@@AScottish-AustralianM-84 I don’t think it exists in real life but lego said it was meant to not be a military version Idk. I’d love to get one and put a usmc logo on it lol
@@randomguyoninternetidk4014 oh yeah most likely it is... but when people see it mostly remember Su-47 because its more famous 😅 but yeah the lego probably X-29 almost same 🙂
Lego has made LOTS of chinooks, including a black one for black widow quite recently. Probably the closest thing to an army set we’ve gotten. (I know most chinooks aren’t black but it could be a Special forces chinook)
And that is where companies like Cobi come in with sweet mikitary sets taking customers away from lego, as owner of an f-14, f-18, me-262 and bf-110 i can confirm that they are really sweet sets
Yeah i also transitioned from Lego to Cobi because they have everything my heart desired for in the past 15 years, that Lego didnt want to deliver because of muh virtue signaling...
I do admit that Cobi has great sets and very affordable prices compared to LEGO. Personally, I prefer to make my own designs but the problem of building with LEGO is the price of making a new Model. Some of my ships and planes can easily cost 200eurs to make on a rare color :D
Same for me.I used to be a leogo purest, until I found my fascination for military history and military vehicles. I have the tiger 1 tank, the easy 8 Sherman, the bf 109 (latest model), the spitfire, and the corsair (latest model). They are all quality sets, even their bricks are quality, and I plan on getting some more modern planes, such as the f 18 hornet, which my dad flew. They also just came out with the mig 15, which looks SWEEET!
@@braedynhoward3644 my only problem with Cobi plane designs are their landing gears. Early examples look too large and clumsy. But i think the newer designs are a little better
I think the biggest trouble for the osprey wasn't so much parents who didn't want it out seeing as it as an "advanced" technic set for 16+ ages but rather the Afol community as the small 16 tooth gears (I think they are 16 tooth the smallest gears Lego makes) striped in the gear box to spin the rotors. Also what about the Lego city sets the stunt planes and race planes respectively.
As far as I heard the V-22 wasn't not released beacause of just being a military "helicopter", but because it actually had the cooperation with Bell/Boing which are Armor factorys and in the Lego AGB stands that they don't wanna support those people. Another unofficial reason was the motor. When using those motors a few times the gearwheel often broke and had to be replaced, what they obviously woundn't let be sold like this.
2:35 MY DAD HAS BEEN WATCHING TOPGUN NONSTOP. I KNEW THAT WAS AN F-14 THE MOMENT I SAW IT. I figured there would be reference to that the moment I began typing.
Some say that it looks like the Dauntless too. It seems to me that its an easily adaptable design to many WW2 US NAVY designs. Its a great set, the only problem are the colours
I agree, it's definitely a either a Helldiver, a Dauntless, or a hybrid of the two. It's way too big my minifig standards to be a fighter and has a two place cockpit
It also gives me T-6 Texan vibes, as the Texan doesn't have a 'gull wing' (bent wing like the F4U) and it was a 2-seater trainer for dive bomber aircraft.
@@RichardFStripeRendezvous Yeah, it definitely is more resemblent of a US navy dive bomber, I remember when I was like 12 and had this set, I was obsessed with the Pacific war, so I just threw away the rear part of canopy and put a twin machine gun I made there instead, and even made a launching system for the bomb (and the bomb itself), similar to what Stuka had, so the bomb wouldnt damage the propeller.
1:58 The Focke-Wulf Ta-154 Moskito actually had an engine like that. It was an inverted V engine, with a round cowling to fit the radiators around the shaft, which resembles a radial engine. Pretty common in german plane design. (see: Junkers Ju-88, Junkers Ju-288, Focke-Wulf FW-190D series, Heinkel He-219, Focke-Wulf Ta-152) Except the Ta-154 is a High-Wing Monoplane design
It's always the boomer parents ruining the greatest things. If not them,it's the brats who are far too young at the time the parents aren't watching. And it's such a smooth looking Technic set too...
The v22 was retired because part of the profit from the set would've went to the millitary part of boeing that make the v22 osprey, so by buying the lego set you would've funded the war efforst of the US, it seems normal anyone wouldn't want to do that through a toy brand, use your brain...
@@NareshSinghOctagonI'm a french consumer i don't want to fund the USA's war effort. Lego is a danish company and does not only sell lego in america, and even if it did, i'm sure not every one would be stoke to have toy that fund war. the USA do whatever they want with their insane cult of war but they better not impose it on the rest of the world, i would've baught the lego osprey if it was not for the gear malfunction and the boeing partnership
The super soarer (this one at 4:31) is in my eyes also heavily based on the F-14 Tomcat, considering it got some designfeatures that are very simelar, like the twin engines, tandem cockpit, variable sweept wings, giant elevators, flat fuselage and twin rudders. Only thing I feel is missing is more spread out exhaustes, angled engine intakes, and the fuselage underneeth the cockpit should've been elevated. But it's obvious that they couldn't include such features both to keep it less simelar to the original, but also since those features might compromise the other features considering it's at such a small scale
The XFA-22 doesn't have forward swept wings, plus it is proportionally way larger than the futuristic flier. It is more likely for it to be based on the Grumman X-29 but with 2 tails instead of 1
Interesting comparisons. Some of those larger 3 in one creator sets were nearly spot on yet with no outcry as they were colorful, and marketed as I guess air show jets. Just going to add City has hand a handful of twin rotor helicopters guised up as police transports though number one for me is the twin rotor from the most recent standalone Black Widow set which isn't even disguised for what it obviously is.
