Review: 42113 V-22 Osprey
Posted by Huw,
The V-22 Osprey is the world's first tilt rotor aircraft, capable of both vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL).
Around 400 of the craft have been produced since 1988 and it's currently in use by the US military and the Japanese self-defence force.
42113 Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey was due to be released on 1st August but has been cancelled. However, many shops in Europe and elsewhere have received shipments and are permitted to sell them. If you can't find one locally you will do so on eBay but not BrickLink, because it's been removed from the catalogue there.
I will not be discussing its suitability as a LEGO model, or the company's decision to cancel it at the last minute in this article.
What I will say, though, is that it appears that it was cancelled not due to external pressure, but because it's fundamentally flawed.
Contents
Instructions are provided in a single 340-page volume and parts are packaged in numbered bags, 1 to 4.
In addition, there's a box containing the brand-new Powered Up battery box and a motor.
The sticker sheet is large and extensive. Take a good look now, because you won't see them again: I didn't apply them.
Parts
The only new part in the set is the Powered Up battery box which, at last, enables PU motors to be simply switched on and off without the need for the complexity of hubs and smartphones.
Its dimensions are identical to the Control+ hub and it uses the same 6 AA battery 'cassette'. There are two outputs and two independent switches which can be operated via a pin hole at the top or an axle hole on the side.
The motor is the 'Large' Powered Up one which made its debut last year.
There may be only one new part, but there are a lot of re-colours which means that, currently, it's impossible to recreate the set from parts you already have or which are available at LEGO Bricks and Pieces or BrickLink. I've photographed them all here for you.
The two triangular curved panels are available only in lime green, in the Lamborghini.
The rotor blades are also only available in lime green, in the Lambo.
Construction
The fuselage of the craft is largely empty, but houses mechanisms for retracting the wheels and lowering the cargo bay door. The battery box is an integral part of the structure and is mounted just behind the cockpit. You'll see it in photos below.
The hop half of the fuselage houses the motor and gearbox, which directs motor output to one (or more) of four operations.
The small linear actuator at the bottom of the picture will be connected to the cargo bay door. Another one is added later to operate the landing gear.
One of the red axles running the length of the underside wings rotates the blades while the other tilts the engines.
The subassembly is pinned to the lower section before attention turns to the engines.
The engines are a mirror-image of each other and are the only repetitive part of the build.
Once they've been attached all that remains to be done is to cover the mechanisms, and attach the tail and the rotor blades, which are a bit fiddly.
The completed model
It's about 50cm long with a wingspan of 45cm. It's finished in a fictional dark grey and orange livery which looks quite smart, even without stickers.
You can see here that the wings are tilted upwards very slightly to match the prototype.
Operation
The motor powers four movements. The battery box is switched on and off using a red lever on the front left-hand-side of the fuselage, which can be seen in the pictures above. Two switches on either side behind the wings operate the gearbox.
Opening and closing the cargo bay door is achieved using the lower switch on the left-hand side.
The lower one on the other side raises and lowers the wheels, which when retracted, fit neatly into the body.
You can see the battery box clearly here. It's possible to change the batteries without needing to remove it, or disassemble anything.
The engines are tilted forwards and back using the top switch on the left, while flicking the top switch on the left rotates the blades.
The only manual operation is tilting the flap on the rear wing using the lever on the top of the fuselage.
Performance
The four movements are facilitated in the same way: Turn on the motor, then move the gearbox switches as required. Or, move a switch first, then turn on the motor. Once movement is complete, turn the motor off, or move the gearbox switch into the central neutral position.
The way the gearbox has been designed makes it possible to channel power to all four movements at once, although everything pretty much grinds to a halt if you do so. It's prototypical to tilt the engines forwards once the blades are spinning and it's certainly possible to do that, but the motor strains a bit.
There is nothing stopping you from trying to move the wheels, doors or engines beyond their limits, although there are some safety mechanisms built in.
The rear door and landing gear are operated via linear actuators so when the limit of movement has been reached their internal clutch starts clicking, so that's a relatively safe way of preventing damage.
The engine rotation system utilises one of the new two-piece clutches which should start to slip and click if you try to turn the engines too far although, in my experience, gears start crunching and the motor stalls before this happens.
