Will LEGO Technic helicopters ever fly?

gjpauler · June 16, 2011

Will LEGO Technic helicopters ever fly?

Even just some years before this idea looked totally sci-fi, but recent advancements in mass producing of cheap, simple electric helicopters makes it actual. In my vision it depends on following conditions:

- Developement of aerodynamic, auto-folding main/tail rotor blades: technically, it is not a big issue (Why the hell 8068 has dots in the middle of the rotor blades??? No one wants to fix there anything!), but children safety issues are serious, especially in USA, where anyone can sue anybody for anything for at least a million dollar.

- Developement of on board Li-polimer battery rechargeable from USB port of iPod, laptops, etc.

- Developement of smaller sized, brushless motors with adequate cooling (built in fan with vents)

- Developement of set of thinner, high tensile stenght, glass-fibre reinforced rods as shafts and structural airframe parts, with siutable sized ball joints and hinges. Child safety issues will occour.

- Introducing mini metal-plastic screws for vibration resistant and compact joints. Child safety issues will occour.

- Developement of specialized swashplate part with reasonable ball bearing

- Developement of more compact, vibration-secured electric plugs and cables with adjustable lenght connecting electric parts. Current standard LEGO Technic/Mindstorms plugs and cables are too big, too heavy, too rigid and vibration-unsecured, making them useless for helicopters and even for speedy robots.

- Adptation of light servos in LEGO Technic environment. This is the costy part, but some coaxial rotor model helicopter designs do not need any servos.

- Developement of shock resistant piezo-gyroscope units: reasonable control of an RC model helicopoter requires 1-3 gyros (yaw trim at coaxial main rotor, pitch/roll/yaw trim at single main rotor). Current cheap gyros „go mad” after some hard crashes, which naturally occour frequently. Re-calibration of gyros with suitable software after crash may help.

- Developement of a flight computer, which communicates over wi-fi with flight control software on iPod or laptop. This way the costy, clumsy, battery-eating conventional RC-controller can be spared, and there is a possibility for two-way communication, transimitting on-board camera picture stream also. Ideally, flight computer should be programmable from PC/Mac GUI software. Using Fuzzy Systems enables performing difficult non-linear control tasks, created and continously refined on an intuitive graphic user interface, requiring only basic math knowledge (see FuzzyTech for example)

List of realistic LEGO Technic helicopters up to date:

I'm continously collecting here list of mechanically most realistic helicopters from Brickshelf. Grading bases of my subjective judgement ranging from 1:Bad..5:Excellent:

- Aerospatiale Alouette II, Exact, 2008, SgtPepper, >LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:5, Innovativity:N/A, Realism:5, Gallery

- UH-1, Lookalike, 2000, Roscohead, >LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:5, Innovativity:3, Realism:3, Gallery

- UH-1D, Exact, 2007, Scottbase, >LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:5, Innovativity:N/A, Realism:4, Gallery, Pneumatic drive???

- UH-1, Exact, 2010, Scottbase, >LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:5, Innovativity:N/A, Realism:4, Gallery, Electric drive

- Bell Jet Ranger, Exact, 2008, Luh2000, >>LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:5, Innovativity:N/A, Realism:4, Gallery, Electric drive???

- Bell Jet Ranger, Exact, 2005, Nparvin, >>LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:5, Innovativity:N/A, Realism:4, Gallery

- RAH Comanche, Exact, 2005, Nparvin, >LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:4, Innovativity:N/A, Realism:5, Gallery

- Westland Wasp, Lookalike, 2009, Sai, >LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:5, Innovativity:4, Realism:4, Gallery

- Sikorsky Sea King, Lookalike, 2005, Pierrick, >LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:5, Innovativity:4, Realism:4, Gallery

- Eurocopter Gazelle, Exact, 2006, Wojtek, >LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:4, Innovativity:N/A, Realism:5, Gallery, Electric drive, Unfinished

- Banshee tiltrotor, Custom design, 2011, Drakmin, =LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:4, Innovativity:5, Realism:4, Gallery, Electric drive

- Avatar tiltrotor, Exact, 2010, Barman, =LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:5, Innovativity:N/A, Realism:3, Gallery, Electric drive

