Review: 10318 Concorde
Posted by CapnRex101,
Although retired from service in 2003, Concorde remains among the most esteemed commercial airliners ever produced. The aircraft's distinctive silhouette provides appealing material for LEGO and 10318 Concorde certainly seems impressive, especially given its massive size!
Official images also promise some interesting interior details and functions, perhaps similar to the excellent 10283 NASA Space Shuttle Discovery produced a couple of years ago. If this supersonic airliner equals the standard of its spacefaring counterpart, that would be superb.
Summary
10318 Concorde, 2,083 pieces.
£169.99 / $199.99 / €199.99 | 8.2p/9.6c/9.6c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
Like its inspiration, this recreation of Concorde is an aesthetic and engineering marvel
- Beautiful shape
- Near-faultless realism
- Excellent undercarriage function
- Multiple options for display
- Gaps around droop nose
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Box and Contents
While the packaging for 10318 Concorde looks reasonable, I think the more adaptable artwork available prior to the introduction of 18+ branding could have benefitted Concorde. After all, the famous delta wing is not apparent from this angle and there is lots of empty space. The contents are obviously more important though, including 21 numbered bags, but no stickers, notably.
The Completed Model
Concorde looks absolutely magnificent, offering realistic proportions and recreating the sleek design of the original aircraft. The shape of the fuselage and delta wing looks brilliant and the angled display stand looks excellent too, as though the airliner has just taken off. Furthermore, this angle equally suits displaying the model with the nose elevated or lowered.
Alternatively, the model can be displayed with its landing gear extended. This configuration is less dynamic than the above, but occupies less space on display. Regardless, the options are welcome and the relatively narrow wingspan of 43cm renders Concorde easier to display than I had anticipated.
The length of 105cm cannot be ignored though and is naturally more difficult to accommodate. However, this size feels appropriate for Concorde, roughly matching the scale of 10283 NASA Space Shuttle Discovery. The two models are surprisingly similar in some respects, striking an excellent balance between form and functionality. Doubtless this is partially because both sets were designed by Milan Madge.
While the general shape of Concorde seems well-suited to LEGO elements, I think the nose is probably the most challenging area. On that basis, two new parts have been developed for this role. The 4x4x3 hollow cone is especially useful, capturing the desired shape and expanding the relatively limited selection of conical pieces available.
In addition, an unusual dual-moulded windscreen is introduced here, designed specifically for Concorde. Beyond an accurate design, I am delighted with the combination of trans-black and white plastics, which avoids the poor colour consistency between white printing and elements in previous sets. This solution is effective, although will presumably be restricted to large sets.
Concorde's most famous feature is arguably its droop nose, improving the pilot's field of view during landing. The mechanism is substantially simplified for this model, lacking the retracting visor, but the shape is recognisable and recreating this feature was essential. Furthermore, the second windscreen is correctly positioned and decorated with white pillars.
There are noticeable gaps between the nose and the fuselage in this configuration, but a much bigger scale would be necessary to avoid them, I suspect. Otherwise, the shape of the cockpit and how it narrows towards the nose looks tremendous, even including elongated winglets on each side. There is no interior though, as expected given the complex shape.
As mentioned earlier, no stickers are included, so the 3x10 curved wedge slopes flanking the cockpit and the 2x4 curved slopes located behind are printed. The hexagonal static ports look splendid in particular, although the forward doors should be positioned above them and there is nothing included to denote any external doors, unfortunately.
However, a 1x1 quarter circle tile is included to depict the VHF antenna on top of the fuselage, while the forward undercarriage is faultlessly integrated as well. These wheels retract forwards into their narrow well and fit neatly inside, even though landing gear doors are not provided. The undercarriage looks nice when extended too, again reflecting the real vehicle.
The fuselage appears deceptively basic from the outside, relying on 8x6x2 tank elements for much of its shape. Several of these are decorated with tiny windows and the red stripe is also very simple, comprising a layer of plates. Of course, the internal structure is more complex and necessarily so given the length of the fuselage, but the smooth exterior looks marvellous.
Additionally, a section of the fuselage can be removed to reveal some interior detail. The seats are cleverly represented by medium nougat Technic panels and arranged in rows of four, which matches the source material. There is also enough room for two toilet cubicles, each making fun use of inverted 1x2x2/3 rounded bricks with studs on the side to create the toilet bowls.
Despite its simple outward appearance and the evidence of the interior detail above, much of the fuselage is packed with Technic pieces and structural reinforcement. For instance, Technic axles connecting the forward and rear landing gear pass under the cabin, while the blue-topped structures shown below lock the fuselage and the delta wing together, keeping them stable.
