legomilk Posted July 24, 2006 Here a new set shop at home. This summer on legoshop. 10177. More pics on. http://static.flickr.com/52/194067843_008ce3232c_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/65/194067847_2eb7ac0211_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/64/194067846_85017a9ef4_o.jpg Cool :'-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sam89 Posted July 24, 2006 Holy crap that's cool. I want one. Anyone who disliked 7893 because of the large piece should love this. Who's Flickr gallery is that? EDIT: Nevver mind, I found it on Legofan.com. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hobbes Posted July 24, 2006 That's supposed to be the dreamliner??? Way too blocky... looks like a plane from the 50s... in 2006 they should be able to design it better... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gylman Posted July 24, 2006 It's a sculpture. NOT for swishing. They tend to look blocky up close, but much better at a distance, displayed on a shelf , etc. I'm mixed on this one. We shall see what the price is... that will determine likelihood of purchase. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kikuichimonji Posted July 24, 2006 I hope this'll be as good as the Sopwith Camel. And I also hope my local store will sell it for 20 Euro like they did with the Sopwith Camel :-P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gylman Posted July 24, 2006 Also, sculptures tend to be fun to build, but then just kinda sit there and eventually turn into parts packs (unless you can resell them on eBay). So, depending on one's intentions.... this could be either a great white parts pack, or a fun build then resale, or a huge waste of money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hobbes Posted July 24, 2006 It's a sculpture. NOT for swishing. Duh ;-) They tend to look blocky up close, but much better at a distance, displayed on a shelf , etc. I don't have room for 100 yards distance to my shelfs to make this one look good. Even the "old" model teams looked better. I'm mixed on this one. We shall see what the price is... that will determine likelihood of purchase. I'm being harsh, this one's a mis-design, it so doesn't look like 787... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xwingyoda Posted July 24, 2006 Is this a freaking joke ? I really don't think its funny TLC >:-( No communication on future lines and then suddenly that CRAP pops up on SAH !! G are they trying to piss off their fans now ? Seriously its bulky and ugly :-X Can't they do better that that thing I'm not daring to call a plane ? The answer is obviously yes considering the beauty of the UCS AT-ST and UCE Batmobile !! Once more they should be ashame of themselves !! Tks legomilk for this find though !! *yoda* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snefroe Posted July 24, 2006 this is so not what i was hoping for... :-X hm..; do you really need a highly paid designer to come up with... this? i can't help but wonder: why oh why did they show this 1 day after the convention and not at the convention? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hobbes Posted July 24, 2006 i can't help but wonder: why oh why did they show this 1 day after the convention and not at the convention? SDCC? It was posted on legofan.com last Thursday. So it was actually before/during the convention but not at the convention, you're right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xwingyoda Posted July 24, 2006 Look at pics of the real 787 The Lego model is such a great copycat :-| Where is that slick and smmoth nose ?? Whatever that model is crap !! Also what pisses me off is that a European Cie does a Boing model and NOT an Airbus model !! Where is TLC going to with that >:-( *yoda* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hobbes Posted July 24, 2006 Look at pics of the real 787 [nice pics snipped] Also what pisses me off is that a European Cie does a Boing model and NOT an Airbus model !! Where is TLC going to with that >:-( Well, that I don't mind. I've always liked Boeing better than Airbus... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captaintau Posted July 24, 2006 The nose is awful. Otherwise, could be good on a shelf. D'you reckon LEGO will release the cockpit they have at Windsor as a set? I'm joking, but its smart Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gylman Posted July 24, 2006 Jeez you guys have a lot of pent up anger to release. the button nose is horrible of course. Breath deeply... