Blakbird

The best way to convince him to make instructions for this model is to buy lots of copies of the instructions for his Snowspeeder model.

I can assure you that a lot of disagreement discussion went into coming up with that definition. What is a "Technic" model? Easy to ask the question, not so easy to answer. In the AFOL community there are models which are clearly Technic (i.e. Crowkillers' Vampire, 100% Technic parts) and models which are clearly not (insert random Star Wars model here). But if we want to actually define a metric which can delineate one side from the other, there is no way to do it objectively. Rest assured that everything in the book is really cool.

I've completed my effort to convert these files to LDraw. It was a pretty big operation given that many parts do not convert and the L-motors and other electronics had been replaced with placeholders, but I think I got it all. 3283 parts so far, not including the base which is still coming. As others have mentioned, this is one of the most densely built creations I have ever seen. The insides must be seen to be believed. For example, take a look at just the Power Functions components which comprise: 2 Li-Po batteries 4 IR receivers 2 Pole Reversers 3 sets of LED lights 1 XL motor 3 L motors 5 M motors I am very much looking forward to building this. Based on looking through the files so far, here are the problems I anticipate: The instructions are divided into 3 parts: boom, superstructure, and base. However, the boom cannot be attached to the superstructure after it is built, nor can the base be attached later. We'll have to figure out the right point in the instructions to add them. Wiring!!!! Based on the PF picture above, you can imagine the miles of wiring inside this thing. The superstructure is SOLID Technic parts. I have no idea where all those wires can possibly go, but a builder could drive themselves insane trying to figure it out. I expect that will happen to me. Looking forward to the base! I am preparing a Brickstore parts list for everything so far, but of course it will be incomplete without the base. Sheo, if you could post the LDD of the base even before you complete the instructions then I could complete the parts list so people would be ready to build when you finish.

This is certainly true, but the converse is also true. TLG doesn't invest in a new part and new molds unless they have a use for it and have done lots of testing to prove it will work. I don't see them abandoning a part after one set. I guess time will tell. My point was that this thread starts by saying "I read that the new worm gear is beaning (sic) drop from production" but there is nothing in either this thread or the referenced thread that actually shows the part is being dropped from production. We just don't know that. All we know is that it was replaced in one set.

You can purchase all of the 1H2014 Technic sets in North America on Amazon.com, but be prepared to pay a premium since they have been imported. I just got the Cargo Plane this way. Otherwise you have another month to wait.

Just because the new worm gear was pulled from a set does not mean that it has been discontinued. Perhaps it did not work out well in this particular application. I would guess we will see it again it some sets next year used in different ways.

No, not directly. LDD can be coverted to MLCAD with some missing parts, but you can't convert the other way. I actually find LDD extremely difficult. I can't make much of anything in it. I would really like to learn SR3D.

He was being facetious. Bionicle parts are evil, so cutting them up seems only natural. In the past, I have bought certain Bionicle sets on clearance in order to pirate the Technic parts out of them. I tried to sell the remaining Bionicle parts on Bricklink but no one would buy them no matter how cheap I made them, not even for $0.01 each. I finally gave them away.

I like the suspension arms and the red panels! I reserve judgment on the rest of the set until I get more information.

Thanks for doing this. As you know LDD to LDraw conversion has a lot of problems. The first problem is that only parts which are included in the LDraw.xml file are converted, and many Technic parts are not in this file so just don't show up at all. I have extensively developed my own file to import a lot of these parts. The other problem is that the programs use different coordinate systems and scaling factors, so everything has to be transformed. In most cases, the transformation matrices are not precisely accurate so the position of the parts in LDraw are all a bit off and don't line up. Fixing these all manually, like you have done, is a tremendous amount of work. Thanks! I've looked through your file and it is a vast improvement. There were two singular matrix errors in which a part was "flat" because the matrix was not complete, so I've fixed those and replaced my master file with your updated file. Any further work should use this as a starting point. By the way, I've also made a render of the extended version:

Very unique idea! I used to have that set and loved it. You've captured the basic lines of it well.

