Blakbird

They are "metallic silver". Not chrome, they are actually painted. They do have a metallic look though.

Yes, you can get the M-motor and receiver in LDraw. I use them all the time. However they are not "official" parts yet, so you need to get them from the Parts Tracker. M-Motor Part 58120 Receiver Part 58123 If you save the text below as test.ldr and open it in LDView, LDView will automatically download all the part files and subparts for you. 0 Untitled 0 Name: test.ldr 0 Author: Blakbird 0 Unofficial Model 0 ROTATION CENTER 0 0 0 1 "Custom" 0 ROTATION CONFIG 0 0 1 7 -30 0 -20 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 58120.dat 1 7 140 0 30 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 58123.dat 0

Actually, I'd say it is not much like 8868 at all except that it is a truck with a crane. 8436 is a decent looking set in appearance. the functions of the truck itself are minimal: tilting cab, engine, diff. All of the pneumatic functions are self contained in the removable crane. There is no compressor. Rotation of the crane is not pneumatic, and neither is telescoping. Pneumatic functions only unfold the crane. There is no alternate model for the truck, but the crane can be build into multiple accessories including a tow truck lift. You can see some feature comparisons here. As you can see below, the truck scale is quite large.

Don't feel constrained to those transformers. You can use any 9-12V transformer with your Control Center II. I have tested dozens of different models. For maximum current through 3 motors, choose one with at least 1000mA. Picking a larger one doesn't hurt anything. The Control Center will only pull as much current as it can use.

See here. They were early versions of angle connectors. Here is an excellent example of what you could do with them (see the canopy):

Nice! Kind of reminds me of this guy. This is the only Technic set I can think of to do such a thing.

I've tried. It is glued together. You can't take it apart without destroying it.

Well, obviously it was never intended to be used with Power Functions since they didn't even exist until a decade later. Given that the prop is driven by a single off-center hole, there isn't really going to be any way to rotate it quickly without a large flywheel. I'm not sure about everyone else's, but my copy of this prop also has a LOT of friction. It fits tight in the hole and does not rotate easily.

Nobody could complain about what you are suggesting, because that is what LEGO already does. LEGO does not actually make motors. They buy motors off the shelf and insert them into LEGO designed housings.

LEGO doesn't make a regulator, but you can make one out of a pole reverser, a pneumatic actuator, and a couple of rubber bands. The design has been around for along time. The rubber bands retract the actuator which moves the pole reverser to "on" position. When enough air pressure is present, the actuator extends the rubber bands, rotates the pole reverser, and shuts the motor off. You can change the air pressure by changing how many rubber bands you use. The picture below is from Jennifer Clark's page.

8836 is actually very different. For one thing, it is much smaller (only half the size). 8836 also does not have any movable tail.

There is no such number. It doesn't matter how many air tanks you have because the only thing filling up the air tanks is the same compressor. Sooner or later you would empty the tanks and then you'd have to wait a very long time for them to fill again. The only inlet is the compressor and the only outlet are the actuators, so the overall speed of operation over time does not change with air tanks. The only exception to this is if you are going to have natural gaps in operation. For example, if your normal operation is to use the crane for 10 seconds, wait 10 seconds, then use the plow for 10 seconds, then air tanks could use the middle time to recoup the air pressure and therefore apply a more continuous high volume flow. However, if you are going to be operating functions continously then the air tank doesn't change anything. If you simply want the motor to run less often, then you use lots of air tanks and 4-6 compressor cylinders. That way the air tanks fill fast but the motor can then stay off while you use up the air pressure. My version of Grazi's tow truck uses two compressor cylinders and an air tank. It had enough stored volume to operate any of the functions once. Once you start, the compressor operates contiually until you stop and allow the tank to fill again. Jennifer Clark's JS220 excavator uses four compressor cylinders and no tank. The compressor operates continuously whenever the excavator is in use and provides plenty of volume to move the functions quickly. The difference between both of these and 8110 is that there is a pressure regulator which shuts off the motor when a certain pressure is reached. 8110 doesn't have that, but it could be added easily enough. If you really want to test the concept, use a 2 liter soda bottle for storage, wait for the compressor to fill that up, and see how long you can operate the crane.