Unfortunately, there's only a very ineffective safety mechanism for the rotor blades, reliant on friction pins, so when they foul on anything the gearbox seizes and the motor stalls. This is almost certainly going to happen at one time or another because when the blades are vertical they touch the ground, which of course prevents them from rotating.
The very first time I tested spinning the rotors there was a lot of clicking coming from the gearbox, but everything seemed to work as it should. However, things got worse...
This morning, while investigating the clicking, I noticed that two 8-tooth gears have become damaged. I haven't deliberately stalled the rotors, so it seems to have happened simply through normal use.
And it seems I am not alone: a few days ago the picture below was posted on Reddit showing the same broken 8-tooth gear as in mine.
This picture, also from Reddit, shows the offending gears: the three 8t ones on the right, which as you can see above, are in a tight space in the gearbox so can't be replaced with anything else.
Replacing them will require major disassembly, and really not worth it if it's only going to happen again.
I've concluded that it matters whether you engage the gearbox before turning on the motor, or vice-versa. If you do the former with the gearbox switched ready to rotate the blades, the motor struggles to get up to speed due to the friction it needs to overcome and the first couple of 8t gears in the chain can't handle the torque.
There's no question about it. The gearbox is fundamentally flawed. There is too much power being driven through tiny plastic gears which simply can't take it.
Verdict
This is a good-looking model of an interesting aircraft and I think the designers have done a pretty good job of replicating it in Technic. Once again, I particularly appreciate the fact that there are very few System elements in it, they are used only at the back of the engines.
However, the gearbox contains a serious design flaw, the likes of which we've never encountered in a Technic model before. I've managed to break it within a few hours of building it. If the mechanisms are kept within their limits and operated in a particular way, they operate fairly well, but it's all too easy to strain the motor and break the gears.
We will never know whether the set was cancelled due to external pressure, or because of this flaw. The fact that LEGO did not offer it to fan media for review a month or so ago at the same time as the other summer Technic sets suggests to me that it is the latter. In fact, one could argue that the external pressure provided a way for the company to save face and look like it was doing the right thing, while keeping the real reason for its withdrawal under wraps.
Whatever the reason, you'd have thought it would have become apparent much earlier in its design lifecycle.
So, should you hunt it down and pay an extortionate sum for it? I only did so as a 'LEGO media professional' in order to bring you this review. I don't regret buying it, but if I didn't need it for that purpose, and knowing now that it's not up to usual Technic standards, I would not have bothered.
If you can find it at RRP, you might as well buy it, but not bother building it, given it can only increase in value. If not, spend the money on something else that works properly.
I look forward to seeing what Sariel concludes in his video review, which should be available in a few days.
Please note that comments related to the subject's suitability for a LEGO product will be deleted.
210 likes
90 comments on this article
Great review! Interesting to see that the gearbox problem is a design issue.
"Whatever the reason, you'd have thought it would have become apparent much earlier in its design lifecycle."
That's the weird thing, really, for either reason. Shame we'll probably never know what the internal decisions were.
Hm... this is a strange scenario though. If the set had such a design flaw, why didn’t LEGO say so? How did it get this far without someone, somewhere, at least nothing it and saying “guys this kinda sucks”?
This whole set has been a wild ride from start to finish. Seeing those exclusively colored pieces is a little painful though.
Why would a set that is fundamentally flawed and doesn't actually work ever increase in value? What value does a sealed box of LEGO that won't be built actually have? I honestly don't understand...
Because collectors :)
This set almost mirrors the real thing with it's flaws and challenges.
I’d be genuinely curious to see if they reengineer any of the flawed mechanics and do some design tweaks to differentiate it from this model and release that at a later date. On the whole, the concept works well but those poor tiny gears cannot handle the load and stresses they are put under.
Thanks for the review! In the end, I’m glad I didn’t get it now knowing the issues at hand. It’s a great static model but I would rather fashion my own with system bricks for use in my own displays as I’m not a technic collector.
Controversy aside, the size of that sticker sheet is a war crime.
So imho a cumulative number of issues caused the set to be shelved. Wouldn't be surprised to see a slightly modified version somewhere along the line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey
If the gap between the real V-22's first flight and its introduction into service is anything to go by, we can expect LEGO to re-release this set sometime around 2038.
Hoooo hoo, lucky escape for LEGO!
Anybody found instructions pdf yet...?
