Amazing! The guy obviously knows the basics of aerodynamics. And yet he still thinks he can get it flying... That is some serious out of the box thinking...

It was already posted and it's using non-Lego parts for the most crucial things.

57 minutes ago, Lipko said:

It was already posted and it's using non-Lego parts for the most crucial things.

Agreed.  If you look at any discussion regarding the possibility of LEGO flying the issue of power to weight ratio is always at the forefront.  Using non-LEGO RC motors is not some insignificant change; it is at the heart and soul of the whole "can LEGO fly" argument.  

Lots of people can and have made LEGO fly..... if using non-LEGO ways to power it or somewhere in the drivetrain. 

 

 

Wow that was Amazing. Gives a good starting point to improve the future development of Lego aircraft. It's only a matter of time when Lego aircraft become strong & rigid enough to start doing Barrel Rolls and Flips along with the occasional Flat Spin, now that would be awesome to see done.

Interesting, but honestly for this project they could use any sheet material, I see nothing LEGO specific.

For me it is like hammering with gnocchi... I understand the fun part of it, but...

its a pity that its not possible to do with only lego parts but this plane is closest to only lego that i have ever seen!

I really don't get why people do this... Your not really making a Lego plane, your just making a plane with some Lego in it, the major Lego pieces aren't even nicely put on, they're bent. I just don't understand the hype for this video... People keep showing this to me outside euro bricks too, and I just don't get it...

Well, it was already posted and no one really cared about.

It is like launching rocket with attached LEGO pieces and calling it "LEGO rocket launched into space@!@!@1111!!"

A.  They cut parts with a knife.

2.  They used non lego motors.

D.  It crashed.

Steve

Meh.
If I build a Lego car body and mount it to an 80 MPH RC chassis, I didn't make a 80 MPH RC Lego car.

Edited October 27, 20168 yr by Meatman

I don't get all the excitement. This is not Lego flying .We already had this flying projects with all major components made from "real" materials with some Lego plates and bricks attached to it.

I guess If you wanted to see lego fly, a glider would work, just use an RC plane to taxi the glider and release the glider in the air, so technically lego could fly, though not powered flight. As micro motors or m motors could be used to power control surfaces. I feel the same functionality could have been in a much better design that doesn't require cutting pieces.

7 hours ago, Buddy010702 said:

I really don't get why people do this...

People will build anything especially out of Lego.

5 hours ago, zux said:

It is like launching rocket with attached LEGO pieces and calling it "LEGO rocket launched into space@!@!@1111!!"

LEGO Rocket Launched into space hasn't that been done already?

5 hours ago, Choops said:

2.  They used non lego motors.

Yea Wind up motor are more for kids anyways. I've had plenty of Rubber band balsa wood airplanes as a kid to see where the guy above got his inspiration from to say the least. 

4 hours ago, Meatman said:

Meh.
If I build a Lego car body and mount it to an 80 MPH RC chassis, I didn't make a 80 MPH RC Lego car.

Well if you built a 80 MPH RC Lego car it would be hard to say it wasn't, now would it. But to think that your going to push the limits of a Child's toy to un-acceptable levels of potential with in the system would only be for fools.  

4 hours ago, Milan said:

I don't get all the excitement. This is not Lego flying .We already had this flying projects with all major components made from "real" materials with some Lego plates and bricks attached to it.

The excitement is that flying Lego is a possibility and yet people have this attitude like they wanted to see a Flying Lego Jet built entirely out of Lego. The saddest thing about this is that same people have this unreal expectation that a  Flying Lego Jet can be built entirely out of Lego. Come on give people a chance now would you.

2 hours ago, Boxerlego said:

 

Well if you built a 80 MPH RC Lego car it would be hard to say it wasn't, now would it. But to think that your going to push the limits of a Child's toy to un-acceptable levels of potential with in the system would only be for fools.  

 

But that is not what was said.  What was said was " If I build a Lego car body and mount it to an 80 MPH RC chassis "  - clearly different statements......