The rigid connection is essential because the delta wing is assembled sideways with stacked bricks, which is not always a very strong means of building. This shape looks fantastic though, consisting of varied slopes to recreate the curvature of the wing. Some may dislike the patches of studs visible on each side, but occasional exposed studs like these do not bother me.
Six elevons are fixed to the trailing edge of the wing and these are adjustable. The transition between the wing and the elevons is smooth and I love the red accents on the two outermost panels, providing little splashes of colour. In addition, the four Olympus engines are impressive, nestled between the elevons and again introducing a contrasting colour to the delta wing.
The engines continue underneath and even more detail is visible here, featuring curved fairings for the actuators adjusting the elevons. The engines and undercarriage are equally detailed and the shape of the fuselage is tremendous as well, becoming appropriately boxy directly below the delta wing, but curved towards the front and rear.
A square hole is also found on the underside, where the display stand connects to the model. Similar to 10294 Titanic, this plinth is reminiscent of those one would expect to see beneath a scale model in a museum, which suits the Concorde. I love the combination of light bluish grey and reddish brown pieces, especially because the latter resembles wood.
Also, the clean shape of the display stand is attractive and the printed information plaque looks brilliant too. The black and metallic gold colour scheme is appealing and again recalls museum displays. Furthermore, the information shown is accurate and I like how even the set number is included beneath the technical specifications.
Two substantial landing legs comprise the main undercarriage, nestling into the fuselage much like the nose gear. These are perhaps more remarkable though because a large section of the Technic structure fits into the delta wing, which is only the thickness of a single brick! Although there is very little space available, clever use of plates and tiles has permitted enough room for landing gear to fold.
Moreover, their deployment is very smooth and works in unison with the forward landing gear, as rotating Concorde's tail raises and lowers its undercarriage. The undercarriage itself seems reasonably detailed too, accurately featuring four wheels on each leg and avoiding any unsightly Technic pieces. A couple of blue elements are just about visible, although barely.
The engines are attached to the underside of the wing using clips and they are almost entirely smooth, similar to the actual wing. While this scale is too small for subtle details, the black and white colours look good and occasional black elements provide some texture. The most notable are the slopes inside the engine intakes, which are again completely faithful to the real airliner.
Unusually, the clips are also needed during construction, attaching a pair of orange wedges to the underside. These and some orange plates beneath the fuselage stabilise the model before the engines and the nose are mounted, spreading its weight evenly. LEGO usually tries to avoid supplemental supports for construction like these, so they are an interesting addition.
The enormous vertical stabiliser is simply constructed with stacked bricks and plates, but looks superb. The shape of the stabiliser generally matches the source material, taking advantage of the new 1x6x1 slope, although featuring an awkward step between the rudders. Also, I think the classic British Airways or Air France liveries would be more attractive than this factory design.
Nevertheless, the bands of dark blue are broadly accurate. The two rudders also demonstrate good attention to detail and both function properly, using 1x2 rounded plates and 1x3 rounded plates to form hinges. However, my favourite details are the asymmetrical bulges on either side, which represent the actuator housings for the rudders.
Even the tail wheel is included, ensuring that Concorde's tail did not bump the ground during take-off. Moreover, the tail narrows nicely beneath the vertical stabiliser and the gap between this section and the attached cones is minimal, especially since the conical assembly rotates to deploy the landing gear! The whole mechanism is completely hidden and works well.
Overall
10318 Concorde looks spectacular on display, as expected given the reference material! The famous delta wing and narrow fuselage are recreated with incredible accuracy and include an array of details, notably including the elevons and a slice of the passenger cabin. The droop nose is also present and takes full advantage of some new parts for authentic shaping.
Admittedly, some gaps emerge when the nose is lowered, but concealing these would require another layer of tiles or curved slopes on the outside, which is impossible at this scale. On the topic of scale, I think the size and proportions of Concorde look fantastic too, while the price of £169.99, $199.99 or €199.99 also represents fair value, in my opinion. For fans of aircraft and Concorde in particular, this is an exceptional set.
177 likes
58 comments on this article
Beautiful model, beautiful engineering.
Beautiful lines throughout.
A great statement piece.
Retractable landing gear, an interior and all prints too? Must get!
Great review, and I completely agree - An exceptional set. Visually, to me, it's not obviously LEGO either. One day... you will be mine.
Not one for me. What a boring set.
It's an expensive swoosh, but what a swoosh!