What a great review, Huw! I experienced the exact same problems while building and testing a copy for my review at The Brothers Brick. But I didn't expect to read that yours was broken within several hours... yikes!
As a non-Technic builder with a fondness for making orange and dark grey spaceships, this set might have been a good parts donor (as Sariel calls them), with a relatively cheap route into Powered Up too - and the flaw in the gearbox wouldn't have bothered me at all. Still, it makes sense as a reason to cancel the set.
Wasn't there a similar flaw at the 42023 set? IIRC, a new worm gear was designed for the loader, but later was changed to the "older" one..
@Huw Thanks so much for this great review. Since the vast majority of us will never own this set, or possibly even see it, this was a welcome, special treat. Additionally, you and the Brickset team are, once again, providing a valuable and appreciated service to the rest of us. No doubt, this review will be particularly helpful to anyone thinking about purchasing a set at a high price. If they choose to make the leap, at least they will be doing so while forewarned and with eyes opened.
@secchildhood said:
"Why would a set that is fundamentally flawed and doesn't actually work ever increase in value? What value does a sealed box of LEGO that won't be built actually have? I honestly don't understand..."
People like it when they know or have something others don’t, or that they have something that’s difficult to get their hands on. That, and there’s nothing quite like having something “brand new” that hasn’t been opened yet.
I think Huw's comment a while back about the whole thing being an embarrassment to Lego is still the most accurate and succinct summary of this fiasco. A design flaw like this should have been worked out in development. The fact this was allowed to go forward points to a flawed design process.
I think the decision to kill it was correct.
I'm a huge Technic fan, and I feel nothing towards this set... it's really just "meh" in my opinion.
This set will become Lego history as one of the strangest sets ever.
@bananaworld said:
"
Hoooo hoo, lucky escape for LEGO!
Anybody found instructions pdf yet...?"
A pdf of the instructions turned up on Eurobricks from someone who picked up the set early.
Well, if anything else, scavengers are laughing all the way to the bank...
I wonder if all the recent problems LEGO is encountering (color problems, clutch power problems, measurment problems, brittle bricks) are a result of their venture into China/Chinese production factorie(s)....
Huw, that was your best Technic review! I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and I agree entirely with your thoughts. Thank you for being a "'LEGO media professional' " and honestly reviewing this set.
Still planning to pick this up IF I can find it at a store in two days (once August 1 rolls around), but there's no way I'm paying what the eBay prices are. I figure I'll just be careful with the gearbox (IF I can even find the set LOL)
@secchildhood said:
"Why would a set that is fundamentally flawed and doesn't actually work ever increase in value? What value does a sealed box of LEGO that won't be built actually have? I honestly don't understand..."
This set is so expensive simply because there is way too much money in the market. The set itself has no "special" value, but it is limited, extremely limited, which differentiates it from the majority of other sets in the last years. Some people see this as a perfect investment opportunity, which is completely fine. What I'm finding worrisome is how expensive it has gotten so fast. It is - as previously stated - a sign that there is too much money in the market. The ECB and FED are pumping billions of $ and € into the markets. Simply put, in normal times, this would lead to rising prices (=inflation).
However, since 2007, when the US subprime market crashed, we don't live in normal times anymore. The money is there, but prices of goods don't go up, so where does the money go, especially in times when your money "rotting away" if you don't invest it? You'll have probably seen the insane records of art prices, property market prices go up into craziness, how stocks are going up like there's no tomorrow? All signs of too much money in the market, creating bubbles. However, not everyone is able to buy a house or a painting as an investment or is too late to the stock market party (Amazon, Tesla, Gold, ...). So, what do you do when you want to invest $/€ ~2000? You buy this set and hope it goes up. Since there are not more coming to the market, it is very unlikely that it will become worthless.
tl;dr: too much money in the market, this set serves as an investment opportunity where other aspects, like limited availability, than "common sense AFOL"-criteria (no design flaws, rare pieces, ...) apply
One mistake in the article. There is a safety feature for the rotors. |
It's the white part on the underside of the wing. You have two pins so there isn't a hard connection between the rotors and the engine and are only powered by friction.
