Ralph_S

The presentation is quite neat, but I'm not really impressed with the quality of the build. The colour scheme is very patchy, the undercarriage is crude and there's far too pronounced hump near the jet intakes. It's not a bad effort, but it could be a lot better. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks. The canopies indeed open pretty much like I built them, except that I use two rotations to get them in the right position, while on the real plane it's done with a single hinge. It's a limitation of LEGO. Here's a picture of a Fencer-C. SU-24 FENCER C Qarshi, Uzbekistan January 2004 by Cold War Warrior, on Flickr It's not the same version as my plane, but the cockpit canopies didn't change. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks. Well, one tip that I can give you is to look around on the internet and see what other builders have done. The Blackhawk is a popular subject and there are some really good ones out there. I've got a close relative of the Blackhawk in my own collection, but it's a bit too big for minifigs, and I reckon you're looking for minifig scale. There are also quite a few not so good ones, with obvious mistakes. Building a detailed scale mode of a real vehicle isn't particularly easy, but there are some things that aren't hard to get right -the number of rotor blades or the location of the wheels, for instance. This leads to my second piece of advice: use reference pictures and drawings. They shouldn't be hard to find on-line. I usually use a three-view drawing and work out the measurements from that for building my models. It's what I did for the Fencer too. Cheers, Ralph

Several military buiders are is hosting a /military build competition on flickr, including myself. One of the categories in the contest is for Warsaw Pact aircraft. As one of the judges I don't participate in the contest, obviously, but it did inspire me to build something. The Su-24 Fencer was developed in the 'seventies as a counterpart to Western strike aircraft such as the Tornado IDS and the F-111 Aardvark. At the time it was considered to be one of the most sophisticated Soviet aircraft and it caused NATO considerable worries. Su-24M Fencer-D (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr Like its Western counterparts, the Fencer has variable geometry wings. On my model these are interconnected using a mechanism I developed many years ago for my F-14 Tomcats, ensuring that their movement is synchronised. Su-24M Fencer-D (2) by Mad physicist, on Flickr Over the years several new versions were developed. On early production models, called the Fencer-A by NATO, the aft fuselage was box-shaped. On later models it was more closely contoured around the engines. This was not easy to pull off in LEGO. Su-24M Fencer-D (4) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The most difficult element of this build was the vertical tail. I wanted the demarcation line between the white leading edge and the grey area to be straight. When using normal LEGO slopes to build a longer slope, there will always be steps. I solved this by using cheese slopes and making them step 1.5 plates relative to each other. It is not a new technique, but one that was tricky to apply to a construction that is just one stud wide. Su-24M Fencer-D (5) by Mad physicist, on Flickr Another tricky part: the landing gear. The Fencer was designed to operate from austere fields, which requires a pretty hefty undercarriage. Mine doesn't fold in exactly the same way as the real one,in which the main wheels lie flat when retracted, but looks reasonably accurate when extended and all the doors are the right shape. Su-24M Fencer-D (11) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The Fencer carries most of its weapons on four fuselage pylons and two pylons under the wing gloves. Two smaller pylons are mounted under the wings and obviously need to swivel to stay aligned with the fuselage as the wing sweep changes. On my model they carry AA-8 'Aphid' short range air-to-air missiles, carried for self-defense. The larger missiles on the wing glove pylon are AS-17 'Krypton' Anti-radar missiles. These are designed to home in on enemy radar emitters, such as the radar used by Patriot surface-to-air missiles. One of the hardpoints under the fuselage carries a fantasmagoria pod. This is an emitter-location system that feeds data to the AS-17s and seems to be a standard fit for Fencers used for suppression of enemy air defenses. Some people know me as a car builder, others see me as building town, but I enjoyed returning to the thing I probably like doing best: building military aircraft. Cheers, Ralph

We seem to be having two conversations at the same time. Some people are obvisouly writing about studless Technic building vs. studded Technic building. I suppose it makes sense, considering that this is the Technic forum. However, I had the impression that Ape Fight was referring to the look of a studded model versus a studless one, which makes sens, considering that this forum is also for Model Team People are obviously free to express their opinions, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion -which some people seem to have- that a studded model somehow is no good. Comments about studs is one of the reasons why I quit MOCpages. There are plenty of kids on there who seem to think that if a model isn't studless, it's no good. That ladybug is wonderful BTW. Cheers, Ralph

A plate with door rail is actually slightly narrower than 1.5 studs (put a jumper plate beneath one and you'll see that the jumper plate sticks out a fraction of a mm). I figured that instead was the equivalent of a plate plus a plate's thickness, as I wrote before, but I just measured it and found that this is not correct either. Its width lies between the two! So, door rail won't fit without putting stress on the parts. Cheers, Ralph

A plate with door rail will probably work (it is 1 plate plus one plate's thickness wide), but will still leave a bit of a hole. Cheers, Ralph

Looking at it, I reckon it would be hard to get rid off full stop -not just in LDD! Ralph

