Review: 11378 Douglas DC-3 PAN AM Airliner

Did they need to brand it pan am so people wouldn't think its the C-47 skytrain?

Thanks for a good review of an excellent set, one of many must-have releases from the past few years. I wonder, how mechanically accurate is the landing gear linkage compared to the real thing?

From the looks of the interiror space, they could have used 1x1 sand blue tile for the seats also. Of course, I don't know if it's accurate with the real plane seats.

@GirlWoman said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Why does this need to be a 18+ black box deluxe IP-partnered overdesigned display model for adults and cant simply be part of a new Adventurers-like theme?

All my interest in this set vanished once I found out the minifigs in this are just accessories and can't actually interact with the build."

"Why isn’t this set a completely different set instead?" "

Exactly! Why isn't this set good instead of bad? When I buy Lego I want a creative interlocking brick building toy and not a model plane for display. This is antithetical to everything Lego is. It wouldn't be as bad if Lego were offering both, but they aren't."

Well look at it this way, they don't make the hinge needed for a proper airplane playset anymore anyway.

Is anyone else concerned by the reddish brown stand? Will the plane one day crush the stand into jagged little bits?

This looks much better than the 747 shuttle carrier craft. That thing was so fragile and delicate that any handling would inevitably smash a wing.

Wonderful set. Will just need to find enough space for it. Only thing that might delay me from getting it on April 1st will be a Friends or Star Wars GWP!

@PurpleDave said:
" @CapnRex101:
Does the set identify the four minifigs by job title? The pilot is pretty obvious, but the press release referred to the other minifigs using three different terms that are functionally similar job titles. Based on the eras represented, I'm guessing the redhead is the Stewardess, since that term fell out of favor decades ago. But which is the Flight Attendant and which the Purser?

@GirlWoman said:
"Why does this need to be a 18+ black box deluxe IP-partnered overdesigned display model for adults and cant simply be part of a new Adventurers-like theme?"

Because it was developed by the Icons team, and there is no team developing a new Adventurers-like theme.

"All my interest in this set vanished once I found out the minifigs in this are just accessories and can't actually interact with the build."

But it's minifig-scale, at least going by their height. Same as the 40450 plane, which in real life seats six passengers plus the pilot. Minifigs exist in three wildly different scales, so you can either design a model to be accurate, or to work with minifigs, but not both. 7628 is the same plane designed to work with minifigs, but it seats a single pilot, and the main cabin has only one seat per row with no aisle or restrooms. With the increased size, this set could accommodate an aisle with only one seat per row, or two seats per row with passengers forced to climb over each other to get to the back of the plane. However, it shouldn't be hard to modify the interior to be minifig-compatible, if that's what you really want.

@GirlWoman said:
" @tkatt said:
"Is anyone else concerned by the reddish brown stand? Will the plane one day crush the stand into jagged little bits?"

Isn't brittle brown a thing of the long foregone past? Does this still happen?"

TLG announced that they'd figured out what caused the problem, and how to prevent it, and waited a bit to make sure the fix worked before releasing any announcement. Based on the timing, I trust anything made from 2019 to present, and I'm reasonably confident about 2018 parts. I also strictly buy reddish-brown, dark-brown, and dark-red from OPAB because there's no way to tell when anything on the secondary market was produced."

When I'm buying bulk parts from a Bricks & Minifigs store, I'll get Dark Red and Reddish brown parts, especially plates, just to have spares. They might be brittle, but they're cheap enough I'll take my chances.

I definitely agree. The nose is very bad. There are several third party designs for DC-3/C-47s in a similar scale out there and the noses on those are far superior.

@Ssorg said:
"A bit ironic that the reviewer specifically praises the nose design. In my opinion the nose is absolutely the biggest problem in the model, the only problem that truly harms its looks. That nose design is WAY too bulbous in shape, a bloated blob.

Had the nose been designed better, this set would have been near perfect. A pity. I really like DC-3 and want to love this, but that nose is... well, a bit of a problem.

EDIT: the underside of the plane also looks regrettably messy. Years ago I designed two variants of DC-3 as LEGO Ideas projects (one bigger and one slightly smaller than this set), and they both had smooth undersides even WITH functional landing gear mechanisms (had interiors too, so no cut corners there either)."

@560heliport said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @tkatt said:
"Is anyone else concerned by the reddish brown stand? Will the plane one day crush the stand into jagged little bits?"

Isn't brittle brown a thing of the long foregone past? Does this still happen?"

TLG announced that they'd figured out what caused the problem, and how to prevent it, and waited a bit to make sure the fix worked before releasing any announcement. Based on the timing, I trust anything made from 2019 to present, and I'm reasonably confident about 2018 parts. I also strictly buy reddish-brown, dark-brown, and dark-red from OPAB because there's no way to tell when anything on the secondary market was produced."

When I'm buying bulk parts from a Bricks & Minifigs store, I'll get Dark Red and Reddish brown parts, especially plates, just to have spares. They might be brittle, but they're cheap enough I'll take my chances."

I prefer to stick to New parts as much as possible.

