
> I'd like to check it out too. Are there any good websites on Meccano? Not
> that I'd flip over to the "dark side", but I'd like to see.
http://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/meccano/mecparti.html
After an admittedly a short search this is the best I've found. L girders
are present in very long lengths and they do make pawls! but I don't think
there are any small bevel gears.
What do you think are the biggest omissions and which therefore prove Lego
more useful?
LMAO about this... http://www.meccano.com/pages/under_c.htm !!!
A bit of a surf starting here may yield a bit of information but there's
clearly less web support for Meccano than for Lego.
Psi
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| "SB" == Simon Bennett <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> writes: SB> LMAO about this... (URL) !!! SB> A bit of a surf starting here may yield a bit of information but SB> there's clearly less web support for Meccano than for Lego. (URL) does seem to work. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Civil Engineer letter
|
| (...) I think for ease of use, Lego parts (like a Technic beam) are certainly better. You'd still have to build-up a Technic beam to get an "I" or box section, but the Technic beam by itself is relatively strong and as you say, is "a decent member". (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jul-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