For those of you wondering if I've actually been working on this and making progress, the answer is Yes. I've been working on the wires. I was hoping to find a way to do the instructions without synthesizing them, but in the end it was the only way. The good news is that I've finally finished so the instructions are not far away.

The dots on some of the servos are not really aligned with the axle slot, so just because the dots are not centered does not necessarily mean the servo is not centered.

Where do you get this idea? To my knowledge, almost all semi tractors (at least in the USA) have both rear axles driven.

So it is not good enough for your blog but it is good enough for EB? Actually I quite like it! I like the color scheme and the lines of the bumper.

Sariel's solutions use PF motors but the OP is looking for something that uses much less space.

As soon as you finish them.

Now that's a very good question that it would be fun to explore. If you allow yourself unlimited R/C components, it would be fairly trivial to make a LEGO airframe fly. You just need lots of power (and wing covering). I have the components in my garage, maybe I should try it...... I think at minimum you need R/C Li-Po power supply, brushless motors, radio, speed controller, servos, and propeller. Pf remote is not adequate because of IR, battery box is no good because of weight and current limit, motors are no good because of low speed and weight. So you really need a full suite of R/C electronics but you could do the airframe with LEGO. It would be heavy compared with balsa or foam which means it would have to fly fast. All of the above is talking about a fixed wing airplane. An airplane needs much less power to weight ratio than a helicopter, so it makes sense to tackle an airplane first. Stability is also much easier with an airplane.

Here is what it looks like extended. Pretty awesome! My only complaint is that the actuators should be longer for scale and the boom should go closer to vertical (82 degrees). I wonder how it would look with a Firgelli?

Now there is something that can be experimentally validated! Turns out the whole bumblebee thing is an urban legend anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Flight

So you are saying engineering is pointless because sometimes people are wrong? Or you are saying that being ignorant of physical laws allows you to violate them? Whatever. Obviously a bumble bee uses different principles than an airplane. A LEGO airplane does not use different principles than an airplane. The "proof" you are referring to was never believed by anyone, nor was it intended to be. Everyone knows bumble bees can fly. The "proof" was just an illustration that there was a gap in our understanding of certain natural aerodynamic principles, and it was recognized that there was a gap. That gap has been filled. The same was true of the "sound barrier". It appeared that drag became asymptotic with velocity as you approached the speed of sound, and therefore theoretically it was impossible to ever exceed this speed. However, it was also known that an artillery shell went faster than that, so that revealed a gap in our understanding of drag. That why the Bell X-1 was shaped like an artillery shell; it was the only shape they were sure could go that fast. There is no gap in our understanding of what it would take to make LEGO fly.

That part is used to charge the rechargeable battery. With the right connection adapter, there is no reason you couldn't use a DC transformer to power a motor directly. In a sense, this is all the 9V train regulator is doing (with the added capability to vary the voltage). If you got a nice big transformer (at least 1000mA), you could match the capability of a battery box indefinitely.

