Erik Leppen

If the original MOC builder sells instructions, I'd choose to be on the safe side and not do free instructions for them. In all other cases, I think there's little to fear for. Maybe you could search for people who have built models you like, but aren't themselves good at making instructions. Then, it's a win-win situation.

It's the best outcome to have, really. It means that if 2 kids decide to do an obstacle course with their tracked racers, both have chances of winning. It would be boring if one outperformed the other on all parts.

I think this looks really great. I like all the various control surfaces (no idea how each of them is called) and how everything seems to be interconnected. And how they're actually controlled by levers reachable by the pilot(s). I'd really like to see it in real bricks, especially in motion :) One thing that I'm slightly worried about is the sharp angle of the universal joints used at the sides. They might introduced a lot of slack, and make the rear azure-color-coded control surfaces "hang" or make their movements jerky. I hope that in reality it's acceptable. Anyhow, great usage of panels and the red-white combo seems to work really well here.

Update time! I have spent some time building again and have mainly worked on the tail rotor, the cabin, and the rotor head, and some paneling for the rear wheel "legs". For the rotor head, I followed the suggestion by @Lipko of replacing one end of the 6L links ball joints by a pinned connection, that only allows rotation in 1 direction. This improves the behavior of the turntable. It still rotates better in one direction than in the other, becasue the links are at an angle. The reason for the black #3 angle connectors is that I needed the links to be somewhat shorter than 6 studs, and to prevent the gray 1x5 suspension arms from intersecting other things. When U use vertical bars, the suspension arms just don't fit and introduce a lot of friction. If I get no other ideas, I think I keep the current solution, even though it's a bit too large for my taste. Also, I found another way to secure the tail section, which is basically a trapezium shape, so if not reinforced, the tail can wobble left and right. In the previous take, I used a beam to center it, but I found another solution that makes the beam superfluous and makes the room free for something else. (either a joystick mechanism, or a crane mechanism). It's the little black X-shape between the angled beams of the frame, that does the trick. I also added a tail section that holds the tail rotor. The day after, I also improved the shape of the cabin, and added 3 seats. I read that there are 2 driver's seats and one crane operator's seat. I positioned the latter sideways. Also, the cabin is moved slightly forward and up, and the bottom is now yellow. To do list: add joystick mechanism for rotor controls. Probably it's not doable to connect this to any driver's controls… add a wheel to rotate the rotors add crane mechanism somewhere (just a winch may be enough, but 2 parallel winches would be cooler) add landing gear (one steerable wheel below the cabin, two fixed wheels under each "leg") add a container that can be lifted add detailing, such as the engines at the front of the rotor head whatever I am forgetting now

Well, surely there's got to come something in 2019 2H that uses those yellow 14t sprockets from the tracked racer. A car transporter or a spider crane isn't going to use those.

Hm. I think you said it pretty well when you said that the set might have been a test to see if smaller sized licenced cars are a good idea or not. Also, indeed, no opening doors, hood or trunk is kind of a bummer. I'm a bit surprised you find it ugly though. I think it looks really nice. Just not like a Corvette. But even then, with 600 parts and all the limitations official designers need to work with, I'm not sure much more is possible. I think the problem here is the licence. Maybe, had you reviewed the B-model as if it were the A model, you'd be more positive - it has the same (two…) functions, but no licence to compare the looks with. And looking at it that way, it's a cool hot-rod set whose B-model is a nice Corvette :) Also, sure, it's $49, but in Euro land, it seems to be €39, not €49. And for €39, I think it's a good deal. But yeah, it's still too limited in functions. I might still get one for the pieces though. I like how it's an orange set that's actually full of orange.

It depends on whether you buy sets for parts, or for something else (like the joy of building, or learning new tricks, etc.). If you buy for parts, then, instead of looking at the number of parts, look at the number of parts you actually want. 2300 parts is nice, but if most of it is parts you don't need, it has little added value (except the joy of building etc.). You could make a list of parts you want in both sets, and how much you think each part is worth to you, find the total "part value" per set and compare that to the set prices. The differnce between the "part value" and the price, is what you pay for the building etc. One thing to consider specifically for 42039 is the bright green color is cool, but it's also still unique among all Technic sets, so it may be hard to use the parts in MOCs. Dark azure (42077) is more widely available, and I assume you already have 42070 (seeing your avatar) so 42077 may actually help you getting a better range of parts in dark azure. If it's purely for parts, a dislike for the model shouldn't matter -- if it's for parts, look at the inventories. On a personal note, I really liked 42039.

Where? I haven't seen it on high-res images.

I'm not sure what problem a subforum would solve. Seeing in the topic, it's clear it would introduce new problems. It makes the competition harder to find. If it's concentrated on one place, fewer people stumble upon it by accident. I.e. less serendipity. Are people complaining they can't find stuff? At the end of the compo, there will be a neat list of all entries in the entry topic with links to all discussion topics. Isn't that exactly the overview that's suggested here? Of course, you can only know the effect by testing, so if the staff wants to find out, I'm fine either way. I just don't see the particular reason to do this, really. If people want that overview, why don't they just make one? Wouldn't you have the benefits without the problems then?

