Curtiss P-40B Tomahawk

Academy/Minicraft | № 1655 | 1:72

Факти

Бренд:: Academy/Minicraft
Заголовок:: Curtiss P-40B Tomahawk
Номер:: 1655
Масштаб:: 1:72
Тип:: Повний набір
Випущений:: 1987 Нова коробка
Штрих-код:: 048051016557 (EAN: 0048051016557)
Упаковка:: Жорстка коробка (відкривається згори)
Тема:: Curtiss P-40 Warhawk » Пропелер (Літаки)

Маркування

Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

Curtiss Hawk 81 A-2

中華民國空軍 (Republic of China Air Force 1920-now)

American Volunteer Group 3 Pursuit Hell's Angels Sqn. 68 | P-8109 (Charles Older)
1942 World War 2 - Kunming
FS34079 FS30219 FS36463

Вміст коробки

Розміри:
190x125x40 mm (7.5x4.9x1.6 inch)

Графік продукту

Academy

1987

1996

1999

2000

2002

2008

2012

2014

2024

202x

Нові деколі

Нова коробка

Повна історія »

Інструкції

Завантажити 2626Kb (.pdf)

Ринок

No partner shops available

Огляди "в коробці"

Зовнішні огляди

Огляд "у коробці"

Modelingmadness

Коментарі

Juan M Leria
What do we do with this kind of kits?
Much has beed said about the relation of Academy toolings with other brands (this and the Frog one, the MiG-23 and F-104 to Hasegawa, P-39 and Tempest to Heller...), but it is more a matter of copying than retooling; you can't mix those tools without major or minor surgery.
Should we establish that relationship as 'based on ..' or we consider it 'new tool'?

21 October 2012, 09:19

Burkhard D
I propose a new origin entry 're-tool' to go along with 'rebox' including reference to the new tool it is based on.

We shouldn't bother whether we have a case of legal re-tooling or a not so legal copying. If we'd do, it would pose a legal risk to Tim as the owner of the site.

21 October 2012, 10:30

Juan M Leria Автор
That's right. This is one of this cases. It was said this was a copy, but not a 're-tool' as the company hadn't access to the original tool and the parts layout is quite different.
The matter with the F4F is much more obvious and maybe the origin of these believings, it has even the same support stand!
Maybe we should had an entry of 'It is said is a re-tool based on...'
But I think we shouldn't mention it anyway.

21 October 2012, 11:26

Burkhard D
How about 're-engineered' then? Sounds like a nice euphemism to me :-D

21 October 2012, 11:35

scalemates
for me it is a "new tool".... adding the other one will make it more complex... there is currently already a mixing up of "rebox" and "new tool"...

21 October 2012, 16:26