You can give all the arguments you want, this is huge !
If there are missing pieces to make a plane with Lego pieces exlusively, I think it is the fault of Lego and not the fault of these guys.
Thank you to them to make things happen.

18 minutes ago, oracid said:

If there are missing pieces to make a plane with Lego pieces exlusively, I think it is the fault of Lego and not the fault of these guys.

This is soo wrong. So if you don't have money to buy, let's say an expensive car, it is company's fault, not yours.

Anyway, there are many reasons why LEGO wouldn't produce flying planes, the main ones I see:
1. Safety - nobody wants to become newspaper headline leader
2. Bricks - normal bricks won't be used to build planes as they would come of easily. So something like 8369 set should be developed. New bricks will be odd looking and then again, even LEGO fans will say it is not LEGO.

Edited October 28, 20168 yr by zux

Every material has advantages / disadvantages, and accordingly the purpose where to use and not to. LEGO pieces (not ABS material) are not meant for real airplane constructions, just like You don't do campfire with steel tubes.

You can always try, why not, but here is pretty pointless, especially that the guys use LEGO plates as raw sheet material for tayloring / converting. It is definitely not a LEGO build = not a flying LEGO plane. If yes, than all RC models should be called as: flying wood/paper/plastic/metal/etc (insert producer's brand name for each)...

Edited October 28, 20168 yr by agrof

On 10/27/2016 at 8:10 PM, nerdsforprez said:

But that is not what was said.  What was said was " If I build a Lego car body and mount it to an 80 MPH RC chassis "  - clearly different statements......

Don't be fooled by what was said, for instance, A Lego plane don't Fly on Lego it fly's upon Air after all that's why its called a Air plane so it must Flys on Air, Correct. Now even better this is how I look at it because it will solve many arguments, There is this Lego part called the Magnet. Now some would say but that is not Lego implying that is just a magnet. I would tell those that disagree that its a Lego part and its up to you to figure it out how to build with it just like those bricks. Now they will think to themselves for a moment and say well as long the Magnet is encased in ABS Lego plastic then I guess it would be alright then. I always get the mental picture that as long it is encased in ABS plastic then its acceptable. So tell me, why a Lego car body that is mounted to an 80 MPH RC chassis not Consider a Lego RC car. Is it because it did not come in a box encased in Lego? 

well that's an awesome idea!!

6 hours ago, Boxerlego said:

So tell me, why a Lego car body that is mounted to an 80 MPH RC chassis not Consider a Lego RC car. Is it because it did not come in a box encased in Lego? 

I would call it an 80 MPH RC car with a LEGO body..

If people are going to boast about their achievements with LEGO, then I would expect the conquest has been made entirely with LEGO(or at least the keys to that achievement have been accomplished with LEGO).. That LEGO air-powered-car is another fine example of tricking the masses considering the entire chassis and other parts of it are not made of LEGO...

 

9 hours ago, Paul Boratko said:

I would call it an 80 MPH RC car with a LEGO body..

If people are going to boast about their achievements with LEGO, then I would expect the conquest has been made entirely with LEGO(or at least the keys to that achievement have been accomplished with LEGO).. That LEGO air-powered-car is another fine example of tricking the masses considering the entire chassis and other parts of it are not made of LEGO...

 

Right, I completely understand that. I recognize the idea that the build has to been made entirely with LEGO If people are going to boast about their achievements with LEGO. But here's the underlying problem about that, Some see that Lego is used for building and the rest see Lego as a brand. See with Lego building (for now) we have two opposing ideas here, on one side we have 100% Lego builds and on the other side we have >100% Lego builds but still built with Lego in most regards that also includes building upon natures elements (some examples: water, air, metal, fire, magnetic, electrical, chemical). That LEGO air-powered-car is a good example of a Lego build that's not out of the Lego box but out of ones will to build with Lego, sure the entire chassis and other parts of it are not made of LEGO along with the builder. We got to accept that not everybody is going to do and think the same that is what it means to have free will but there is a time when we must reject our free will and live within nature and not above it because nature always will pull us down and the bigger things get the stronger nature pulls. Now to wrap this all up Lego is used for building the further we push building more Lego will pulls the building back, with building there's going to be obstacles and if we don't have the willingness to understand how to not only avoid or collapse but move past the obstacles we will always be blocked by the obstacles.

