Fixing the Osprey
Posted by Huw,
In the review I posted earlier I concluded that 42113 Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey has a design flaw that causes parts to become damaged, and that could well be the real reason why its release has been cancelled.
I didn't want to leave mine in a damaged state, so I set about finding a fix for the problem.
I found one, and it's remarkably simple. It requires just three extra pieces.
To recap, the issue is with three 8 tooth gears in the middle of the gearbox that transfer power from the motor input at the bottom to the top half of it. Unfortunately the top half is the part that's subject to the most friction and load and that it why the gears become mangled.
The gears in question are right in the middle, so there's not a lot of scope to replace them with anything else. But I did find a solution.
Thankfully, it's relatively easy to get the gearbox out of the aircraft to work on it. You can see the mangled gears underneath.
I think they became deformed in this way because there is a bit of slack between the 3-length beams either side of them, as you can see above, so they don't always mesh exactly with each other which results in enough force on the edges of the teeth to bend them.
The first thing I tried was to replace them with bushes and elastic bands but it did not transfer enough torque so it didn't work.
I then read a post on Facebook by Kenneth who said that he moved the gears to the other side of the yellow 'biscuit' that you can see above, and supported them more securely, which fixed it for him.
However, that would require a lot of work to re-jig the linear actuator that operates the door, and I didn't really want to make major changes.
It got me thinking though, what if there was the set of gears in the middle where they are now, and also on the other side of the biscuit, then the torque through them individually would be halved.
It turns out that adding a second set of three gears is actually much simpler. Rather than have one set of gears surrounded by two 3l beams in the middle of the gearbox, why not have 2 sets of gears with one beam between them, like this:
It fits in the same space and requires no further modification. All that's needed is three additional 8-tooth gears.
Does it resolve the clicking gears issue and does everything work as it should? Yes! Initial tests suggest that it is much better. There is no clicking at all now.
Also, the clutch gear in the engine rotation mechanism functions as it should: it clicks before the gears do, same for the crude clutches in the transmission to the rotors.
However, I still think that, to avoid damage again, the motor should be switched on before engaging the gearbox to turn the rotors.
Anyway, I hope that's useful to somebody. If you've yet to build yours you should be able to make the modification during construction (steps 220 to 223) rather than reworking it later on.
Now, why didn't LEGO do this to start with...
Update: Sariel has posted his review, in which he carries out this fix towards the end.
207 likes
62 comments on this article
Huw, you just saved the Osprey!
Now if this was truly the reason for its' shelving, then I would assume they could make the fix and reintroduce it. The same as they did for Wall-E. That set also featured a flawed connection, which was fixed, repackaged, and put back onto shelves.
Makes you wonder if they had to build the set to a price, so cut down on parts. Or, if they didn't do enough testing on the set up before approving the final design?
If just 3 extra parts can fix the problem, will lego flip-flop and actually release the set after adding them and reprinting manuals if this flaw was the actual cancellation reason?
@GrizBe said:
"If just 3 extra parts can fix the problem, will lego flip-flop and actually release the set after adding them and reprinting manuals if this flaw was the actual cancellation reason? "
I also think this is a brilliant solution, but where fans see "just another 3 gears" the designers, managers, factories, etc. might see limitations we have absolutely no idea about. There is a lot of empty space inside the hull. I think instead of using more of the same weak gears they might redesign the gearbox slightly and add a couple more robust gear on the side of the "biscuit".
Perhaps LEGO could re-release the set with a different gearbox setup and a new, non-“offensive” name?
Given how fantastically simple this fix is, I think it takes away some of the credibility of the theory that this was the 'real reason' that the set got canceled. As @Alexander_A said, there are certainly different restrictions that set designers have to work with, but with a three-piece solution, it would make way more sense for Lego to ship or recall what was made and send out a fixed version. It wouldn't be the first time, as we've had things like Ant-Man and Wall-E go through the same process. Either way, excellent solution Huw!
The problem probably came up way too late in development, huh. Guessing the inclusion of a "parts+page patch" for a triple-digit cost set wouldn't have saved too much face/came off less embarrassing or made the inevitable breakage it sting less on the buyer's end.
@Lego_Prime said:
"Perhaps LEGO could re-release the set with a different gearbox setup and a new, non-“offensive” name?"
They can't just pretend it's not a model of the licensed vehicle. The licensing doesn't cover just the name, but also the likeness—which is why most non-licensed vehicles in sets have key differences from the real-world vehicles they seem to be based on.