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oo7 Posted July 24, 2006 Lego gives us a big passenger plane with big pieces that make an airplane look smooth and aerodynamic and you people complain that about "Juniorization", now Lego has given us a big passenger plane with small, basic pieces and fixed what you wanted fixed in the first passenger plane, and you still complain, you say it looks blocky and ugly. What do you people expect? I don't think this set is half bad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hobbes Posted July 24, 2006 Lego gives us a big passenger plane with big pieces that make an airplane look smooth and aerodynamic and you people complain that about "Juniorization", now Lego has given us a big passenger plane with small, basic pieces and fixed what you wanted fixed [...] That's not quite correct. They did use basic bricks, which is good. But they used a horrible design for the nose. With today's pieces and SNOTing technique this set should have been way better. This plane looks more like an old DC-something... If I had come up with this it would be a good set - 'cos I'm not talented. If LEGO comes up with this in 2006 it's an insult. I know the 787 is a difficult plane to build. But if it turns out too hard to do - don't do it, it's not a shame, not even for a professional LEGO designer. I do like the wings, though... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snefroe Posted July 24, 2006 1) i think they could have easily built a better nose: classic plates and bricks would be just fine. Instead, they added a cone to it and that compromises the line of the ship... The problem with these planes is that it has to be quite large, larger than this one, to make it work. Bricks, especially slopes, don't handle curves pretty well. the only way to solve that is to make it larger. 2) yes i'm unhappy with this plane because it's not a good model, it's not a good design. the engines, for instance, look like crap. Sure, i was also unhappy with the minifig planes, but for entirely different reasons: the landing gear and the wings weren't any good. this model has entirely different criteria to be good or bad... So basically, lego produced 2 types of airplanes in 2006 and both were not unforgetable... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hobbes Posted July 24, 2006 Bricks, especially slopes, don't handle curves pretty well. the only way to solve that is to make it larger. Well, sometimes not even that helps: Airbus A380. It's way larger and looks better than 10177, but I don't really like it, either... Planes seem really hard to build... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snefroe Posted July 24, 2006 Bricks, especially slopes, don't handle curves pretty well. the only way to solve that is to make it larger. Well, sometimes not even that helps: Airbus A380. It's way larger and looks better than 10177, but I don't really like it, either... Planes seem really hard to build... from a large distance, that airbus looks quite nice, i think.... but you're right, they should stay away from these designs... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
natelite Posted July 24, 2006 i never actually liked any lego sculptures. none of the ferrari cars look decent enough to buy. i prefer to buy tamiya models if i wanted actual replica of the real thing. on the other hand, some of the original creations were rather spiffy. like the black roadster from set 4896 or the bikes from set 4893. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chewie Posted July 24, 2006 Well. I think the plane overall looks like a pile of crap. The nose and engines especially, I like the wings and the body of the plane a little bit. Maybe I'll pick this up, but I would probably rather use the money to buy parts on bricklink or other sets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kotua Posted July 24, 2006 Lego gives us a big passenger plane with big pieces that make an airplane look smooth and aerodynamic and you people complain that about "Juniorization", now Lego has given us a big passenger plane with small, basic pieces and fixed what you wanted fixed in the first passenger plane, and you still complain, you say it looks blocky and ugly. What do you people expect?I don't think this set is half bad. I agree with you...but the thing is people want to see stuff like they see on brickshelf galleries. I like the engine thingies. I just hope its not too expensive... I find it kinda funny it comes with the display stand and the little stat card like the SW UCS stuff. Still, nice to see town get into UCS too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hobbes Posted July 24, 2006 but the thing is people want to see stuff like they see on brickshelf galleries. I'd like to see a design like 4896. "Sleek designs" are possible, the pieces already exist... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sam89 Posted July 24, 2006 Here are the statistics for this set (from LEGOfan.com): Vital Statistics: 1197 pieces, 66 cm long with a wingspan of 69 cm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deinonychus Posted July 24, 2006 ...wow...I never thought that my sour, jaded self would be the positive one I really like it. A UCS Boeing 787...that's awesome! I'll have something huge and non-Star Wars to assemble later this year now that it looks like Megabloks has decided to practicly abandon the Pro-Builder series. Now that I think of it...I'm glad the rest of you seem to hate it...just ensures it'll be in stock when I go to order it :-P Thank you LEGO...I still love you even if nobody else does Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