@CapnRex101 said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @CapnRex101 :
Does the set identify the four minifigs by job title? The pilot is pretty obvious, but the press release referred to the other minifigs using three different terms that are functionally similar job titles. Based on the eras represented, I'm guessing the redhead is the Stewardess, since that term fell out of favor decades ago. But which is the Flight Attendant and which the Purser?"

It partially identifies them, but not clearly. The page spread in the instruction manual where you assemble the sand blue flight attendant includes notes referring to 'stewardesses' and identifies the role of purser as meaning the lead position on board, while the page with the male minifigure in dark blue reads 'male flight attendants were called pursers'. The page with the flight attendant dressed in blue says nothing on the subject.

Honestly, I think it comes down to a sloppy press release, probably written by somebody unfamiliar with the actual set and only given limited information to use."

Being historically accurate, the redhead would definitely have been referred to as a stewardess, and the black woman a flight attendant. I had to look up what a purser was, and it didn't sound like a gender-based title, but strictly about being the lead flight attendant. And the title makes a certain amount of sense, since flight attendants have to take payments for drinks, and someone will need to be responsible for keeping track of the cash collected on each flight. But ever since they threw out four different job titles in the press release, I've been really curious if they would actually spell out which title goes with which minifig.

@TheOtherMike said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
"Does anyone else hear the Indiana Jones travel montage music while reading this post? Or is it just me?"

I wasn't when I read the article, because I'd been a huge aviation buff for years by the time I saw the Indiana Jones movies, so Indy isn't my first thought when I see a DC-3. But the theme *has* been running through my head ever since seeing your comment."

I recently got my dad started on watching my Young Indy DVDs. If he'd ever watched any episodes it would have been because _I_ was watching the show in original broadcast.

@tkatt said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @tkatt said:
"Is anyone else concerned by the reddish brown stand? Will the plane one day crush the stand into jagged little bits?"

Isn't brittle brown a thing of the long foregone past? Does this still happen?"

I am scarred by brittle brown a decade later. I have cut myself while disassembling models with lots of brown plates. They have sharp edges when they break. "

Build a few unopened sets from the brittle era some time ago.
6 parts broke when I pressed them together,

@Lewa8960 said:
"Did they need to brand it pan am so people wouldn't think its the C-47 skytrain?"

Their are some differences between the C-47 / R-4!D, mainly in the tail.
I wonder how long till "alternative " marking bricks are available.

Great review!

Awesome set, Ive always wanted a Lego DC 3. I dont understand why they avoided it for song long (excluding Peril in Peru set).
It's one of the world's most famous and iconic aeroplanes (in Creator we even got a Mosquito in one of the 3 in 1 builds which is a warplane yet never a DC 3).

The shaping is *mostly* excellent.

I dont know how I feel about the nose, some people hate it, some people dont care. A DC 3 nose is very difficult to capture but I agree the dome was a poor choice for the underside.

Minifigures look great, I wish we'd gotten more stewardesses and that these prints were available in other sets.
Surely lego could potentially release that hair-hat piece but in different colours and with a different print in a non-licensed set? (not saying I have a problem with current colours or prints but understand these may be unique to Pan-Am only).

I like to get this but:
1. It's too expensive as usual. It's like $400 AUD for not even 2000 pieces. Complete rip off.

2. The size. This is one of the biggest problems with the set. It's not that the scale is 'wrong' but its so big its difficult to display in a city/airport layout, let alone on a shelf.

Like @GirlWoman Id really have liked to have seen the ability to put minifigures inside. I know thats not possible with the current design. Even suggesting a door would have been better too.

I made a MOC DC 3 using the Peril in Peru DC 3 as a starter, I managed to fit about 5 or passengers plus one pilot. It looked captured the look of a DC 3, no where near as detailed as this of course but got the idea across and was smaller so fit better with lego airport layouts etc.

Theoretically they could have fit a pilot squeezed in the cockpit. It would only fit one (the real plane had pilot and co pilot) but considering there's only one pilot included I think that might have been a better choice.

Planes and ships are difficult in lego because 'true' minifig scale makes them massive (especially the latter) when we need 'lego scale' to make them more manageable (like how City planes represent 747s but are at a much smaller scale).

Im really hoping theres some Rebrickable designs for this that make it smaller overall but allow for minifigures in the cockpit and passenger cabin. (or new MOC designs using this as a starting point because as I said the overall shaping etc. is amazing)

@Rimefang said:
" @tkatt said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @tkatt said:
"Is anyone else concerned by the reddish brown stand? Will the plane one day crush the stand into jagged little bits?"

Isn't brittle brown a thing of the long foregone past? Does this still happen?"

I am scarred by brittle brown a decade later. I have cut myself while disassembling models with lots of brown plates. They have sharp edges when they break. "

Boy that'd be the way I go someday. I can see the headline now:
"Bled out disassembling his Lego Ewok Village.""

I can’t even bring myself to open mine.