With one fatal crash, the Concorde instantly dropped from "safest airline in history" to "least safe airliner in history". I remember reading that, following two fatal crashes early on, the 737-MAX-8 had overtaken the Concorde in terms of having the worst safety record, but since that model returned to service in December 2020, and has gone nearly three years without further incident, I suspect the Concorde is once again in last place.
I DO NOT LIKE THIS SET AND AS SUCH I THINK LEGO SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE IT.
No, I'm just kidding. I mean, it's not for me, but I've seen the reactions when this set was first announced. It's obviously going to make a lot of people very happy, and more power to them.
On the one hand, I might like this more if it were minifig-scaled; on the other hand, it's already ginormous!
Love the model and review but the reviewer put one of the 'cons' as gaps around droop snoot.
The real life one when that is engaged you can see clearly gaps around the top, edges and bottom, just like the lego one.
So the Lego version here is very accurate. NOT a negative.
Look online, you'll see many angles with gaps around the real life droop snoot feature.
For a set that didn’t have to do very much, I’m impressed with the various mechanical features and interior detail included here.
Very much hoping to find this under the Christmas tree.
droop snoot
@PurpleDave said:
"With one fatal crash, the Concorde instantly dropped from "safest airline in history" to "least safe airliner in history". I remember reading that, following two fatal crashes early on, the 737-MAX-8 had overtaken the Concorde in terms of having the worst safety record, but since that model returned to service in December 2020, and has gone nearly three years without further incident, I suspect the Concorde is once again in last place."
If you want to be technical about it, that whole crash was actually the fault of a titanium strip falling from the engine cowling of a DC-10, which has a notoriously bad record early in it's career. The deadliest airline disaster occurred with a DC-10. I suspect the DC-10 was sick of being picked on, so it decided to sabotage the safety record of another plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
It’s well done. But at the end of the day, it’s just a massive dust collector.
This really is a beautiful model, it looks stunning and has a great set of build techniques. I just wish I had the shelf space to display a model of this size.
Great review of an awesome set! One thing I do consider a negative is that there's no way to completely cover up the landing gear, which would add to the display options. But otherwise? Just minor niggles hardly worth mentioning.
As for ways to display it, I do have a glass coffee table, that would be big enough to suspend it underneath it somehow. Not sure if I could make that work, but it sure would look spectacular....
@Reventon said:
"It’s well done. But at the end of the day, it’s just a massive dust collector."
As are we all.... :(
Dear, sweet, Concorde! Ye shall not have died in vain!
For Lego Technic afficionado: sometimes a model is liked because it has very neat and cool functions. At other time, a model is liked not because the functions are anything special but because they are constructed in such a special way that it makes it very interesting (this is why the Saturn V was so special as a system set). While the Concorde is a system set, the Technic inside it rivals many official Technic sets just in the beauty of how the designer was able to implement the function with just 4 studs to work with and, as mentioned in the review, the thickness of just a few plates. Hats off to the designer for (1) the aesthetic of the model but also for (2) the ingenuity of the mechanisms crammed into such a small space.
What a beautiful execution of this iconic aircraft! Even the stand adds to the elegance of this plane. Whether displayed on its landing gear or the stand replicating the takeoff angle, it looks fantastic.
To say this is just a dust collector annoys me. What Lego doesn't collect dust? Only unused pieces in a storage bin or still in the box.
@kwickbrick said:
"What a beautiful execution of this iconic aircraft! Even the stand adds to the elegance of this plane. Whether displayed on its landing gear or the stand replicating the takeoff angle, it looks fantastic.
To say this is just a dust collector annoys me. What Lego doesn't collect dust? Only unused pieces in a storage bin or still in the box. "
A Picasso (or paintings from any other painter) is a dust collector. If it has value to you, you will dust it to ensure it keeps its glow!
@JMaster said:
"If you want to be technical about it, that whole crash was actually the fault of a titanium strip falling from the engine cowling of a DC-10..."
That was the official ruling, but it was a hasty and conveniently patriotic ruling. It also ignored a lot of contradicting evidence and testimony:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/continental-found-guilty-in-concorde-crash-why-the-verdict-was-wrong/
1. You've got a missing spacer (which was later found in an Air France hanger) that caused the faulty landing gear to wobble.
2. The fuel load was unbalanced, putting additional stress on that landing gear.
3. Drag marks on the runway indicate that landing gear was cockeyed, thus not able to roll freely, and actually preventing the aircraft from accelerating normally (it has since been concluded that, if the faulty landing gear had been put back together correctly, the plane would have cleared the runway before reaching the strip of metal).