- Eurocopter Dauphine, Exact, 2003, Samrotune, >>LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:5, Innovativity:N/A, Realism:4, Gallery, Pneumatic drive

- Eurocopter Squirrel, Lookalike, 2011, Gjpauler, =LEGO Tech figure scale, Mechanics:?, Innovativity:?, Realism:?, Gallery (Thats me, so somebody else should grade that)

We also have to mention models of RalphS, who makes all kinds of military choppers in 1:36 minifig scale. They do not have any real mechanics but airframes are incredible:

- AH-1: Gallery

- AH-64: Gallery

- CH46: Gallery

- CH-47: Gallery

- HH-1N: Gallery

- Dolphin: Gallery

- MH-53N: Gallery

- MI-24: Gallery

- SH-60: Gallery

-Sea King: Gallery

Other very realistic airframes without real mechanics:

- AH-64 Apache, 2008, CombatM, Minifig Scale: Gallery

- Eurocopter EC145, 2011, Darkenski, LEGO Tech figure scale: Gallery

Building small sized realistic helicopter from 8068 Rescue Helicopter

I built a Light Assault Helicopter solely from the parts of 8068 with 4 seats, single engine, 2 side gun pods, 4 channel realistic controls, resembling a mixture of Eurocopter Squirrel and Hughes Defender (See pictures)

Main rotor:

It was the biggest challenge. As size of LEGO Technic small mechanic parts (hinges, joints, flnges) are still pretty big compared to the scale of LEGO Technic figures, the hard thing is to build SMALL AND REALISTIC rotor. So I selected the simplest possible main rotor: 2-blade Hiller-type with flybar used on most RC model helicopters.

(Technical note: Flybar is a pendulum-like device fixed with cardan-hinges to main rotor axis transversal to rotor blades. It was invented by Robert Young (Buffalo, NY) in 1946 and used first at Bell Model 47. It acts as a stabilizing device: it tries to keep its original plane of rotation because of gyroscopic torque in case the helicopter is tilted by disturbances in airflow. Changing the cyclic pitch of rotor blades through control rods, it counterbalances tilting. In Hiller system, the pilot can shift only the plane of rotation of flybar with collective and cyclic controls through the swashplate, and only the flybar controls main rotor blade pitch. It has the advantage of increased stability over the Bell-rotor, where the pilot directly controls collective and cyclic pitch of rotor blades trough swashplate. Its disadvantage is less responsive control, so there is a mixed system called Hiller-Bell, which is stable AND responsive but mechanically more complex)

To create such a thing we need 3 critical specialized parts: 1 swashplate (a large diameter bearing with ball joints), 4 ball joints for control rods, 1 cardan hinge slideable on main rotor axis. Of course 8068 had none of these stuff, so the real challenge was further simplification of Hiller-rotor without loosing its functionality

- Building a sliding cardan-hinge would be theoretically possible from 8068 parts, but its size would make the whole rotor ridiculusly bulky. So I omitted the whole thing, and flybar really „flies” around main rotor axis, wich has a single ring closely rounded by flybar hub components. So flybar can tilt in any direction around main rotor axis and can be lifted and lowered vertically. But how it will stay strictly transversal to rotor blades once it is not linked directly to main rotor axis?

- The solution came from a limitation: total lack of ball joints. Thus, both control rods have two simple hinges at their both ends tilted by 90 degrees, and 2 hinges can slide on flybar rod sideways. This allows all necessary movement of flybar but keeps it transversal to rotor blades.

- As there was no any large diameter bearing for swashplate, I built reels of 2 original landing gear wheels into the flybar hub as rollers on half-axises longitudinal to rotor blades. Swashplate here is really just a plate under rollers with a hole in the middle letting through the main rotor axis. Plate can be lifted and lowered for collective controls: it lifts flybar hub through rollers, which increases pitch of blades through control rods. The short red elastic rod on the top of the rotor (everybody believes that it is a clamp to lift the helicopter by crane…) acts as a torsion spring decreasing blade pitch gently pushing flybar hub rollers against swashplate. Also the plate can be tilted longitudinally or transversally for cyclic control: it changes the tilting of flybar hub, which will influence its plane of rotation, which provides cyclic blade pitch control through rods.

