I think a vital point is being missed here.  The rebuttal that is being posted on this thread I don't think has anything to do with the fact the people, and those also in the video, are using third party parts or damaging genuine LEGO parts to accomplish the feat of flying.  I agree with the above that the "why do people do this" mindset is boring.  I love to use third-party parts.  It is fun!  I have said it before and I will say it again.... I like to build; period.  I mess with RC cars, woodworking, etc.  I like to create.  I use lots of different things and mediums.  It is just that I think LEGO is the best.  Most versatile.  Gives the greatest possibilities.  But.... and a big but here.... is that if I find something else (material or otherwise) that completes my goal in mind, then I will use that.  End of story. The fact that third party motors and others things were used is not an issue. At least in my mind and perhaps not even an issue in most people's minds that even posted "against" comments on this page. 

I think the real beef with this post is that the OP posted it as a solution to a current belief.... that LEGO, pure LEGO cannot fly.  By stating "FINALLY" someone made LEGO fly will sound like something ground-breaking and proving nay-sayers wrong.  When in fact, the video posted is nothing that we haven't seen before, and certainly does NOT solve the problem of LEGO not being able to fly.  We can dissect what we mean by LEGO all we want here... but I think there is a general consensus that if you claim to solve this problem, then it needs to be all LEGO.  The creator of the video him/herself even did not make such a claim.  The title is "RC Flying Lego Airplane" indicating that RC parts were used.  The title of this post does not seem to match the content of the video.  That...... as I see it, is the issue with the video.  Not the fact that some builder chose to address the issue using third party parts....

I get that this is breaking down nuances of speech...... but, precision of language does matter and truly I think it is the reason for the hoopla on this post..... 

On 10/29/2016 at 9:37 PM, 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...

 

Looking back this is pretty much what I mean.  Stated very well by Paul.

Everytime, when I see the "flying Lego....[something] ", I'm prepared for dissapointment, of being not 100% Lego. Because, if we will make it one day (even when it's very unlikely), that would be the most awesome thing in Lego technic history. These videos get the hype because of their title, which states that it's Lego. You watch them because of this, so being not entirely Lego, and still having the title "Lego..." is some kind of cheating in my eyes, at least by these "planes" or "flying objects". Everyone could write a title, like "RC plane with Lego body", or "Lego plane with third party motors", but then nobody would care. I just don't like to "compete" with these Lego vehicles packed with custom components, because it's much harder to solve and create the same with Lego, or even (seems) impossible, like flying.

This is my only problem with these, the title in videos (or even worse, in newspapers, media). Of course, they have sense, fun to watch, etc.

Edited November 9, 20168 yr by Tamas Juhasz

Honestly I don't see the problem with calling it flying Lego. It's a step in the right direction - the wings (most important part of an aircraft) are made of Lego. If someone builds a car with a Lego chassis but gives it a non-Lego motor then we still call it a Lego car. I don't see why the same isn't the case for aircraft. If the defining part of any vehicle is made of Lego and the majority of parts are Lego then I think we should be happy to say it's a Lego creation. That "Lego" RC helicopter is not what I'd call a Lego creation, because the most defining part of a helicopter is the rotor system, which in that helicopter's case they weren't made of Lego.

Thumbs up to that Lego RC plane

Yes, it depends on, what we consider Lego, or not. The same with the most important parts. You say, the wings, I say the propulsion, controller. But that's sure, the title gives much more views and hype, than a title: "flying plane on Lego base", or something. You can call it Lego, if you want, it's for fun, I just wrote my thoughts about it. Am I alone with this?

Edited November 9, 20168 yr by Tamas Juhasz

1 hour ago, Bartybum said:

  - the wings (most important part of an aircraft) are made of Lego.

Hmmm..... kinda disagree with this.  Not an aviation expert, be interesting to hear from someone who is, but not sure the wings are the most important part of aircraft.  Certainly NOT from a technical standpoint.  Think of history.  Wings were created long before the appropriate propulsion for flying.  That is why gliders were created before fixed-wing flying aircraft.  They appeared first b/c they were much easier to invent/create.  In reference to the question of flying LEGO, the question has always been, and still remains, how to accurately propel the build, not necessarily how to provide the lift from the wings.  Same with rotary-wing aircraft.  Again, no expert here.... but I think that the blades from 9396 would be sufficient for flying if there was adequate power.  But there is not (speaking of pure LEGO).  Again, the question, or hardest part is in the drive system.... not the rotors.

In the RC drone industry, the difficulty was the same.  The question was not how to produce sufficient rotors (that could have been done like when....50's ..60's) for a drone, but how to make powerful enough motors that were still light enough.  Or how to power them without adding too much weight.  Or the electronics.  The rotors (akin to wings) were not the problem.   

I am not that forgiving in terms of definition. Lets not follow the trend to wash meanings, which basically devalues the words. We invented a very complex communication form by talking, and each word has the adequate role to specify something: material, activity, emotion, behavior, color, ...