I followed a link posted by Sariel a few days ago, on YouTube, in which a reviewer experienced the exact same technic flaw/ issue. He even titled his video something like "the true reason for the cancellation of the set". A bit odd though that such a problem passed through all quality reviews and controls and was up to be on shelves. Is it the first case in Lego history? Very surprising, knowing global quality levels in TLC. Even if in the past years, appeared (minor?) issues I personally had never met before (colours flaws, misalignment in prints on the Creator Mustang, opacity of clear colours on minifig prints, "greasy" black parts, and a few others...). But such a big deal on such a set, and the way all this has been managed is quite surprising to me. It's a shame because even if I am not a Technic fan, I can just say that having seen this set in function, and now on great pictures thanks to your review, I must say that it is (er... could have been) a real masterpiece... but for its gears design. Don't know the word in English, but in French: dommage.
Great writeup!
It took Boeing almost 30 odd years to develop the thing, so it was pretty difficult to engineer. So, I can really see why this gearbox has the issues.
I am probably going to build one eventually, but I think I will go with a regular System build for the Coast Guard. Gonna add a "tail-lift hoist".
On the Brothers Brick website (not to try and market them or anything), they also have a review of this set that includes a video displaying the functions and safety features of the gearbox. It looks to me that as long as you have the motor running prior to the engagement of the gearbox, disengage the gearbox as functions reach their limits of travel (landing gear, ramp, engines), and don't block moving parts (landing gear, props), it should operate relatively fine and without many issues. So basically just be really careful with it.
Link: https://www.brothers-brick.com/2020/07/30/lego-technic-42113-bell-boeing-v-22-osprey-review/
At least people can try to make their own version.
They should have kept the model with its flaws because it would add to the realism...
:3
Well, this is one for the LEGO history books: the first Technic model to be shipped with an inherent design flaw, which was then pulled from stores prior to release due to unrelated criticism. I’d love to learn the full story of this set someday.
Completely agree with Huw's assessment on this that the real reason it was cancelled was to try and cover up this technical flaw with the gear box. As said, there no other reason to not have handed out early review models.
Given the 'pressure' from the protest group was actually extremely light and at least using google, wasn't picked up on by any media outlets other then various lego fan groups, you could almost think that that was manufactured to save face by lego.
Afterall whats more embarrassing, not releasing a product because you admitting its shoddy, or saying you removing it because you want to uphold your companies morals?
Frankly though, if I was Lego, and the flaw is the truth of the matter, I'd own up. Isn't it better to say you didn't want to release a product that didn't meet standards then say you caved to some pressure group?
@cx52j said:
"One mistake in the article. There is a safety feature for the rotors. |
It's the white part on the underside of the wing. You have two pins so there isn't a hard connection between the rotors and the engine and are only powered by friction."
Good point. It doesn't seem to be particularly effective, though.
@SeekerBear said:
"On the Brothers Brick website (not to try and market them or anything), they also have a review of this set that includes a video displaying the functions and safety features of the gearbox. It looks to me that as long as you have the motor running prior to the engagement of the gearbox, disengage the gearbox as functions reach their limits of travel (landing gear, ramp, engines), and don't block moving parts (landing gear, props), it should operate relatively fine and without many issues. So basically just be really careful with it.
Link: https://www.brothers-brick.com/2020/07/30/lego-technic-42113-bell-boeing-v-22-osprey-review/ "
No need to worry about posting a link, @Alexander_A , has posted a great review there, and that is my conclusion too. Unfortunately in practical use being careful is not going to happen all the time.
@Huw how did u even get this set??!!! I wish i could have got this :(
So much for "Only the best is good enough." Somebody at LEGO Technic needs to hear the three coats of paint lecture again!
Word spread fast about argos's premature release.
I got 1 in the loft waiting for christmas so i am lucky.
Rest should go on sale saturday.
Criky to build or not to build now, I was going to but may not now, though I have others to build first to. Will see, but does seem like some poor design there, none of the other powered sets I have seem like this would happen ever a shame.
Does make one wonder how they test them, do they not give to kids in age range to try out?
@secchildhood said:
"Why would a set that is fundamentally flawed and doesn't actually work ever increase in value? What value does a sealed box of LEGO that won't be built actually have? I honestly don't understand..."
People buy multimillion-dollar Ferraris that they will never drive (many of which are flawed machines), expensive artwork that represents - at most - status to them, and stamps that were printed upside down. For some, it's just an investment, for others a status symbol, and for many of us, a totem with a good story and some inherent "quality".