True, I've heard that. But when that happens, LEGO prefers to just release the set and send replacing parts to fix the issue. Otherwise, they could have just open the boxes, fix the issue and re-release it if they didnt have any problems with the set. The boxes were already produced anyway
Let’s just keep in mind that Lego cancelled the V-22 (Cargo/Transport aircraft) because military, but that didn’t stop them from releasing MANY sets that involved Chinnok Twin blade choppers. Not to mention that one sky police set with a helicopter that clearly looks like a Bell AH-1 Cobra Attack chopper.
I feel like some of these are just the most famous versions of these. There are multiple types of tandem rotor helicopters, I don’t think it was necessarily based off the chinook. And the Technic V-22 controversy was because it’s an active military plane, and usually LEGO tries to stay away from active military sets, to at least appear neutral and not favoring one or another military. Makes sense commercially.
As a Lego fan, I can confirm that Lego is practically ok with everything that's practically violent military things, as long as they are non-realistic equivalent, which I do agree is kinda sad
@@michaelkeaton5394 Militaries aren't just for fight the USCG for example does rescues the USMC National Guard Navy and Army all have done disaster relief so their not just for war
The Blue Power Jet is actually a kitbash of the F-35 which you showed and the F-22. It’s got some features from the F-22 incorporated into the design if you look closely enough (including Elevator shape and Vertical stabilizer shape/diagonal angle.)
2:21 With the design of the tail, the twin seat cockpit, and the way the gear folds up, I thought that plane more resembles the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver dive bomber.
@@joaoonda I don't see it, the SBD's tail isn't that big when compared to the rest of the airframe. The SB2C's is. There are also small design features that definitely more resemble the Helldiver rather than the Dauntless, such as the fact that the cockpit isn't that far back from the nose on the Dauntless. Put the two side by side and you can see the design differences between them.
1:30 actually the Futuristic Flyer set is loosely based on the Grumman X-29, an experimental nasal aircraft designed to test forward swept wings. It was based on the airframe of a f5 tiger
The 60103 airshow set has one plane very similar to the F/A-18 Hornet, though it's a single seater. It also has one that might be based off the Eurofighter Typhoon. (Edit) The second one looks more like the Rafale fighter, now that I see it again
LEGO INDIANA JONES 7193 there is 1:1 replica of an P-2 air plane (Pilatus P-2 was a Swiss military training airplane used for fighter pilot training in the Nazi Luftwaffe.) and a 1:1 replica of The D-EKVY ( This airplane was a German military airplane designed for reconnaissance and defense.)
The Blue Power Jet is still awesome. I got it used years ago and love it. I just want to know how to do those missile builds under the grey one seen here. I have seen those images for years but can't figure out how to do the missiles. But this is pretty cool in general, seeing all the historical and modern planes that inspired these Lego sets. I think they are more interesting seeing their real-life inspiration.
Although it is disappointing, I do respect Lego’s decision. The only problem was the osprey technic set was that Lego made a license agreement with Bel Boeing which is in fact a military contractor and that can get into some nasty political stuff for Lego’s behalf real fast since Boeing would be profiting from this. Historically speaking, military contractors are not good people
Recently I read that the set actually have a major mechanical flaw and LEGO used the whole "Public Outcry" as an excuse to remove the sets before they were sold with a defect. Not sure if it´s true but there are a series of videos on youtube about that mechanical issue.
@@joaoonda I’ve looked deeper into those “mechanical failures” and actually there isn’t really a problem if people aren’t playing with the propellers while functioning. If I am being honest there are a lot of other sets in the past where this can happen like for example if someone keeps forcing down a digger arm that is powered by screw gears, the gears would start chipping or if a hydraulic keeps reaching its move limit with motor and the user just keeps letting it click away for more than several seconds. The large tow truck from the early 2000s has a model b that used the buggy motor for functions and it would be strong enough to destroy the gears if misused
@@ragemonster4277 I see, thank you for the explanation. So it seems that it was probably a combination of those two factors that led to the removable of that set.
@@joaoonda that’s what I think so but I believe that Lego really had no realization of the mechanical problem as I think that was discovered a while later from forums that began to gain trend just like the Land Rover cracking differential issue where users would build the engine wrong because the instructions did not specifically to align the diffs that shared the same axle
@@ragemonster4277 Well, at this point everyone is already used to receive updates to fix the mistakes on their instructions from LEGO. I had that issue for the first time almost ten years ago with the Space Shuttle. Not sure if the solution for the V-22 was easy or not to fix, I will look into that (out of curiosity). 😄
I'm a big Ace Combat fanboy, but idk I feel the set at 1:23 is just a Su-47 Berkut's heavy artistic reinterpretation more than anything, I just don't see the angles fit the AC design but rather looks more like a stretched Berkut
Honestly, I don´t think that was the problem. LEGO has already released sets with problems in the past and they were quick to send parts and instructions to correct those issues; also each set goes through a lengthy period of tests before it´s release... I don´t think they would let it go into the market with that major flaw. However, you could be right and they used the excuse of that Anti-war group to remove the set without any major issues.
