Ralph_S

Assuming you mean my 7-wide fire engine, of which there is a picture in this thread, you are mistaken. They are smaller; about three studs in diameter. The ones Mrcool1804 used for his 8-wide are just shy of four studs in diameter, which looks right to me for the scale. The one in the picture is bigger still, more than four studs in diameter. I guess the size isn't obvious from a picture of the wheel on its own. I don't use them very often, but they're the wheels I used on the trailer in the picture below. Scania with Nooteboom stepframe trailer (5) by Mad physicist, on Flickr A lot bigger. Cheers, Ralph

I'll be in the UK for this event. I'm flying in on Friday and back home on Monday. I'll be taking several of my aircraft models with me, including my latest. P-61 Black Widow with air- and ground crew by Mad physicist, on Flickr Ed Diment's aircraft carrier is in the US at the moment, but the prototypes of the planes I built for it are still with Ed in the UK and they will be on my display. I've displayed at this show since 2007 and it's always been great. I'm really looking forward to going there again (and to having some pints and a curry). See you there. Cheers, Ralph

^I'm glad you like the analogy For the record: I have nothing against people who collect MISB sets. Everybody has his or her own way of enjoying a hobby. I am genuinely curious what the attraction is. Is it being able to look at the sets in a theme and knowing you have them all, or, alternatively, the thrill of the chase of going after the particularly rare sets that you don't have yet? Cheers, Ralph

That's not a similar statement at all. Unlike in your statement, there was no judgement in what I wrote. "I really like to collect complete original sets and in fact I don't really get it how you can spend hours building things, then posting pictures, hoping to get a lot of positive comments and starting all over again", without the 'horrible', would have been similar. In response I would have explained to you that I really like the creative process and the challenge of trying to figure out how to make something, that I enjoy buying parts thinking about what I want to do with them and that although I like getting comments, I was building long before EB existed and would very likely still be building if it didn't exist, simply because I enjoy building so much. I would also have explained that I enjoy looking at a collection of models that I built and that are unique. I would try to explain what's fun for me. I'd also try to convince you to have a go yourself, because I think building is so much fun and reckon you might enjoy it too if you gave it a go. Do you actually build stuff yourself? If you didn't want to point at it, perhaps you shouldn't have quoted parts of my post as an example. Try, if you like, to look at this from the perspective of somebody who builds and who likes getting his hands on LEGO parts to do new things with. If you were in that position, wouldn't you feel that leaving them in a box is really just a bit of shame? You compared collecting LEGO to collecting paintings. If I use that analogy, looking at LEGO as the medium to create new things with, you're collecting pots of paint. Alternatively, if your focus is on the model, I'm a painter. I make my own paintings. I'm pretty sure there are few painters who collect paintings made by somebody else. There is obviously something to understand and I honestly still don't. Ralph

I've been there. I used to really like space. When I was a child Futuron, Blackton and Space Police were the big space themes and I used to have a lot of the sets and used to play with them and also used to build science fiction MOCs. I gradually lost interest, though. LEGO introduced a series of space themes that I didn't care much about, but I also stopped building space-themed MOCs. I was always into Model Team and liked city and those are the kinds of things I still build today, with the odd military model thrown in. I've literally built hundreds of MOCs in the last five years, and only four of those were space-themed and two of those were for exhibitions. Cheers, Ralph

Perhaps you can dial down the indignation and read again what I wrote, including the bits where I make it clear that I am writing from my perspective, as somebody who enjoys building with the stuff far more than looking at it stored in boxes. You know, the bits you edited out when you quoted me. I've tried to imagine what it would be like to have a large collection of MISB sets, but all I could imagine myself doing is ripping them open to build something. I don't see the attraction of collecting MISB sets and I don't understand why you see that as an insult. I never wrote that I think my way of enjoying a toy is better than somebody else's. That's your interpretation. As far as I am concerned, you can enjoy your hobby any way you like. Ralph

If you stretch the definition of collecting MISB sets to having some that you haven't opened yet, but will open in the foreseeable future, I collect MISB sets too! I have about a dozen sets I bought at a discount or received as presents that I haven't opened yet. The two biggest sets are the Taj Mahal and the Grand Carousel. The main reason why I haven't opened those two yet is because it seems a shame to part them out straight away without building the actual model first, but I unfortunately don't like building from instructions and haven't brought myself to tackle them yet. If I have them lying around untouched for yet another year, I will probably part them out without building the models first! For most of the other sets I simply haven't needed the parts yet. I always have a long list of things I want to build and most of the things on that list will get built eventually, which undoubtedly means those sets will be parted out at some point too. Now, is there actually somebody here who doesn't intend to open or sell his/her MISB sets because simply having them and being able to look at them is enough? Because that's what I would consider collecting MISB sets. Cheers, Ralph