- Collective and cyclic levers go in the cabin roof from swashplate forward to cockpit, where vertical bars running behind the front seats connect them with collective and cyclic control arms placed between front seats

- I omitted flapping and dumping hinges ususally connecting rotor blades to main rotor hub in Hiller system, but their attachment looks like bearingless „elastomer” joints of more modern rotors. In turn they are foldable by 90 degrees making the helicopter storable in compact spaces.

Tail rotor:

Theoretically, a variable pitch tail rotor should be a more simple story than the main rotor, but it wasn’t. Small size requested and lack of swasplate were the limitations again:

- Tail rotor hub setting pitch of 2 tail rotor blades with short control arms can slide on tail rotor axis sideways

- A 90 degree joint acts as pitch control arm, pushing a roller (made from reel of 3rd original landing gear wheel) to tail rotor hub forcing it sliding forth and back on tail rotor axis

- Tail rotor blades are made from shorter type of fairing elements, which are quite aerodynamic: quickly turning tail rotor they make reasonable wind, and this is what we want…

- Tail rotor transmission shaft and pitch control rod run along tail boom under the longer type of fairing. I found good use of the thin long black flexible rod given to 8068 leading control rod through fairing, so it is fully covered giving more clean lines to the helicopter

- Jaw pedal controls are before the left forward seat. Their reversed movement is ensured by triplet of gears. Unlike real helicopters, jaw control rod runs backward in the cabin floor to avoid big „crowding” around main rotor mast. Behind left rear seat, under the fairing, there is a hinge transmitting jaw control to control rod running parallel with tail boom

Drivetrain:

- Single engine is placed at the tail of cabin under tail rotor transmission shaft covered by fairing. It is geared 1:1 to main rotor axis and 1:1.6 with tail rotor shaft. Air intakes are at the top side of tail boom

- The 3-part tail rotor transmission shaft is very mildly curved enabling to match gearing

Airframe:

My intension was to creat very compact cabin like Hughes Defender but having 4 seats capable of accommodating 4 LEGO Technic or Belleville figures (or 4 Playmobil figures – oops, thats another company…).

- This was done maximally utilizing flexible bars and fairings (8068 is good source of these) shaping the cabin.

- Vertical part of seats are also griders of the airframe to save space and material.

- As forming the cabin tail cone of Hughes Defender proved troubleful from available material left and collided with the placement of the engine, moreover the 4-seat cabin became slightly bigger, the final airframe more resembles to Eurocopter Squirrel (earlier called Aerospatiale Ecureuil), except that it has the engine under tail rotor transmission shaft covered by fairing like in the Defender.

Other parts:

- Instrument panel: virtually unchanged from 8068

- Weaponry: 2 side machine gun pods with variable elevation built from 4 left over fairings and 2 rods similar to Hughes Defender

Summary:

8068 was a good source of material for building much more realistic, but somewhat smaller helicopter, even some valuable stuff is left over (1 gear, 1 rotor blade, 1 fairing, etc.). What I could not solve because lack of material:

- Cyclic control arm works reversed compared to real helicopters and controls only forward-backward pitch, but not rolling: the swashplate can tilt transversally, but not enough rods, joints hinges are left for roll control

- Gearing ratio between main rotor and engine/tail rotor is not enough big

Edited June 9, 2012 by gjpauler

Sariel · June 16, 2011

I'm afraid the only way to make a Lego heli fly is by attaching it to a balloon. I mean: look at the weight. I have a small RC microheli and its weight is 20 grams total. A handful of Lego bricks is heavier, not to mention the motors.

A flying heli is possible, but it's miles away from regular Lego sets. If Lego was supposed to release a set like that, it would probably include only specialized pieces, not compatible with regular Lego pieces (like they did e.g. with Dirt Crusher).

gjpauler · June 16, 2011

I agree: with the current parts, it is physically impossible. The question is that will the market niche be there within reasonable time financing the development/adaptation cost extra light specialized parts? It is funny that in most supermarkets now you can get a small IR-controlled coaxial heli (metal rod frame, assembled with screws) at a price of a medium sized LEGO Technic helicopter set. Of course durability is another issue.