I am using this comment to fix my time zone ignore me :)

@CapnRex101 said:
" @gearwheel said:
" @CapnRex101 wrote:
"The nose is among the DC-3's most recognisable features and it seems amazingly realistic in LEGO form, without really relying on specialised pieces."
Unfortunately, @Ssorg is correct here. Lego got the coloration right, but the shape is pretty far off. A real DC-3 has a rounded conical nosecone - the cross-section is a perfect circle from the tip until the base of the windscreen. This Lego model, however, has a drastically tubbed nosecone (the bottom half is a too large perfect semicircle, and the top half is a chord of far greater radius), and it looks more like the nosecone of a flying boat."

I realise that it is not wholly accurate, which is why I mentioned the lack of specialised parts. There is an argument to be made for mirroring the assembly from the top of the nose, but I think that would make the nose look too sharp, so it probably would need a new element for a perfect shape."
It just seems really odd to call the least accurately shaped part of the otherwise quite accurate exterior "amazingly realistic", don't you think? Just say "the nose colors are spot-on, but the shaping is limited by available parts", and move on to extolling the accuracy of the rest of the model.

This will probably be one of my favourite set ever.
But:
To have a functional landing gear, it has to not look like the real one. This is in contradiction with the rest of the set (amazing look, no ´function’). If I put the plane on a stand, I think I would prefer landing gears who looks like the real ones - no big technical parts.,

I haven’t seen any reviewers mention this, but I wish they had have tiled off the back of the reddish brown stand.

The equivalent stem in light bluish grey was tiled off with the Concorde, and I think it would make moving the model by the stand more comfortable.

Maybe I’m the only one who moves the Concorde that way haha.

Hey @Ssorg , great to hear from you! We had some contact more than 10 years ago, and I built a variant of your model in 2018. Unfortunately, your Flickr account was deactivated, so I couldn’t show you the final photos back then. Good to know you’re still around here :)

I totally relate to your complaints about the plane's nose. I’m also not a big fan of the round windscreen, as the cockpit windows should be arranged more v-shaped. Of course, it’s always a bit bittersweet when a LEGO Ideas (or Cuusoo) submission that wasn’t chosen eventually shows up as an official set some time later. Even the landing gear mechanism seems somewhat inspired by your design. But honestly, I’m glad LEGO is producing aircraft models of this scale again; we didn’t get anything like this for ages, between the 10177 Dreamliner and the 10318 Concorde. Overall, I’m really happy with the set.

@Good_Username said:
"I am using this comment to fix my time zone ignore me :)"

No worries, you have been blocked. :o)

@GirlWoman said:
" @Norintha said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Why does this need to be a 18+ black box deluxe IP-partnered overdesigned display model for adults and cant simply be part of a new Adventurers-like theme?

All my interest in this set vanished once I found out the minifigs in this are just accessories and can't actually interact with the build."

"Why isn’t this set a completely different set instead?" "

Exactly! Why isn't this set good instead of bad? When I buy Lego I want a creative interlocking brick building toy and not a model plane for display. This is antithetical to everything Lego is. It wouldn't be as bad if Lego were offering both, but they aren't."

Well look at it this way, they don't make the hinge needed for a proper airplane playset anymore anyway. "

The finger hinges? Where would you put those on an airplane? Those hinges are kinda before my time. I'm afol but I'm not unc if you know what I mean lol"

They let you open the top of the plane without fully removing it, which was the style of the time. You can see them on the box for 6375

@Vaionaut said:
"Hey @Ssorg , great to hear from you! We had some contact more than 10 years ago, and I built a variant of your model in 2018. Unfortunately, your Flickr account was deactivated, so I couldn’t show you the final photos back then. Good to know you’re still around here :)

I totally relate to your complaints about the plane's nose. I’m also not a big fan of the round windscreen, as the cockpit windows should be arranged more v-shaped. Of course, it’s always a bit bittersweet when a LEGO Ideas (or Cuusoo) submission that wasn’t chosen eventually shows up as an official set some time later. Even the landing gear mechanism seems somewhat inspired by your design. But honestly, I’m glad LEGO is producing aircraft models of this scale again; we didn’t get anything like this for ages, between the 10177 Dreamliner and the 10318 Concorde. Overall, I’m really happy with the set."

Hi there! Indeed, it's great to see LEGO release high-end models like the Concorde and now this DC-3 which is, despite some problems, still definitely more good than bad. I buy LEGO sets very rarely these days, but I am considering getting this one even despite that ugly nose. I'm not really an aviation enthusiast, but DC-3 is simply a thing of timeless beauty and charm.

Cheers!

@PurpleDave said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
"Does anyone else hear the Indiana Jones travel montage music while reading this post? Or is it just me?"

I wasn't when I read the article, because I'd been a huge aviation buff for years by the time I saw the Indiana Jones movies, so Indy isn't my first thought when I see a DC-3. But the theme *has* been running through my head ever since seeing your comment."

I recently got my dad started on watching my Young Indy DVDs. If he'd ever watched any episodes it would have been because _I_ was watching the show in original broadcast."

I don't remember how I was made aware of the Young Indy show, but I was delighted to find that most of the episodes were available on YouTube. Some of them had also been edited together and turned into a movie or two. Honestly, I thought it was a solid show, and while not one I'm going to regularly rewatch it, it was good enough to revisit.

