|
It's always easier to give pointers on a Work in Progress.
As you build it, keep some figs around to make sure there is space for them inside the cabin.
Common mistakes to make with choppers include rushing the tail section, making the rotors too simple, and generally making the whole thing too small. If it is really a light utility chopper, you can add a few machine guns but avoid arming it to the teeth with rocket packs and guided missiles etc.
Originally posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
magnus_lauglo edited this topic 35 months ago.
|
|
As Magnus points out, it's easier to comment on a work in progress than to give some advice just like that. Still, while I normally don't build helicopters of my own design, I know a thing or two about real ones and I've seen many helicopters built by other people both on flickr and on MOCpages and know what I often don't like. A few pointers:
Engines
Most modern military helicopters are powered by turbine engines. Their location is usually quite easily visible. Because they require a lot of air they require an intake, which usually is easily visible. Similarly they produce a lot of exhaust gasses, so require a big exhaust, which usually is easily visible. If the exhaust isn't easily visible it's usually because some system has been added to cool the exhaust gasses and that system will be easily visible! You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen helicopter models where my first thought was:"Where are the engines?"
Tail
Magnus mentioned it, but it cannot be emphasised enough. On many helicopter models the tail looks as though it was added as an afterthought. It's too short or too spindly. On most conventional helicopters the tail is pretty long. The distance from the aft of the cabin to the end of the tail is often larger than the length of the cabin itself.
The reason why it is long has to do with the tail rotor. Most helicopters have a single rotor and to compensate for the torque this generates they tend to have some sort of tail rotor (sometimes in the form of a 'Fenestron' ducted fan). This may seem like stating the bloody obvious, but I've seen a lot of helicopter models that don't actually have one. In instances in which I pointed this out, the reply would typically be whether I am aware of NOTAR (NO TAil Rotor) systems. However, the builders obviously weren't aware that this requires a specially shaped tail boom.
Cockpit
The most difficult thing in most of the helicopters that I've built is the cockpit section. Lego makes only a limited variety of window pieces that make sense on a helicopter, so choosing the right one is important. The windows are there to provide good visibility for the crew. This may seem another very obvious thing to say, but I've seen helicopter models where the 'pilot' can essentially only look dead ahead, with the view to the sides completely blocked. Not good!
Random lights
What I mean by random lights are the various transparent coloured bits some people add to their models in an attempt to make them look detailed or interesting. In fact the models end up looking a bit silly. Helicopters (and most military vehicles for that matter) don't have a lot of lights -certainly no blue ones and certainly none on the rotors.
Cheers,
Ralph
Originally posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
Mad physicist edited this topic 35 months ago.
|
|
Thanks Ralph and Magnus. I will have some WIP pictures up as soon as i get started.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No problem. I'll keep an eye out for it.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm sorry to cause all of this fuss about a helicopter and then change my mind, but i have decided to make an amphipious apc instead. I'm sorry for the trouble, but would appreciate help with that instead.
Thank you and sorry,
Mangos
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Doesn't matter, as this thread is still useful for those building helicopters.
Originally posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
HStrang edited this topic 35 months ago.
|
|
|
Amphibious APCs come in two varieties. The most common is designed to cross rivers on its own. The other less common type, like those big USMC APC (Amtracks I think they are called) can actually be launched from miles away at sea and make their way across short distances of sea to a beach.
Whatever you do, don't forget to include some water propusion system, and make sure there is space inside for the figs.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Magnus, with the sea-launched APC, would you be talking about the LVTP-5, and the later AAV-7?
Originally posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
HStrang edited this topic 35 months ago.
|
|
|
The LVTP-7 (which was later renamed the AAV-7) replaced the LTVP-5 in service. Both of them had pretty much the same mission and both were called Amtrac -which stands for 'Amphibious Tractor'.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The Russians/Soviets are really into amphibious their IFVs and APCs - you can get a lot of inspiration from looking at old Eastern Block hardware.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Indeed. They sure know how to build them. The BMP and BTR series are some examples. The BTRs are built with a boat shaped hull up front.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The BMP series is great especially because yours is tracked. If I'm not mistaken, they aren't really amphibious in the full sense of the word, rather they can "swim". They use water jets if I remember correctly. Aleksander's BMP-5 is great inspiration on how to make a simple set of water jets. To get the swimming function rather than full blown amphibious landing function, you don't need it to really look too much like a boat, it can literally just be an IFV with water jets on it.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I believe that most versions of the M-113 is somewhat amphibious in a crude sense. It doesn't have special motors for water propulsion, but uses its tracks whihc work as a crude propulsion system over small rivers.
The Norwegain Army used to modify the M113 with a large heavy turret on one side, which made it assymetrical. As I recall, the resulting vehicle (known as the NM-135) was sufficiently unbalanced by this modification that it wasn't recommended to try to cross rivers with it - we never tried, but one Sergeant told us that if we ever had to cross a river in the NM135 all the infantry would havd to get out and hang onto the side of the vehicle that didn't haveteh turret to act as a sort of counterweight.
