42145 - Airbus H175 Rescue Helicopter

[Nazgarot]

There seems it might have enough space in the floor for a by wire control system from pedals to rear rotor pitch. The hard mod will be building a small enough pitch system to keep it in scale.

I would also expect to see mods to make the oversized motor panels smaller to make it more to scale with the model without covers. 

These are mods I would implement in a second if anyone can come up with them. I wont be getting this before Christmas, so little chance of being first... 

Another nice mod would be a very low speed for the rotor rather than the current low speed. This would make the blade pitch change much easier to see. I'm excited to see what people will come up with.

For me this has turned from a "meh..." to a "must buy" after having seen the reviews! :)

_ED_

[thekoRngear]

16 hours ago, allanp said:

I think much of that might be the heavy use of frictionless pins, which have a lot of slop. Some carefully chosen friction pins thrown in here and there might help a lot with that, which I'm definitely going to try. But yeah, it would be great to not only see much of the sloppyness removed, but also functional tail rotor pitch control in the next big helicopter.

Once you are successful using the friction pins kindly share the improvements in the 42145 Mods thread. It would be cool to let us know in which steps what frictionless pins are replaced.

[Jayden]

RacingBrick's video is up!

(finally)

Edited July 16, 2022 by Jayden

[Ngoc Nguyen]

It still looks decent up to this point

 

It's the front slope that ruins everything about its look.

 

[technicfanatic]

Excellent work by RacingBrick to study the cyclic. Great idea putting the camera on the rotor.

The collective is backwards re: the convention. In this model you would pull the lever up to go down, which is opposite of the helicopters I've studied. This also makes the cyclic wonky, I think.

I realized that the blades on the model go clockwise, rather than counter-clockwise, because this is a French heli. In this case the collective action is correct.

When I was building my educational model I found that if you reversed the collective, it would scramble your cyclic: the helicopter movement is no longer intuitively linked to the direction of the cyclic stick. I think they got the cyclic phase shift correct ignoring the scrambling.

Edited July 16, 2022 by technicfanatic
Corrected mistake in rotor direction of motion.

[Unbrickme]

Here's my review of this legendary helicopter:

 

[ShowsOn]

2 hours ago, Unbrickme said:

Here's my review of this legendary helicopter:

 

I really enjoyed this review. Thanks!

[Ngoc Nguyen]

No inappropriate facial expression this time? I'm surprised.

[Polarlicht]

Maybe he isn't sooo SURPRISEDDDD this time

[HectorMB]

The only thing that I miss is that there's no long new 19x3 frames. I am not viewing any video of the set asi want to discover it by my self, with all the surprises that it comes with.

[1gor]

On 7/17/2022 at 9:10 AM, Polarlicht said:

Maybe he isn't sooo SURPRISEDDDD this time

Ha ha ha ha ha; yes, maybe he decided to start more serious and professional approach. Anyway @Unbrickme your last review is more enjoyable to watch than "surprised" videos of new leaks etc.

Welcome to Eurobricks forum

Edited July 18, 2022 by 1gor

[thekoRngear]

Been watching his videos since 2020. Just a bit of an advice: Legit criticism is also part of a review. It does not mean you have to worry about losing viewers. Always liked your enthusiam, keep at it. Liked the intro of the Airbus review! 

[ace_klimax]

I just noticed, it's model of Airbus and not Boeing, thus meaning TLG has licences with both major airplane companies, interesting...

[AVCampos]

Maybe Boeing got angry at TLG for all the kerfuffle surrounding the Osprey, and Airbus jumped at the chance? Anyway, TLG appeasing two bitter rivals has been seen before, with Ferrari and Lamborghini; I don't think it's entirely coincidental that the very next 1:8 Technic supercar following the Lamborghini was a Ferrari.

[langko]

After watching the reviews I think this is a very cool set! Definitely the essence of what technic is all about with all the functionality and realistic mechanisms, one of the best sets in a while in that regard.

[Maaboo the Witch]

Brickset review is up! Love Huw's references to CONTROL+ as "generally detested" and "all that nausea"!