Also, if the fix was this simple, I would think that would put the nail in the coffin of the absurd theory that this was the reason for the cancellation in the first place. Lego has issued fixes for design flaws like this before—scrubbing the set entirely is a less precedented course of action and likely wouldn't have been undertaken for a reason that easily resolved. Much simpler to assume that their stated reasoning for the cancellation was honest, to the point where I'm not sure why people thought otherwise.
@bekuehn said:
"Huw, you just saved the Osprey!
Now if this was truly the reason for its' shelving, then I would assume they could make the fix and reintroduce it. The same as they did for Wall-E. That set also featured a flawed connection, which was fixed, repackaged, and put back onto shelves."
I was thinking the same thing... include a sort of "service pack" for the model, and make it available via customer service too for those that have already purchased. Wall-E isn't the only case either. The first one I can think of is the issue that was found in the first production run of the Emerald Night where a "6589 Technic Gear 12 Tooth Bevel" could actually fall off the axle it was connected to. They fixed it in later production runs with updated instructions. I'm sure there are other cases like this I haven't heard of.
Two 16t gears don’t fit? Only downside is the rotation is reversed, because even number of gears. Or do these 16t gears touch the driving rings?
I'd have thought that TLG designers would have some sort of computer program that could evaluate the stresses, tolerances, etc. of a mechanism and warn the designers of potential problems like this. @Huw's solution is so simple. It adds just three more 8-tooth gears- but subtracts a 3M beam, and nothing else changes.
I don't understand the use of those particular gears in this set, anyway. In my experience using LDD, part no. 10928 doesn't mesh well to begin with. I think that part no. 3647 would be a MUCH better fit for this application. Of course, part no. 3647 appears to be out of production, but I see no reason why the LEGO Group would not be able to bring an OOP part back into production on such short notice, especially when the part in question has only been OOP for no more than nine (9) years.
@domboy said:
" @bekuehn said:
"Huw, you just saved the Osprey!
Now if this was truly the reason for its' shelving, then I would assume they could make the fix and reintroduce it. The same as they did for Wall-E. That set also featured a flawed connection, which was fixed, repackaged, and put back onto shelves."
I was thinking the same thing... include a sort of "service pack" for the model, and make it available via customer service too for those that have already purchased. Wall-E isn't the only case either. The first one I can think of is the issue that was found in the first production run of the Emerald Night where a "6589 Technic Gear 12 Tooth Bevel" could actually fall off the axle it was connected to. They fixed it in later production runs with updated instructions. I'm sure there are other cases like this I haven't heard of."
Don’t forget 8043 with the newer type Linear Actuators
BTW: another solution is replace the black 12th double bevel gear coming from the motor with a 8t gear and replace the tan 24t double bevel gear with the old type of 24t white clutch gear. It does change the speed of functions somewhat though...
Cue the eBay resellers now adding a "Repair Pack" for the Osprey, either as a justification for higher asking price on the set or as an additional item sold (with pictures and instructions on how to fix the set) for an outlandish sum for just three little pieces.
But that is some great ingenuity, Huw! Now I kind of want the set, as I do happen to have a few 8t gears laying around.
Interesting solution of using two sets of gears across one beam instead of one set of gears with two beams.
One thing I'm a little afraid of is that the middle set of gears have an escape to fall off since it is not braced on both sides. I've had experiences where gears that were not braced on both sides would pop off under high torque, and if it falls somewhere into the mechanism and jams it, then it would be a problem. Perhaps there's a simple way to also brace the gears so that they don't fall off.
@Alexander_A said:
I also think this is a brilliant solution, but where fans see "just another 3 gears" the designers, managers, factories, etc. might see limitations we have absolutely no idea about. ]]
Exactly, I think especially given the strain that the pandemic has taken on production (with most summer sets delayed to September and who knows what other new products that are yet to be announced have been affected), this seems like a bit of a headache and I wouldn't be surprised if it's simply not a priority for them right now.
@BrandonG_256 said:
"I don't understand the use of those particular gears in this set, anyway. In my experience using LDD, part no. 10928 doesn't mesh well to begin with. I think that part no. 3647 would be a MUCH better fit for this application. Of course, part no. 3647 appears to be out of production, but I see no reason why the LEGO Group would not be able to bring an OOP part back into production on such short notice, especially when the part in question has only been OOP for no more than nine (9) years."