I don't think I'd see stashing away MISB sets with the sole intention of selling them at a profit as collecting, but I too know people who have large collections of unopened sets in a shed or their loft and go up there to stare at them every once in a while. I don't get that. In fact, I have a hard time understanding collecting sets in the first place, irrespective of whether they're bought to be kept sealed or to display the built-up model. Consequently, I don't get people complaining about the set design, there not being enough female figs in a set, there not being enough carriages to go behind their Maersk train, etcetera. LEGO is the ultimate customisable toy. You can build pretty much anything you want with it and through bricklink, you can buy most of the parts. You can build your own carriage and buy your female figs on bricklink! For me sets are first and foremost parts packs and most of mine get parted out without me even opening the instruction booklet. Building my own stuff is an order of magnitude more fun than building from instructions and as far as I am concerned, that is an order of magnitude more fun than having a shiny box full of LEGO to look at. If you don't build your own stuff, you're missing most of the fun. If you don't even open the box, perhaps you're missing the whole point of LEGO. Cheers, Ralph

That does look a lot more serious than the first one. I wouldn't really consider it minifig scale anymore, because it dwarfs the figs, but I like it a lot. You've got a lot of detail in there and the overall look is nice too. I'm curious. The 6-wide version cost $150. How much is this if you buy it directly from LEGO. $250? That may be what the acronym stands for, but is not really an explanation. I model may have studs on top and still incorporate a lot of SNOT techniques. SNOT is a term used for building techniques in which parts of a model are built with the elements oriented such that what would normally be their upper surface points in another direction, irrespective of whether or not there actually studs on it! Slapping a layer of tiles over a plate is a not a SNOT technique, even though the end result means that there won't be studs on top. An example of SNOT building in MRcool's truck is the diagonal stripe in the side. Cheers, Ralph

It's an interesting combination and has the look of an American tiller truck, but I think it would look far better if both the tractor and the trailer wouldn't have double rear axles. I also think you need to create some more space between the cab and the trailer. This doesn't look as though it can corner. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks guys:wub: . I don't think I could have made the cockpits using the non-LEGO plastic I normally use on my more modern jets. The shape of this one is too complicated any frames -which are normally needed to keep the non-LEGO ones in shape- would end up looking far too thick. These have eaten through some of my last 1x1 trans clear tiles and jumper plates, but it was worth it. I agree that the stickers are important for the overall look. These planes may have been black, but if you look at (somehwat) rare colour photographs of the real ones, It's clear that they were quite colourful. The ones used in Europe, one of which is represented by my model, were relatively toned down compared to aircraft used in the Pacific. Those often had fairly elaborate squadron markings on the fins. I'm fairly certain that my visit to the NASM played a role in the decision to build one. I've liked this plane for a long time, but seeing a real one made a difference. If I make it to Brickfair again next year, it's not unlikely I'll bring a few of my WW-II aircraft with me something like an airfield diorama. Since I've completed this I've built a WW-II US Army fuel truck (a rebuild of a model I stupidly took apart only about a year ago) and have dug out a 5-wide Jeep I've had for a few years. I've also been playing around with some minifigs for a ground crew. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks Chris. I know that other builders would have probably tried to mount the wings on hinges to get them to slope upwards. That can be very effective, but with the undercarriage also being attached to them and with the tail booms have to meet up in the back, this seemed a more appropriate solution. Even if I would have angled them, I'd still have to have steps in a few places, because the wings get progressively thinner from the root towards the tips. Thank you. The wedges for the sides of the tail booms were one of the first ideas I had when thinking about building a P-61. They are very long and incorporating them forced me to make a few compromises, but I too like the overall look. The cockpits were complicated, indeed, especially since I still wanted to have room inside for the three-man crew. Minifigs are awkward little creatures! I didn't know about the ARC-170, but I can see a certain resemblance, so I wouldn't be surprised if the P-61 was an inspiration for its design. I have actually built a few largely studless models (a Beo Classic Space model and a Mitsubishi Evo) but it's not really for me. For aircraft models I don't like wings built with bricks on their sides (too thick with trailing edges that are too fat) and slaping tiles on a plate-built structure makes it too thick as well. I like to see the studs and I like my models to be realistic but at the same time still look overtly 'LEGO-ish'. From some angles it's really not obvious, but when seen from dead ahead the wings on the P-61 do have dihedral. You can actually see it in the picture you provided too. The leading edges aren't aligned. Here's one almost dead ahead of the National Air and Space Museum's P-61C. Black Widow by b3a5t, on Flickr (not my picture, BTW). Cheers, Ralph