I personally like my models to show studs. They're made out of LEGO and I prefer to be able to see that and don't think it detracts from the wow-factor either. I'm also pretty sure that there are certain things that would be practically impossible to pull off if I were to insist on studlessness. Su-27 Flanker (10) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The locations of the studs not completely random. I tend to limit them to upper surfaces. I also use combinations of studded elemets and studless elements to create gentler-looking transitions than would be possible with either tiles or plates, much as the model builders for LEGOland parks do. Case in point: the hood and roof of my Jaguar. Jaguar Mk VII (5) by Mad physicist, on Flickr I can't count how many times I've had comments by people along the lines of 'nice, but would be better if studless'. I disagree. I've seen brilliant MOCs that had studs and I've seen rubbish that was studless. Ultimately it doesn't matter all that much. Cheers, Ralph

I usually don't build sets. I part them out straight from the box with very few exceptions. I generally do keep my creations together for a long time -often years. I recently moved to a new place and finally have a decent-sized LEGO room to display them. My new LEGO-room (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr I also have shelves in my living room and a few more models dotted around. LEGO shelves (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr and I still have some stuff stored in boxes... Cheers, Ralph

There's a nice video on youtube as well. Ed explains how he built it (helped by his wife). I designed the planes. Project Intrepid aircraft by Mad physicist, on Flickr It's fantastic that it is in the actual Intrepid museum. Sadly I couldn't go. Cheers, Ralph

I don't really care about the backdrop, but for real-world camouflage it's obviously important. I want the camouflage to look like that on the real vehicle. By all means, if your purpose is for your LEGO military units to blend in with official sets, regular green is probably the way to go. I wrote a blog post in 2009 about building camouflage with LEGO that you might find useful. <Lecturer at naval academy mode on> No offense, but if that were the case, why not paint them bright orange? Wikipedia gets it wrong / your interpretation of what is written on wikipedia isn't right. The point of dazzle camouflage isn't to hide the ship, it is to make it harder to identify the size or type of ship and the distance and relative heading, in particular through optical systems such as range-finders and submarine periscopes. Visual location of targets has become less important with the development of radar and sonar, but that isn't the reason why dazzle camouflage has fallen out of favor. The reason is the threat posed by aircraft. When seen from the air, traditional dazzle camouflage makes the ship stand out like a sore thumb and no less easy to identify. Tedious grey (or a slightly blueish shade) makes far more sense. <Lecturer at naval academy mode off> Cheers, Ralph

It depends on what you want. I tend to look at my models as actual scale models of real vehicles, albeit still obviously build in LEGO, and I'd like their colour schemes to be realistic. For those regular green is too bright IMO. Of course, dark green is pretty rare, certainly small plates, which seriously limits the options, but I'll show what a difference it makes. Several years ago (in 2005 or 2006), when I didn't have any dark green, I built a HumVee, using black, (old) brown and regular green. HumVee by Mad physicist, on Flickr I don't think it was a bad effort, but the green did strike me as far too lurid. In 2009 I decided to rebuild it replacing the green. Because I couldn't swap the parts one for one this meant basically rebuilding the whole thing, but I think you'll agree that the end result looks far more convincing. HMMWV revamped (3) by Mad physicist, on Flickr I made a few other changes while I was at it, but I think the colour scheme made the biggest difference. Of course, there's been an option to build realistic military colours for years. tan! Cheers, Ralph

An unusual subject, but nicely done. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks guys. The exact terminology that is used to describe a trailer like this seems to different between the US and UK. It's a semi-low-loader or stepframe trailer depending on where you come from, but the trailer is modeled after a Nooteboom OSDS trailer. I'm glad it shows :-) Cheers, Ralph

The issue with building 'minifig scale' models of ships is that you are likely to end up with some seriously huge models. I'm not into building ships myself, but I was involved in this project (I designed the aircraft): USS Intrepid by Lego Monster USS Haggard by Babalas Shipyards These ships were scaled 1/40. The carrier is 6.5 m long. The destroyer is a lot smaller, but still is close to 2 m. It's not exactly practical! Cheers, Ralph

There isn't much I could write that I didn't already write before. What works best depends on personal preference and on the particular use you have for your vehicle, as long as you are consistent and your regular cars aren't bigger than your trucks! I prefer the smaller end of the scale (with 5-7 wide vehicles) because when used together with minifigures as pedestrians and minfigs riding bicycles they don't dwarf the figures. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks Lasse. I agree on the backhoe, actually. I'll quote one of the captions I wrote for the pictures: I'm not much of a Technic builder and generally don't like the aesthetic of all the open beams. This build involved more Technic parts than most that I've done, and I've tried to give it a more realistic look. I haven't quite succeeded on the front of the loader, but I am very happy with how the rear looks. I should probably look into buying more 1x4 and 1x5 technic plates in yellow, as they have fewer holes. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks guys. One of the nicest comments I got at the show was that despite the relatively small scale my trucks don't look all that much less detailed than many much larger LEGO models people had seen. It's probably more true of the DAF truck I had on display than of the Scania, but it made my day. Cheers, Ralph

There was some good stuff. Most of the models there were die-cast or metal, but the public seemed to appreciate our LEGO models too -certainly the children. It was a nice event and I hope to attend next year's too. Thanks Dennis. It's a shame I didn't complete the JCB before the show, as the combo looks much more interesting with something on the trailer. Then again, there is always next year! Cheers, Ralph

