9 hours ago, Tommy Styrvoky said:

Could you provide any more information on the motor's locations/tracks?, and are there pannels on the sides of the tracks, as from looking at the promotional image, it looks like there could be 3x7 or 3x11 round panels, as it appears that the injection port defect is visible from the image, thought this could just be noise in the photo. I also think I may have made the lower road wheels too shallow, they should use 4 stud long axles with stop.

i am still figuring it out so i will post a picture of the finished tracks when ive figured them out! (ive tryed twice so far but i keep notising things that i dident notise before!)

The bucket on the telehandler looks like a new part, with an attachment point in the centre. Markings on the inside of the bucket are new as well. Wonder if it's related to the bucket parts on the Bucket Wheel Excavator? 

Think we're seeing bucket evolution here.

Also, I think I've set a record for the number of times one can utter the word 'bucket' in a single post... 

4 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

The bucket on the telehandler looks like a new part, with an attachment point in the centre. Markings on the inside of the bucket are new as well. Wonder if it's related to the bucket parts on the Bucket Wheel Excavator? 

Think we're seeing bucket evolution here.

Also, I think I've set a record for the number of times one can utter the word 'bucket' in a single post... 

lol! yeah i think your right, also i would be really happy to see a picture of the tracked racer with a white background as the dust is hiding too much of it...

Eh, it's a prelim, and a really small box image, at that. This will be one of those sets where it may look better than prelim.

1 hour ago, XAxles said:

Eh, it's a prelim, and a really small box image, at that. This will be one of those sets where it may look better than prelim.

Or not(Looking at your 24 hours Race car ) .

16 minutes ago, Ondra said:

Or not(Looking at your 24 hours Race car ) .

anyway beauty is in the eye of beholder so for me also CLAAS Xerion's attachment was better in preliminary image than on released version so you definitely have a point here Ondra

 For me 42066 seems at par to the B model of 42042 . Considering the cockpit structure it's probably of a similar size  Edit: looking twice it seems that the nose are longer panels and that there is one more "section" of length, so probably this is huge, above 60cm long...and with power-functions weight.... mmmm not so easy swooshing then

My son loves to play with the white-red jet and a blue-black one is welcomed. I wouldn't have liked it in green, orange or yellow. So thanks TLG for the assortment of medium azur panels (and lime green from the tracked racer!)

Defiinetly, wing shape is not relevant for having fun playing with it and it looks straightforward to add "missile launchers" to it

 

Let's see what the power functions do (and the B model) but my first impression is very positive 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 20168 yr by bitbamboo
size review

That jet looks like F-35 with a bad paint job. :D Since it's has power functions maybe it will be capable of doing something like this: 

Edited September 27, 20168 yr by model850

I think LEGO is stuck between the rock and hard place when it comes to jet planes. Obviously, natural inspiration must and should come from military planes. But LEGO policy about military stuff is NO, NO, so they end up doing some "aerobatic, race" kind of mutant. 

On one hand I can understand why it is not acceptable to have military stuff as toy manufacturer in portfolio, but when nowadays you have "half" of the LEGO catalogue full of StarWars, with shooting mechanisms, minifigures with guns etc. and whole superheros (that occupy other "half" of LEGO catalogue) is shamelessly violent, no-no on military plane looks bit hypocritical. 

 

1 minute ago, J_C said:

I think LEGO is stuck between the rock and hard place when it comes to jet planes. Obviously, natural inspiration must and should come from military planes. But LEGO policy about military stuff is NO, NO, so they end up doing some "aerobatic, race" kind of mutant. 

On one hand I can understand why it is not acceptable to have military stuff as toy manufacturer in portfolio, but when nowadays you have "half" of the LEGO catalogue full of StarWars, with shooting mechanisms, minifigures with guns etc. and whole superheros (that occupy other "half" of LEGO catalogue) is shamelessly violent, no-no on military plane looks bit hypocritical. 

 

i think its because the military may have caused oley to some hard times so thats why they have that policy

2 minutes ago, J_C said:

I think LEGO is stuck between the rock and hard place when it comes to jet planes. Obviously, natural inspiration must and should come from military planes. But LEGO policy about military stuff is NO, NO, so they end up doing some "aerobatic, race" kind of mutant. 

On one hand I can understand why it is not acceptable to have military stuff as toy manufacturer in portfolio, but when nowadays you have "half" of the LEGO catalogue full of StarWars, with shooting mechanisms, minifigures with guns etc. and whole superheros (that occupy other "half" of LEGO catalogue) is shamelessly violent, no-no on military plane looks bit hypocritical. 

 

Probably lego means that killing and shooting in movies are OK but in real life its bad .There is thin line between reality and fiction, but TLC never really cross that line.

1 hour ago, model850 said:

That jet looks like F-35 with a bad paint job. :D Since it's has power functions maybe it will be capable of doing something like this:

Pretty sure that would be a fire hazard.