@GirlWoman

There are five planes currently on sale in the City range, all of which are very definitely toys, and two of which are passenger planes. The Explorer subthemes are probably the closest to the old Adventurers theme and the Jungle one had a very nice plane and a helicopter until pretty recently. I don’t think it’s even slightly controversial to say you like it when Lego makes toys, or even that they’re not making the sort of toys that you personally want, but it’s a little confusing to say you want them to make toys “again” when they’re still making them.

@Murdoch17 said:
"Does anyone else hear the Indiana Jones travel montage music while reading this post? Or is it just me?"

I've already pictured this flying over a world map with a red line...and possibly as a mosaic to hang behind the plane LOL

@GirlWoman said:
" @Hiratha said:
" @GirlWoman

There are five planes currently on sale in the City range, all of which are very definitely toys, and two of which are passenger planes. The Explorer subthemes are probably the closest to the old Adventurers theme and the Jungle one had a very nice plane and a helicopter until pretty recently. I don’t think it’s even slightly controversial to say you like it when Lego makes toys, or even that they’re not making the sort of toys that you personally want, but it’s a little confusing to say you want them to make toys “again” when they’re still making them."

Are any of those City planes from the 20th Century? Can you send me a link, I will immediately buy them. Otherwise it's not really the thing we're talking about here, right?"

That seems to come down more to whether they’re making toys you personally like than whether they make toys, don’t you think? It’s completely fine to want this specific plane in whatever format and be annoyed that isn’t happening, but it isn’t a matter of whether Lego is making toys, because they are.

@PhantomBricks said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
"Does anyone else hear the Indiana Jones travel montage music while reading this post? Or is it just me?"

I wasn't when I read the article, because I'd been a huge aviation buff for years by the time I saw the Indiana Jones movies, so Indy isn't my first thought when I see a DC-3. But the theme *has* been running through my head ever since seeing your comment."

I recently got my dad started on watching my Young Indy DVDs. If he'd ever watched any episodes it would have been because _I_ was watching the show in original broadcast."

I don't remember how I was made aware of the Young Indy show, but I was delighted to find that most of the episodes were available on YouTube. Some of them had also been edited together and turned into a movie or two. Honestly, I thought it was a solid show, and while not one I'm going to regularly rewatch it, it was good enough to revisit."

Okay, so I watched most of it in original broadcast, when _most_ of it was single episodes. It was phenomenally expensive to produce, being shot on location all around the world. The Corey Carrier episodes proved unpopular compared to the Sean Patrick Flannery ones, which was also going to impact the production cost (now they wouldn’t be able to film two episodes simultaneously with completely different casts). So the show got axed.

They had a few unaired episodes left at this point. Of the original broadcast run, I think only the premiere was a melding of two non-consecutive episodes, because they shared a plot point, and it allowed them to introduce all three new Indy actors (almost all of the broadcast eps were bookended with George Hall playing a really old Indy with an eyepatch). There were a couple obvious two-parters in the mix as well So what happened next was the unaired stuff was repackaged as feature films by pairing two episodes that share a theme, and filming new bridge sections to tie them together. Then they did the same with all the aired stuff (stripping all the George Hall clips out in the process), and started selling the entire series on VHS. For probably $20 a tape. Which equates to $10 per episode. Much better to wait for when they finally released it on DVD, especially if you like bonus features. The actual series is dwarfed by all the bonus featurettes that explain all the historical figures and events Indy encountered growing up, and Lucasfilm even though it would be possible to teach a history class using just the documentary product of the DVD box sets.

The pairings do get kinda awkward at times. For one, Curse of the Jackal (the premiere that had a common plot point in both halves) got split up and each half paired with something more chronologically sequential. Some of the episodes were retitled to take place in a different year to force these pairings to “work”. And there are times when it’s clear that they absolutely don’t because stuff gets referenced before it happens under the revised chronology. When I watch them, I look up the original chronology and try to watch everything according to that order. This means switching discs in the middle of a pairing, and then having to fast forward to get back to the bridge (not all of which can even happen under the original chronology) when it’s time to pick up the back half.

@GirlWoman said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Why does this need to be a 18+ black box deluxe IP-partnered overdesigned display model for adults and cant simply be part of a new Adventurers-like theme?

All my interest in this set vanished once I found out the minifigs in this are just accessories and can't actually interact with the build."

"Why isn’t this set a completely different set instead?" "

Exactly! Why isn't this set good instead of bad? When I buy Lego I want a creative interlocking brick building toy and not a model plane for display. This is antithetical to everything Lego is. It wouldn't be as bad if Lego were offering both, but they aren't."

Do you throw childish temper tantrums *every* time Lego makes a set that wasn't designed with the intention of catering to you specifically, or only when you manage to free-associate your way to fantasizing about a reboot of an unrelated theme you're nostalgic for?

@Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Why does this need to be a 18+ black box deluxe IP-partnered overdesigned display model for adults and cant simply be part of a new Adventurers-like theme?

All my interest in this set vanished once I found out the minifigs in this are just accessories and can't actually interact with the build."

"Why isn’t this set a completely different set instead?" "

Exactly! Why isn't this set good instead of bad? When I buy Lego I want a creative interlocking brick building toy and not a model plane for display. This is antithetical to everything Lego is. It wouldn't be as bad if Lego were offering both, but they aren't."