I think this topic helps prove that the only way to make LEGO fly is to be very liberal with our definition of the word "flight" or the word "LEGO". By way of explanation, I offer the following questions: Is a model hanging from a wire flying? Is a model attached to a balloon flying? Is a model powered from the ground flying? Is a model taped to an R/C helicopter LEGO? Is a model using R/C motors and batteries LEGO? Is a model covered in Monokote LEGO? Is a model with an APCP rocket motor attached LEGO? None of these questions has a definitive answer and they are all therefore subject to interpretation (as is clear by this topic!). However, in my opinion the answer to all questions is "NO". Balloons could more accurately be called "floating" as can other lighter-than-air craft. Unpowered models can be called "gliding". Parachutes are "falling with style". Traditionally, we would only call a craft "flying" if it met the following qualifications: Leaves the ground (any altitude) Remains aloft (can maintain altitude, not just fall. Climbing is a bonus.) Supports it own weight aerodynamically Provides its own power for lift and propulsion To be practical, should also be controllable although I'd be willing to call a LEGO model "flying" even without controllability Airplanes, helicopters, gyrocopters, and even hovercraft meet these requirements. Balloons, hang gliders, parachutes, and boats do not. Concerning the argument "you can never know until you try", this is a good epithet for encouraging perseverance and discouraging quitters. However, it is also only applicable to topics which are unknown, uncertain, or misunderstood. Many things we certainly do know without trying. If someone says to me, "I can run fast enough to escape the Earth's gravity and fall into the sun", I can say "no you can't". When they say "you never know until you try", I can say "Yes, I do know. I know exactly what the escape velocity for Earth is, and it is trivial to prove that no runner can ever achieve it." I don't need to do experiments to prove it. The science has already been done, the topic is understood. The same is true of flight. We've understood all the principles and equations governing heavier-than-air flight for a century. Therefore it is easy to show that LEGO flight is not possible without ever actually trying it. In fact, LEGO is very, very far from being able to fly. Even without an engineering background, anybody can use one of the many tools for R/C model builders to calculate just how much power is needed for a model of a given weight and wing area to fly. They are very accurate. You will quickly see that power 20x-100x greater than LEGO can provide would be required. However, I applaud the experiments which help demonstrate just how much actually can be accomplished with the existing parts. I'm going to resist posting any more facts, equations, and numbers because some people just prefer to try it themselves, and I think that is a good thing. Trying things yourself is usually a better teaching tool than having someone tell you the answer. If anyone is actually interested in any real numbers or help with calculating the needs for a specific project, please let me know.

I thought you said you didn't have time to work on it until September? That's really odd. I've heard of parts having different origin points, but I don't know how a whole user-created assembly could move. EDIT: I just reopened the file and now have the same problem! It was fine when I made the pictures I posted earlier. My only guess is that I got one of those "Some parts have newer versions" messages when I opened MLCAD and some of the parts got replaced. Look below and you can see that the shocks are correct in the first image and wrong in the second. In any case, I fixed all the issues and re-posted the file. This is the way Gerger build the LDD file. If you look closely, you'll see that the outer boom is one panel (11L) longer, but the overall boom is the same length. The telescoping portion of the boom now retracts more fully.