The topic title says 42092. That should be 42095

I want this set. Badly :) Thanks for the review, and the great pictures. Looks like a really fun set. The fact it's not too expensive for what you get, makes it all the more attractive :)

From this, can we conclude your scores range from 6 to 10? I mean, if a car with no features gets 6 out of 10, then what would get 5 stars or less? Really, if the left-most 5 stars are to have any value, there should be a way to get 1 star. And if there's one set from the last 10 years that deserved 1 star for the Features category, it's this one. I agree with the review that the looks are great - minus the stickers and bad printing. I don't like Porsche cars from their looks, but I really like the looks of 42096, mostly because of the front, the rear and the colour scheme. If 42056 looked like this, I'd probably get it. Or, differently stated, if 42096 had functions to match the looks, I'd probably get it.

I really like the smaller version, with the yello0w knob gears and 24t gears. Pretty ingenious system. The large verson with the tractor tyres looks cool, but what I notice is that during steering, the axle becomes shorter. The wheels sort-of "slide inwards" when steering. I'm not sure how much of a problem that is. Maybe in reality it's almost unnoticable. Depends on the friction of the wheels I guess. In any case, it's an original and new solution to an old problem, and may be perfect for places where space is limited. For example, for models with many wheels with little space in between, or when the wheels need independent steering, like in vehicles with different steering modes such as cranes.

Sad to see you go, @Lipko. But, as @Didumos69 says, you shouldn't do a hobby if you don't enjoy it. Congratulations on becoming a father (if all goes well) and I hope you will remember your time at EB fondly. PS The "simplicity" of your car MOCs, as you call it yoruself, is one of the things I particularly liked. At least for the one I recognize from your avatar :)

Replacing with beams probably won't work, since the turntable is also moving up and down, but maybe replacing one of the balljoints with pins may work. It's a thing I will experiment with, thanks! (Haven't had time yet) I'm not even sure how to drive the turntable at all, since it's on a "floating" platform supported only by the 4 suspension arms. Driving the turntable from the main rotor using some kind of beam system seems like the best bet so far. Also, I want to support the main rotor's axle, as I find a single axle much too weak and wobbly. So I don't want to give up the 3 stud diameter smooth hole in the large turntable. Edit - sorry I thought you suggested to replace the large turntable, but you were talking about driving it. The new turntable is actually 60 teeth, which is 2 x 2 x 3 x 5, which may be doable (no weird factors). Provided I find a way to drive it at all :) There are some neat ideas there, thanks! I don't fully understand them yet, but it's food for thought certainly. Thanks! Also, @jwarner has shown a really nice solution using an extra linkage in his rotor unit. I'm afraid it's too large though for my version. Correct, one of the linkages has "flipped" the wrong way. A mistake I only noticed after taking the pictures. Thanks so far for all the replies (also the ones I didn't quote, of course). I probably have some time to build coming Saturday :)

That gearbox unit looks mental It was of course to be expected that you'd find a similar solution to what I use for my entry, but much more robust and seemingly also better working so far. I especially like your system of "dummy linkages" to align the whole thing. I may borrow that On the other hand, your unit is huge, so you may want to consider using custom blades (made from beams or so, I mean). I also see you took the trouble to align all balljoints around the turntable in a single plane, to prevent unwanted sideways movement when the turntable's angle changes. Looking forward to seeing it combined with your earlier unit. That would give a sense of scale.

A nice, original take on the competition theme! Also, good to see someone use these parts for something useful. I prefer the "model A" with 2 pairs of wings, since it's less "trivial" and therefore feels more like an actual model rather than just a little test thingy.

Thanks for the pictures @Cypr-21. Agree, it looks decent without stickers. I think the white part of the body is flowing quite well actually. One strange omission is the 2x2 corner plates used in the side mirrors. There are new 2x2 plates with cut corner (image below), which also exist in white. That would have been a perfect fit below the new left/right 1x2 curved slopes. A really strange choice, especially sihnce I think there are no other 2x2 corner plates in the set, so the number of lots wouldn't be affected by this.

He must hate his job at the moment, if this is what he's assigned to do... Model has the same empty feeling as 42077. I find it hard to imagine a Technic designer making this without feeling terrible about it. Not worth it for the model. At first I thought that at least it looked cool, and I still think it looks better than 42056 (but that's not very hard), but I'm afraid that without stickers it's very bland. Apart from suspension parts also found in 42077, there are almost zero technical pieces. The white pins with pin hole are cool though, I hope they show up in other sets in good quantities. Looking forward to the tracked loader, anyway.

This looks like an interesting project. The hard part indeed is making sure the movements of the control surfaces match the movement of the plane itself. At the same time I think you don't want the position of the joint too far outside the body of the airplane. Ideally the joint is near the center of gravity of the plane... So maybe you cna also follow the approach taken in that Idea book model @m00se mentions to control the plane angles, and then link the plane's control surfaces to the motion of the central block within the plane. Anyhow, looking forward to more of this. I think it can become a very fun model.

