All these look pretty decent IMO. The rear of plane looks a little weird, but the side-builds look like they add a lot of playability. The hot-swappable parts for the 2K Drive vehicles seem like a fun idea. The prices for these in the US don't seem too shabby.

I thought the plane looked great until I saw the tail. The 2K Drive cars look fun.

If that plane was real,it would have the structural integrity of a paper airplane.

Transparent 1x2 slopes, cool.

Not really keen on the airplane, but then I'm always put off planes and trains with one piece fronts.
Really like the other 3, even if they are verging a bit more towards Dreamzzz than City!

@dimc said:
"Ignore the plane. LOOK AT THOSE RACE CARS! This is such a great playset for kids. And having modular designs for how to attach parts means they can make their own to add. 100% love it, I know some kids who are getting that set from me. "

Agree, those clip in parts open the doors for any number of creations!

Looking at the red car from 60395 and black one from 60396 reminds me of that 90's cartoon Pole Position

Why can't these race cars be their own theme? Nothing about them screams "CITY".

They do look pretty fun though.

The modular cars remind me The Connectibles from Matchbox (?). Visionary ideas?

@RaiderOfTheLostBrick said:
"Why can't these race cars be their own theme? Nothing about them screams "CITY".

They do look pretty fun though."

LEGO 2K Drive has A LOT of City in it.

Cool that they're making 2k sets!

As long as LEGO makes horizontal and vertical stabilizers in the right color (I think this is dark blue?), it shouldn't be that hard to fix the tail.

City sure is taking an odd turn... I don't dislike these, but they're definitely leaning Dreamzzz.

@Murdoch17 said:
" @Ssorg said:
"That V-tail on a large passenger plane looks so wrong. Rather one would expect to see such a thing on smaller and more specialized aircrafts. Also the engine intake looks goofy."

Don't forget about the curved wingtips as well! The whole plane looks like a caricature.... like something out of an old Looney Tunes cartoon."

I think the tailplane looks like the one on Tony Stark's private jet in the original Iron Man movie.

What, LEGO, did you retire the vertical stabilizer mold already? Although considering how dreadful the last airport-themed sets were, I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to throw in that particular towel...

I for one really like that plane (although the rear end does look somewhat silly). Good interior space, decent side builds and an adequate number of figs for a respectable (for 2023, that is) price.

Lol, that plane set with the mini figure in the tracksuit and bumbag, I love it when they take inspiration from real world fads like that for the minifigure design.

The 2K Drive sets look fun but I've seen some much better vehicles in the game's Instagram videos. I'd be down to buy some of those.

The 2K Drive sets, if we count them as a sub-wave, is the only unanimously well-priced (in the USA) wave of City sets I’ve seen in forever. Even the PPP adds up!

@PixelTheDragon said:
"I hope that plane comes with a brick-built black box. With that tail, I don't think it's making it to the next LEGO airport. "

Exactly. Then release a new sub-theme "Search & Rescue".

Not a fan of these weird engines. 7893 and 7894 were the best imo.

Need the Pirate parts from that Monster Truck Race set but I'm guessing the flag & sail are stickers. I won't be buying any of these but some parts will be added to my PAB wishlist.

That car looks like something from TRON! Looks great. The plane is cool, and I’ve always wanted one. Don’t like the lime green at the end of the wings though.

LEGO FINALLY LEARNED people want sets from Lego games?
Also where is the chicken car?

@Murdoch17 said:
" @Ssorg said:
"That V-tail on a large passenger plane looks so wrong. Rather one would expect to see such a thing on smaller and more specialized aircrafts. Also the engine intake looks goofy."

Don't forget about the curved wingtips as well! The whole plane looks like a caricature.... like something out of an old Looney Tunes cartoon."

Haha, I was just thinking that the tail fins would have to flap up and down desperately to help the pane take off :D Very cartoony! Maybe a bit DREAMZzzzy too.

I like lots of the 2K cars and their modularity. Unexpected to see the CITY branding, but I understand. Having a 2K range independantly would have been a risky move.

@Puffypolo said:
"The modular cars remind me The Connectibles from Matchbox (?). Visionary ideas?"

THANK YOU! Micro Con-nect-ables! For thirty years I've been trying to find and/or remember what the hell those Micro Machine-like things were called!