So in short , a good amphibious vehicle should be fairly symmetrical. The old Amtrack has a small turret that is offset to one side, but this doesn't seem to be a big problem.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
As has been said the BMP and BTRs are all amphib,
I believe the BRDM is also similarly amphibious.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The BRDM was built to be amphibious, although rather than an APC, it was a reconnaissance vehicle. The PTS-1 and 2, although not armoured personnel carriers, are examples of the size that some amphibious vehicles can grow to.
Originally posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
HStrang edited this topic 35 months ago.
|
|
|
I believe you're right. I think they are more used as a river crossing vehicles, though I think Magnus might know to full.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I hope it's okay to return to the topic of helicopters for a moment .... I just wanted to add that I found the building hints and ideas to be very interesting. I am very nearly finished with a minifig scale MH68 Stingray (AW 109) and am looking forward to revealing it.
I am finishing up on the landing gear, cockpit doors, rotors and engines. I always find the weight a problem and spend a lot of time balancing the model. For this reason wheeled models are often easier (for me) than skids. The tail *IS* very important and I hope I got the right proportions this time.
For the fluff conscious this will be a LEGO Coast Guard model in white, orange, blue and dark grey. It will be armed and serve in the Helicopter Interdiction role. I felt it was time that the LEGO Coast Guard ramped up for the current climate!
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Haha, well I look forward to seeing it!
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
While I know this is an OLD thread, I've got a quick question, that hopefully some seasoned Helicopter buildeers could answer:
What part of a Heli do you usually start on? The tail, then build back? I've usually started with the fueselage, and cockpit.
Simply a matter of opinion, but I've been ( unsuccesfully) trying to build a helicopter, and at this point, any help would be good.
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have always started in two ways:
1.) Going from the roof downwards, towards the cockpit then building the floor backwards towards the tail.
2.) Going from the floor upwards, building the cockpit and tail together, then doing the roof last.
You'll never get it right straight away, so my advice would be to constantly try and 'modify' it, and don't forget the simple things such as Engine intakes, exhaust Outlet and so on.
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
^ Alright. I've been trying to build something similar to a Blackhawk, but a bit smaller, so I have some pieces left.
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Probably start with the cockpit and work your way backwards and upwards.
Unless you want to motorise it or come up with some technic system linking the rotors. In that case, get the technic part perfected and then build the rest of the helo around that.
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think that more important than figuring out which part you;re going to start with is first trying to form a general idea of what the overall look and size will be. If you start building and making it up as you go along, the odds are that the final result will look weird. Whenever I build pretty much anything, I'll start with the bits that I worry about the most -which for helicopters usually means the cockpit.
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yeah Ralph, but you often build models that have to look a very specific way.
I often build functionally - that is I start a military MOC with a mission in mind. The Griffin and Sealion were both meant from the very start to be able to transport a certain cargo. Aside from wanting them to look cool, I didn't have very strict ideas in advance of what they should look like when I started. I experimented with the Sealion bein assymetrical with a cockpit on one side rather than being all the way at the back. I ended up with a different looking vessel than I expected when I started.
If someone is building a chopper, maybe they want to end up with a tandem two seater gunship that carries missiles, and that's all they know when they start building. Or maybe they want an assault chooper that will have space for X number of guys in the back. For this approach, function often dictates form.
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@magnus
Obviously building a model of an existing helicopter is a different type of thing than building your own design, but I still used the same method for the 'Gannet', where I too started out thinking about the function: two pilots side-by-side, a large cabin with sliding doors and a rescue winch. However, before I put two bricks together, I also thought about how long it was going to be, how long the tail would be and where the rotor shaft had to be for it to look balanced.
Near the start of this thread I wrote a series of things I don't like about many fictional LEGO helicopters. The majority of fictional LEGO helicopters I see have tails that look too short to me. I strongly suspect that the reason for this is that the builders start building at the front, without a clear idea on where they are going, and get carried away adding weapons and fiddly bits that look 'cool', but by the time they reach the tail they run out of steam, parts and/or inspiration. Had they thought about the proportions and overall look from the start, this wouldn't happen.
Originally posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
Mad physicist edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
Oh, I don't disagree at all.
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I've had the lack in inspiration happen to me while building the SeaSprite. I need to get into more of a planning mindset before I build, as Ralph mentioned.
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I can relate to both sides of the coin here. I usually freestyle as I never build anything based on a previously existing vehicle. Recently I took a stab at building something from subject material and found it both convenient and frustrating to have the final outcome predetermined yet found it extremely rewarding once it was finished.
Posted 34 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
could I get some help on this LAV's front www.flickr.com/photos/jake_h/5076137333/
I've run out of ideas.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Copy mine... <.<
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Simple brick-built technique for a wheeled-LAV;
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Agreed.
Posted 9 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
LEGO Military /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to LEGO Military discussion threads