That is incorrect. The teeth of 3647 are the same thickness and profile as those of the type 2 gear 10928, but the new gear has a thicker rim which prevents it of slipping inside a beam hole while the old one doesn't. So it's good this part was discontinued. But torque wise the new gear cannot handle more than the old one did. Only bigger gears help, or less torque on them like Huw did with his fix.
How ironic....... If only they had sent @huw a demo copy pre-release, he could have saved the day. This whole thing begs the question......... does lego have a"test" department ? Regardless of design they surely make sure and average jo can't break it in 10 mins?
@Huw "because there is a bit of slack between the 3-length breams either side of them" do you mean "beams" instead of "breams"?
I suspect the fix only partly addresses the root cause of the problem and that damage is likely to still be possible should too many functions be enabled at once, or if the motor is switched on with the gearbox engaged.
So it's probably not a panacea that LEGO would adopt but it's robust enough if you are aware of its limitations.
@Lyichir said:
"Much simpler to assume that their stated reasoning for the cancellation was honest, to the point where I'm not sure why people thought otherwise."
The problem with that theory is that the pressure group has, apparently, been lobbying LEGO since the set was unveiled at the toy fair in February, so why leave it this late?
Have lego used this kind of doubling up to reduce the strain of years before? I've seen the technique used on youtube (the brick experiment chanel) when they've been gearing down a motor to lift increasingly ludicrous weights. But have we seen it to protect the gears on any official models where tourque might be an issue?
@Huw said:
"I suspect the fix only partly addresses the root cause of the problem and that damage is likely to still be possible should too many functions be enabled at once, or if the motor is switched on with the gearbox engaged.
So it's probably not a panacea that LEGO would adopt but it's robust enough if you are aware of its limitations."
Yeah but with your fix the middle gears have no end-stop and this here can occur also leading to gear failure:
https://imgur.com/II3elb3
Reduction of rotor speed is the answer. Put in a pair of 12/20 gears at the engines and flip the last pair of 12/20 gears in the gearbox as shown here and you should be safe:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50162964918_76993a3273_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50163503091_01cf62ba7b_b.jpg
So thanks to a few moments of (hard) thinking, a few tries, your knowledge of Technic, you have found a solution. Well done Huw. And now you have a working Osprey set. You know that none but a very few can pretend this? GG Huw :)
@R0Sch said:
" @Huw said:
"I suspect the fix only partly addresses the root cause of the problem and that damage is likely to still be possible should too many functions be enabled at once, or if the motor is switched on with the gearbox engaged.
So it's probably not a panacea that LEGO would adopt but it's robust enough if you are aware of its limitations."
Yeah but with your fix the middle gears have no end-stop and this here can occur also leading to gear failure:
https://imgur.com/II3elb3 "
Yes that is certainly possible but I don't think they will move any more than the original trio can.
As I say, it's not perfect, but good enough without needing a lot of rework.
Another solution might be to use two 5l half-beams either side of two gears in the middle of each of the 3 axles. It's a bit messy, and I've not looked if there's room underneath and/or above to accommodate the extra length of the beams, but it would resolve the issue you menton.
@LuvKernow said:
"Can someone tell me how long it takes Lego from initial design to general release? It seems baffling that they didn’t spot the serious flaws and that the rotors touch the floor in plane mode...! "
The rotors touch the floor in plane mode because the same thing happens with the real Osprey!
There is no doubt that this is a subtle jab at the Osprey's real design flaws and fixes that took a lot of money and time to resolve. Very clever Lego!
I'm sure this is gonna be helpful for lots of folks LOL but good article anyway
Oh come on. After your review, I was just starting to feel okay about not getting one. You just had to go and find a simple solution, didn't you...
Just fix the problem and rename it, give it a different color, modify the look slightly, then release it. Can't see why they can't release a random tilt rotor aircraft seeing they released jet fighters under creator.
Still mad at "cancel culture"?...smh
Surprisingly, Lego brought the same reliability of the real V-22 to its Lego form, I really want to get my hands on this set, hopefully I can if it gets fixed and Lego will re-release the set
YES! Thank you @Huw for coming up with this fix! You've saved this set! Now to find it for sale at a decent price...