Brickend · June 16, 2011

I read up until you started describing your own thing, my thoughts are that you want Lego to make something that isn't Lego. If you want a helicopter kit, the market is already satisfied. If you want a lot of parts with general uses ("Jack of all trades, master of none"), that are durable enough to survive being trodden on and dismantled countless times, you'd buy Lego.

allanp · June 16, 2011

In real life you can take parts of cars and trucks and cut and weld them to make cranes and so on, but you can't realisticly make a helicopter. An areoplane would be easier but still. So even in real life the parts that make a helicopter are so specialised as to only be useful for helicopters. A lego technic kit would require 95% of the parts to be specialised to that one set. Lego technic can't be THAT specialised, it would not be Lego technic.

However, that does not mean Lego as a whole can't do it. It would be fun to have a new flying theme with all specialised parts (like bionicle, but you know, cool :devil: ). You could have various rotor heads and blades and wings that could be interchangeable and even ballons, all kinds of crazey flying contraptions could be made. It would not resemble lego much, but then niether did bionicle.

gjpauler · June 16, 2011

... If you want a helicopter kit, the market is already satisfied...

1. I can see a gap betwen cheap ($25-50) "fly once - crash - trash - buy another" stuff, which cannot be repaired at all, and fully adjustable proficient machines ($1000 and up) taking up lot of time and money.

2. Market of RC cars/cranes, etc. was also satisfied when LEGO introduced Power Functions and IR remote - and it still became successful. "Build your own and show them" can be a very strong market forming principle

gjpauler · June 16, 2011

In real life you can take parts of cars and trucks and cut and weld them to make cranes and so on, but you can't realisticly make a helicopter. An areoplane would be easier but still. So even in real life the parts that make a helicopter are so specialised as to only be useful for helicopters. A lego technic kit would require 95% of the parts to be specialised to that one set. Lego technic can't be THAT specialised, it would not be Lego technic.

However, that does not mean Lego as a whole can't do it. It would be fun to have a new flying theme with all specialised parts (like bionicle, but you know, cool ). You could have various rotor heads and blades and wings that could be interchangeable and even ballons, all kinds of crazey flying contraptions could be made. It would not resemble lego much, but then niether did bionicle.

1. Moreover, using smaller scale than LEGO Technic (eg. minifig or somewhat less) with specialized small parts would make putting things to the air PHYSICALLY easier: reducing something 1/2 size means that its mass will be reduced to 1/8. But rotor areas determining lifting forces and cross sections determining tensile strenghts are reduced only to 1/4.

2. One trivial theme - and booming market - could be models of actual military rotorcraft for "living room wars". (That's why not aeroplanes: they cannot fly in living room). LEGO tries to avoid this topic probably because of political reasons: they would like to make money both in NATO and Arabic countries... If I were them, I would launch models used by opposing forces paralelly (eg. MI-24 and AH-1 Cobra) without camouflage, in "factory yellow" and would sell water soluble camouflage paint pens and wide set of national ensign decals as separate accessory...

allanp · June 16, 2011

The likleyhood of lego releasing/making money from any tools of real life war is even less than lego releasing a flying helicopter made from duplo, and rightly so.

Edited June 16, 2011 by allanp

Bartholomew · June 16, 2011

@gjpauler:

I can't access your photos. Maybe you can upload them at brickshelf.com , too?

gjpauler · June 16, 2011

@gjpauler:

I can't access your photos. Maybe you can upload them at brickshelf.com , too?

Thanks for the warning. I replaced the link in the original post pointing to a Brickshelf gallery. It goes public soon. Until that I attach 2 pictures which can fit my quota.

Edited June 16, 2011 by gjpauler

mahjqa · June 16, 2011

Answer: no.

What do I win?

gjpauler · June 16, 2011

The likleyhood of lego releasing/making money from any tools of real life war is even less than lego releasing a flying helicopter made from duplo, and rightly so.