4. The plane was overloaded by nearly a full ton, both with too much fuel, and with additional bags that were loaded at the last minute.
5. The wind shifted, so they were taking off with a strong tailwind instead of redirecting to take off into a headwind, as advised by the tower.
6. No less than four eyewitnesses (including the pilot of French President Chirac's plane) attest that the engine was engulfed in flames before it reached the metal strip (but the metal strip allowed the investigators to shift blame from Air France to Continental Airlines).
7. The Concorde had a much higher takeoff speed than most airliners, and had a notoriously bad record for blowouts during takeoff, with at least one instance where two tires blew out simultaneously, and no less than six separate incidents where tire blowouts ruptured fuel tanks.
Basically, it seems the engineers who designed the Concorde were able to make a plane that could safely fly past Mach 2, but fatally compromised its ability to do the two most difficult parts of a pilot's job, which are takeoffs and landings. Sooner or later, this was bound to be the result, even if they swept the runway after every takeoff.
"The deadliest airline disaster occurred with a DC-10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191"
The deadliest airline _disaster_, by a factor of five, was the combined four flights downed on 9/11, and the victims in the WTC and Pentagon. The deadliest airline _accident_ was the Tenerife disaster, where a 747 that thought it was cleared for takeoff collided with another 747 that was taxiing. AA191 is the deadliest airline _accident_ to take place on US soil, however.
On a semi-related note, several years after my grandmother had passed, my dad mentioned that her best friend was on one of the two planes involved in what is currently the third deadliest mid-air collision to occur in the US (and tenth deadliest in the world):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Grand_Canyon_mid-air_collision
I've since heard him mention it at least once or two more times, but it occurred before my dad started high school, and my grandmother understandably never discussed it with us grandkids. At the time that occurred, it was the deadliest airline disaster in the world, being the first to exceed the loss of 100 lives.
imo, as an avgeek, lego has peaked with the adult orientated sets with this. They could only get better with more planes
@Milocubed said:
"imo, as an avgeek, lego has peaked with the adult orientated sets with this. They could only get better with more planes"
avgeek as well (and a pilot), I often suggested in Lego surveys that Lego should produce a 'iconic' (this word is overused) plane every year (a bit like the Modulars). There are plenty to choose from. I would especially like to see the national demonstration team planes (UK's Red Arrow(Hawk T1), US's Blue Angels(F/A-18E), Canadian's Snowbirds(CT-114 Tutor), France's Patrouille de France(Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jet), Spain's Patrulla Águila(CASA C-101), Italy's Frecce Tricolori(Aermacchi MB-339), etc, etc, many countries have one). Otherwise, there are plenty of great historical planes. The only problem with planes is they require quite a bit of space to exhibit.
@HOBBES:
Someone tried to get a Tucano past the Ideas program, but, like the planes you just listed, they are still technically military aircraft, even if they're technically never flown in combat. Someone else tried to get an SR-71 with NASA livery through, but that got rejected as well.
@PurpleDave said:
" @HOBBES :
Someone tried to get a Tucano past the Ideas program, but, like the planes you just listed, they are still technically military aircraft, even if they're technically never flown in combat. Someone else tried to get an SR-71 with NASA livery through, but that got rejected as well."
I know, and it is sad (and I am still not over the cancellation of 42113). What is the point of having an 18+ category if you are not allowed to produce 'adult' material. Still, there could be a way to 'bypass' this restriction: most of these planes are training planes (some are not: F18, F16 but most are) and have never been (and never will be) seen in combat situation. I don't keep my hope very high though.
Which one of these: 31086, 31042, 31039, 31001, 31008, 6912, 5892, 6741, 4953 exists in the CIVILIAN air park ?
@HOBBES:
It's also worth noting that the Blue Angels are not the only demonstration squadron in US history. They're certainly the most famous, but they're only for the US Navy (and one USMC pilot). There have been four such units in the USAF, with the first being the Acrojets (1949-1950), then the Skyblazers of USAFE (1949-1962), the Thunderbirds (1953-present), and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1957-1960). The latter group flew stunts in C-130 Hercules prop cargo planes. That last one had to be an interesting sight.
@PurpleDave said:
" @HOBBES :
It's also worth noting that the Blue Angels are not the only demonstration squadron in US history. They're certainly the most famous, but they're only for the US Navy (and one USMC pilot). There have been four such units in the USAF, with the first being the Acrojets (1949-1950), then the Skyblazers of USAFE (1949-1962), the Thunderbirds (1953-present), and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1957-1960). The latter group flew stunts in C-130 Hercules prop cargo planes. That last one had to be an interesting sight."