Edited October 30, 20168 yr by Boxerlego

On 10/29/2016 at 7:37 PM, Paul Boratko said:

If people are going to boast about their achievements with LEGO, then I would expect the conquest has been made entirely with LEGO(or at least the keys to that achievement have been accomplished with LEGO).. That LEGO air-powered-car is another fine example of tricking the masses considering the entire chassis and other parts of it are not made of LEGO...

That one is not really a LEGO car, but it is propelled by LEGO which is still pretty cool.  Usually we see the opposite which is things built of LEGO but propelled by something else.

So we have seen a car propelled by a LEGO engine, powered by a 3rd party air supply.  Impressive as the largest LEGO pneumatic engine so far.

We have also seen an RC plane whose flight surfaces are the smooth side of LEGO plates.  Shame it uses tape for the hinges and falls apart on landing, but it's a step in the right direction.  Good to see some LEGO parts flying.

They do the same at LEGOLand, making a metal train chassis, putting a LEGO sculpture of the loco body on top and calling it a "LEGO train".  I'm pleased to see some of the [TC10] entries are pure-LEGO pneumatic trains.

The current status of a pure-unmodified-LEGO heli-spinner launch system is that, after a few LEGO flight experiments, I managed to launch a Ninjago Airjitzu spinner (without minifig or pod) by LEGO battery and motor power alone, using 2x PF train motors geared up 5:1.  An earlier test using 2x M-motors was nearly there but not quite.  The spinner rose to just an inch above the launcher, compared to an arm pull sending a spinner with minifig and pod up to the ceiling.  This is the limit of LEGO motor power.  Also 800mA at 7.4V per LiPo battery is the limit of power-to-weight ratio.

The current status of a pure-LEGO helicopter with 3rd-party power is 200g of lift from a 270g model, not yet off the ground.  This used 2x 5292 motors, which did not take long to warm up, and a bench power supply set at 9.15V and drawing about 2.6 amps.  I suppose more is possible.

So how do we move forward with a working pure-unmodified-LEGO aircraft?  A fixed-wing aircraft does not use as much thrust as a helicopter in order to maintain flight, so the LEGO baseplate wings are a good idea.  This puts the LEGO flight challenge in league with the generic drone challenge - how to get long range out of an RC drone.  It is suggested that it could do VTOL as a helicopter but then transform into a fixed-wing aircraft as an Osprey does.  The extra hardware to transform would push the weight over the limit for a LEGO aircraft, so a fixed wing aircraft is a good aspiration.  The trick will be using few-enough LEGO servos or micro-motors to get the weight below the lift capacity.  1x LiPo, 2x IR Receiver (or more likely S-Brick for range), propeller motors and a few 9V micro-motors.  Worth a try.

Mark

Thought this video was great, also knew what to expect going into this thread  Yes, true non-modified Lego controlled flight has been proven impossible, but it's always nice seeing people use creative ideas to build flying craft using the least amount of non Lego pieces possible. The 'why do people do this' mindset is incredibly boring. Same goes for road vehicles, you won't see a practical 100% Lego car going more than 20-30 kph, there will always be some sort of modification or negative side effect involved. I pushed my personal limits with this build:

It was well received, but I guess that is because the only modifications were in the running gear components and power supply/control - things that simply were not up to the task in their non-modified versions, which you could attach the same label to things like BuWizz or S-brick, and I never claimed it as 100% Lego. Was it purist? No. Does that mean I shouldn't have pursued it? Hell no.  to these guys.

Edited November 7, 20168 yr by z3_2drive