Curtiss P-40B Tomahawk

Academy/Minicraft | Nr. 1655 | 1:72

Fakta

Merke:: Academy/Minicraft
Tittel:: Curtiss P-40B Tomahawk
Nummer:: 1655
Skala:: 1:72
Type:: Byggesett
Utgitt:: 1987 Ny boks
Strekkode:: 048051016557 (EAN: 0048051016557)
Emballasje:: Stiv boks (Toppåpning)
Tema:: Curtiss P-40 Warhawk » Propell (Fly)

Markeringer

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

Eskens innhold

Støpebrett, Støpebrett (Clear), Dekalark (vannoverførings)

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

Produktets tidslinje

Academy/Minicraft

1987

1989

Ny boksStatic

All historikk »

Bruksanvisning

Last ned 2626Kb (.pdf)

Markedsplass

No partner shops available

In-box anmeldelser

Eksterne anmeldelser

Innholdsanmeldelse

Modelingmadness

Kommentarer

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