Would love to see C-130 demonstrations. There were also crazy pilots 'landing'(more like a touch 'n go) a DeHavilland Caribou (C-7) on the front wheel only - love to see that too! Oh that would so make my day/week/month/summer.
@HOBBES said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @HOBBES :
Someone tried to get a Tucano past the Ideas program, but, like the planes you just listed, they are still technically military aircraft, even if they're technically never flown in combat. Someone else tried to get an SR-71 with NASA livery through, but that got rejected as well."
I know, and it is sad (and I am still not over the cancellation of 42113). What is the point of having an 18+ category if you are not allowed to produce 'adult' material. Still, there could be a way to 'bypass' this restriction: most of these planes are training planes (some are not: F18, F16 but most are) and have never been (and never will be) seen in combat situation. I don't keep my hope very high though.
Which one of these: 31086, 31042, 31039, 31001, 31008, 6912, 5892, 6741, 4953 exists in the CIVILIAN air park ?"
Lego has been very clear in the past about military vehicles: it aims to avoid realistic depictions of modern military hardware. All of the sets you cite are based roughly on fighter jets but since they are not licensed and don't feature weapons or realistic military liveries, they are considered to be OK.
There are a few exceptions to the rule that people may like to point out: Lego has released a number of Sopwith Camel sets, a Fokker Triplane, and the infamous Boeing Osprey, all based on real-life military vehicles. For both the Sopwith Camels and Fokker Triplane, they did feature accurate liveries and even included weapons mounted on the fuselage. Furthermore, the Fokker was named after the actual combat pilot famous for getting many kills during WWI.
For the Sopwith Camel, Lego did state that it was based on an older vehicle so it wasn't a depiction of modern military hardware. It then begins to become a significant historic vehicle which doesn't put the violence of warfare in people's minds like more modern vehicles do. Based on this principle, it becomes apparent that Lego may in the future choose to make sets based on Spitfires and Mustangs, which would be cool.
Addressing the Osprey, this is where we observe that Lego is incredibly careful and quick to react if bad press is likely to harm the brand. Remember that as a company it can choose to withdraw a set for whatever reason it wants, and when an activist group stirred up controversy by pointing out that the Osprey is a modern military vehicle (albeit one that isn't in a direct combat role) that's exactly how the company reacted. There's no point trying to highlight any hypocrisy here, because there isn't any, as outlined above.
There are other sets that have military vehicles in them - the Indiana Jones stuff comes to mind, but those are roughly based on vehicles seen in an action film, so aren't vehicles made for the sole purpose of making that vehicle. They're made because they were part of a scene in a fictional story.
In closing, you might see Lego make a jet that looks somewhat like an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, but it will never have that name on the box, will never have Blue Angels branding on it, and will never have a grey or even navy blue with yellow highlights livery. Some may be disappointed by this, but the beauty of Lego is that if you want it, you can make it yourself.
@Rare_White_Ape said:
"For the Sopwith Camel, Lego did state that it was based on an older vehicle so it wasn't a depiction of modern military hardware. It then begins to become a significant historic vehicle which doesn't put the violence of warfare in people's minds like more modern vehicles do. Based on this principle, it becomes apparent that Lego may in the future choose to make sets based on Spitfires and Mustangs, which would be cool."
I'd certainly be very happy with a Lego Spitfire, Mosquito and Lancaster, and maybe a Merlin engine for good measure! Until then, the Cobi versions of the first two are pretty decent.
@Rare_White_Ape:
For the Sopwith and Fokker, I believe part of the justification was that there weren't many people left who would have flashbacks about WWI when the first two were released (and certainly not when the other two Sopwith sets came out). The first pair were also created by LEGO Direct, which had more leeway than the main company regarding a lot of things, in part because those sets were never intended to hit retail shelves.
Regarding Indiana Jones, the Flying Wing isn't even a real plane, but there definitely were a few real military vehicles that got produced as sets (the "duck" from Crystal Skull and the fighter plane from Last Crusade for sure). None of them were officially licensed to the manufacturer of the actual vehicles, though.
And the Osprey is only flown by military units. The livery depicted is used by Search And Rescue forces, but typically they are used to drop off or pick up troops, in which case there would always be a gun mounted on the ramp in the tail. It's not strictly a combat role, but it's not strictly a non-combat role, either.
@PurpleDave said:
" @JMaster said:
"If you want to be technical about it, that whole crash was actually the fault of a titanium strip falling from the engine cowling of a DC-10..."