There's a story behind this set, and it has a certain rarity that increases desirability. The bet right now is where the price will level off, and my money says well below the current eBay market price of $1300. Some people are just rich, whether relative to $80,000 cars or to $800 LEGO sets. If you're a professional adult making $100k a year, you could raise children, or you could blow as many thousands of dollars as you want on LEGO.
Accurate review, from all sides. I really appreciate your work, Huw.
And so much for those Brickset users (there have been quite a few, lately) who accuse BS reviews of being too lenient towards TLG, to say the least. This is a perfect example of an unbiased, informative, and objective writeup on a delicate matter such as the 42113 set.
Thank you.
@Huw, one correction to the review should be made. There is in fact a safety feature for the rotors to prevent stalling but the friction of the blue pins inside the white connector is pretty high. It may be possible that the gears will slip before the linear clutch engages. I did not realize this was a safety mechanism until I saw the video of Brothers Brick. Not everything you read on reddit is 100% correct ;)
P.S. Glad you liked my render that you included it in the review.
I find myself swayed by the theory that the set was primarily cancelled due to the design flaw, but as others have said, I still find it strange it was cancelled so late regardless of the reason.
I have some experience with motor and electronics development, and my mind keeps coming back to the new battery box. I assume it was developed in parallel to this set, and may not have been initially available during development. I'm not familiar with the operation of the PoweredUp system, and while Huw said the new battery box is the same form factor as the hub, I don't know how easy it is to simply run a motor with the hub (for testing, etc.). It's conceivable to me that the designers could've used an older Power Functions motor that may have had less torque for their initial testing. The gearbox flaw may not have been discovered until late in the design process, when all the components of the new electronics system were available and could be tested together.
As others have said though... we'll probably never know.
Great review, must have being the most difficult box to open given the current hysteria.
The reddit diagram is interesting, seems which ever function is chosen the transmission needs to go through those middle three gears hence likely to hit the limit of the undercarriage or rear door opening eventually, as well as rotating blades hitting the ground either of which cannot be good. As well as a redesign of the gear box needed, I just don't understand why there are no 24 white clutch gears anywhere to protect the motor and other gears when extremes are reached?
The actual Osprey rotors are also too large for having horizontal when landed, but as this is a kids toy they must expect that eventually someone will turn the motor on with the engines horizontal and should either have mounted higher up or smaller rotors but I guess they didn't want it looking like the previous 42025 cargo plane.
You have to wonder how this got past the designers let alone durability testing, perhaps they didn't have the new large motor when designing and used a medium or small sized one?
Between this and colour issues, increasingly mangled manuals and sticker sheets, Lego's quality control is really going down hill fast in the last year or so. They want to keep charging top dollar for sets like this they need to step up their game, expanding and investing in new markets is all well and good, but don't poop all over your existing ones as if other areas fail, you'll need us to keep going!
Lets be clear that everyone is just speculating on the real reason why this set was cancelled. No one outside of the Lego company development team knows with concrete evidence on why the cancellation. Perhaps it's technical flaws, perhaps it company's values in distancing from modern warfare. It's all an opinion and Lego does not owe any of us the truth behind it. It's their business and they have their reason, and they don't have to share it. They are not a government agency that needs to justify their actions to its taxpayers on their decisions. That being said, people like to speculate and spread gossips.
If the reason is a technical flaw, perhaps there are justifiable reasons, like the motorized parts not being fully developed by the time the set was being designed. Perhaps there were last minute adjustments. There is a lot that goes into developing a product. I work in product development for the past 2 decades, and things are a lot more complex than they appear from the outside.
Couldn’t you use the 3long rubber bands. Two, each one on a pair of bushings? Or is it too much torque?
i have already purchased this set (argos UK) and after building the set found the problem, but not to be defeated i have modified the gearbox, the small gears are reasonably strong tbh but are positioned in the wrong place, so I have moved the 3 drive gears to the rear of the gearbox, so giving them extra fixed support, although that then needs modifying the rear actuator mounts.
Great review Huw. Considering LEGO are allowing those sets that have got out to be sold, they will need to address this issue and provide a solution for those that have parted with hard earned money.
It will be interesting to see what LEGO offers in the form of a service pack to resolve the issue, as just replacing two 8-tooth cog wheels will potentially result in the same issue occurring!
