Technic 2017 Set Discussion

[Gnac]

3 hours ago, nguyengiangoc said:

Any idea if this green is 42008 green or 42039 green:

[pic]

Seconding @letsbuild and @Error404 on that.

Also, it looks like those Earth Blue 2x4 bent beams which I thought would be present were a bad guess. I assumed they'd be approximately at the endpoints of that 15M beam by the helipad supports. The actual situation makes more sense from a structural (and parts economy) point of view.

[Milan]

Merging with 2017 Set Discussion.

 

[AOW]

In the set 42060, where is the anniversary brick ? I could not spotted it .. 

 

[Migui94]

Hi it is located on the trailer.

[Kmuffin]

After seeing sariel's review of the 42062. I have to say I like how simple the mechanism of the reach stacker's gear rack is. Without spending about 10 seconds on extending the gear rack. I wonder why they didn't implement that on the 42061.

[Dyen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxqZMRbYC04
Fast build of B model BMW 

[1gor]

22 hours ago, Dyen said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxqZMRbYC04
Fast build of B model BMW 

It looks like BMW bike has this part

http://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=26287&idColor=5#T=C&C=5

[SNIPE]

On 14/12/2016 at 0:21 PM, Kmuffin said:

After seeing sariel's review of the 42062. I have to say I like how simple the mechanism of the reach stacker's gear rack is. Without spending about 10 seconds on extending the gear rack. I wonder why they didn't implement that on the 42061.

With a worm gear you can lock the position of the gear rack at any point where as the reach stacker only locks fully extended or fully collapsed.

I think the reach stackers boom mechanism is a bit unrealistic where as a worm gear setup is smaller, more realistic and more reliable.

just my 2 cents..

Edited December 15, 2016 by SNIPE

[N-4K0]

I guess they put fast extension first for the reach stacker, so one doesn't have to turn a worm gear for maybe 10 sec to go from retracted to extended, seeing as it's a set and has a truck with trailer and containers along with the reach stacker. Faster movement for playability instead of perhaps a better boom setup.

[krtwood]

The jet is another model, like last year's tractor, where I wonder why they felt the need to make this PF.  I realize it fills the spot of the 1H helicopters and cargo plane that had PF so I guess they have a slot where the designer must build something aeronautical with PF for a certain price point.  But the jet clearly suffers for it, and for what?  So that fan blades inside of the model that you can't really see will spin?  Other than that there is nothing this model does that couldn't be done just as well, if not better, manually.

I'll give it this much though.  The stubby wings make it so you can actually display it on a shelf like most other models, unlike the cargo plane.  But they could have borrowed the folding wings of the navy version for that.  It did allow them to avoid dealing with the problem that the angled panels are just the wrong angle for the wings.  I would have liked to see the designer come up with a real solution, and maybe we will see some from the AFOLs.

[Huaojozu]

I agree. I also don't like seeing PF where they are not really need. I especially find it funny when cars/vehicles have just about everything motorized except the wheels. I get that without RC you won't be able to steer but guess what - a child wouldn't care. Best case scenario it would motivate them to want to get something RC to mod it. Take 42039 for example. It has optional PF integration which also doesn't include powering the wheels. I know there are people making mods to rectify that but to me it just seems silly.

[J_C]

Nobody*) saw the jet plane in motion yet. Nobody saw functions at work yet. Nobody saw its mechanics, gearboxes yet. We can talk about colours, shape, stickers and so on, but functions talks are bit premature. I would wait with dismissing opinions a little. Maybe till we actually see what it does (and how). That might be reasonable. But that is just me... 

*) and those who saw it are very silent - which in totally OK and understandable and it should not be otherwise.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

The jet is available on Amazon JP, but as far as I've searched on japanese websites there hasn't been any review.

[paul_delahaye]

On 14 December 2016 at 8:40 AM, Migui94 said:

Hi it is located on the trailer.

Feels a bit of an afterthought to put the limited edition brick on the underside of the trailer, but then the entire trailer is a bit lacking and an afterthought in it's design.  Feels a bit like trying to make the parts count match a price point.