That was the official ruling, but it was a hasty and conveniently patriotic ruling. It also ignored a lot of contradicting evidence and testimony:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/continental-found-guilty-in-concorde-crash-why-the-verdict-was-wrong/
1. You've got a missing spacer (which was later found in an Air France hanger) that caused the faulty landing gear to wobble.
2. The fuel load was unbalanced, putting additional stress on that landing gear.
3. Drag marks on the runway indicate that landing gear was cockeyed, thus not able to roll freely, and actually preventing the aircraft from accelerating normally (it has since been concluded that, if the faulty landing gear had been put back together correctly, the plane would have cleared the runway before reaching the strip of metal).
4. The plane was overloaded by nearly a full ton, both with too much fuel, and with additional bags that were loaded at the last minute.
5. The wind shifted, so they were taking off with a strong tailwind instead of redirecting to take off into a headwind, as advised by the tower.
6. No less than four eyewitnesses (including the pilot of French President Chirac's plane) attest that the engine was engulfed in flames before it reached the metal strip (but the metal strip allowed the investigators to shift blame from Air France to Continental Airlines).
7. The Concorde had a much higher takeoff speed than most airliners, and had a notoriously bad record for blowouts during takeoff, with at least one instance where two tires blew out simultaneously, and no less than six separate incidents where tire blowouts ruptured fuel tanks.
Basically, it seems the engineers who designed the Concorde were able to make a plane that could safely fly past Mach 2, but fatally compromised its ability to do the two most difficult parts of a pilot's job, which are takeoffs and landings. Sooner or later, this was bound to be the result, even if they swept the runway after every takeoff.
"The deadliest airline disaster occurred with a DC-10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191"
The deadliest airline _disaster_, by a factor of five, was the combined four flights downed on 9/11, and the victims in the WTC and Pentagon. The deadliest airline _accident_ was the Tenerife disaster, where a 747 that thought it was cleared for takeoff collided with another 747 that was taxiing. AA191 is the deadliest airline _accident_ to take place on US soil, however.
On a semi-related note, several years after my grandmother had passed, my dad mentioned that her best friend was on one of the two planes involved in what is currently the third deadliest mid-air collision to occur in the US (and tenth deadliest in the world):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Grand_Canyon_mid-air_collision
I've since heard him mention it at least once or two more times, but it occurred before my dad started high school, and my grandmother understandably never discussed it with us grandkids. At the time that occurred, it was the deadliest airline disaster in the world, being the first to exceed the loss of 100 lives."
Well how about that, there goes me using Wikipedia for those facts from now on! I should've been a bit better with some of my wording, I wasn't counting the Septermber 11th attacks since that wasn't a fault of the aircraft so much as those who took control over it, but yeah that makes sense. And that's I shame, I had heard of Tenerife before now.
Also, my condolences, I can see how you'd want to be more well-read on how airline disasters take place. That is a genuinely fascinating read you sent though, seriously disappointed I never saw that beforehand. Oh well, now I know!
@Reventon said:
"It’s well done. But at the end of the day, it’s just a massive dust collector."
To be fair, 99.99% of the AFOL +18 sets are.
I think this set will look great without other sets. Next to other Lego sets it will look dull, but as a "one off" set for non-Lego collector's office or study who's into aircrafts, it'll shine.
@HOBBES:
The C-130 doesn't look that impressive, but it's probably grossly overpowered (my dad says the C-141a was, which is what he serviced during Vietnam). Strap a JATO to it, and it barely needs a runway to take off, but I don't know if the Four Horsemen ever performed JATO takeoffs at airshows. The Blue Angels certainly used to (although I wouldn't think the Navy would actually operate a C-130).
An impressive set regardless of whether one personally is interested in it.
@JMaster:
As years go by, and air travel becomes exceedingly more commonplace (it's estimated that between 1-2 million people are in the air at any given moment, and even when all flights were grounded post-9/11, there were probably a few military pilots on patrol worldwide at all times), we tend to only hear about the disasters that impact us directly (anything local to where you live) or that stand out for one reason or another (record number of deaths, mass grounding of an entire model like the 737-MAX, loss of some celebrity, etc.).