Hmm, a plane that seats the passengers and sets based upon the latest game, cool.

The number 60367 could be a reference to the Boeing 367-80, the prototype 707.

Seems like everything about LEGO city has changed since I was a kid, except planes still use giant juniorized parts.

The jet kind of looks like the Stark Industries one from the first Iron Man movie.

@dawid said:
"Is Lego really cheapening out on the tail of the airplane? Without the vertical stabilizer I doubt it would take off"

Completely normal shape for wings.
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/images/stories/2005/jan/bonanza_lead2.jpg

Also it's a toy for kids so...

A camera with a pot attached to it? Is this the origin of the term "pot shot"?

@PurpleDave said:
"Now I can make a better Minions 2 plane without having to resort to secondary market prices!

@DrDaveWatford :
@dawid :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-tail

It’s a legitimate aeronautical design, but the pros didn’t work out as predicted, so the only planes they really make sense on are stealth fighters.

@Murdoch17 :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device

Also legitimate aeronautical design, but perhaps not as clean as possible. I’ve seen them where they’re nearly vertical, or where they have this shallow scoop design, but the way my dad (serviced C-141’s during the Viet Nam War) explained it, you get the equivalent lift of the same wing if it was straight, but it doesn’t stick out so far (and you don’t need to spread the gates out at airports that have already been built)."

The wingtips help to reduced the induced drag (vortices), thereby also keeping the lift closer to the fuselage, which means that there is less of a bending moment to bear, so the structure can be kept lighter than in the case where just the wingspan is increased.

The V-tail section is a combined vertical and horizontal stabilizer. The horizontal stabilizer in a conventional plane in stable flight counteracts the pitching moment by providing a continuous small negative lift, which increases when the nose pitches down, thereby keeping the plane in a horizontal position. A V-tail needs to produce a larger negative lift, since the required vertical component is smaller than the perpendicular component. So it will likely result in a larger drag than in the case with a separate horizontal and vertical stabilizer.

Looks like a new wing(s) mould!! :D

So we have a car that can fly and a plane that can’t.

Not the first Lego plane with a V-tail. 4619 has one, and if it's good enough for Jack Stone...

Bit of a shame; that'd probably be one of the better airplanes lego's made if not for the tail

@SDlgo9 said:
"Not the first Lego plane with a V-tail. 4619 has one, and if it's good enough for Jack Stone..."

Oh, geez! That's not a V-tail. It's some bastard hybrid between a V-tail and a normal one, with a third engine thrown in to boot. No wonder they seem to be having such a hard time controlling that bird. That seems like the sort of thing you'd hand over to the test pilot you just found out had been having an affair with your wife.

For those who are saying that jet cant fly or take of: https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/aircraft-overview/cirrus-vision-jet

Vertical stabilisers doesnt need to be 'vertical' if designed properly and effectively.

And i liked additonal airport ground support vehicles. Adds to the play valie and realism.

@kai99z You've summed it up well, most of the fuselage is really well done, the white and dark blue is great, the galley, baggage area and seating is really good, cockpit detail nice, but then they had to ruin it with this weird tail that only some fighter jets and a couple of light monoplanes have (and note that the monoplanes I'm referring to have had quite a few issues).
The engines are a nice attempt, but they are too large (someone previously said cartoony and I agree), plus the lime green is just wrong. Why did it need lime green?? It doesn't match at all and they could have just left it as white and dark blue, or added another shade of blue.
Yeah if not for those problems this would have been one of the best passenger planes Lego's done, but they couldn't help it; they just had to make it futuristic and weird didn't they? :(
The food lift is cool, albeit small, but the bus and tug are just wrong, they belong in a Dreamzz Star Wars thing, not a regular airport.
I saw another comment saying how City has seemed to merge with Dreamzz now and I agree, all the City stuff has been ruined by this obessesion with weird, wacky, futuristic stuff that doesn't work with anything that has been released before and just looks really bad, especially given that, like Dreamzz, it's a sort of half kind of normal, half friggin weird mash up that makes it even worse.

While I've got absolutely zero interest in the game, 60395 and 60396 look great, especially the red muscle car. Minifigures are great too, love how the ones in 60395 have matching race uniforms. On the fence about 60397. Like the minifigures but the builds don't particularly interest me. Will definitely get if it's on sale though.