[porsche911bestcarever]

I dont know if anybody said it already, but the jet is an f-35 joint strike fighter, the VTOL version. You can see this at the two side stabelisers and the one roundengine-outtake thing (I dont know the english name). This can moved down to make the thrust pushing the plane up. At the same time, doors open and the stabilisation fan in the font can push fresh air on the ground tho make thrust and cool the ground down. thats includet in the model, too. And because the doors for the front fan and the front wheels are the same, i think its one big mechanical process to change from take-off/landing to flying mode. The retracts work automaticly if the rest goes into fligt mode. Thats the answer to the quesion why there are two fans includet, one for the main engine and one for the stabilisation fan. So the one red lever at the top to change flying program, the other opens canopy and turnigng the fans works automaticly when you put the batterybox on. the manual funktions are turning tne front wheel for steering on the ground and rudders. I think lego did a good job here making a non military jet with many funktions for something only flies awesome stunts, but i dont like the design, like all lego jets.

[Saberwing40k]

It's been pointed out before, but you're right. The wings in particular need improvement. Interestingly, in spite of not wanting to produce military vehicles, Lego has produced a set that is basically an F-22, and now a F-35. But, it would be cool if there was a stunt jet that was VTOL in real life.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

5 hours ago, porsche911bestcarever said:

So the one red lever at the top to change flying program, the other opens canopy and turnigng the fans works automaticly when you put the batterybox on. the manual funktions are turning tne front wheel for steering on the ground and rudders.

I'm afraid you're not correct this time. Here's the view of the red levers and the stickers. You can click on it to see it more clearly.

 

The upper lever changes between VTOL and FLIGHT. The lower lever retracts the wheels. The canopy can be opened, but manually.

[porsche911bestcarever]

And what makes the black gear wheel in the back? The joystic for the rudders?

[Vectormatic]

Am i the only one bothered by the lack of rear elevators? I cant think of any jet anywhere near this style lacking the rear elevators.. In fact the entire wing design is odd, like they took the stubs off of an F104 and slapped them onto an F35B. Center of lift/weight look waaaaaay out of sync, with no real way to compensate with a rear control surface.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

18 minutes ago, vectormatic said:

Am i the only one bothered by the lack of rear elevators?

Yes you may be the only one because the jet does have elevators. In the following pic both tapered panels go down, so they're probably linked to the same axle. What it lacks are ailerons. And if you're bothered by the lack of ailerons then you're not alone because I am too

Edited December 19, 2016 by nguyengiangoc

[Vectormatic]

3 hours ago, nguyengiangoc said:

Yes you may be the only one because the jet does have elevators. In the following pic both tapered panels go down, so they're probably linked to the same axle. What it lacks are ailerons. And if you're bothered by the lack of ailerons then you're not alone because I am too

 

Good point, elevators/ailerons/elevons.. (do know the difference, just hadnt dug deep into the technical feats of the model) either way it is missing the rear wings! And having the elevator control surfaces that far forward reduces their usefulness.

 

Ill be keeping an eye on the forum, to see if someone mods the jet to something slightly better looking

[Ngoc Nguyen]

I think adding 2 more black tapered panels to the end wouldn't be any trouble. Or maybe TLG is gonna surprise us by giving the jet elevons (elevators and ailerons combined)!

Edited December 19, 2016 by nguyengiangoc

[J_C]

There are jet planes with just main wings (no tail wings) e.g. Mirage 2000. There are also jets with combined flaps and ailerons into one unit.

Here I guess Lego did not make it "too" similar to F-35 on purpose. They would have to get a licence from Lockheed-Martin (Lockheed, I would bet, would be only happy to grant it), but then LEGO would face their own "no military stuff" policy. So only way to prevent this Catch 22 is to make the plane not like F-35.

[AVCampos]

1 hour ago, nguyengiangoc said:

I think adding 2 more black tapered panels to the end wouldn't be any trouble.

Maybe even easier at the front, like the Saab 37 Vigen or the Eurofighter Typhoon.

But, given the set's size, price point and status as 1H flagship, I'd bet on elevons.

[Vectormatic]

42 minutes ago, J_C said:

There are jet planes with just main wings (no tail wings) e.g. Mirage 2000. There are also jets with combined flaps and ailerons into one unit.

Here I guess Lego did not make it "too" similar to F-35 on purpose. They would have to get a licence from Lockheed-Martin (Lockheed, I would bet, would be only happy to grant it), but then LEGO would face their own "no military stuff" policy. So only way to prevent this Catch 22 is to make the plane not like F-35.

The creator blue power jet is pretty much an F35 as it is though, so that argument doesnt fly (:P) with me.

Good catch with the mirage by the way, completely slipped my mind (and upon reading your post i expected it to have canards.. guess not), i still think the wings look weird on the big technic jet.