20 minutes ago, Ondra said:

Probably lego means that killing and shooting in movies are OK but in real life its bad .There is thin line between reality and fiction, but TLC never really cross that line.

Sopwith Camel is military plane. 

All I wanted to say is that since I was little LEGO became far more tolerant to violence. There is nothing I wouldn't have bought for my kids from "old" ages, however there are more than few sets (and maybe whole themes) I would not buy for my kids nowadays. 

Denying that jet singleseater plane is military machine seems odd to me.

Edited September 27, 20168 yr by J_C

28 minutes ago, J_C said:

Sopwith Camel is military plane. 

All I wanted to say is that since I was little LEGO became far more tolerant to violence. There is nothing I wouldn't have bought for my kids from "old" ages, however there are more than few sets (and maybe whole themes) I would not buy for my kids nowadays. 

Denying that jet singleseater plane is military machine seems odd to me.

And red baron.Probably is lego thinking, that 1 WW is something romantic,I see that many people have same view.Thats bad...
 

Let's not derail the thread with a debate about Lego's policy towards military vehicles, while it merits discussion, I think that should occur elsewhere. I'm not trying to mini mod, but still. I find it very interesting that we've had several users look at the same picture, and draw completely different conclusions. To me, that indicates we don't have adequate information. Also, the picture is really not that good, but I can make out 1 set of arrows, indicating PF landing gear. However, this is probably not final, as there are two levers on top. That indicates at least 2 motorized functions, with each lever controlling forward/reverse, and the battery box switching only one way.

Did Sci give us the prelims of this wave's flagship?

11 minutes ago, Chimaninja454 said:

Did Sci give us the prelims of this wave's flagship?

1h flagship is the plane

 

One does not simply produce a PF-ready 1H flagship with merely 2 motorized functions...

Although the jet looks a bit ugly, it looks like there are some interesting functions. Here are some observations I made about the jet:

• Looks like the Jet has moving elevons AND rudders! I think that they are controlled from the levers above the fuselage (for easier acces), and that the motorized functions will be controlled from other parts. 
• I think that you can see the airplane from the back in the sidebar. There are two blue parts bellow the rudders. They might be the exhaust (you can also see a cylinder protuding from that zone on the main picture). So I say it's a twin engine.
• Looks like there is a function arrow above the cabin, in the sidebar.

I hope this has rotating turbines! And if they were removable it would be perfect!

I also think that the desing will get modified in the final set, the central part looks too cubic.

 

Edited September 27, 20168 yr by Kaanere

@nguyengiangocTrue. But it's a preliminary box design, so we can expect 4 functions as every big technic aircraft . I hope that the XL motor is not a "dummy advertisement"

Personally,  I like the jet. Lots of panels, PF and has a great design.  Maybe the color combination is not the best but I understand the color scheme. We already have red and yellow in 9396. White and blue in 42025 and White and orange in 42052. Yellow would be so 42044. Red, so 9394. White and red,  so 42040... LBG is the perfect color but it is related to military themes. So no chance I guess. Though Dark blue instead medium blue would be better 

If BMW licensed set, then it had to be telelever front and paralever rear suspensions for authenticity :) Cardan shaft isnt on the left side of bike by the way. 

 

That would actually be a nice feature, and explain why there are no scock absorbers visible, because they are hidden on the real bike. But, I'm not getting my hopes up. See 42056 for why.

Also, we haven't seen anything about those commerative bricks. What do y'all think they could be? I'd like to see something laser engraved, but even better would be a chromed 40z gear, which is one of the few Technic pieces that's been around since the beginning, and far more evocative of Technic than a brick. Also odd is that any kind of commerative thing is not mentioned on the boxes, but that's probably because the boxes aren't finished.

 

Finally, I would think Milan/Grohl would be the designer of the jet, which should mean a great model, but we instead have something that looks really off. I mean, if it can't look realistic at least it should look good, right? Oh well, I haven't seen enough of the jet to pass any judgement.

Edited September 27, 20168 yr by Saberwing40k

9 hours ago, Kaanere said:

Although the jet looks a bit ugly, it looks like there are some interesting functions. Here are some observations I made about the jet:

• Looks like the Jet has moving elevons AND rudders! I think that they are controlled from the levers above the fuselage (for easier acces), and that the motorized functions will be controlled from other parts. 
• I think that you can see the airplane from the back in the sidebar. There are two blue parts bellow the rudders. They might be the exhaust (you can also see a cylinder protuding from that zone on the main picture). So I say it's a twin engine.
• Looks like there is a function arrow above the cabin, in the sidebar.

I hope this has rotating turbines! And if they were removable it would be perfect!

I also think that the desing will get modified in the final set, the central part looks too cubic.

 

I hope the function arrow by the cabin would indicate a working ejection seat. That would be something new and interesting.

I'm abit late to the pics, does anyone have a link cause the one on the other page says there is nothing there when I go to the site.

The one with 42066 got yoinked, here's everything else:http://imgur.com/a/BS8Am