Curtiss P-40B Tomahawk

Academy/Minicraft | Nr. 1655 | 1:72

Fakten

Marke:: Academy/Minicraft
Titel:: Curtiss P-40B Tomahawk
Nummer:: 1655
Maßstab:: 1:72
Typ:: Kompletter Bausatz
Erschienen:: 1987 Neue Verpackung
Barcode:: 048051016557 (EAN: 0048051016557)
Verpackung:: Feste Box (Stülpschachtel)
Thema:: Curtiss P-40 Warhawk » Propeller (Flugzeuge)

Markierungen

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 PS Hell's Angels 68 | P-8109 (Charles Older)
1942 World War 2 - Kunming
FS34079 FS30219 FS36463

Inhalt der Box

Spritzgußrahmen, Spritzgußrahmen (Clear), Decalbogen (Nassschiebebilder)

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

Geschichte

Academy

Academy/Minicraft

Sunny

Modelist

Premium Hobbies

1987

1989

1996

1999

199x

2000

2002

2005

2008

2012

2014

202x

Neue BausatzformStatic

Neue VerpackungStatic

Neue BausatzformStatic

Neue VerpackungStatic

Neue BauteileStatic

Neue VerpackungStatic

Neue AbziehbilderStatic

Neue VerpackungStatic

ReboxStatic

Gesamte Historie »

Bauanleitung

Herunterladen 2626Kb (.pdf)

Marktplatz

No partner shops available

Bausatzvorstellungen

Externe Bewertungen

In-Box-Überprüfung

Modelingmadness

Kommentare

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
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