If there is a definition for LEGO build in human society, and it covers objects made of unmodified pieces which were produced by LEGO company, than this flying thing doesn't meet these requirements, only maybe in 30%.

The purists says a MOC must be 100%.

Many of us like third party tires, lights, so our limit is ~98%.

But 30-40% doesn't fulfill the definition at all. Than how to call it? Flying LEGO plane? No. Experiment using partly Lego pieces? Yes. Or simply by the title they use: like hunting, which is the most cheap and empty recent activity.

Language is a "living" entity, but not that much elastic. Simple example: You don't call white light red, just because one of the component is red.

Edited November 10, 20168 yr by agrof

6 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

but not sure the wings are the most important part of aircraft. 

Really !?

"Lego" in Latin means "to assemble". This was because of the studs.
The purpose of the use of Lego pieces, as the name suggests, is the ease of designing  and assembling a work thanks to standardized parts. Nothing else.

LEGO, himself even makes parts that are not standard (not in technical), then why should we feel remorse.

Edited November 10, 20168 yr by oracid

1 hour ago, oracid said:

Really !?

It is. The most importent part in any vehicle is the supportstructure. In the plane its the fuselage. It's a given that wings create lift while movement. But there are other aerodynamic effects like liftbodies, etc. You should not forget at what to mount your wings, controllsurfaces etc. It's the same to say the most importent part in a car is the engine. ;)

We can twist the words as long as we can, but let's not playing lawyers and politicans here, just because there is no exact definition in written form, we all know what people understand and expect or believe under: "LEGO build". These guys simply ride the LEGO wave, using the reputation of the brand, and they mislead viewers by doing this (on purpose or not, it is whatever). End of story.

Personally I don't mind, as it doesn't hurt anyone, I am just worried that comminaciton degrade. Evolution of mankind. LOL <3 Xtreme

Edited November 10, 20168 yr by agrof

14 hours ago, agrof said:

I am not that forgiving in terms of definition. Lets not follow the trend to wash meanings, which basically devalues the words. We invented a very complex communication form by talking, and each word has the adequate role to specify something: material, activity, emotion, behavior, color, ...

If there is a definition for LEGO build in human society, and it covers objects made of unmodified pieces which were produced by LEGO company, than this flying thing doesn't meet these requirements, only maybe in 30%.

The purists says a MOC must be 100%.

Many of us like third party tires, lights, so our limit is ~98%.

But 30-40% doesn't fulfill the definition at all. Than how to call it? Flying LEGO plane? No. Experiment using partly Lego pieces? Yes. Or simply by the title they use: like hunting, which is the most cheap and empty recent activity.

Language is a "living" entity, but not that much elastic. Simple example: You don't call white light red, just because one of the component is red.

What about the largest Lego model ever built the Lego X-wing. You think that was built the 100% LEGO. 

 

It is steel base frames and glued 4x2 bricks as hull, what LEGO does for marketing. I don't see any creativity in it, tons of material with tons of work for sure, but the purpose of such huge models is not creativity, just pumping the show. At least LEGO doesn't claim flying ability for it. 

2 hours ago, agrof said:

It is steel base frames and glued 4x2 bricks as hull, what LEGO does for marketing. I don't see any creativity in it, tons of material with tons of work for sure, but the purpose of such huge models is not creativity, just pumping the show. At least LEGO doesn't claim flying ability for it. 

And it is still the Largest Lego model and which is not 100% Lego build but we still say Lego at the end of the day. Your failing to understand your own point you making in the post I quoted above, This is not about if the Lego can fly or what Lego does for marketing. It is a Life size Lego model and that is very creativity just like making a Lego model fly and when we attempt such Lego feats of engineering we got to build in kind. Example knowing when to use glue or lubricate that joint or knowing how to use Lego Plastic as a rocket fuel. Just because it not here yet don't mean its not coming.

Well, this topic is about flying LEGO discussion, and about one specific design.

Large sculptures, what LEGO does are not MOCs, as they are factory products, and don't use the regular connection and building methods (which are determined by LEGO itself - remember legal and illegal connections) with serial production parts - I indeed didn't specified in that post. You can still find catch in this sentence if You want to, but don't expect any further answer from me regarding this.

I believe most collegue understand and share the point, see previous comments.

You mix up the things, the model showed in this topic is creative, but not a LEGO model - and we discuss about this. No need to bring Your examples here.

While it is debatable whether or not wings are the most important part of an aircraft, if you are scratch building a flying model in the modern world, the airframe is by far the easiest part.  With modern motors, batteries, and electronics, I can make any object fly with appropriate power.  I could build a plane out of wood, or fabric, or LEGO, or paper, or bricks. Whatever, it's really not that hard.  So from that point of view, the hard part about making a proper flying LEGO model is the power system.  There are an unlimited number of ways you could use R/C electronics to make a LEGO shell fly.  It is still laudable when someone actually does it, but the chasm to be crossed in terms of power systems before we get a real flying LEGO is vast.