@LuvKernow said:
"Can someone tell me how long it takes Lego from initial design to general release? It seems baffling that they didn’t spot the serious flaws and that the rotors touch the floor in plane mode...! "
The rotors touching the floor is actually pretty accurate, because the Osprey's rotors are large enough that it can't take off or land with the engines in a fully horizontal position.
@Huw:
I suggested the rubber bands and bushings in the review post. Thanks for trying that.
I really appreciate you taking the time and making the effort to figure this out and post it. I’ll never have the set but it reinforces my belief that this is the best hobby on Earth.
What I really don't understand at the moment is: since this set has been cancelled, all the parts needed for it should be somewhere i.e. at the warehouse - you cannot buy the parts on the Lego site. You would think that all the parts - in the right colours should be available on the Lego site (minus the battery box - although it should become available eventually). As far as the reason why they might have canned it, I've heard that the set is just plain dangerous: when the propellers (which are quite big) are at full speed, it apparently hurts quite a bit if a part of your body inadvertently come in contact with them. I still want it though and I will source it from Lego over time. @Huw, there is a guy in Australia that makes very good Lego stickers (was not able to find him somehow this evening but I did not search for very long) - maybe he should get a copy of them so he can make copies for anyone that might need them in the future.
Now I quite want it again...
Which isn't a problem! There is NO doubt that our friends in the East will soon come out with a clone of this model; I shalln't have any moral qualms about buying one of those.
... or we can leave it "as is". To learn how to be the real man and to double check your aircraft before each flight))) Or like an old Russian car: once you returned from a trip, you have to change some parts anyway))
Just imagine what kind of quality of sets we could have if people like Huw (or Sariel, or Jang for that matter) worked for TLG.
:-)
Now don't get me wrong, I think many LEGO designers do an excellent job, especially considering the environment (and sometimes obscure corporate mindset) they have to work in, but sometimes, like with this, not thinking of such a simple solution to a problem is unforgivable for someone who does this kind of thing for a living.
brilliant, thank you. keep up the great work!
Step forward one civilian user willing to pay $72Million (+) for a V-22 so LEGO can go ahead and release this with Huw's mod.
...if they're not worried about the lateral slipping of the extra 8T gears as highlighted by Agent 00Z.
Thank you Huw, this is another solution, seen one or 2 others but this look simpler.
^ Do post links, I'd be interested to see them. Thanks.
Absolutely bizarre that they didn't just recall the sets, remove the offending parts bag and replace it with the (fixable) components. That surely would have cost significantly less than just no releasing the product at all.
Unfortunately they act like a garage start-up in Billund:
1. With so many resources they didn't saw coming the "peace" scandal.
2. They have a technical flaw and nobody saw it and they manufactured the building instructions and packed and shipped the boxes to some early retailers.
3. They didn't sent in advance one set to their trusted (and sometimes too defending reviewers), and they were so naive to not see coming the fact that @Huw , Sariel and others will spend time and crazy money to get in the end a set because this is their passion.
Asking so much money for some plastic toys is reasonable if a big chunk of earnings is going to marketing, focus groups, advisers, quality control.
With the lately results like color problems, design problems, it seems something is very wrong in that business scheme.
I found awkward some reviewers and influencers were not disturbed by Lamborghini or the famous Duck color problems but are disturbed by a damage gear. You have to treat it as a consumable like the 1.5V batteries and replace the damaged gear at every 2 hours.
I am not a big Technic fan (I verify and enjoy the functionality for 2-3 minutes and that's it).
I buy them mainly for the pleasure of building and for the looks for displaying reasons.
But some LEGO fans defend the color problem as not being a problem. I know Technic is a functionality toy but you have to respect the fans that are into LEGO for the looks of a car, Architecture or a building that in lately is made with disturbing difference in colors.
I have to receive a Lamborghini as a gift and I am grateful LEGO is adding to the wait, the adrenaline factor "would I have or not color problems in my set, would I have technical problems in my next acquisitions?"
@Huw said:
"^ Do post links, I'd be interested to see them. Thanks."
Its on Eurobricks, from Ngoc Ngyuen, I am not sure fully what it does or if better than your mod!
https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/179253-42113-osprey-mods-and-improvements/&page=2
^ Thank you. The best solution is probably a combination of both.
@Huw said:
"^ Thank you. The best solution is probably a combination of both."
Yeah the other idea on Eurobricks looks like a solid idea, will save these ideas for if and when I build it.
@Felix_Mezei said:
"But some LEGO fans defend the color problem as not being a problem.""