That is a respectful point from LEGO. But unfortunately this way Chinese copiers (tomorrow's competitors...) making money from that: BanBao issued in 2010 M-1 Abrams Main Battle Tank-like something (inferior quality and design) and Bradley APC (medium design, inferior quality)

Sokratesz · June 16, 2011

Don't forget that a LEGO helicopter if there ever was one would be like a tamiya one: highly specialized parts that only work together correctly to form a flying chopper in one or a few very limited ways.

Ergo, it would not have the customization possibilities of LEGO, so it would not be LEGO.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Sokratesz

gjpauler · June 16, 2011

Don't forget that a LEGO helicopter if there ever was one would be like a tamiya one: highly specialized parts that only work together correctly to form a flying chopper in one or a few very limited ways.

Ergo, it would not have the customization possibilities of LEGO, so it would not be LEGO.

Let me give you 2 examples:

- Think about a LEGO City part of transparent cockpit canopy of an aircraft (there are numerous versions). Most probably you would reuse it as cocpit canopy on a next aircraft, but you cannot really make eg. a window on a building from that. But it is still a useful LEGO City part: without it you cannot make streamlined closed cockpit

- In turn, think about a simple coaxial RC electic heli (eg. This one) (I took apart one of them myself, even managed to put it together and fly again...)

What you could reuse probably anywhere if they were easy to disassemble parts :

- 3 motors

- 2 pinion gears

- 2 large gears

- 5 structural rods (tailboom, griders, skids)

- 1 thin axis

- 1 tubular axis

- 2 sliding bearings

- 1 baseplate

- 2 small wing plates

- 1 Li-polymer battery

- 1 LED

- 1 IR reciever

- 4 or 5 cables

- 2 control rods with 4 ball joints

What you could not reuse:

- 4 rotor blades

- 2 rotor heads

- 1 flybar

- 1 tail propeller

- 1 canopy

- 1 flight computer

So decide reusability by yourself.

Brickend · June 17, 2011

1. I can see a gap betwen cheap ($25-50) "fly once - crash - trash - buy another" stuff, which cannot be repaired at all, and fully adjustable proficient machines ($1000 and up) taking up lot of time and money.

2. Market of RC cars/cranes, etc. was also satisfied when LEGO introduced Power Functions and IR remote - and it still became successful. "Build your own and show them" can be a very strong market forming principle

Power functions in not an fair analogy as it has a degree of flexibility that is not served by the traditional RC markets. It does not directly try to compete; it almost universally under performs in relation to specialised motor/drive train combinations designed for specific tasks because it is designed for universal functions and to provide safe and lasting durability. Even when employed wrongly, it protects the Lego from the user.

Look at how the actual radio control cars produced by Lego did - wonder why they weren't on sale for too long?

Let me give you 2 examples:

- Think about a LEGO City part of transparent cockpit canopy of an aircraft (there are numerous versions). Most probably you would reuse it as cocpit canopy on a next aircraft, but you cannot really make eg. a window on a building from that. But it is still a useful LEGO City part: without it you cannot make streamlined closed cockpit

- In turn, think about a simple coaxial RC electic heli (eg. This one) (I took apart one of them myself, even managed to put it together and fly again...)

What you could reuse probably anywhere if they were easy to disassemble parts :

- 3 motors

- 2 pinion gears

- 2 large gears

- 5 structural rods (tailboom, griders, skids)

- 1 thin axis

- 1 tubular axis

- 2 sliding bearings

- 1 baseplate

- 2 small wing plates

- 1 Li-polymer battery

- 1 LED

- 1 IR reciever

- 4 or 5 cables

- 2 control rods with 4 ball joints

What you could not reuse:

- 4 rotor blades

- 2 rotor heads

- 1 flybar

- 1 tail propeller

- 1 canopy

- 1 flight computer

So decide reusability by yourself.

You mention the bespoke cockpit canopy - in a the town sets there may be 3 or 4 vehicles that can make use of that every year (shuttles, jets, boats) and then within that; police/fire/airport versions of similar vehicles. When you upscale to Technic size, the flaws in this approach become more obvious as the market desires more detail and don't need to collect a working town system.

