42113 Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

[Anio]

47 minutes ago, agrof said:

Ok, I am seriously confused. Are these guys just plain stupid not to follow the terms of LEGO and risk their own business they do for living, or has LEGO changed their policy about model reveals? @Jim@Sariel@kbalage@Anio Do You have any information?

Those people certainly dont have the same agreement/contract with TLG than we have.
We are RLFM and have to respect a specific day and time before unveiling anything.

This guy is probably a retailer and so has a retailer agreement/contract with TLG regarding when he is allowed to sell the product. But probably no agreement about when he is able to unveil or talk about it.

That is a glitch in the process, and the guy takes full avantage of it to promote his brand. Which I can fully understand (can't blame the guy, he probably doesn't even know what RLFM are...).

 

Anyway, this has been reported to TLG. Hope they can fix it within the next few months. But it may take some time. Cause it involves many people beyond the AFOL Engagement Team.

[agrof]

@Sariel@Anio@kbalage Thank You for the clarification - I do sorry for You guys, years (Anio, Sariel - more than a decade) of hard work, which indirectly/directly generated a lot of marketing value for TLG should be respected, at least with same conditions for all. I hope this will be fixed, because You deserve it.

[Anio]

26 minutes ago, agrof said:

@Sariel@Anio@kbalage Thank You for the clarification - I do sorry for You guys, years (Anio, Sariel - more than a decade) of hard work, which indirectly/directly generated a lot of marketing value for TLG should be respected, at least with same conditions for all. I hope this will be fixed, because You deserve it.

Thanks. But as far I am concerned, I don't mind too much.
Don't want to sound cocky, but the review those guys did are not even close to what I can offer to the Lego community.

If his goal it to make as many views as possible (in order to promote his brand for example), well, good for him. But that is not at all what I am looking after when I publish a review.

[anyUser]

From those two video reports it seems, that the model is over-engineered:
You can hear grinding noise of the clutches from small linear actuators used for loading bay mechanism and landing gear deployment if the end stop is reached.
On the other hand, the designers had to implement a construct based on pin friction to dampen force on the rotor (didn't notice if it is the tilt or the rotation). I think theres is also a linear clutch (as in 42100 and 42112).
Despite the possibility of building errors the motor cabins don't seem to be properly balanced to work without flaws.

To me these are too many adaptation just to maximise the motorized functions.
I would
- put a motor with proper clutch to avoid injuries on the rotation because this is the most tedious operation
- use purely mechanical setup to tilt rotor, deploy landing gear and open the loading bay.
There is even a nice sliding solution driven from the linear actuator that could be kept as start.

[Anio]

@anyUser What do you mean exactly by "purely mechanical setup" ?

[anyUser]

Just now, Anio said:

@anyUser What do you mean exactly by "purely mechanical setup" ?

Anything driven by crank or knob or lever, e.g. not motorized.

[allanp]

I like that the rotors appear to spin quite fast.

[MarkyMark42]

3 hours ago, Gimmick said:

But he also says: "It is not a building-error, but I definitely made a mistake in the gearbox, which is why I cannot show everything here now."

Can anyone else explain how "it's NOT a building error, but I definitely made a mistake" works? 

As far as I'm aware, that's a building error

[anyUser]

Translation of Gimmick above is a summary of several sentences at the where the reviewer shows the propeller and the underside of the wing with the axle for tilt mechanism:

"it's not a building error" - the propulsion is transferred only up to the tube piece ()

implying that this would be a flaw in design rather than assembly. It has worked as intended before the propellor blades were attached. The problem is similar on both wings so he excludes a fault from build.

"but I definitely made a mistake" - something in the gearbox is not OK from the building process but no further details are give. He plans to look into it.

[Gimmick]

59 minutes ago, MarkyMark42 said:

Can anyone else explain how "it's NOT a building error, but I definitely made a mistake" works? 

As far as I'm aware, that's a building error

Sorry, I shortened it a bit too much.

