mocbuild101

I'd say they look good, they could be condensed slightly, but they're still okay. One thing that does need changing though, is step 7 - the assembly should be rotated around so you can see where the parts go. BTW, what software are you using to make the instructions? IMO the quality looks really bad...

That bodywork... it's just so perfect! Even the underside looks good! +1 Those donuts really need some more power put into them...

Looks great! (or should I say, it looks horrible, but it works great ) Nice to see some more progress!

I'll give you that one... Good quality Ni-MH AA batteries (i.e. the ones that give comparable performance) are on average more expensive per volt than Li-Pos... Anyway, I think we're going a bit of topic here...

They're not that bad, they just aren't as energy dense as LiPos. They are certainly a lot more resilient than LiPos - they can be discharged to almost empty without damaging the cells, and also don't require a specialized charger.

I've decided to abandon this build for now, as I really haven't made any progress the past week, and I think it's best for me to leave it. I will most likely come back to this at some point, as I still think it can work, but it won't be for TC15 unfortunately... BTW, I'm not yet dropping out of the contest, as I have some other ideas, and I still have over a month to build something.

I think it will be actually, I haven't got enough XL-motors to test it, but the MOC in this video only uses one (presumably unmodified) battery box with 4 XL-motors: https://youtu.be/zpJAtAettJs?t=48 As for using rechargeable (Ni-Mh, not Ni-Cd) batteries, provided you've got fairly good quality ones (Duracell Recharge Ultra or Panasonic Eneloops for example), they can actually perform really well in comparison to alkaline batteries. It's not really that simple, it all depends on what you'll be using it for. The Lego rechargeable Li-Po battery is better for most low-load applications, as it does have a bit more voltage than rechargeable Ni-MH batteries. However, the Lego Li-Po battery still has current protection in it, so for higher-load applications, it won't do much better than Ni-MH batteries. Also, if you use the Ni-MH batteries with a shunted (current protection removed) battery box, they can actually out perform the Lego Li-Po battery, especially when it comes to powering buggy-motors. 9V is just the voltage PF was designed for, it can actually go down to as little as 4V before it becomes unusable.

+1 That basically sums up my opinion.

This guy has a huge collection of rare parts, including quite a few Technic parts: https://www.flickr.com/photos/148691465@N05/albums/72157663491437627 He also sells some of his parts on Bricklink: https://store.bricklink.com/matthi

It should be fine, a set of brand new batteries can deliver 9.6v (1.6v x 6) or higher for a short time, so I'm sure you won't hurt it with an extra 0.48v. Saying that though, I would still add some extra protection (something like what was used here), just in case...

+1 It also applies to the competition topics too - currently there's only 3 TC15 topics on the first page, and there's even some that are on the 4th and 5th pages...

Nice, almost looks better than the original! BTW, I think the photos are too big, they loaded really slowly when I opened the page...

Update! (finally...) I took a break from this for a couple of days to build a set I bought, but I'm back now, and I had a idea of how to build the lifting mechanism. I actually built it in LDD yesterday, but I ended up not having the time to post it here... Here's what the colored parts are: Red = The plane. Green/Yellow = Controls. Blue = Base structure (non-moving). I haven't yet tested it IRL (which is what I'll be doing today), but I think it should work...

There's a much better alternative available: 7-Zip

At first I was thinking "that looks really nice", and then I realized it was motorized...

Nice, you've gotten a lot more done than I have, but I guess that's because it's a bit simpler than mine...

Are those going to be photo instructions? If they are, you really should compress them into a ZIP file to upload to Bricksafe, as IMO it's a lot better if someone wants to download them.

Wow, that's already looking great! Is it just me, or is one of the blades not connected properly?

Nice! I like the first one best, I think it looks a bit sleeker than the second one. Well, gliding is more like slow falling than flying, but I think it's best not to start that discussion again...

Thanks! Oh yeah, I forgot about that one! Agreed, though I don't know whether I can get it any closer with the current design... Anyway, I'm currently working on a new design for the joystick that eliminates even more backlash, by not using any U-joints. I still don't have any photos to show just yet, but the design seems to be working well, so I hope to have something later today.

Thanks, I've done some testing, and it's working great - so well in fact, that I think I'll won't need any PF! BTW, I probably won't be posting any pictures until tomorrow, as I want to build more of the control system before posting any updates...

Or just make up Plan B when you need it... Hmm... That actually might be perfect for moving the joint itself, as I haven't really been able to find a good (or strong) enough solution for that yet, and I also want it to be able to move smoothly... Anyway, this is what I came up with last night, I haven't yet had a chance to test it IRL (I'll be doing that later today), but I think I could work... Also, I found out something about LDD that I never knew it could do - move linkages with the rotate tool!

That's the reason why I ended up with the design I have at the moment, as I had to make sure the axle rotation wasn't on either of the two planes of the joint's rotation (which is also why I couldn't add yaw). I do have an idea of a way to use more linkages though - only keeping the two U-joints and the CV-joints. I think I might have a play around with some ideas in LDD tonight and see what I can come up with...

Update... I've been experimenting with different ways of manualy controlling the plane, and well, it's hasn't been very successful - even the best design I could come up with (below) still had so much backlash that the control surfaces barely even moved... I looks like I will have to go back to the drawing board, and find a different way of controlling it... (probably involving PF)

Nice, I like all the manual controls, it's actually the same kind of thing I originally thought of building...