LEGO 10226 Sopwith Camel
Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:12 AM
Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:55 PM
Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:47 AM
I don't think "hypocritical" is the word; it's not like TLG is admonishing other toy companies for producing war toys and then turning around and making their own. "Inconsistent" would be a better fit, although even that doesn't exactly apply in a clear, cut-and-dried fashion - this is a one-off set of a historical machine, from about a century ago, and doesn't exactly reflect contemporary conflict situations kids are likely to encounter in real life. Contemporary war machinery and such is a different matter.
Ugh, really? That doesn't bode well for the eventual return of LEGO Indy. I do know it was big in the US, though; hopefully that counts for something (i.e., the US sales offsetting the German ones), to the point it's deemed worth doing again if/when there's a fifth movie. Hopefully the fact any further productions will be set even later (and thus farther from WWII) would help swing it...
Anyway... wow, what a beautiful set.
- 4 copies apiece of Mickey Mouse, the Genie, Stitch, Mr. Incredible, Syndrome, and the Pizza Planet Alien
- 3 copies apiece of everyone else
Posted 01 May 2012 - 12:05 PM
I quite disagree with this being a reason why it is ok for WW1 but not WW2.
Quite strongly, contemporary war machinery and such is of the very same matter as it directly affects contemporary conflict situations and how they are played out differently to WW1/2 conflict.
It was only very early in the war they were mainly used for scout planes. After they started adding machine guns, that is when the majority of use for these planes became as fighters. Both eras of WW1 and WW2 used machine guns mounted on their planes to kill people in opposite side planes/strafing. Both eras had propeller driven planes (OK, WW2 ventured into jet but it wasn't anything that hugely contributed to anything, rather than a short term hindrance that was very short lived.) Both eras planes had the same basic design principle of structure, although WW1 majority had bi-plane wings, WW2 were monoplane.
Conflict of WW1/2 era? That was mostly aim your plane and shoot at the one in front of you and hope to hit it with your bullets, and either damage the plane beyond flyability or kill the pilot with a lucky bullet shot. Very much the same. The same goes for their heavy bombers. Loaded with bombs, gunner positions situated throughout various positions which point and aim at incoming bandits.
Contemporary conflict? Jets with mostly swept back wings that mainly use guided missiles with a bit of gatling/chaingun thrown in for good measure every now and then, chafe flares, proper ejector seats, air-air refueling for even further range. Contemporary fighting of this modern era?
Lock on and fire away. (ofc with the usual acrobatic dancing to get into that position first but it leaves a lot larger room for not having to have the enemy directly in front)
Missile coming? Throw your chafes out and move the plane the hell out of there
Bombing? Sure! Just load A-G missiles/bombs instead of A-A missiles on the fighter jet instead!
(And yeah, I do know that fighters of WW2 sometimes carried bombs, but this was not often as they usually required range to escort the actual bombers that were doing the bombing thus carried droptanks instead. And even less frequently, yes I do know about droptanks and bombs at the same time too, but very rarely used together )
This modern era couldn't be further removed from the comparison of WW1/2.
So again, if they can't do WW2 I don't see how they can justify WW1? Other than the fact there are still a few WW2 veterans alive today and it is for these people they are respectfully holding back, of which that I can fully understand and agree with.
So, failing my latter statement, bring on the WW2 planes TLG!
*edit* sorry for going off-topic
Edited by Fuppylodders, 01 May 2012 - 01:45 PM.
Posted 01 May 2012 - 01:32 PM
Its the music that saves you when you're not so sure you'll survive
Posted 01 May 2012 - 03:33 PM
I love that the props are brick-built instead of single helicopter blade pieces, assuming those are even available, used on the first one. These are the kinds of details I like in sets.
Edited by gotoAndLego, 01 May 2012 - 03:33 PM.
Please support my Lego Cuusoo projects:
Posted 01 May 2012 - 03:47 PM
Posted 01 May 2012 - 03:53 PM
I really hope that this sells well and they make other aircraft of this level.
Posted 01 May 2012 - 06:17 PM
This looks like a terrific model. The Camel is one of my favorite planes from childhood (thanks to Peanuts and Snoopy). Other than the working control suraces, what I like about this one vs the 3451 set are the tail shape, the enclosed cowling, and the number of cylinders (eight) that is closer to the nine of the prototype. The wings have lost the angled edges found on the prototype, but I am OK with that.
I am already considering how to modify this model to have a motorized propeller and machine gun muzzle flash (need some tiny LEDs). I hope there is some room inside.
Keep on building - Greg
Posted 01 May 2012 - 06:22 PM
Posted 01 May 2012 - 10:28 PM
Posted 02 May 2012 - 01:51 AM
Edited by toycardriver, 02 May 2012 - 02:20 AM.
Posted 02 May 2012 - 03:04 AM
Cool! Thanks any chance of sending me the complete front and back of the newsletter!?
but thanks again!
Edited by GRogall, 02 May 2012 - 03:07 AM.
Posted 02 May 2012 - 05:30 PM
Posted 07 May 2012 - 03:23 PM
Posted 07 May 2012 - 04:59 PM
Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:15 PM
Anyway, great model. A huge improvement over the first one. Probably wont buy it though.
That mini version is not bad, but it looks like it's carrying landmines on it's wings instead of the circle pattern. They really need to make a printed version of the 2x2 round tiles from the Pharaoh's Quest biplane.
Posted 07 May 2012 - 11:42 PM
Posted 07 May 2012 - 11:44 PM
Posted 08 May 2012 - 02:41 AM
at it being $130 Canadian though compared to the $100 American price tag.
Edited by Canada_7, 08 May 2012 - 02:42 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users