[AVCampos]

Well, to be honest, I don't detest Control+... it lets us do nifty things beyond simple remote control (like a truck that I'm designing, that uses the gyro to optionally stabilise an onboard camera), with Pybricks there's no need for lugging around a phone, and it's actually usable outdoors. But I agree with the detestation of one peripheral per port (edit: which could have been averted if TLG adopted something like CAN Bus), the absence of "plug and play", and the rather small number of controls available in the LEGO physical remote controller.

Edited July 18, 2022 by AVCampos
Added the mention to CAN Bus

[msk6003]

I also not detest C+. I just detest it's app system. Powered up app don't give any information about it's block and C+ app don't support add anything in model even simple light in 42109/42124. And without spike and RI's PC version program, non of app don't support share program to other people. Because of that I like this set's twin switch batterybox. It has very lot of pontial compare to PF's normal batterybox. It's sad C+ system still don't have extension cable and rechargeable battery.

Edited July 18, 2022 by msk6003

[AVCampos]

Hah, the same happened with me and the RCX and NXT: I ditched TLG's official software and used fan-made stuff instead, much better.

But IMO rechargeable batteries have the same problem as mobile apps: when (not if) they stop working, we get expensive paperweights. Until a standardised Li-Ion battery appears, I'll keep preferring AA/AAA.

And a discussion about a set devolves again into the usual PF/PU discussion...

[thekoRngear]

36 minutes ago, AVCampos said:

Hah, the same happened with me and the RCX and NXT: I ditched TLG's official software and used fan-made stuff instead, much better.

But IMO rechargeable batteries have the same problem as mobile apps: when (not if) they stop working, we get expensive paperweights. Until a standardised Li-Ion battery appears, I'll keep preferring AA/AAA.

And a discussion about a set devolves again into the usual PF/PU discussion...

Phondly is good

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by thekoRngear

[AVCampos]

It's still a proprietary battery, with no guaranteed long-term (in the order of decades) support.

[Celeri]

Indeed, but if someday it breaks and cannot be repaired/replaced, you will still be able to revert to standard batteries. It is more like an add-on feature than a replacement product.

[kbalage]

1 hour ago, AVCampos said:

It's still a proprietary battery, with no guaranteed long-term (in the order of decades) support.

And it wasn't funded, so it won't become a product anytime soon. But it shows the lack of general interest, some people keep repeating that they want a proprietary rechargeable battery for Powered Up, but of course everyone wants it to be as cheap as 6 rechargeable AAs which is nonsense. Apparently the real interest is minimal, that might be the main reason why it is not worth for TLG to produce and sell it, especially as a standalone product. 

Btw the whole Control+ / Powered Up ecosystem is not bad by default, it already has so much potential with all the currently available hardware components if we include everything from Spike Prime / Spike Essential / Mindstorms etc. The no 1. problem is still the software and the total lack of interest to provide any resources for a proper development.

[Akbalder]

45 minutes ago, kbalage said:

Apparently the real interest is minimal, that might be the main reason why it is not worth for TLG to produce and sell it, especially as a standalone product

A battery is something "dangerous". I'm only interested by an official one.

[howitzer]

2 hours ago, AVCampos said:

Hah, the same happened with me and the RCX and NXT: I ditched TLG's official software and used fan-made stuff instead, much better.

But IMO rechargeable batteries have the same problem as mobile apps: when (not if) they stop working, we get expensive paperweights. Until a standardised Li-Ion battery appears, I'll keep preferring AA/AAA.

And a discussion about a set devolves again into the usual PF/PU discussion...

I don't see how a rechargeable battery would be a problem as you describe. Yeah, they stop working eventually, but so do all batteries as they wear out in use (like basically anything) but at least their life is measured in years rather than hours like that of AA/AAA batteries.

I would buy a rechargeable battery for PU hubs, whether it's produced by TLG or a third party but as kbalage mentioned, the lack of support for Phondly speaks strongly about the general interest into such thing. The product itself seemed fine but as soon as I saw it, it was obvious that it's not going to meet the funding goal. At the moment I guess one's best bet is to either get AA/AAA-sized rechargeable batteries (which are annoying as hell to use) or craft their own thing. Maybe someone could make instructions on which parts to buy and how to do the soldering etc. along with the file for 3D-printer for housing?