Do you throw childish temper tantrums *every* time Lego makes a set that wasn't designed with the intention of catering to you specifically, or only when you manage to free-associate your way to fantasizing about a reboot of an unrelated theme you're nostalgic for?"

That’s a bit much.

ETA: Given it’s unlikely the Adventurers theme will ever be resurrected entirely as it was, what with the much more mainstream critique of 1920s-ish European-ish explorers to foreign lands, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people nostalgic for that theme to be disappointed that there isn’t anything much like it in the current line-up and that it’s unlikely that there will be again any time soon. The Explorers subthemes in City are the closest but they are indeed decidedly modern, as are other City planes, so they won’t scratch the itch for everyone.

I don’t think expressing that disappointment is quite the same as the usual “who asked for this” sort of nonsense and I wouldn’t say it rose to the extent of a “childish temper tantrum”.

@GirlWoman said:
" @ShinyBidoof said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"In my home country we have a saying: "no one likes a know-it-all"."

On this board there is a saying "why do so many German posters appear to hate everything about Lego".

"

There is a very cringe but popular German toy YouTuber whose entire brand is hating on the Lego Group after he got sued by them over copyright infringement. He's popular even outside of the AFOL or toy collecting space that even normal people who are not into the hobby watch his videos. Personally, I think his main appeal to many is that he is a right-wing nutjob, but that's besides the point."

Thomas Panke?

@GirlWoman said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Why does this need to be a 18+ black box deluxe IP-partnered overdesigned display model for adults and cant simply be part of a new Adventurers-like theme?

All my interest in this set vanished once I found out the minifigs in this are just accessories and can't actually interact with the build."

"Why isn’t this set a completely different set instead?" "

Exactly! Why isn't this set good instead of bad? When I buy Lego I want a creative interlocking brick building toy and not a model plane for display. This is antithetical to everything Lego is. It wouldn't be as bad if Lego were offering both, but they aren't."

Do you throw childish temper tantrums *every* time Lego makes a set that wasn't designed with the intention of catering to you specifically, or only when you manage to free-associate your way to fantasizing about a reboot of an unrelated theme you're nostalgic for?"

I wasn't even born when Adventurers sets came out. I have no nostalgia for it. I just wish Lego would embrace original themes more. Not everything needs a brand deal, not everything needs to be a collectors item. Especially not something as simple as a type of aero plane so many people have been waiting for."

You rejected the multiple passenger planes in their original themes - there’s also at least one in Friends currently on sale - outright. Whether you like the original themes or not, they definitely get plenty of embracing by the Lego team.

A real plane that existed in the 20th century isn’t going to get made without a brand deal. Lego needs the rights to make things like that or they’ll get sued.

@GirlWoman said:
" @Hiratha said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Why does this need to be a 18+ black box deluxe IP-partnered overdesigned display model for adults and cant simply be part of a new Adventurers-like theme?

All my interest in this set vanished once I found out the minifigs in this are just accessories and can't actually interact with the build."

"Why isn’t this set a completely different set instead?" "

Exactly! Why isn't this set good instead of bad? When I buy Lego I want a creative interlocking brick building toy and not a model plane for display. This is antithetical to everything Lego is. It wouldn't be as bad if Lego were offering both, but they aren't."

Do you throw childish temper tantrums *every* time Lego makes a set that wasn't designed with the intention of catering to you specifically, or only when you manage to free-associate your way to fantasizing about a reboot of an unrelated theme you're nostalgic for?"

I wasn't even born when Adventurers sets came out. I have no nostalgia for it. I just wish Lego would embrace original themes more. Not everything needs a brand deal, not everything needs to be a collectors item. Especially not something as simple as a type of aero plane so many people have been waiting for."

You rejected the multiple passenger planes in their original themes - there’s also at least one in Friends currently on sale - outright. Whether you like the original themes or not, they definitely get plenty of embracing by the Lego team.

A real plane that existed in the 20th century isn’t going to get made without a brand deal. Lego needs the rights to make things like that or they’ll get sued."

Peril in Peru was a brand deal? All the biplanes and sea planes in Adventurers were brand deals? No they weren't."

Peril in Peru was very, very much a brand deal. Extremely a brand deal. Indiana Jones is written on the box.

Adventurers was doing vaguely old-timey inspired planes, not specific planes. Much like the biplane that appeared in Hidden Side in 2020, or the ones in Creator and Friends in 2018, or the seaplane in City in 2025, or any of the modern passenger planes in City and Friends available now.

You want a specific, 20th century plane, and complain that anything similar but not identical is completely wrong. That’s a brand deal situation.

@Hiratha said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Why does this need to be a 18+ black box deluxe IP-partnered overdesigned display model for adults and cant simply be part of a new Adventurers-like theme?

All my interest in this set vanished once I found out the minifigs in this are just accessories and can't actually interact with the build."

"Why isn’t this set a completely different set instead?" "

Exactly! Why isn't this set good instead of bad? When I buy Lego I want a creative interlocking brick building toy and not a model plane for display. This is antithetical to everything Lego is. It wouldn't be as bad if Lego were offering both, but they aren't."