Thanks guys. Two months without building anything was no fun, but there was light at the end of the tunnel. OK, I'm being dramatic. Anyway, I was very happy to finally finish this. Thank you. I knew that whatever vehicle this was going to carry would likely be yellow, so I figured it would look nice to have some yellow in the colour scheme of the actual truck as well and these trailer often have a yellow stripe anyway. I had a little look at what other parts I had available in different colours. It turned out that green was one of the colours in which I had all the parts I needed to build the cab. I wanted the truck to look nice, but not overly 'customised'. It's supposed to be a work vehicle after all and I felt that there already are enough details to keep thing interesting without a fancy 'paint job'. There are. There's a link in my first post to another post here by Bricksonwheels with two videos showing all the LEGO models on display. There are also a couple of pictures in my photostream on flickr. My models are tiny compared to those built by my fellow Dutch truck lovers. Cheers, Ralph

A few weeks ago I joined several other Dutch builders at Modelshow Europe in Ede. The theme of the show was heavy haulage and ground moving. I don't have many MOCs that fit in that theme, so a few months ago I started building a new truck, before I had to put the project on hold. I moved house, which meant my LEGO was packed away for a few months. As soon as my LEGO room reached a point where I could build again, I unpacked my truck and continued building. Fitting in the theme of the show, I decided to build a Scania with a stepframe trailer and a JCB backhoe loader. I managed to finish both the truck and trailer in time for the show, but unfortunately didn't have time to build the backhoe loader. Scania with Nooteboom stepframe trailer (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr I wanted my truck to have a knuckleboom crane like many trucks used for this sort of task. It is fully functional, in the sense that it can be unfolded and extended like the real deal. It is fairly fragile though, so it can't carry much of a load. Scania with HIAB crane (4) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The trailer is modeled after a design by the Dutch company Nooteboom and like the real trailer can be extended for carrying long loads. I obviously don't need this for the JCB, but wanted to have the functionality regardless. Scania with Nooteboom stepframe trailer (7) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The trailer also has two-piece loading ramps at the back, to allow vehicles to driven on or off. Scania with Nooteboom stepframe trailer (4) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The backhoe loader has already been spotted by DLuders. I didn't finish it in time for the show unfortunately. It took a fair bit of fiddling, because I wanted it to look good and to have a fairly high degree of functionality as well. The front scoop is fully articulated. JCB Backhoe loader (3) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The excavator arm is also fully functional. JCB Backhoe loader (5) by Mad physicist, on Flickr I may not have finished the whole combination in time for the show, but I quite like it sitting on my shelf! Cheers, Ralph

I understand that they essentially don't want to market the kind of weapons children might actually end up seeing in the news -at least that's my interpretation of their policy. What I don't understand is why we should give a toss about LEGO's policy at all. If LEGO doesn't make something we want, we can make it ourselves! Case in point (more Model Team than Technic): M1A1 Abrams by Mad physicist, on Flickr Cheers, Ralph

Nice Chinook Futtige. I agree that the chin bubbles and cockpit windows in general turned out well. They are the bits that I had the most difficulty with on my own model as well. The colour scheme of the prototype is a nice choice. The contrast between the red and the dark bley really works. I think the proportions aren't bad, certainly not a first glance. Perhaps the nose juts out a bit too prominently, but changing that and keeping the studless look is not going to be easy. I think it is a really nice model, but there are a few things that you might want to look at. I'm not trying to be overly critical here, but I do know a thing or two about building Chinooks You've obviously taken a good look at photographs or models of the real thing, because you've managed to get a lot of things right, but you have missed one that often confuses people. Production versions of the Chinook have single rear wheels while the front wheels are dual -as they are on your model. I've seen quite a few LEGO models where this was missed. Unfortunately, the prototypes did have dual rear wheels! Nasty, isn't it? On my model the chord of the blades is three studs and I see you've done the same, but they look a bit too bulky. I'm fairly certain that the CH-47D has wider blades than the prototypes and your model is quite a bit smaller than mine -mine is too big for minifigs. Have you considered making them just two studs wide? I love the way you built the engines. You've chosen just the right parts to get the shape, but I think they do need to be mounted a bit further forward though. The front of the engines should be aligned with the front of the aft rotor pylon. I also think the front rotor should be mounted a bit further forward. You've got the rotor axis going through the aft part of the front pylon, but is should be located in the front half. The aft part of the side sponsons/ saddle tanks is very blunt on your model. On the real helicopter it is more smoothly faired into the side of the fuselage. Thanks for the credit for the window design. It's really not my idea to build windows this was, although until now my Chinook was the only one that I know of that used the design. I'll keep an eye out for new versions of yours. Feel free to drop me a line (either through a PM here or a flickr mail) if you'd like my input. Cheers, Ralph

It was good fun and great to finally meet some LEGO builders in the Netherlands and to see their work in person. Here are two shots from the other side of the stand, showing my models in the foreground and bricksonwheels' behind. Modelshow Europe 2011 (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr Modelshow Europe 2011 (2) by Mad physicist, on Flickr Cheers, Ralph