We've seen air disaster investigations that show how difficult it can be at times to draw the right conclusion, like how they were ready to string up Captain Sully after the Miracle on the Hudson, or the significant amount of pushback on blaming the planes for the two 737-MAX-8 crashes. The Concorde was a point of national pride for both the UK and France, and citing the strip of metal (which, to be fair, _WAS_ a legitimate runway hazard) allowed them to shift blame to a third nation, and also bill the company they found at fault for most of the survivor payouts issued at that point. There was money and reputation on the line, and it appears those were more important than passenger safety. Too often, that's the case, as we're now embroiled in a widespread issue with the discovery that counterfeit parts were installed, unknowingly, by several major airlines.
As for the Grand Canyon flight, I did mention that my dad wasn't even in high school when it happened. My grandmother died at the ripe old age of 86 before I'd even heard about that incident for the first time (let alone that she knew someone onboard one of the planes). Oddly enough, I used to commute to within a mile of where NW255 crashed, and had never heard about it until the 20th anniversary. I had only recently moved into the area after spending my entire life up to that point living on the other side of the state, so an airliner crashing with 155 souls on board wasn't enough to stand out where I grew up.
Frankly, living more than an hour away from the nearest international airport, we were kind of insulated from a lot of that sort of news. Combined with the small local population, there was almost no chance that you'd even know someone who knew someone on any of those planes, so there might be an article in the newspaper (which, being young kids, we'd skip right to the funny pages), or a report on the evening news (which, being young kids, we had zero interest in watching), and then it was back to life as usual.
Out of curiosity, can the landing gear be deployed while the plane is on the stand? Speaking of the stand, I totally agree about the stand, that is a very nice-looking piece of design work. Also, I suspect that the decision to use the factory livery meant that they didn't have to decide which one to use, or include a decent number of extra pieces so you could build it either way.
@StyleCounselor said:
"Dear, sweet, Concorde! Ye shall not have died in vain!"
"I'm not dead, sir."
@TheOtherMike:
They probably had to secure joint licensing from BAE and Airbus for the rights to this much. Adding livery would have required additional licensing from British Airways and Air France. It may have also required licensing deals with the UK and French governments, since both airlines were national airlines when the Concorde entered service.
I wonder how difficult it would be to mod it into a Tupolev Tu-144 (the only other supersonic airliner to see service).
Just built this yesterday, and the set is fantastic, but am I the only one with noticeable color differences in the white bricks on the wings?
In my set it seems as all the 1x1xX bricks have a slight yellow'ish hue to them that differs from the other white bricks.
XB-70 Valkyrie parts kit. :D
Seriously though, that set is absolutely gorgeous and unexpectedly feature-packed!
@TheOtherMike said:
"
@StyleCounselor said:
"Dear, sweet, Concorde! Ye shall not have died in vain!"
"I'm not dead, sir.""
Well, you will not have been mortally wounded in vain.
@MPlagborg said:
"Just built this yesterday, and the set is fantastic, but am I the only one with noticeable color differences in the white bricks on the wings?
In my set it seems as all the 1x1xX bricks have a slight yellow'ish hue to them that differs from the other white bricks."
Did it not have the complimentary pot of paint and brush for those who want their model in just one shade!
Last Saturday here in the Aerospace Bristol museum, they allowed free entrance to anyone who wanted to build this under the real thing. This is where the last Concorde flight landed. Did anyone go?
https://aerospacebristol.org/lego-concorde-build-day
@legoDad42 said:
"Love the model and review but the reviewer put one of the 'cons' as gaps around droop snoot.
The real life one when that is engaged you can see clearly gaps around the top, edges and bottom, just like the lego one.
So the Lego version here is very accurate. NOT a negative.
Look online, you'll see many angles with gaps around the real life droop snoot feature."
That is true, but the gaps are not nearly as obvious as those on this model. It is perhaps an unfair criticism because I struggle to imagine how the designer could have closed the gaps, as mentioned in the review, but they are something I dislike, so I had to mention them.
@TheOtherMike said:
"Out of curiosity, can the landing gear be deployed while the plane is on the stand? Speaking of the stand, I totally agree about the stand, that is a very nice-looking piece of design work. Also, I suspect that the decision to use the factory livery meant that they didn't have to decide which one to use, or include a decent number of extra pieces so you could build it either way."
Yes, the landing gear can be deployed with Concorde on its display stand.
It truly is a fantastic set and a great display piece, which for me is the biggest issue with it – my Concorde has been sat on my living room floor for the last three weeks because I haven’t got a shelf deep enough to accommodate it. I particularly like the stand, for its studless appearance and the excellent printed plaque. Another plus point I would add is that there are no stickers, which only adds to the sets’ overall quality. I certainly see the point about the gaps in the nose, but for me it’s a minor issue overall.
@StyleCounselor: "Actually, I think I might pull through."