Do you throw childish temper tantrums *every* time Lego makes a set that wasn't designed with the intention of catering to you specifically, or only when you manage to free-associate your way to fantasizing about a reboot of an unrelated theme you're nostalgic for?"

That’s a bit much.

ETA: Given it’s unlikely the Adventurers theme will ever be resurrected entirely as it was, what with the much more mainstream critique of 1920s-ish European-ish explorers to foreign lands, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people nostalgic for that theme to be disappointed that there isn’t anything much like it in the current line-up and that it’s unlikely that there will be again any time soon. The Explorers subthemes in City are the closest but they are indeed decidedly modern, as are other City planes, so they won’t scratch the itch for everyone.

I don’t think expressing that disappointment is quite the same as the usual “who asked for this” sort of nonsense and I wouldn’t say it rose to the extent of a “childish temper tantrum”."

I think it's perfectly fine to wish a certain kind of subtheme existed. I wish we had a modern version of Ice Planet, personally.

I don't go on about how "Lego doesn't make toys anymore" because a random Icons set isn't instead a modern Ice Planet theme.

@GirlWoman said:
" @Hiratha said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @Hiratha said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Why does this need to be a 18+ black box deluxe IP-partnered overdesigned display model for adults and cant simply be part of a new Adventurers-like theme?

All my interest in this set vanished once I found out the minifigs in this are just accessories and can't actually interact with the build."

"Why isn’t this set a completely different set instead?" "

Exactly! Why isn't this set good instead of bad? When I buy Lego I want a creative interlocking brick building toy and not a model plane for display. This is antithetical to everything Lego is. It wouldn't be as bad if Lego were offering both, but they aren't."

Do you throw childish temper tantrums *every* time Lego makes a set that wasn't designed with the intention of catering to you specifically, or only when you manage to free-associate your way to fantasizing about a reboot of an unrelated theme you're nostalgic for?"

I wasn't even born when Adventurers sets came out. I have no nostalgia for it. I just wish Lego would embrace original themes more. Not everything needs a brand deal, not everything needs to be a collectors item. Especially not something as simple as a type of aero plane so many people have been waiting for."

You rejected the multiple passenger planes in their original themes - there’s also at least one in Friends currently on sale - outright. Whether you like the original themes or not, they definitely get plenty of embracing by the Lego team.

A real plane that existed in the 20th century isn’t going to get made without a brand deal. Lego needs the rights to make things like that or they’ll get sued."

Peril in Peru was a brand deal? All the biplanes and sea planes in Adventurers were brand deals? No they weren't."

Peril in Peru was very, very much a brand deal. Extremely a brand deal. Indiana Jones is written on the box.

Adventurers was doing vaguely old-timey inspired planes, not specific planes. Much like the biplane that appeared in Hidden Side in 2020, or the ones in Creator and Friends in 2018, or the seaplane in City in 2025, or any of the modern passenger planes in City and Friends available now.

You want a specific, 20th century plane, and complain that anything similar but not identical is completely wrong. That’s a brand deal situation."

Stop strawman-ing. I never said any of this. "

Then I’m really not sure what you meant by “a type of aeroplane that so many people have been waiting for” if not… this plane. Since, again, you’ve complained that every toy plane from their original themes which they sell or have recently sold - and it’s quite a few! - is somehow inappropriate. They’ve sold toy passenger planes, they’ve sold toy biplanes, they’ve sold toy seaplanes, all either currently on sale or on sale within the last few years. Why don’t any of those toy planes count? What *exactly* is so special about this one that you want *this* one to be a toy but not any of the actual toys?

ETA: Also, I really did want to know if you meant Panke, although if you don’t wish to say then that’s fine. There was an English language video recently that used him as a source and the vibes were Most Peculiar.

@iwybs

Do you know if Cobi has loosened up the parts at all?

I tried one of their tank kits some years ago after receiving it as a gift and the force required to push everything together was not remotely friendly for my floppy fingers. I can’t really afford a week’s worth of not using my hands as an exchange for building a casual hobby kit but some of the designs are very nice if they’ve since managed to get more in line with Lego (system, not technic) or Nanoblock amounts of force required. (And also I have no particular objections to helping fund the Bovington Tank Museum via the medium of occasionally purchasing fun toys, so long as I can meaningfully interact with those fun toys.)

@Hiratha

Cobi has one of the highest levels of clutch power among the other brick brands, but I think that's ok because it also has the most precise molding, so it's very reliable and consistent like Lego. I just built a small Cobi helicopter yesterday and I was actually surprised by how easily it went together. The main problem with Cobi parts, compared to Lego parts, is that their tiles don't have grooves underneath like Lego tiles do, so the tiles are a lot harder to remove from studded parts underneath.

@iwybs said:
" @Hiratha

Cobi has one of the highest levels of clutch power among the other brick brands, but I think that's ok because it also has the most precise molding, so it's very reliable and consistent like Lego. I just built a small Cobi helicopter yesterday and I was actually surprised by how easily it went together. The main problem with Cobi parts, compared to Lego parts, is that their tiles don't have grooves underneath like Lego tiles do, so the tiles are a lot harder to remove from studded parts underneath."

