AColtsFan

What's the part # for those bricks? I didn't even know they existed! That said, I'm not a fan of the modern jumper plate undersides, seeing it on full bricks just makes me nervous. Also, I kind of got ahead of things anyway--for some reason I read the topic as saying it was a 172SP (technically a 172S on the cert, but it's marketed as SP) rather than 172P (which doesn't have the fairings).

Sorry about your shirttail... Really love this--the articulated control surfaces are a very nice touch! I've often wondered about a solution to the main-gear fairings on these smaller light pistons (such as the SP has, setting it apart from most earlier versions of the 172) that's workable at minifig scale. I've been struggling with it on a Piper Cherokee Dakota, which has a low wing and landing gear struts coming directly from it; it'd be even more difficult on the 172.

Thanks for the explanation--I hope it didn't come off as me suggesting your terminology was in any way wrong (and if it did, I apologize), I just wanted to make sure I fully understood what you meant and that there wasn't some subtle difference I was missing.

This is really impressive! I'm curious, though--the width is what I would call eight studs wide, but you call it eight pins wide. Is there a subtle difference I'm not picking up here, or are the two terms synonymous? Because I've never encountered the "pin" terminology before (I mean, I know what a pin is as a Lego/Technic object, but I've never seen the word "pin" be used as a Lego unit of measure).

I'm designing a medium-size commercial airport at minifig scale--it'll probably be so big that I don't know if I'll ever be able to fully build it out of real bricks (if for no other reason than where would I put it? and don't even think about full-scale runways and taxiways and outbuildings, maintenance facilities, satellite terminals, etc.at their typical locations ), but I'm hoping to at least be able to build parts of it. Anyway, over the last couple of days I've started working on the control tower and I've got (a "draft," at least, of) the first floor of the tower done and I'm hoping for feedback. Basically, my idea is that the first floor of the tower is a small museum to the history of the airport, so you've got a model of a larger airplane and a model of a smaller airplane (the pentagonal plate, with the tab serving as the empennage) in the bottom-right corner), as well as a replica of a radio tower that might have once been at the airport and a display case in the middle of the floor. There's also a (single-occupant) public restroom, of course, as well as an elevator (can't get a good look at it in these images, but you can see the wheel that I will eventually tie a string-on-a-winch to to make the elevator properly hoistable) and staircase. I got held up for the longest time trying to figure out how the elevator would get up to the tower cab without compromising the 360-degree (or 2π radians for my pure-mathematics friends) (or 400 gradians for my civil engineering and surveying friends) visibility that you need at the top. In the process of searching for how actual control towers have solved this problem, I discovered that it's commonplace around the world for accessibility regulations to exempt the top two floors of an airport control tower (cab + floor below cab) from elevator requirements, presumably for this exact reason--the cab, and also the floor below the cab since that's where the elevator machinery would need to be in order to keep the machinery from obstructing visibility in the cab too. It seems to be one of those situations where you have to make a tradeoff between two not-really-great-or-desirable alternatives (ideally you want the full building to be accessible to everyone if for no other reason than because ideally the job opportunities should be accessible to everyone, but having an elevator shaft running to the top compromises the visibility that is crucial to the tower's safety-critical mission, and until someone comes up with a way to combine the two there's an unpleasant choice to make).. I wonder if it might be a bit too busy. I might need to move the radio structure model closer to the center because as it is it's going to be awfully close to the second floor walkway (which the inverted slope bricks will be supporting) as it is, which will also necessitate moving the display case. Thoughts on that or other issues? In this next picture you'll get a better side-view. I haven't filled in the exterior walls to flush with the top of the interior walls, but you get the idea of the basic shape and look. The second floor will have a walkway but otherwise be open-air to the first floor, in order to permit elevated viewing of the larger museum artifacts. The subsequent floors up to the cab will be offices, as is typical in the boxy style of ATCT I'm going for. Interior lighting is going to be an issue. I didn't include windows since they're often not a thing on ATC towers below the cabs, plus the location of the restroom + the stairwell structure means that there'd be no way to place them with any sort of symmetry, and I was worried that'd look odd, especially on a structure that is almost defined by its exterior rotational symmetry. If I ever build it for real I can probably rig up some small LED lights, but it'd be artificial. Comments/suggestions/thoughts?

I'm reminded of Borges's Celestial Emporium.

I have no idea, but if someone knows I'm curious--did the parts in the first group make their first appearance in non-Technic sets, while the parts in the second group first appear in Technic sets?

I think it's more that one implies the other--the more popular parts are stored in the far-flung network of regional warehouses rather than the central one in DK since they're the parts that would benefit the most from (a) additional storage space (since they're popular, they need to have a lot of them on hand) and (b) presumably quicker delivery times (since they're closer to the customer). The less-popular parts are stored centrally because (a) it avoids having to use limited shelf space in regional warehouses for parts that won't be ordered as often, and (b) since they're the parts that aren't ordered as often, the effect of the longer delivery times (unless you're in or close to Denmark!) won't be as significant as if it were the more popular parts that had the longer delivery time. Indeed it does! I think, because of the historical influence of Latin (and the original Latin phrase, cum grano salis), a vernacular equivalent exists in most Western/Central European languages, including those (such as English and its Germanic cousins) that aren't directly descended from Latin.

Is it considered good form to post a Stud.IO render of a partial/in-progress MOC for feedback?