@TheOtherMike said:
" @StyleCounselor : "Actually, I think I might pull through.""
Sometimes I can still hear his voice.
The box could've had a background of the sky instead of black.
Time to ditch the black backgrounds.
@TheOtherMike said:
" @StyleCounselor : "Actually, I think I might pull through.""
Oh, I see. (disappointed sigh)
This looks like a great set, and I will buy it at some point.
It's just a bit of a pity about the plane's livery. A couple of people have suggested reasons for the model not sporting British Airways or Air France liveries. Still, it's a shame that it wasn't possible to provide additional pieces for those two liveries to give builders a choice of livery.
@PurpleDave said:
" @HOBBES:
The C-130 doesn't look that impressive, but it's probably grossly overpowered (my dad says the C-141a was, which is what he serviced during Vietnam). Strap a JATO to it, and it barely needs a runway to take off, but I don't know if the Four Horsemen ever performed JATO takeoffs at airshows. The Blue Angels certainly used to (although I wouldn't think the Navy would actually operate a C-130)."
The Blue Angels used to (maybe still do?) operate their support C-130 ("Fat Albert") during some air shows, as a prelude to the main show.
The Navy did conduct some carrier landing tests with the C-130, but never put it into such service operationally.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-how-the-c-130-hercules-became-the-biggest-aircraft-to-land-on-an-aircraft-carrier/
@oldfan:
They stopped firing JATO bottles in 2009, and switched to a C-130J (still named “Fat Albert”) in 2019.
Anyways, the fact that they did that at all is vaguely terrifying, but I did mention that the C-130 is overpowered. I did chuckle a bit when the voiceover says it could land with 30,000 pounds, or “more than 13 tons”. Um, yes, exactly 15 tons _is_ more than 13 tons, but is there a specific reason you wanted to say “thirteen tons”?
I love this thing, I really, really do, but it simply isn't affordable or displayable. I was teetering on it, but seeing it in person at the Lego store caused me to realise just how big it was. I just don't have the space for this.
The least ‘dust collector’ set ever!
Much easier to wipe off the dust on this set compared to Eiffel Tower, Ninjago City, Millenium Falcon, etc.
Only better option to avoid dust would be a motorized helicopter
I love this set, but, unfortunately it is way too large for me to get it as I have nowhere to display it. Just on the prototype livery, I agree with what has been said that it would be better in BA or AF, but another point not mentioned yet is the prototypes had a different visor and most notably a much shorter tail cone, so a bit of modelers licence here. But as it looks better and you twist it to raise and lower the undercarriage not a big issue - it just looks stunning just like the real thing.
@LegoBoi69 said:
"One of the best afol sets in a long time. Picked up several as these will go for silly money one day"
Methinks you will be waiting a loooong time.
Every man and his dog will "buy a couple extra" because they will be "worth silly money" later.
and you get what is happening at the moment
"iconic sets" everyone wants to get and turn a profit.
in the past 10 years look at the UCS sets - has taken 9 years for some of them to even come close to doubling. I've got 10 year old parisian restaurants barely worth rrp because "green grocer" stories popped up when it came out.
depending on the site, and speaking from 15 years of reselling experience, you're likely to make 100-150 dollar more in the next 5 years.
not really a sound investment in my opinion
I've been you unforunately, good luck, just my 2 cents.
@MPlagborg said:
"Just built this yesterday, and the set is fantastic, but am I the only one with noticeable color differences in the white bricks on the wings?
In my set it seems as all the 1x1xX bricks have a slight yellow'ish hue to them that differs from the other white bricks."
Are you seriously asking "am I the only one"? Virtually every single larger Lego set has color difference issues, white bricks are especially prone to it. The question is only the level of the color differences, but in most cases it's definitely visible (this doesn't mean it has to bother someone).
@Mucktard:
One theory I’ve seen thrown out there is someone saying they buy sets that aren’t as popular, like the big Hoth set. If it doesn’t sell well, the release window will be shorter, supply will be much lower, and it won’t take as much demand to drive the prices higher.
I want a bust of Barry Manilow now.
@PurpleDave said:
" @Mucktard:
One theory I’ve seen thrown out there is someone saying they buy sets that aren’t as popular, like the big Hoth set. If it doesn’t sell well, the release window will be shorter, supply will be much lower, and it won’t take as much demand to drive the prices higher."
This. I only buy the one people gripe about (star wars) because it always goes up when no one can get it. You only need to see how this work by looking at eBay, so many bleh sets are worth so much more than "slave 1 UCS" because everyone bought one to sell.