Thank you! Consistency is wonderful and ideal, but if they’re consistently still a little stiff it’s no good for me, sadly. Which is no insult or criticism! I’m sure it’s fine for most people. But my disability can be a bit finicky about such things - I can’t build Technic or technic-piece-heavy kits either. I’ll continue sighing wistfully over the kits from afar, then. :)

@ShinyBidoof said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"In my home country we have a saying: "no one likes a know-it-all"."

On this board there is a saying "why do so many German posters appear to hate everything about Lego"."

What I want to know is why does most of the hate for brightly colored filler bricks seem to come from Germany. Seriously, look at the comments on this article: https://brickset.com/article/107900/bright-coloured-filler-bricks-what-s-up-with-that

@Andrusi said:"I think it's perfectly fine to wish a certain kind of subtheme existed. I wish we had a modern version of Ice Planet, personally."

Oh, I'd *love* that. 71046-8 is quite possibly my favorite CMF ever, and my sigfig uses https://brickset.com/parts/6385283/mini-upper-part-no-5933.

@TheOtherMike said:
" @ShinyBidoof said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"In my home country we have a saying: "no one likes a know-it-all"."

On this board there is a saying "why do so many German posters appear to hate everything about Lego"."

What I want to know is why does most of the hate for brightly colored filler bricks seem to come from Germany. Seriously, look at the comments on this article: https://brickset.com/article/107900/bright-coloured-filler-bricks-what-s-up-with-that "

That was one of the things Thomas Panke of the Most Peculiar Vibes was complaining about in that video I watched, so if he is indeed very popular, maybe it’s from him. (It’s from fern-tv, their second most recent upload, and it’s… odd. I do not think he’s an especially reliable source.)

@Andrusi:
German, yes, but fairly recent to the site, and not complaining about the usual things we get from that region, nor has she been complaining about the same thing for years on end. Maybe try talking it out first.

@Hiratha:
They very recently revived the Indiana Jones theme, so I would not expect a revival of Adventurers to be off the table. The Western theme is going to be a tough sell these days, but they do still dabble in Adventurers characters. The Lone Ranger battle pack is the closest we’ve seen to a revival of Western since they brought Fort Legoredo back as a Legends set.

I don’t agree that a brand deal is required to make it possible to produce a plane of the sort GirlWoman wants, but I do think it’s the most likely source. The thing is, PiP was an Indiana Jones license, not a Boeing license. If they stripped out anything IJ-related and dropped the Lucasfilm license, they would avoid any lawsuits from that angle, but it’s not like Boeing came after them for not co-licensing the set.

@GirlWoman:
I don’t think it’s unreasonable in the least to desire a revival of Adventurers, nor a historically accurate but minifig-compatible airplane. I do, however, think it’s unrealistic to expect the latter. Anyone who is designing for play is going to be focusing the parts budget on that aspect, and shoot for a lower price point. Anyone who is designing for accuracy is going to focus on making the entire plane to one scale. Again, I listed what I honestly believe are your best options if a minifig-compatible DC-3 is your desire. I’m not saying any of those are great options, but they are all possible. Waiting for a set that looks like this on the outside, and Peril in Peru in the inside, is likely to be a very long wait. I don’t think any of the Adventurers planes were accurate representations of historical planes. PiP was long hailed as the best airplane set ever released, and beyond that the only accurate representations I can think of are the Da Vinci “plane”, the Wright Flyer, three Sopwith Camels, the Red Baron’s triplane, Earhart’s plane, the Boeing Dreamliner, the Concorde, and this. At least two of those are in scale with minifigs, but none of them are designed to be minifig-compatible.

@iwybs:
Too much clutch is almost as bad as too little. One of the known illegal techniques is attaching plates by more than one stud to the holes on a Technic brick, precisely because it’s so difficult for small hands to pry loose. That is entirely a “too much clutch” issue.

@PurpleDave

Generally speaking what happens a lot with IPs that use Real Life Objects is the deal is on their end - when they arrange to use the plane on screen, they also get a license for the use of that plane in associated merchandise. Lego wouldn’t need to double up.

(It’s more of a problem if the original creator didn’t anticipate needing to do merch down the road, but that seems unlikely to be relevant to Indiana Jones.)

I’m less sure that Indiana Jones means Adventurers are possible, if only because Lego is plainly more willing to do some things in licensed themes than homegrown ones. But it depends a great deal on political environment and that can always change.

@Hiratha said:
" @PurpleDave

Generally speaking what happens a lot with IPs that use Real Life Objects is the deal is on their end - when they arrange to use the plane on screen, they also get a license for the use of that plane in associated merchandise. Lego wouldn’t need to double up."

John DeLorean made a deal ( in perpetuity, IIRC)that Universal could use the image of the BttF time machine in merchandise without needing to co-brand it, but the merchandise had to be labeled "Back to the Future Time Machine" or similar, and did not include the name "DeLorean" in the product name. (I'm not sure how 21103 didn't fall afoul of this; maybe someone was asleep at the wheel.)