Over to you LEGO....
I have always been fascinated by the Osprey and was really looking forward to the set. Was horribly disappointed when i heard the set was cancelled but then i just read its “available” on eBay. But have you seen the pricing? Absolutely crazy! And for a flawed model. I still have my Wall-E, the one with the neck issue lying in my collection, unbuilt. But there is no way i am paying these prices for the Osprey just to add it into my collection.
That gear looks like it should be easy enough to CNC ;).
@Balthazar_Brannigan said:
"I find myself swayed by the theory that the set was primarily cancelled due to the design flaw, but as others have said, I still find it strange it was cancelled so late regardless of the reason.
I have some experience with motor and electronics development, and my mind keeps coming back to the new battery box. I assume it was developed in parallel to this set, and may not have been initially available during development. I'm not familiar with the operation of the PoweredUp system, and while Huw said the new battery box is the same form factor as the hub, I don't know how easy it is to simply run a motor with the hub (for testing, etc.). It's conceivable to me that the designers could've used an older Power Functions motor that may have had less torque for their initial testing. The gearbox flaw may not have been discovered until late in the design process, when all the components of the new electronics system were available and could be tested together.
As others have said though... we'll probably never know."
This is an interesting theory and a very plausible reason for the late cancellation. We pretty much know a year ago (when the set was in development) there was no simple battery box available yet, but the "Simple Hub" was announced in 05/2019 during the Fan Media Days to come in future sets: https://www.facebook.com/TechnicBRICKs/photos/a.499319403479616/2225327397545466/
The motor was first released in 08/2019 in 42099. Also with the smart hubs the motors electronically stop fairly quickly when resistance is too high, maybe the simple battery box doesn't switch off and continues to deliver current even when motors are struggling.
Also it would be interesting to know if reviewers used standard batteries (9V) or rechargeable ones which deliver only 7.2V and thus less speed and mechanical power. Torque is the same acc. to philohome regardless of voltage.
This story continues to become even more interesting as the days go ok!
I wonder if its possible that they correct the design flaw and release with the fix. I think there is a demand for a build like this.
I did power it with rechargeables initially but it didn't work effectively: it wasn't possible to spin the rotors and rotate the engines at the same time. However, nothing was damaged!
I'm using 1.5v normal batteries now.
I will present a fix for the mangling gears in a few hours.
Ugh, how does one stop the feeling of 'wanting' something?
I really want this set.
However, having read the review, and aside from the design flaw, it's just not a very good Technic set: it's perhaps too big, and the functions aren't as interesting as, say, a crane.
Hooray, I've convinced myself to stick with 31020!
Overall, this has certainly been an interesting LEGO journey. Just like COVID-19, unexpected and unfortunate events are bound to come. Even when all precautions and measures have been taken and even when you believe you've done everything right, sometimes flaws still pass through and it won't be noticeable until it's too late. In times like this, desperate times call for desperate measures, and unfortunately that means for the cancellation of the LEGO Osprey.
I think all we can hope for is that LEGO becomes more aware and more careful as they continue to develop new LEGO products, and for us as LEGO Fans, I hope we can continue to be honest and open about positives and negatives in a LEGO set, but also hopeful, forgiving, and understanding when things don't go our way.
Very interesting. I know there have been Technic sets in the past that have had mechanical issues (such as the BWE struggling to operate with just one XL motor) but this one sticks out. That one gear is practically an Achilles Heel and it's weird to me that they would move the project along the way that they did. Pushing it to release but not sending review copies makes sense if they're planning on canceling it, but I can't wrap my head around why they wouldn't just give it a few more months in the lab. So much story here that we'll probably never know
@10basetom said:
"That gear looks like it should be easy enough to CNC ;)."
If the set wouldn't have been cancelled you could have made a fortune by selling replacement aluminum/steel gears as a pack :) Good luck next time. In the meantime I recommend watching this load test of the 8 tooth gears. They suck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjhOGoZ-bNI
Given how so many other pseudo-military aircraft have been done over the years, I knew there had to be something deeper down.
I'm sure it went like this: "I think this gear is just too small; people are going to constantly complain that they break. Well, there's an organization complaining that we made a military aircraft, so why not just cancel it? Well, it is easier and cheaper than having to release a service pack, modified instructions, or reengineer the set, and all but the most diehard LEGO fans won't notice; so let's do that".