A lot of the parts you want for the helicopter already exist, just not as you would like them. If Lego built them smaller and/or lighter they would become incompatible with systems that have built up over 30+ years. If they were dimensionally compatible, then they could inadvertently be built into drive trains where their poor durability would make them self destruct.

So a kit of parts that can only be reused in a helicopter or light applications and would have to be stored away from the more durable Lego. Even if the flying mechanisms were sold as self contained units likes the drive parts of Lego RC cars, unlike the cars, you couldn't customise them with Lego parts because they'd then be too heavy to fly. And like the RC cars, you'd be paying a premium over the cheaper to produce, better integrated and performing, specialized products already in the market. Only the point of paying a premium for Lego is completely wiped out by the fact that you can't in fact use it with existing Lego at all - I can't see any reason why this venture would even have to be considered by Lego - it may as well be a standalone enterprise aimed at a narrow market, rather than something that confuses the existing Lego brand.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Brickend

Silcantar · June 17, 2011

I wonder if a pneumatic engine (e.g. LPE Power I-3 engine) would have a high enough power/weight ratio? I'm no expert, but if my calculations are correct, it should produce about 1 lb*ft (~1.5 N*m) of torque at the max recommended operating pressure (6 bar) with a max speed of 1500rpm at 4 bar for its 240g (~.5 lb) mass. It can certainly move nicjasno's famous 5kg Mustang model with impressive acceleration, and a helicopter clearly wouldn't need nearly that much torque. You could gear it up to get sufficient velocity to produce enough lift for a helicopter.

Sariel · June 17, 2011

I still think anything Lego-related is miles away from flying helis. You can get 1500 RPM with pneumatic engine? Impressive, but the RC microheli I own (a cheap Chinese design, yet still works after a year of flying) has motors that run at 18,000 RPM, and it still weights 20 grams. Not to mention that it flies without being permanently connected to a compressor.

There are dozens of reasons why a "build you own heli" set would be a bad idea, all basically coming down to one fact: it's unsafe. Building a Lego car is one thing, building a working Lego heli requires proper weight distribution, balancing the main rotor's torque, and at least brief understanding of aerodynamics. And if you fail in any of these, your Lego set drops on your head.

gjpauler · June 17, 2011

So a kit of parts that can only be reused in a helicopter or light applications and would have to be stored away from the more durable Lego. Even if the flying mechanisms were sold as self contained units likes the drive parts of Lego RC cars, unlike the cars, you couldn't customise them with Lego parts because they'd then be too heavy to fly. And like the RC cars, you'd be paying a premium over the cheaper to produce, better integrated and performing, specialized products already in the market. Only the point of paying a premium for Lego is completely wiped out by the fact that you can't in fact use it with existing Lego at all - I can't see any reason why this venture would even have to be considered by Lego - it may as well be a standalone enterprise aimed at a narrow market, rather than something that confuses the existing Lego brand.

I agree with you that flyable parts would mean a big shift (like between classic and Technic lego) and a completely different product line. This is a story where LEGO definitely would not jump into easily:

- In my estimation, for "flying cores", Technic parts should be downscaled 1:4 and made from more expensive light alloy or glas fibre reinforced epoxy instead of current polypropylene/poliethylene mold, connected with metal screws (see mini electric RC helis of BuzzFly in UK as a fair example)

- Customizable airframe parts could be something similar to Revell clip-it kits

But what if those tricky Chinese guys come up once with a police station/rescue ship/trailer truck (all classic profit generator LEGO Themes with helicopter) where the helicopter can fly a little bit (incompatible, but spectacular way)?

gjpauler · June 17, 2011

I still think anything Lego-related is miles away from flying helis. You can get 1500 RPM with pneumatic engine? Impressive, but the RC microheli I own (a cheap Chinese design, yet still works after a year of flying) has motors that run at 18,000 RPM, and it still weights 20 grams. Not to mention that it flies without being permanently connected to a compressor.

There are dozens of reasons why a "build you own heli" set would be a bad idea, all basically coming down to one fact: it's unsafe. Building a Lego car is one thing, building a working Lego heli requires proper weight distribution, balancing the main rotor's torque, and at least brief understanding of aerodynamics. And if you fail in any of these, your Lego set drops on your head.