Oops! I misread. Sorry! I thought you were talking about the hub you actually used. So you're talking about this part:

Nice, and good start. I like how clean the design looks so far. At this scale, your model will be huge. I'm not even sure the standard Technic helicopter blades will be large enough. Looking forward to upcoming progress :)

It looks neat, but I doubt it's usable in its current form, for various reasons: 1. because the whole axle moves, and the mounting point is in the center, the whole thing will become much less rigid. The chassis basically has to go over it, rather than through it. That means you sacrifice chassis strength. That would be fine in a model with a live axle, where the chassis is above the axle anyway, but I think with a low model that would be quite a big sacrifice. 2. The way you mounted the hubs, you increased that distance by another 3 studs. This would place a lot of unwanted force on the blue pins (when the steering angle is at its maximum), which introduces a lot of friction, especially on a heavy model. I think if you mount the hubs using ball joints with a 5-high axle, and use the axle drivers from set 8466 for drive, the actual distance between the pivot and the center of the wheel is actually very reasonable. So, I think, with the current geometry, it's not usable. 3. There are already other ways to do a virtual pivot point inside the wheel, including a method with two 4-bar linkage I used for my TC7 Enforcer, which I borrowed from a fellow Eurobrickian whose name I have forgotten:

OK, so let me join the fun of TC15. I never build aircraft, so for one it's a nice experience to try building one. My choice of model is inspired by a old competition on Techlug.fr where the assignment was to build a Skycrane helicopter. I wanted to join but didn't have the required blades, but the idea remained in my mind so a picture of the original was added to my build-inspiration folder. So when TC15 came along, I was immediately reminded by that and it sounded like a fun project to try building a Skycrane. First, a reference picture: By Bidgee, CC BY-SA 3.0 au, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=62840938 One of the cool things is the 6-blade rotor that I wanted to replicate. Then, my first draft: There seems to be a lot of progress, but remember everything is a draft :) As the theme of the contest is Aircraft, I want to prioritize the flying mechanisms above the crane. So I figured I wanted some control over the rotor. I fondly remember the great 8856 helicopter set, which move the whole rotor, and I also remember some discussions about how that is neat, but not actually realistic, because in actual helicopters the individual blades rotate. So that inspired me to try do it like in real, and with all the new parts something should be possible. This is the mechanism I have so far and I'm already quite proud of it, even though it doesn't fully work yet. The turntable works as a swashplate and only houses the hxagonal ring with 6 ball-joints. The rotor axle goes through the center of the turntable and is fixed (the mount is behind the 2x6 suspension arm so cannot be seen), while the turntable can move in 2 independent axes, using the same mechanism as 8856 did with the whole rotor. The black 13L beam on the tan axle pins controls the left and right suspension arms. The front and rear suspension arms are not linked yet. The idea is that I want to have a joystick somewhere that controls these 2 motions. Ideally, in the cabin, but as I also strive for playability maybe somewhere that's more reachable. Suggestions are welcome! Main problem is that the turntable is not driven, so right now it's "pulled along" by the 6 dark-gray 6L links, but this only works somewhat-well in one direction. Also, it has friction. I'd rather have the turntable's rotation linked to the rotor in some way. I haven't found a way yet and it may not be possible without loosing other things, like the support for the central shaft that's needed for rigidity. What's cool is that the whole mechanism fits in 9 studs width. Next up was a long, thin, strong frame. Because I wanted it to be rigid, I wanted to use studded bricks for that. Which limits my color options. My main gripe with it so far is that I think it's too wide, and together with the required paneling it also takes a lot of room. But I needed the 9 stud space in between for the rotor mechanism. Also, it is quite rigid indeed! But I'm nto sure I awnt to keep the studded frame. Also, not sure how I'll fit in any crane machanism, there's not much space left in the center. Also, I don't like the white transverse 15L beam at the bottom, but it's needed for the strength of the side wheel mounts. Third up is the cabin. My first take on replicating its round shape: Not sure yet. Epecially since it lacks the side doors from the original. I noticed in pictures there are doors at the rear of the cabin, which I did add. Here are all the loose bits of paneling that together with the functional modules, were used in the first draft. I'm not sure about the color yet. I feel that the paneling dictates white as the primary color, (thanks, again, to 42025) but I rather use a somewhat more interesting color. Especially together with black, white seems a bit boring to me. So I added a splash of yellow as a secondary color, but again, with all those interesting new colors of recent years, maybe I'll opt for something else later on. That said, yellow has good part availability (including axles). Maybe I should do a similar "blue stripe" effect of 42025B, but using another color. That's it for now. Any tips are welcome! Especially on how to link the turntable rotation to the rotor. But also on model size, position of the joystick, and anything else you notice.

Suspension? At least at the rear, with a single gray spring? There's many smaller sets with that. Simple 2-speed gearbox? 42048 had that, and with the blue 20t it's easier than ever. And indeed, openable doors, hood and bonnet. That would at least increase the play value. I mean, it's a decent set, but I still find 2 functions for 500+ parts rather poor.