@@joaoonda everything except the VTOL and the 2 seater is F-22A, engine might be F-35B and the cockpit is either F-14A or F/A-18F. I suspect the engine is like that for copyright reasons and the fact of the thrust vectoring nozzles on the F-22A are very weird
I find it hilarious that this German peace group complained at Lego for making an osprey Peace Groups be like: Putin invades Ukraine: Understandable have a nice day Lego tries to make an osprey: *Riots*
0:29 no its actually based on the f-22 raptor not the f-35 lightning. If you look up a picture of the f-22 and f-35 you can tell it looks more like the f-22.
I remember as a kid building a jet that looked like one of the blue angels with the "legos" at my grandmother's house, they were definitely some kind of offbrand legos
Very nice look back at some lovely LEGO kits. It's interesting that replica models of actual military hardware are considered inappropriate by some people, while models of "superheroes" and their equipment are acceptable. Of course, I am misguided, for superheroes never, ever engage in any forms of violence. :)
Removed because of military aircraft. Lego got complaint from German Peace Society. Official statement, LEGO said: The LEGO Technic Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey was designed to highlight the important role the aircraft plays in search and rescue efforts. While the set clearly depicts how a rescue version of the plane might look, the aircraft is only used by the military. We have a long-standing policy not to create sets which feature real military vehicles, so it has been decided not to proceed with the launch of this product. We appreciate that some fans who were looking forward to this set may be disappointed, but we believe it's important to ensure that we uphold our brand values.
I believe it was a combination of the two. They noticed the gear problem but when that happens, normally the set is still released and they sent new parts to fix the issue. Just a few weeks after it was released, someone fixed the problem of the set with just minor parts. To me, it was a combination of the two problems, the gear issue and politics
It´s easy for anti-war movements to attack bigger enterprises like LEGO because they can´t really respond. A good example was the end of the cooperation between Shell and LEGO which ended some years ago because of a greenpeace action.
True, but the overall shape of the airframe is identical to the Mosquito. Still, you can make a Beaufighter out of it, by adding a dorsal cupola and modifying the tail
I don't understand why there isn't more military sets,it doesn't make kids violent,it give them what they want really,because imagine you're having a lego dogfight,how cool is it to be able to chip off pieces as the fight goes on
I would say that the Sonic Boom is closer to a Gripen than a Rafale because the Gripen’s air intakes are on the side while the Rafale’s are closer to the bottom.
I wish Lego could just make the sets with the actual colors and names without parents getting offended because these are all really cool and I would probably want them of I were younger
“We have a strict policy regarding military models, and therefore, we do not produce tanks, helicopters, etc." proceeds to make a Sophwith Camel (from WW1) and Lego Creator plane that looks like Lockheed Martin F-35
hey on the plane that looks like P-47 or the F4U it kinda looks also like the italyan MC-202 and in this part: 0:56 it also looks like a B-26 thats to our opinion
2:20: that's not a hybrid of the p47 and corsair, that is a near perfect recreation of a Yak-52. The giveaway is the tail. 3:00 while I can see it being an fw190, it appears to be an extra 300 with a radial engine.
For the first example, I dont agree, it has a completly different landing gear. Its closer to the T-6 or the Dauntless. For the second, yes it could be but with those long wings and radial engine its totally rhe Ta-152. For the extra 300 you need to replace the engine, reduce the wings length and modify the landing gear... there are other race planes from lego closer to it
As far as I know the osprey was retired because of an construction error that would put a lot of stress on a gear and might brake it and that is why it's actually retired.
The sonic boom jet looks more like a chinese J-8/J-9 rather than a rafale. The rafale has no elevator behind the wing and the air intakes are half way under the fuselage. On the other hand the J-8 has a delta wing (triangular wing shape), elevators with the same shape behind the wing and air intakes at the side of the fuselage like the sonic boom jet. The J-9 (variant of the J-8) has the elevators in front of the wing instead of behind it (canards). The sonic boom jet has elevators in front and behind the wing, which is really rare for a jet.
Meanwhile my childhood was surrounded by military toys Some notable ones I remember is remote-controlled Abrams, die-cast Willy's Jeep, F-15 model, and a toy M16 rifle. And look at me, I'm perfectly sane and totally not causing warcrimes
The "futuristic flyer" set isn't based off of some video game aircraft. It's based off of the Sukhoi Su-47, which was an experimental Soviet aircraft that never saw service.
I would say the controversy aroung the V-22 was that it was officially a license model, with the trademark from Boeing and all the shenanigans. Lego hadn't done 5 minutes of research to find out that Boeing is also a major military contractor, not only building passenger planes.
