It really is a nice set! Very creative. Was gonna crack a joke about this set missing from the Angry Birds movie theme when I saw words “Red Bird”.

@Lego_Lord_Mayorca said:
"The sets in Model Team pushed what you could do with ordinary bricks..."

And they did it with not-ordinary bricks! Look at all those slopes and wings and engines and tails and grilles and antennae and minifig accessories.

One up from random set on 21st Feb 2018 5590.

MACH II...not w/those jets (although the plane's 'build' approximates an F-15)...

I have 3 MT sets; would be nice to add this one and make it four. The best part for me is that even the stickered parts get re-used in each build, and they are not over multiple parts either!

@Lego_Lord_Mayorca said:
"And in some ways, Model Team will always stand above any Icons vehicle since the chrome parts vanished."

What happened to the chrome parts?

When i was a child i got this set along with 5590 just before my dark ages. I own these in almost new condition, with the box, the plastic inlay and instructions. The mach 2 Red bird rig i did build some years ago again but honestly didnt catch my hype i had before building it. i previously had build some of the creator expert cars and they look much much better then all of the model team range for display. In terms of playability model team wins for me but whos going to play with it? Not me.
I am selling both of them 5590 and 5591. Both with box, inlay, instrustions, no missing parts, and all stickers. (applied but great condition)
If someone is interestet, please let me know!

I bought 5590 some years ago because I've always wanted that set. Now I want this one as well.

I had the complete Model Team range including sealed extra sets. Sold them to a fellow collector in NZ.

Aw dang, yeah, these were the trophy-sets back in the day. These were the sets with the cool building-techniques, and the results were just so damned gorgeous.

I mean, don't get me wrong. The sets we can make today at this scale do generally look a lot better, but considering the limited pieces we had in the inventory at the time, I still think these sets were works of art.

I had 5550, and I kind of miss it. Maybe I can rebuild it, it's still very display-worthy.

@Binnekamp said:
"These weren't really my thing, but I can't help but love the Model Team range for how it TRULY defined the bounds of what could be done with lego at the time. Nowadays we get multiple new parts with every set that can approximate the curve of some specific make of a licensed car just a little bit better only to be used in only a handful of sets. Not that that's new and if anything newer specialized parts are at least generic unlike what we got 1997-2005. But to me it's far more impressive that they managed to make these models with your bog-standard parts!

Now if only these didn't have STAMPs..."

The STAMPs were a pain in the hole, yes. Not only that, but they tended to peel back quite easily. In the end I had to stick them back on using Sellotape, that's just embarassing.

I stand by my love for the Model Team-sets, but I am all but certain that my hatred for stickers stems at least partially from these experiences.

One of few themes I own every set of (It's probably is also one of the easiest do to this for).

This set is marred a bit, being the first (for me) that had odd-coloured bricks on the inside. When I saw that, I was like 'Wat?'

I'm kind of liking that B model more. I wonder how many pieces it doesn't use because it looks like it kind of uses them all, plus some extra tires.

Regarding STAMPs: There's a reason I never put the front license plate on 5510. The rear one doesn't quite fit on the 2x2 inverted slope brick it's attached to, but only overhangs it by a hair, so I was fine leaving it on there when disassembling the set. The front one, on the other hand, went across three stacked plates, so I would have had to leave the front bumper assembled. I also never bothered with the stripes on the sides. Interesting note: the B model also used the front plate sticker, but on different pieces. Although this is only depicted on 5510's box; the instructions didn't expect you to either peel the sticker off or pick one model and one model only. The fact that I live in a state that doesn't require front plates might have also influenced the decision to not use it.

This is an episode of Top Gear in the making

@StyleCounselor said:
" @HOBBES said:
"Back in those days (the 90s) there was a constant flow of lorries carrying jets through all parts of Europe and the America - most likely because it was deemed more economical/efficient to drive the plane to destination than to fly it. Unfortunately, this state of affair has changed and now, we hardly ever see 18 wheelers carrying jets. Sad... But do not despair, the traffic of semi carrying helicopters is still going on strong according to Lego designers. Loved the Model Team theme back then, still love it. I like the current Creator Mustang, and most of the others that followed. Now can we have a semi? potentially with the trailer? with maybe an helicopter on it? ;-)
5571 was the set that brought me back from my dark ages."

I grew up in a town with a huge Army base, NORAD, Space Command, a huge Air Force base, and the Air Force Academy. I have seen almost every type of military flying craft in the air. I have NEVER seen a truck carrying any of them. I did see a plane carry one of the Space Shuttles on its back.

I'm not trying to impune your experience. I just have a lot of wonder how that was ever a thing. Even fighters are quite wide. It would require a lot of traffic obstruction and deconstruction of the flying craft.