The reason I would argue that a wing is not as important as it used to be is that with enough power you don't need a good wing.  Mankind spent hundreds of years coming up with an efficient airfoil section and a wing strong enough not to break.  But nearly any shape will produce lift if you move it fast enough and give it an angle of attack.  That's why you see so many planes made from styrene sheet now.  No airfoil at all, just flat plates.

Sorry for the misunderstanding guys, but when I said wings are the "most important" part of a plane what I really meant to say is they are the DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC: the layman calls something a plane because it has wings. If a piece of machinery (glider/powered, whatever. That's irrelevant to the definition) doesn't have wings that make it fly (or wasn't designed with wings in mind) then no one calls it a plane.

Form a impartial view at watching the Lego Airplane being built to begin flown. Was very interesting to see, If anyone wants to perfect the Lego Airplane even further go ahead don't let the negative mindsets stop you. Lego can fly.

To bring this up again and offer nothing substantial other than throwing barbs (i.e. "negative mindsets"), IMO, opens your comments to scrutiny. 

Negative mindset or just being realistic?  I will let readers be the judge. 

And as they do, they will all search youtube, brickshelf, etc and realize that no one has even came close.  They will analyze the the power versus weight ration of PF motors and battery boxes and a common sense will prevail. 

 

 

 

And please don't add any more malarkey about what proportion of a build has to be Lego before the evasive "Lego flying machine" title can be applied to it.  If you are going to claim such a title, it has to be Lego.  All of it.  As Blakbird said, it is fairly easy to make a Lego flying machine if the drive train or other parts of the build are not Lego.....

 

 

  

@nerdsforprez Its a Negative Mindset after all the Positive Mindset and the Right Mindset knows that Lego Can Fly Naturally and those that go against the positive can only be negative. So they are wrong then and they are wrong now and will be wrong in 25 years from now. History will be the Judge here after all Flying Lego has been accomplished so easy a Kid can Build one and Fly. So just know this the one who has the willingness to be educated and learn from the wrong is the one who will be right.  The main base of education is the willingness to learn and to do things that are good and right, to believe in things that can be proved. You cannot build a Flying Lego Airplane if you your self never built one, so how can you say LEGO cant Fly. But I will let the readers decide if you got high unrealistic standards for a Child toy that LEGO has designed for flight.

 

Edited November 14, 20168 yr by Boxerlego

2 hours ago, Boxerlego said:

@nerdsforprez Its a Negative Mindset after all the Positive Mindset and the Right Mindset knows that Lego Can Fly Naturally and those that go against the positive can only be negative. So they are wrong then and they are wrong now and will be wrong in 25 years from now. History will be the Judge here after all Flying Lego has been accomplished so easy a Kid can Build one and Fly. So just know this the one who has the willingness to be educated and learn from the wrong is the one who will be right.  The main base of education is the willingness to learn and to do things that are good and right, to believe in things that can be proved. You cannot build a Flying Lego Airplane if you your self never built one, so how can you say LEGO cant Fly. But I will let the readers decide if you got high unrealistic standards for a Child toy that LEGO has designed for flight.

 

Last comment by me and I will drop the issue.  I mean no disrespect but your defense here is a little tangential.  I fear there may be some language barrier so respect is even more important than usual. But I must say I think you are still missing the point.  I have stated several times that the fact that others are building something that flies with non-Lego parts is an absolute non-issue.  I love building with non-Lego parts.  Completely fun IMO . 

Succinctly stated, the issue that I, and people in general I think, had with this post is that there is now a well-known debate in the Lego community of whether Lego can fly or not.  Being defined further, can an all-Lego build fly or not? If someone were to actually build something that could fly (again, all out of Lego)  then the owners of the build could claim that notoriety.  This post claimed to have solved that problem (i.e. title of post....."finally" someone made.....).  However, it did not.  If you are familiar with the phrase "smoke and mirrors" then you get what I mean.  

The issue is more about precision of language.  Don't claim ownership of solving perhaps one of the more significant problems out there in the Lego Technic community unless you truly have done so.  In fact, please realize that the more creations that come out using non-Lego elements actually provides for evidence that the problem cannot be solved using genuine Lego parts.   

Lastly, the reason for my most recent post had nothing to do with your unfounded belief that a Lego (sorry to be redundant, but I find myself needing to always clarify....ALL Lego) build could fly.  It had to do with you calling those in the community that dont think it is possible as "negative."  Doing this creates an "us versus them" mentality, which is not only unproductive, but it is "negative" in and of itself.  Stating a belief that suggests something is not possible should not be interpreted as discouraging someone from trying.  That is an logical fallacy that I cannot own.  The fact that I don''t think it is gonna happen does not mean I don't think people should try.  On the contrary..... have at it.  Eat your heart out....have fun.  Don't see what is negative by that........

 

All lego can fly, even if you just throw bricks across the room. That's the same principle as a glider - only the lift/drag characteristics are different. This keeps coming back to the self powered and controlled definition isn't it? And the argument there is that the "self powered and controlled" bit does not involve lego.

The rolls royce flying bedstead is proof that with enough power, anything will fly. Same probably goes for jetpacks the delightfully nutty inventors have been trying to develop for a while :)