Thx @anyUser

You can also see in the first Video, that one rotor-block rotates when he activates the propellers. The friction is not balanced - but that can be be a building error, too.... sometimes you have to realy build carefully in complex models. But nevertheless: We will see, I think I will buy it anyway. :<

[dabo]

5 hours ago, Gimmick said:

Can someone with "Technic" knowledge please make a review? :D We have enough "I did something wrong, I don't know what I'm doing, it doesn't work, I release the video anyway"-videos now.

You are right. I never realized how difficult it could be to follow the instructions, they are usually very clear to me and I am not a Technic expert.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Mod idea:

 

[Jundis]

8 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Mod idea

I think we discussed this on in the 2020H2 thread. Turning mechanism should be possible and also to run 2 functions (rotor movement and tilting) through a turntable. But it will be highly likely needed to rebuild the whole upper structure. It's all about maintaining stability, maybe use a locking mechanism so its not to flimsy in "flight mode". Folding of the blades however will be a very hard task in this scale (maybe with pneumatics...). But it could be done manually already, just unlock the pin. Only problem is the slightly tilted position, which will look a little bit awkward...

Edited July 12, 2020 by Jundis

[pleegwat]

6 hours ago, Jundis said:

Folding of the blades however is will be a very hard task in this scale (maybe with pneumatics...).

My first thought to this is using wires. But of course those can't go through the rotating section. Could still be useful to transfer force over a few studs inside the props.

Setting up a pneumatic cylinder so the rear is fixed but the front rotates with the props seems unwise from a friction/wear perspective.

[ace_klimax]

On 7/9/2020 at 1:36 PM, Bartybum said:

I'm interested, but you should start a new topic. Once that's done though you should also share a link in this thread

 

[AussieBrett]

On 7/12/2020 at 9:04 PM, pleegwat said:

My first thought to this is using wires.

I honestly haven't looked at the setup, but my first instinct is the old flex cable system.

[ace_klimax]

On 7/12/2020 at 7:33 AM, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Mod idea:

 

I'm implementing rotation of a wing in my moc, but i don't think it would be possible in core 42113 model.

You need to transfer at least 2 functions (rotors + gondola inclination ( + I'm transfering also flaps)) throught turntable (which is possible, but not in small horizontal space)

Also the gearbox is mostly built in the central part under wings, so you would need to move it much lower

 

Non-military version doesn't come with this retractable wings

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by ace_klimax

[Akbalder]

Isn't the embargo supposed to be lift today for the Osprey ?

[AVCampos]

Probably, but TLG needs to send the review copies for the reviewers to have something to review.

[Timorzelorzworz]

On 7/18/2020 at 4:21 PM, AVCampos said:

Probably, but TLG needs to send the review copies for the reviewers to have something to review.

Yes, or they buy them of the beginning of august like everybody else has to do

[kbalage]

28 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

Yes, or they buy them of the beginning of august like everybody else has to do

That's exactly the plan

[JaBaCaDaBra]

But wasn't it so that certain people received a set earlier to review?
With an embargo not to release the review before a certain date.

Edited July 20, 2020 by JaBaCaDaBra

[kbalage]

40 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

But wasn't it so that certain people received a set earlier to review?
With an embargo not to release the review before a certain date.

That's how it works usually, and that's how you could see reviews of 42112 and 42114 last week. 42113 did not arrive to the reviewers in time before the embargo was lifted.

[JaBaCaDaBra]

2 minutes ago, kbalage said:

That's how it works usually, and that's how you could see reviews of 42112 and 42114 last week. 42113 did not arrive to the reviewers in time before the embargo was lifted.

Hmmmzz
It looks like something is going wrong at Lego.

[kbalage]

25 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Hmmmzz
It looks like something is going wrong at Lego.

Probably, but the reason might be quite different than you think. Here's a recent article in German, and a quick Google translate of the statement sent by LEGO Germany:

"The LEGO Technic Set Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey was developed by us in relation to the aircraft's operations in rescue operations. The aircraft is mainly used for military purposes. We have long followed the principle of not designing sets with military vehicles. In this case, we have not strictly followed our own guidelines and high standards and will therefore review the plans to launch the product on August 1st. ”