@Hiratha said:
" @PurpleDave

Generally speaking what happens a lot with IPs that use Real Life Objects is the deal is on their end - when they arrange to use the plane on screen, they also get a license for the use of that plane in associated merchandise. Lego wouldn’t need to double up."

Generally speaking, film productions _don't_ license vehicles. For one thing, take your average car chase. How many different makes and models do you see in the background of each shot? Every single one of those would need to be licensed, and having one deal fall through would mean you have to go find all five missing hubcaps and reshoot the entire thing with different cars in the background.

Also, brands usually pay for product placement. If your product happens to appear in the background of a film, you have no control over that. But if the other guy balks, and you pony up the cash, suddenly the alien prefers Reese's Pieces over the M&M's candy from the novelization.

"(It’s more of a problem if the original creator didn’t anticipate needing to do merch down the road, but that seems unlikely to be relevant to Indiana Jones.)"

77012 features models of a real plane (though the one used for filming is not the plane it represents in the film) and a real car, but the box only mentions copyright for Lucasfilm. If they had licensed either of those, branding would need to be included on the box. Look at the bottom of 60442, and it specifically calls out the manufacturer of the car represented, in addition to all the general Formula 1 branding. 77256 makes no mention of DeLorean Motor Company beyond having the DMC logo on the front of the model. But that one was a special situation. If the film doesn't call out the make/model, and the toy doesn't flash the logos, it likely falls into a grey area where it's simply not worth suing them because damages are too difficult to prove.

"I’m less sure that Indiana Jones means Adventurers are possible, if only because Lego is plainly more willing to do some things in licensed themes than homegrown ones. But it depends a great deal on political environment and that can always change."

I would say that the revival of the IJ license means Adventurers isn't strictly banned, but the IJ revival does mean that they're more likely to just tap that well a third time over bringing Adventurers back, if only because the IP itself will help drive sales more than the in-house branding.

@TheOtherMike said:
"John DeLorean made a deal ( in perpetuity, IIRC)that Universal could use the image of the BttF time machine in merchandise without needing to co-brand it, but the merchandise had to be labeled "Back to the Future Time Machine" or similar, and did not include the name "DeLorean" in the product name. (I'm not sure how 21103 didn't fall afoul of this; maybe someone was asleep at the wheel.)"

Indeed, he gave them forever-rights to the likeness of the car. And in that one instance, it's a good thing he did, because his estate tried, unsuccessfully, to sue Universal for royalties. But that was also a special case because the car was practically a character on par with Doc Brown and Marty McFly, which is why the estate believed they _could_ sue for royalties.

I saw the logo and immediately thought of Leonardo DiCaprio impersonating a pilot from Catch Me If You Can!

There isn’t a GWP either. I wonder if the minifigs were going to be a separate GWP and then LEGO changed their mind. Maybe the backlash from not including a Tie Fighter with the Death Star and doing separate GWP for the modular series forced them to change their mind?

looks like Leo DiCaprio from “Catch me if you can!”

@ericthegr8 said:
"There isn’t a GWP either. I wonder if the minifigs were going to be a separate GWP and then LEGO changed their mind. Maybe the backlash from not including a Tie Fighter with the Death Star and doing separate GWP for the modular series forced them to change their mind?"

I don't think that the figures were ever going to be a GWP. Besides the fact that almost every printed piece in them is a unique print, and the stewardess has a unique mold.

A must buy! Beautiful airplane. I flew in one of these as a passenger in the nineties and found it feeling remarkably solid and comfortable for such an old plane. Cruising at 6000-7000ft.

@Wrecknbuild said:
"A must buy! Beautiful airplane. I flew in one of these as a passenger in the nineties and found it feeling remarkably solid and comfortable for such an old plane. Cruising at 6000-7000ft."

I'm jealous. The only historic plane I've been aboard was a B-17, and that was while it was sitting on the ground. They did paid flights aboard it, but we didn't have the money.

@TheOtherMike said:
" @Wrecknbuild said:
"A must buy! Beautiful airplane. I flew in one of these as a passenger in the nineties and found it feeling remarkably solid and comfortable for such an old plane. Cruising at 6000-7000ft."

I'm jealous. The only historic plane I've been aboard was a B-17, and that was while it was sitting on the ground. They did paid flights aboard it, but we didn't have the money."

I've been through the Kennedy Air Force One, I think twice. But it's walled in with plexi, so you can basically only shuffle from the forward hatch to the aft one. Anyone who's in a wheelchair, or of a certain size, can't even do that much, as they won't be able to fit down the resulting corridor. For safety purposes, there's a pair of poles outside the plane that are spaced the same distance apart. If you can't fit through the gap there, at least you don't have to climb back down the entry stairs past people going the other way.

Wright-Pat also has an open C-130 that has the ramp lowered so you can walk around the entire hold. That one is rather spacious, and wheelchair accessible. If there were other planes you could go inside, I missed them. Well, I mean, there's a mock-up of a Space Shuttle, but nothing about it is real.

Day One purchase.

Great build - not too short, not too long. Very satisfying snot techniques and zero stickers! The repetition in the wing section was worth it, as the finished model looks great. I agree that the nose is a bit bulbous but it doesn't bug me too much.

I'll purchase at least one more.