The Black Widow was the US Army Air Force's first purpose-built night fighter. In a few weeks time I will be traveling to Swindon in the UK for the Great Western Lego Show, where I will be displaying some of my minifig scale WWII aircraft. This provided a little extra incentive for me to build a new one. I've been a fan of the P-61B Black Widow for years and after having seen a real one (at the National Air and Space Museum in Dulles) it was my first pick. It arrived too late in the war to make a large impact, but makes up for that by looking menacing! P-61B Black Widow (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr This was not an easy build. There are a few things that I am not happy about, but that I don't know how to improve either. One thing that gave me a fair of trouble was the design of the nose radome. Many thanks to Gambort for suggesting the parts for the sides. P-61B Black Widow (2) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The P-61's main armament consisted of four 20mm cannons in a ventral bulge. Late production P-61s could carry up to four external tanks, although in service it was rare for all four to be fitted. My model has only two. P-61B Black Widow (5) by Mad physicist, on Flickr My model represents a P-61B named 'Little Audrey'. It was one of few P-61Bs to be used in the European Theatre of Operations, with most of the Black Widows in Europe being earlier P-61A models. 'Little Audrey' served with the 422nd Night Fighter Squadron from late 1944 until the end of the war. During that time the squadron flew from bases in the UK, France and Belgium, following the Allied advance towards Germany. The 422nd NFS was the highest scoring unit to fly P-61s. P-61B Black Widow (6) by Mad physicist, on Flickr Minifig scale aircraft is are one of the more challenging things to build IMO, and they always require compromises. The engine nacelles on this really ought to be one stud shorter at the front and the main gear should be one or two studs further backward. However, I intended to use long curved triple wedges for the sides of the tail booms and these limited my options. However, overall I am happy with the end result. I hope you agree Cheers, Ralph

The functionality is impressive and you've presented it very well -as usual . I also like the shaping of the turret. However, it is let down by the proportions. The hull looks at least a brick too tall to me. It looks like a T-72 on steroids. Cheers, Ralph

Unless the lengths of the sides of your right-angled triangles are pythagorean triples, it won't work and unfortunately, looking it at it, they aren't. No calculation needed. Ralph

LDD

What isn't clear in your picture is which angles you need, exactly. I can calculate just about all of them without too much difficulty, but need to know whether you want the angle over which you need to turn the hinges from straight or whether you need the angle between the beams. One is 180 degrees minus the other. I'll stick to angles between the beams. Actually, never mind. I see Bojan has already done it. His answers are the same as what I ended up with. Ralph

I think that far more relevant than the time of day is what day of the week! At least for me. Like most adults (and aren't we all supposed to be adults here?) I have a job that keeps me plenty busy five days a week from roughly 8AM to 5 PM. I might get a bit of building done in the evenings (sometime between 7PM and 9PM), but I do most of my building on Saturdays, in late afternoon and (early) evening. Consequently, that's when I do my building too Cheers, Ralph

Thank you. The miniland models were an obvious inspiration, so this is a big compliment Cheers, Ralph

The chain was a last-minute modification. It just didn't look right without it and fitting it in was fairly straightforward, once I managed to find the right size elastic band. As for the video and the meme: I'm sure you didn't intend it to come across as racist and I'm not personally offended. However, I do think that is insensitive. Coincidentally, the reason for my cyclist's skin tone is that I am running low on 1x1 round plates in tan and couldn't find a 2x2 round plate in tan either. Ralph

Actually, I thought of Freddy Mercury, or more specifically the Queen song, when building it, even though the rider is not a fat-bottomed girl Cheers, Ralph

I thouight I posted that months ago, but apparently I didn't. I built it a few months ago. I'm glad you like the model, but that video and the internet meme it's based on are shockingly politically incorrect Cheers, Ralph

If you look at most real locomotives like this, you'll see that the front and aft bogies look very similar. On your locomotive, however, the wheels on the aft one are much closer together. What you can do to make it more realistic is lengthen the aft one a bit. Move the wheels on further apart and add some stuff between them to make it look more like the front one. There's almost nothing in front of the front wheels. I'm not a train specialist by any means, but inspired by the LEGO Maersk train, I built my own and had a good look at this type of locomotive. There is a lot of stuff in front of the wheels: steps, headlights, a plough, a coupling. Take a close look at LEGO's Maersk locomotive, for instance, to see what I mean. "LEGO train 12 Volts" mentions an exhaust system. That's another thing that is missing. Engines like this usually are Diesel powered and will have an exhaust somewhere. They also often have fans on the roof. presumably for cooling the engine compartment. It's things like this that make it look unfinished, as though there are some bits that still need to be built. You may be limited in the parts you have, but adding just a few fairly small things here and there could already make this a lot better. I'm normally not in favour of copying things that other people have done, preferring to come up with my own stuff instead, but "roamingstudio's" advice is a good one. A lot of these things have been done by other LEGO builders and looking at their work may help you to improve your own. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks for all the comments. They are much appreciated. Sometimes the small projects are the most fun. I've built plenty of cars in the last few months, but even though this took only about an hour and a half to complete, I'm much happier with this than with my last two cars. There's a bicycle from a LEGOLand park in the Ultimate LEGO book, but without a rider. I'm sure they have some with riders as well. My bike and figure is a bit smaller though. For a long time I didn't build things involving minifigs. I built most of my stuff on a larger scale to enable me to incorporate more working features and details. I have gone back into building minifig scale stuff, but I've also continued to build bigger things such as this one. The minifigs did confirm to me that adding figures is a lot of fun and also is something really appreciated by the public at shows, so I've been building my own larger scale figures as well. I've got this one as well. Dutch Police motorcycle (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The handlebars are definitely on the small side. However, all of the alternatives I considered looked far too clunky. Compromises, compromises. Cheers, Ralph

Are you going to do anything more than stickers to the locomotive? Ralph