Curtiss P-40B Tomahawk
Academy/Minicraft | No. 1655 | 1:72
Gerçekler
- Marka:
- Academy/Minicraft
- Başlık:
- Curtiss P-40B Tomahawk
- Numara:
- 1655
- ölçek:
- 1:72
- tip:
- Tam kiti
- Yayınlandı:
- 1987 Yeni kutu
- Barkod:
- 048051016557 (EAN: 0048051016557)
- paketleme:
- Sert kutu (Üst açıcı)
- konu:
- Curtiss P-40 Warhawk » pervane (uçak)
İşaretleri
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
Kutu içeriği
Plastik ladin, Plastik ladin (Clear), Decalsheet (su kaydırağı)
boyutlar:
190x125x40 mm
(7.5x4.9x1.6 inch)
Ürün zaman çizelgesi
Academy
Academy/Minicraft
Sunny
Premium Hobbies
Talimatlar
İndir 2626Kb (.pdf)
Pazaryeri
No partner shops available
Kutu içi incelemeler
Dış incelemeler
Yorumlar
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'?
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.
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.
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
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"...
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
Projeler
Referans materyali
P-40 Tomahawk and Kittyhawk In RAF Service - Europe and North Africa
Wingleader Photo Archive No. 24
Neil Robinson
2023 Bütün kitaplar » (84 toplamda) Tüm geziler » (24 toplamda)