Given how many higher-end RC cars have full-metal gear and gearbox upgrades available; it tells the strengh of plastic gears. But, I think another type of plastic would be better. Most gears are Delrin; not ABS.
I can't be the only person who still thinks of the V-22 as "that science fiction looking plane that keeps crashing and killing people" because of its long, troubled development history. So the LEGO version having multiple problems just feels very "on brand".
Hope this calms things down a bit.
Honestly I don't know why Lego ever thought a licensed military vehicle was a good idea. They could have just made an almost identical tiltrotor aircraft and sold it as a generic model. Hopefully they still will. I've always loved the concept, daft as it is.
I expect the Asian companies (with “compatible” bricks) will come out with this set, once they get around to making “Powered Up compatible” motors and battery boxes. They’ll be fairly inexpensive, compared to what the gougers are asking for the real thing.
The only thing I am disappointed about is the new battery box; hopefully Lego will put this in a set in the near future.
Why aren't there any guns or Marines on this thing?
I was floored by the news. I channelled my sadness and anger into this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137178302 @N07/50148760041/in/dateposted-public/
Not bad. While I’m only just getting into Technic, I believe this is excellent, save for the design flaw.
@Tyutyu , that's cool, and sorry that the name parser has screwed up the link!
Huw, thanks for taking the time (and money) to get this review out. Excellent analysis about the motor flaw. Smart move to not apply the stickers.
Still mad at "cancel culture"?...smh
"There's no question about it. The gearbox is fundamentally flawed. There is too much power being driven through tiny plastic gears which simply can't take it."
And that's also a really interesting finding, but --- just like the military-air-craft theory --- it still begs the question of why didn't anyone notice this was going to be a problem, months and months ago? They still wasted so much time, effort and money on it, cancelling it at the last minute.
"...not BrickLink, because it's been removed from the catalogue there."
And there the trouble with the takeover by the mothership continues. First custom parts were removed, now history is rewritten.
Whilst I agree the Wall E set had a design flaw,it was easily rectified with the parts supplied from Lego. No physical damage was done to the actual parts.
Think of it like a car. Let's say a wing mirror was prone to lopsided but can be an easily fixed with manufacturer supplied parts. No recall required. HOWEVER, if a car was liable to lose control at certain speeds cos of a problem in the suspension then it would need to be recalled for obvious reasons
This could be the REAL reason it was recalled and that Lego decided (2 weeks prior to release) to use the military connotations as an excuse to hide the real truth. I find it hard to see why this was the reason - Lego have a history of themed sets with military connotations as well as other 'adult' themes - James Bond uses guns and sleeps with women and still the DB5 was released.
I just think nowadays we live in a society that offends TOO easily and everyone is quick to jump on the bandwagon and make a statement.
I would laugh if Lego admitted it was the fault in the set as a reason to recall and that they would 're-release' the set with Lego supplying the parts to remedy the problem.
I can hear those people that spent near a £1000 crying lol
Don't forget the entire DOTS line was shelved not too far from release due to parts not being acceptable to Lego product control (I can't remember the exact wording). It was finally released about a year late but no one was particularly bothered.
It just so happens this time it is a premium set
Now that is interesting, Lego hiding behind the social pressure to hide a design flaw... This not something expected from Lego. Personally I wouldn't care for the flaw. I just don't like powered sets. Any set that cannot function without batteries is flawed to me.
Whoa... They went all out on making it hyper realistic and transferred the flaws of the original to the model. :D Should have been clear to them from the start, though. How could they ever hope to implement something in flimsy plastic that took them over thirty years to get right on the real thing and still is a maintenance hog requiring replacement of several gear parts every few hundred service hours due to the strong wear? It's regrettable that the model isn't available for us mere mortals and I would have loved to give it a try, though, despite all the shortcomings.
Pity no shop in Germany appears to have gotten any before the recall. I phoned dozens of toy stores all over Germany, small independently owned ones as well as those from chains like Vedes, idee+spiel and others, and all have said they never received any sets as LEGO appears to have recalled them from the wholesalers / central logistics hubs of those chains so none ever reached stores over here. Might explain why there are also no local auctions of the set on eBay Germany.