I promised myself I wasn't to get involved in this discussion again, but my name keeps coming up so here goes ..... Indeed I have already done the calculations! Here is what I posted 2 years ago when asked what it would take to make the 9396 heli fly: In order to use a lift equation you would need to know the lift coefficient (CL) of the rotor airfoil. Obviously there is no test data to generate any such information because these rotors are not actually intended to produce lift. You could use a lift coefficient for a generic symmetric airfoil like an old NACA 2412 as a starting point and assume a certain angle of attack (alpha), maybe 10 degrees. Then you need the overall wetted area (S) which is the projected area of all the rotors put together. Then you need the dynamic pressure (q) which is a function of speed. This is harder for a helicopter than for an airplane because the speed changes as a function of diameter. However, you can save yourself the trouble. Although there IS an angular velocity (omega) that you could mathematically calculate which would make the rotor lift the helicopter, the LEGO parts would structurally fail and/or melt LONG before you ever got such a velocity. And even if, by some miracle, you really could generate the required lift, 9396 has no gryo for directional stability, no pitch on the anti-torque rotor, and no cyclic to control heading and balance the suspended weight, so it would immediately fly into the nearest solid object, possibly your head, and smash. It would be an interesting thought exercise to at least calculate the number and just see how ridiculous it is, but big computers with really complex calculus are used to calculate this kind of thing. Let's do it the easy way. A Blade 300 heli has about the same rotor size as 9396, so let's use it for comparison. It uses a 4500kV brushless motor, a 3S Li-Po battery, and weighs about a pound. This means that the motor spins at about 50,000 rpm. The main spur drive has a 15.5:1 gear ratio so that means the rotor spins at ~3200 rpm at full power. Let's assume it only needs half power to take off and lift the 1 pound weight. 9396 has twice as many rotor blades (4) and the Blade 300 (2), but they are also not really designed for lift so let's assume those two things cancel out. That means we need 1600 rpm/pound of weight to lift off. 9396 weighs about 2 pounds (without PF) so let's assume it would be 3 pounds and therefore would need to rotate the blades at 1600 * 3 = 4800 rpm. The linear speed of each blade at the tip would be about 292 mph (469 kph). Assuming you were using a 3S lithium battery at 11.2 volts, you'd need a massive 6750kV brushless motor producing about 700W of power and drawing 60 Amps. Considering that the largest Lego motor, the XL, is only about 16kV and produces 7W of power at this voltage, you're going to need about 100 XL motors in parallel. The PF battery pack is also limited to 1 Amp, so you are going to need 60 battery packs. Of course, all of this gear weighs much more than the entire helicopter and you're also going to have to lift all that which means you need even more power, and the weight is going up faster than you can add motors and battery packs. Now suppose you just use real R/C components instead of PF to power it. Well, the power system is going to cost you about $1000 including motor, speed controller, and batteries. Now once you install them you'll be generating a 100x more torque than an XL motor. Since an XL motor can already destroy a plastic axle, you'll quickly vaporize your entire model. And here are the calculations I did to figure out how fast the AN-140 would have to fly to get off the ground: OK, so your approximate wing area based on average chord is S = [(11+19)/2]*155 = 2325 cm^2. We need this in square meters so that's S = 0.2325 m^2. For calculation purposes, I'm going to assume that you have an airfoil equivalent to NACA 2415. In order to by able to fly with a reasonable amount of drag, we'll assume that you need to be able to take off with an angle of attack of alpha = 10 degrees (which is very generous). Based on the lift coefficient charts, your lift coefficient is CL = 1.0. This is really good and your actual airfoil will probably be less efficient than this. For the density of air, we'll assume standard sea level conditions. rho = 0.0023769 slug/ft^3 or 1.2012 kg/m^3. Lift is equal to weight which is 5 kg (this is actually a mass). Now we can get the velocity V for takeoff (no climb) using V = SQRT [2L/(CL*rho*S)] = 5.98 m/s or 21.5 km/hr This is not a scale speed, this is actual speed. To actually be able to climb and maneuver you'll need a lot more speed than this and you really don't want to be flying at an alpha of 10 degrees, so you'll want your top speed to be about 3 times this or 60 kph. The drag forces on your plane at 60 kph are going to be very high, so you will need very high power to achieve this speed. I would plan for at least 2.5 kg of thrust. Structurally, you'll need to make sure that your plane can be lifted by the wings with a factor for gusts. I would lift it up by the wings at about 1/2 span and shake it up and down and make sure they stay on. If they don't they will break off in the air. Plan your center of gravity to be at about the 1/4 chord point of the wing. As you can see, the technical challenges are enormous. And by enormous, I mean impossible. I'm not saying impossible to discourage anyone or stop discussion or start an argument. It is simply a calculable fact that LEGO parts don't have the power/weight necessary for heavier than air flight. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, TLG would not make such parts available to children. I also fly rockets and would have no trouble launching a hamster, though it surely violates the safety code. This is a really cool demonstration! Good work! This is actually useful to make my point. Even using the most powerful motors and the most efficient propeller, the LEGO contraption cannot quite even lift the weight of motors with NO structure and NO power supply. The battery box alone is as heavy as the rest of the device, and this is why self-powered flight won't work. To lift the weight of the battery box you need more power, and to get more power you need another battery box which you also need to lift, etc. This cycle never converges with LEGO. The same cycle exists for rockets, especially those leaving orbit, and that's why the Saturn V needed to have such a massive amount of fuel to lift the Apollo capsule. 90% of the fuel was just to lift the other fuel. As it turns out, I've been hit by an R/C car, plane, and helicopter! The car hurt the worst, but only because of the weight. The helicopter was a tiny 2 ounce quad. Didn't even feel it. The plane was a foam BN-2 Islander. Mild discomfort. The car was a 1/8 scale truck weighing 8 pounds and traveling about 30 mph when it hit me in the shin. That hurt a lot. I've never been hit by a rocket but that would be bad.