And colour problem, indeed, is no problem.
Those who see such things are simply too harsh and cherry-picking lot.
You know, Huw... if this whole "internet thing" doesn't ever take off... *wink* ... you would make a brilliant Lego Technic designer!
@GHED
Yes, you are probably right not to care about this. Elegance, refinement and quality are not to be found in all the places in this world.
In some places the cherries are not to be found so people don't even know to cherry picking.
@yury_tolmadzhev:
My dad was stationed at Elmendorf in Anchorage back in the late 60's. He said that, due to the funky weather they have in Anchorage, it wasn't uncommon for a military flight to be forced to divert across town to Anchorage International Airport, or for a civilian flight to have to divert to Elmendorf, just because visibility could be just enough better a couple miles away that you could safely land. One of the stories he tells from his time there is about a civilian cargo plane (UPS, I believe) that got diverted to Elmendorf. When it came time to take off, they lined up on the runway, and had to cancel takeoff because the weather turned bad. It cleared up enough for tower approval again, so they reset everything...and aborted again because visibility again fell below the safe limits. This happened several times in a row, where each time they'd line up on the runway and set their controls for takeoff, they'd be forced to abort when visibility dropped. Finally, they got lined up and cleared to go for it. They'd forgot to reset the flaps on that last attempt and plowed straight into a mountain. He thinks there would have been four crew on board (pilot, co-pilot, navigator, and a loadmaster), and there were no survivors.
maybe they can salvage this with a quick exterior styling change and sell it as the Bell 609 instead
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2b/98/c6/2b98c6aeb127c3615b05c0bb76bb925e.jpg
Well no stores near me had it, so I guess I'm sitting this one out :I
Nice fix! It seems LEGO doesn't have any engineers anymore involved into the design process. Trains like Emerald Express and the new Cocodile have problems with torque and gears too.
I like this plane, like I liked the russian copter and Transall like transport plane.
This model has theee things I don't like.
1. A license from a war profiteering company
2. A big problem with the gearbox
3. A price that's to high, because of a LICENSE
Are there any exclusive parts in this set?
If not, then the parts could be sourced if someone just wants to build it.
I find it bizarre that people insist that Lego is trying to hide the real reason it was cancelled. A bad gearbox design makes tons of sense. Yes, they could have sold it then sold fix kits like the did with Wall-e. But who really wants that.
Saying that its because the Osprey is a war machine is just stupid. Here is the simple reason why. Go take a look at Set 60020. That's a V-22 Osprey. An Osprey has been done before.
Another claim I hear is it was a licensing issue. Sorry, but it would not have got that far along then to find licensing issues. TLG has been dealing with licensing with one of the most picky Licenses for 20 years now (Star Wars). This wasn't a licensing issue. I suppose that they might have worked everything out with Bell, and then the Military came in last minute and nixed is, but considering this set has been rumored for a while now, I doubt that.
Considering how severe it is, the gearbox issue makes a ton of sense. Should they have caught it sooner. Absolutely! But is TLG lying about the reason for the cancelation? Highly Unlikely
@Meppers:
Bell sold their interest in what is now the AW609, and their former partner put the kibosh on arming it as a condition of buying them out (someone in the US military was asking about mounting guns on it). On another site, someone pointed out that the color scheme was a dead ringer for the 609 that was flown at an air show in Paris, but yeah, the tail is all wrong, and the nose needs to be longer with a more tapered point. They'd need to secure a new licensing deal with AgustaWestland, on top of coming up with a more robust fix than what Huw posted (if they could extend the gear box two studs, they could triple up the transfer gears). They'd need to make it so that whatever Huw did that deformed that gear can still be done _without_ causing any damage, because there's no way to guarantee everyone who buys a copy won't do precisely that same thing.
Is there actually anyone that realises that if this was a mechanical problem LEGO allready would have reannounced the set?
@Coinoperator said:
"Is there actually anyone that realises that if this was a mechanical problem LEGO already would have reannounced the set?"
No. People prefer to choose to be confused between 2 reasons (both shameful) for not having this set from LEGO. People who know nothing about the LEGO logistics and procedures are developing fantasy assumptions.
Worked a treat and so simple! Thank you for saving this incredible model. Given how great the whole thing is designed, we can forgive them one boo-boo (it’s happened before).
I’m amazed with everything going on inside it that it still has a cargo hold!