I really like these.

It’s not quite there, but it’s one step closer to the kind of “Futuristic City” theme I’ve always wanted.

If people are going to get on and complain about the V tail design and it's flyability, the drag coefficients of the design and all that, why not address the studs along the top and on the wing, the two great knobs as the door release, the great wedges on the end of the wing to attach the green tips, oh hang on, because it's a toy.
LEGO collecting shouldn't be about getting every set the way we would want it for our use, it's designed to be modified and changed, that's the whole point of LEGO.
If you want realism then maybe LEGO isn't for you, try dicast or plastic model sets.
People are touting previous planes to be better yet they had their wing sections running through the fuselage so there could be no seats there.
Maybe go down the path of Big Planes and design scale models that best reflect the source material, but this is city and is designed for kids.
Rather than just pile in with criticism, perhaps say what you don't like and offer a solution to how you could improve it for your taste, at least that is constructive and you may provide a solution to others less versed in modifying.
That to me is a better option than just going, no I don't like it and sulking because you don't get a plane that fits your needs.

@scottd:
Inverse golf ball pattern? It, uh, reduces the coefficient of friction or somesuch.

@scottd said:
"If people are going to get on and complain about the V tail design and it's flyability, the drag coefficients of the design and all that, why not address the studs along the top and on the wing, the two great knobs as the door release, the great wedges on the end of the wing to attach the green tips, oh hang on, because it's a toy.
LEGO collecting shouldn't be about getting every set the way we would want it for our use, it's designed to be modified and changed, that's the whole point of LEGO.
If you want realism then maybe LEGO isn't for you, try dicast or plastic model sets.
People are touting previous planes to be better yet they had their wing sections running through the fuselage so there could be no seats there.
Maybe go down the path of Big Planes and design scale models that best reflect the source material, but this is city and is designed for kids.
Rather than just pile in with criticism, perhaps say what you don't like and offer a solution to how you could improve it for your taste, at least that is constructive and you may provide a solution to others less versed in modifying.
That to me is a better option than just going, no I don't like it and sulking because you don't get a plane that fits your needs."

Lego planes have studs because they're *made out of legos*. This lego plans has a v-tail *for no reason*. It's annoying because no passenger planes in real life have v-tails and it would be nice to buy a plane for a lego city that looks like a lego interpretation of a real plane. If it was ninjago or the lego movie obviously it would be no problem because those are fantasy themes but lego city creates things that exist in real life, so it would be nice for them to resemble the real thing.

I honestly cannot come up with a reasonable explanation for the tail decision. No, it doesn't totally ruin the set, but it would have been nice for the plane's tail to look right without having to modify it.

@SDlgo9 said:
"Not the first Lego plane with a V-tail. 4619 has one, and if it's good enough for Jack Stone..."

I could really have gone about my day without being reminded that this exists. What concerns me the most though is that there are people who want this set.

The new plane wing piece which does not cut across the passenger seats is an improvement, although the white colour and sticker is a bit bland. Ground crew vehicles look fun with the vertical lifter. But why the brick built engines when single pieces exist to go along with all the other large bulky nose, tail, roof and floor pieces?

I don't remember any whining about the V-tail on 60323...

@Reventon said:
"So we have a car that can fly and a plane that can’t."

I'm very amused by the idea of getting into all the complaining about the jet and how well its design would or wouldn't work, and then just accepting that those little rotors make the car fully flight-capable.

For those complaining about the V tail, it's an actual concept for a passenger jet :

Comac Ling Bird

It even had scale models that could fly, and even shares the same colors as this set with the white front and wings, and blue/lime rear section.

@Andrusi said:
" @Reventon said:
"So we have a car that can fly and a plane that can’t."

I'm very amused by the idea of getting into all the complaining about the jet and how well its design would or wouldn't work, and then just accepting that those little rotors make the car fully flight-capable."

Yeah, after all, EVERYBODY KNOWS that's not how to make a car fly. Wheel hubs that are turbines when the wheels rotate down, THAT is how you make a car fly! :-D

"Why can't we have a regular passenger plane?"

"...What about me?" says every other Lego airliner EVER!