My guess is that the reason they did not use radio is because many countries regulate the use of radio waves and acceptable frequencies. Since LEGO is a highly international product, it would be difficult to come up with something inexpensive that could be sold everywhere.

Personally, no. 8455 already has two pumps which produce plenty of air flow. I guess there is a reason that only a couple of models ever had air tanks. They are a cool concept, but they don't store enough air to make a really big difference. 8462 has two of them but that still only stores enough air to move the lift a couple of times. The one in the 8250 submarine actually seems to work the best because it is only operating one cylinder.

As much as I support the idea of a Power Functions XS motor, this is clearly not the the right avenue to get one. CUUSOO is intended to offer LEGO sets based on customer input, not new parts. There is a very long design and iteration process that goes into new parts, and I don't see LEGO ever abdicating that to fans. On the other hand, discussions like this and use of the CUUSOO process is one way in which we can effectively "sign a petition" to make LEGO understand that there is strong support for such a product. They will, of course, only make such a part if there is a clear business case to do so.

Sure you do. It's called a trunnion mounted actuator, and they are quite common though not as common as actuators with the attachments at the ends.

The air tank doesn't add any pressure. The total system pressure is governed by the relief function of the compressor, so it (the maximum) stays the same no matter how many tanks you add. What the tanks do is add more capacity. For example, if you found that your cylinders worked too slowly because the compressor did not have enough capacity, then the tanks would make it work faster. But then you would also have to wait for the tanks to fill back up. On the 8110, I doubt the tanks would make much difference.

If you already know you are using tracks and assuming that you are skid steering, then it will steer best with the smallest number of tracks because there will be the least lateral slippage. However, it will also be less stable.

There's no problem with contact pressure on carpet because you do not sink into it. Tracks will not give you any traction advantage. Adding even more tracks will probably make no difference. In fact, they will probably make it worse. You get better traction by sinking into the carpet a bit which gives you something to push against instead of just using friction.

To some extent, yes. If the load is large enough and is left applied for a long enough period of time, especially in the presence of heat, then the material could creep. However, when the vehicle is parked the deformation should be small. Most deformation occurs dynamically when driving over an object. Hmm, this is completely inconsistent with everything Sariel and I have found. I can twist an axle 25 degrees with my fingers and I can't detect any permanent deformation. There are plenty of axles inside real Technic sets that twist a lot more than that. In any case, anyone who is critically concerned about maintaining the perfection of their LEGO axles should probably not use them for torsion bars, or for any motorized application either.

Nope, it doesn't damage the axles. This is based on a convenient bit of stress/strain relationships. While it is true that axles can be damaged by large torques placed on them by XL motors or cranking them with a high gear ratio, it takes a considerable amount of strain before this happens. Young's Modulus (the relationship between stress and strain) for ABS is quite low, and remains linear (elastic) for a very long time before permanent deformation (plasticity) occurs. The simple result of this is that you can twist an axle a lot as long as you keep it in the elastic range and it will always return to its previous shape. With a torsion bar suspension like Sariel uses on his tanks, the maximum rotation angle you could possibly put on the torsion axle is less than 45 degrees because the suspension will bottom out before it can twist any further. 45 degrees is not enough rotation to permanently damage an axle over 6L in length, so you are totally safe using this method. If, however, you had very large suspension travel or no stop, it would be possible to damage an axle.

"LEGO Direct" only sells parts that are in production in current sets. Black 44772 wheels have not been in any sets for several years, so I don't think you can get them from LEGO. You'll have to use the used part market through Bricklink.

The mechanical logic used to make all the numbers but alternating the direction of rotation and having dog stops between layers is marvelous. Now if only those motors would run faster!

Like I said, they are all the same. I don't know how you can pick a favorite among 3 identical items. Maybe if you like one box better. Personally, I chose to collect the first one just because it is the original.

I would not say there were two different versions. It was originally released in 1997 as 8459, then it was re-released in 2001 as 8464, and finally 8439 in 2004. They are exactly the same model (except for parts which were updated to new versions), but the packaging is different. The early 2000's were "a dark time for the rebellion" so LEGO was trying to save money by releasing old sets instead of designing new sets. There were a lot of Technic re-releases during this time. You can see this on Technicopedia when there are multiple set numbers grouped together on the same line.