Wouldnt the cancellation of this set result in its exclusive parts being *more likely* to show up on Bricks & Pieces? I mean looking at the reasoning presented for the large mosaic plates not being sold there, surely by the same reasoning the parts of a cancelled set *should* be available through the service, right? Have TLG actually made a statement about the parts not being on there, or is that just an assumption that they wont be?
I think if they said they cancelled it due to the error in design it would have been better, by a fraction.
The morals issue actually makes them look MORE stupid.
So Lego looks stupid or STU~~~PID lol.
Shame though as the Osprey is a visually distinct vehicle that is going to become world known as it appears in more films and such (probably going to be as popular as the Apache) and the Lego model has a great presence and visual appeal with it's grey and orange scheme.
How in the world did such a fundamentally flawed set make it passed the design stage?
"We will never know whether the set was cancelled due to external pressure, or because of this flaw."
I really don't see why Lego couldn't have just told the truth, unless they wanted to give those few German anti-war activists some global attention. If anything, Lego has lost my respect for this debacle.
PDF instruction file:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/k4nu591ygsd7tn5/42113.pdf/file
@KnightOfRen said:
"Will these ever get to the US? "
They didn't even get to Germany, which is next door to Denmark. Why should any have gotten to the US? Other than via some of those totally insane eBay auctions of course.
Just to add if it was cancelled because they can't make real military aircraft what were the Fokker Dr1 triplane and Sopwith Camel I have hanging from my ceiling?!
Having a licence set that can potentially pay royalty for company that makes military planes is in itself a fundamentally flawed judgement. How does that passes the first stage and make it into production, is even more of a glaring concern compared to the design flaw described here. In the degree of 'flawlessness' I would rate them 9 for the former and 8 for the latter. I do not think it make sense to go into debate which reason is which that causes the pull-off. Even more ironic is that many buyers are willing to pay exponential amount of money for something that is 'flawed'... please donate those money for better cause in the future.
@Monty said:
"Just to add if it was cancelled because they can't make real military aircraft what were the Fokker Dr1 triplane and Sopwith Camel I have hanging from my ceiling?!"
I totally forgot those, that now means they have no excuse from here on out lol
So we now know the real reason this set was cancelled - the mechanics are fundamentally flawed leading to damaged parts. And Lego didn't state this as the reason for the cancellation because of PR. They didn't want their customers to know they had released a flawed product. So Lego allowed people to believe the cancellation was because of a small pressure group, and not their flawed product.
No Lego set should cause damage to its parts in the way this set does. Lego were right to cancel it. But they should have been honest about the cancellation, and not come up with some spurious reason to do with not producing sets based on military vehicles.
If we consider the drive motors as separate from the rest of Technca, then the System and Technica all work fine. It's the motor that breaks. Batteries and LEGO don't work together.
And Huw's fix is a good fix. It's a pity that they didn't impliment it to save money and improve the model.
So much shame here. That they used this bogus reason, that they almost released a shoddy model.... If they did it again, say in white and red with big USCG markings, with the manual linkage (with a few dollars tossed quietly to Huw) I would buy it.
@VerMonster:
Coast Guard doesn't own any of these, though. Just the US Marine Corps, US Air Force, US Navy, and with the Japanese Self Defense Force being the only other customer with a standing order. Even the US Army doesn't own any.
Will there come a time when the USCG buys in to tilt-rotor aircraft? Maybe. But that day is not today. And with the V-280 being developed as a contender for the Army's Future Vertical Lift program (and the USAF taking an interest in it), even if they do buy tilt-rotor aircraft, there's no guarantee it'll be the Osprey.
I finished my rebrick & (small) MOD of the set. Besides the mentioned inadequate transmission I think this is (would have been?) a nice technic model.
@Huw: Is there any chance review function for this set will be open to all?
@aamartin0000 said:
"I expect the Asian companies (with “compatible” bricks) will come out with this set, once they get around to making “Powered Up compatible” motors and battery boxes. They’ll be fairly inexpensive, compared to what the gougers are asking for the real thing.
The only thing I am disappointed about is the new battery box; hopefully Lego will put this in a set in the near future.
"
As predicted, Vonado has just released a V-22 Osprey kit. The number of pieces is different than the official set, and the description seems to indicate it uses PF instead of PU. For sure, this is built from "compatible" bricks, but the price is significantly less than the real thing in the open market.
If you're desperate to have this.