I feel lucky that the TLG has dumbed down the city series in the recent years. They are so obscure, that I stopped to buying them. I guess they have a reason, maybe younger children became their target group, so I can understand how they shifted their focus but it helps me also spend less.

@Andrusi said:
"I'm very amused by the idea of getting into all the complaining about the jet and how well its design would or wouldn't work, and then just accepting that those little rotors make the car fully flight-capable."

Well, spin those puppies up to a high enough RPM (say, 10,000?), and that car just might be able to fly.

@560heliport:
This is true, and has been so for the past seven years, seven months, and seven days…give or take about, lessee, five days? Yup, math checks out.

I believe the plane tail can be modified with a dark blue 87614 piece, that looks to be available for under a dime in the US. Not sure about the how the rest of the rear would need to be modified as there aren't good pics of it yet, but I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult.
Also, the wings appear to be new. Are those technic holes in the wings that I spot? Do you think the wings are one piece or did they break it up into 2?

That Combo Race Pack looks like it'd be great for play

Looks awful, as most City airplanes do. 7893 is still the king

@DrDaveWatford said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
"That is the weirdest airplane I've ever seen."
Agreed - what's with that bizarre tail?"

Someone decided to upscale cirrus

@ao_ka said:
"Apart from the weird tail, the plane is amazing. Looks like it has at least 9 seats, much better than the previous one that was enormous yet had only 4 or 5 seats.

However, it still not beats the legendary 7893, which had 14 seats. I still own mine complete. (to think my mother paid R$249.99 back in 2006 for 7893 and I will have to pay R$1.199.99 for the new one is painful though)"

Agreed. I got my 7893 used for $80 in 2019. I'm not really fond of the newer Lego airplanes, they always strike me as a caricature. The nose shape looks too cartoony and the engines too large, the 7893 had the perfect balance between play and realism

@PurpleDave said:
" @scottd:
Inverse golf ball pattern? It, uh, reduces the coefficient of friction or somesuch."

That's the type of creative thinking we need :)

If you're so worried about realism, then I am sure you have an issue with the tyres on 60369 being shoulder hight to a person, or even 60378 tyres taller then a person. The fact that the tyres on these 4x4 are larger than on a semi trailer like 60388. Not very realistic yet no uproar.
Personally that bothers me but I'm not on here calling for LEGO to redo sets for my taste, no I either don't buy it or if I really like the main portion, then modify it.
Why is that, because it's a toy designed for kids who probably like something a bit different. Look at the outlandish Hot Wheel cars against realistic Matchbox models, I know Mattel owns them both but why is that? Hot Wheels were more popular that Matchbox in the key market, kids.

@scottd:
That's what got Hot Wheels on the map in the first place, to be sure, since the thing that catapulted them to success was the "Red Line" racing wheels and the track system. Matchbox was still the powerhouse of that time, though, until the company that owned it fell on hard times. At this point, the brand changed hands a few times, until it ended up being owned by Mattel, who created the Hot Wheels line. At this point, they simply market their in-house brand as the premium line, which has a huge adult collector market. Matchbox might still be as popular as Hot Wheels with kids, but the adult collector market certainly seems to be much smaller. I think Hot Wheels also probably use higher quality parts, like always having die-cast bases rather than molded plastic.

@PurpleDave said:
" @scottd:
That's what got Hot Wheels on the map in the first place, to be sure, since the thing that catapulted them to success was the "Red Line" racing wheels and the track system. Matchbox was still the powerhouse of that time, though, until the company that owned it fell on hard times. At this point, the brand changed hands a few times, until it ended up being owned by Mattel, who created the Hot Wheels line. At this point, they simply market their in-house brand as the premium line, which has a huge adult collector market. Matchbox might still be as popular as Hot Wheels with kids, but the adult collector market certainly seems to be much smaller. I think Hot Wheels also probably use higher quality parts, like always having die-cast bases rather than molded plastic."

Yeah sorry mate that timed wrong, the Hot Wheels was not for you specifically but your insight is good. It was more for the nay sayers of the set.

@DrDaveWatford said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
"That is the weirdest airplane I've ever seen."
Agreed - what's with that bizarre tail?"

ya... me too... i tot my eyes were playing a joke on me...