Child safety is a serious issue as I already mentioned in the opening post. Thats why main rotor heads, flybars, rotor blades should be highly customized parts, being impossible to build together with anything else which can fly off from them directly into someones eye. Using self-contained "flying cores" with customizable airfarame can address the problem.

But anyway if 20 grams is dropped on your head because you made incorrect design: its worth to try, maybe you will survive and learn from that...

Originally LEGO's purpose was not just entertaining "droids" incapable of even the slightest innovative thinking (First Person Shooters are pretty good for this), but challenging kids to extend the limits of their creativity. And it is a learning process when you sometimes fail and then you try again...

Sokratesz · June 17, 2011

Let me give you 2 examples:

- Think about a LEGO City part of transparent cockpit canopy of an aircraft (there are numerous versions). Most probably you would reuse it as cocpit canopy on a next aircraft, but you cannot really make eg. a window on a building from that. But it is still a useful LEGO City part: without it you cannot make streamlined closed cockpit

- In turn, think about a simple coaxial RC electic heli (eg. This one) (I took apart one of them myself, even managed to put it together and fly again...)

What you could reuse probably anywhere if they were easy to disassemble parts :

- 3 motors

- 2 pinion gears

- 2 large gears

- 5 structural rods (tailboom, griders, skids)

- 1 thin axis

- 1 tubular axis

- 2 sliding bearings

- 1 baseplate

- 2 small wing plates

- 1 Li-polymer battery

- 1 LED

- 1 IR reciever

- 4 or 5 cables

- 2 control rods with 4 ball joints

What you could not reuse:

- 4 rotor blades

- 2 rotor heads

- 1 flybar

- 1 tail propeller

- 1 canopy

- 1 flight computer

So decide reusability by yourself.

I stick to my point, because for any of those parts to function in an RC heli they would need to be made from lighter and more expensive material than the normal LEGO ABS. They would also have to be remodeled for better performance and weight, because standard LEGO bricks are designed for multifunctionalily and these obviously couldn't.

As much as I love helicopters, it just won't work for LEGO. And besides, there's a long list of safety issues with things above your head and kids :)

- Sok.

Zerobricks · June 17, 2011

First the Lego RC boats must swim :tongue:

gjpauler · June 17, 2011

First the Lego RC boats must swim

You are absolutely right.

There are bounch of very proficient builders making upperworks of battleships/cruisers almost like real even building smaller than minifig scale (I remember HMS Sheffield, USS Indianapolis, etc.) but they usually come into serious trouble regarding the hulls:

- Build from bricks results in quite a "cubistic", faceted hull

- Then they grab the good old hot air blower and start to slightly curve plates, and glue them, which is not really authentic LEGO building method...

Only very large, 4-5m long hulls look reasonable made from unspecialized bricks (Yamato, HMS Hood, USS Harry Truman, and I remember a large cruise ship), even they cannot swim. Current swimming lego hulls are joke topping the mighty, tremendous, mind-busting 45 cm lenght without any propellers

It would not require any high tech and new materials creating even a 1.6m long swimming hull from 4 or 5 sections (aft section would have 2 propeller axis exit sealed with simmerings). With carefully stepping section sizes they could be embedded into each other -like flowerpots- at packaging, resulting reasonable 40-50 cm box size. Longer hull than 1.6m would be hard to sell as it cannot fit a standard bath tube... (not everybody go to a lake or pool everyday). As an accessory a 2m rounded inflatable basin of 0.15m deep could be sold separately.

LEGO is quite a passive in this area, which is strange, because large LEGO ships are very spectacular, as classic lego is pretty suitable to make upperworks, gun turrets, masts, etc.

One of the relatively better quality Chinese copiers, BanBao issued in 2010 a battleship with 102cm non-swimming, but specialized hull, where there are 8 identical body sections between 1 piece bow and stern. The hull is pretty good, upperworks design is terrible, but it is a good source of material to build a corvette carrying 2 helicopters in minifig scale. Tolerance of their parts is around 1.25 times of LEGOs, which is not really good, but quite an improvement as they started with 2-2.5 times, which was almost useless.

gjpauler · June 18, 2011