We did have lots of military convoys on the highways. I never saw them carrying a plane. Tanks and whatnot. Maybe a helicopter. But, no planes.

Thus, this set is a bizarre mystery to me. Trucks carrying planes! That's perverse! ;)"

I would assume that you are most certainly right. My post was meant to be extremely sarcastic. I'm a pilot myself and I could not fathom in what circumstances it could make sense to carry an aircraft by road instead of just flying it - only reason I can think of is if the said aircraft is badly damaged and cannot be repaired on site (or take off from that site). But from a toy making perspective, a lorry/semi with a big box in the back is boring; with a jet or an helicopter in a platform then it becomes a two-for-one toy. That is why we tend to see a lot of that in the Lego world - not so much in real life...

@SwingTop:
With the exception of The One Ring, they’ve stopped producing chrome parts due to the expense of the chroming process. The One Ring has only been produced in chrome-gold, so would require a new mold before they could change colors. Given how non-critical its connections are (mostly intended to fit over a minifig’s hand like a stud, or be gripped by the hand), it could take several more years before that mold is ready to be replaced.

@StyleCounselor:
There are trailers designed to haul planes, but the plane has to be designed to be trailerable. This typically means no more than two seats, and the wings have to either scissor back along the tail, or they have to be removable at the shoulder. In one instance that I found pics of, the entire frame between the cockpit and the tail assembly is exposed.

@MCLegoboy:
The dragster actually appears to use one less tire and two less wheels. I see six large wheels on the truck and four on the trailer, so that’s ten. I see four on the Jeep, two on the trailer, and four (dualies) on the dragster, for ten again. The front end of the dragster uses the rear landing gear from the plane. The front landing gear (wheel and tire) from the plane, and the tireless wheels used as nose gear on the trailer don’t appear anywhere that I can see on the B-model.

@HOBBES:
Again, keeping in mind the planes these were set up to haul are tiny compared to even a Piper Cub, one of the trailers I found an image of is just that: a plain white box on wheels. The rest all looked like repurposed boat trailers, so flat exposed frame, with spots for the landing gear to sit.

@PurpleDave said:
" @SwingTop:
With the exception of The One Ring, they’ve stopped producing chrome parts due to the expense of the chroming process. The One Ring has only been produced in chrome-gold, so would require a new mold before they could change colors. Given how non-critical its connections are (mostly intended to fit over a minifig’s hand like a stud, or be gripped by the hand), it could take several more years before that mold is ready to be replaced.

@StyleCounselor:
There are trailers designed to haul planes, but the plane has to be designed to be trailerable. This typically means no more than two seats, and the wings have to either scissor back along the tail, or they have to be removable at the shoulder. In one instance that I found pics of, the entire frame between the cockpit and the tail assembly is exposed.

@MCLegoboy:
The dragster actually appears to use one less tire and two less wheels. I see six large wheels on the truck and four on the trailer, so that’s ten. I see four on the Jeep, two on the trailer, and four (dualies) on the dragster, for ten again. The front end of the dragster uses the rear landing gear from the plane. The front landing gear (wheel and tire) from the plane, and the tireless wheels used as nose gear on the trailer don’t appear anywhere that I can see on the B-model.

@HOBBES:
Again, keeping in mind the planes these were set up to haul are tiny compared to even a Piper Cub, one of the trailers I found an image of is just that: a plain white box on wheels. The rest all looked like repurposed boat trailers, so flat exposed frame, with spots for the landing gear to sit."

Yes, I have seen these trailers; not used that often for aeroplanes but used fairly often for gliders (which makes a lot more sense). Never seen a jet on any. Many jets have folding wings (as a navy requirement) but I do not think there are any that have removable wings.

@PurpleDave said:
" @MCLegoboy :
The dragster actually appears to use one less tire and two less wheels. I see six large wheels on the truck and four on the trailer, so that’s ten. I see four on the Jeep, two on the trailer, and four (dualies) on the dragster, for ten again. The front end of the dragster uses the rear landing gear from the plane. The front landing gear (wheel and tire) from the plane, and the tireless wheels used as nose gear on the trailer don’t appear anywhere that I can see on the B-model."
Who's counting! XD

@HOBBES:
It’s more wing-tips than whole wings, in the Navy. Even with them folded, anything post-WWII tends to be pretty beefy. All wings are removable, though. The fuselage lasts longer than wings in general, plus wings might get shot up and need to be replaced. I think my dad once told me about a large replacement wing having to be ferried in a C141A that his crew serviced. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s going to be an easy job. The bigger the plane, the bigger the wing, in most cases, so it might take a multi-ton hoist to safely remove and reinstall it. Fighter jets have all kinds of wiring run to the weapon pylons, so that would all have to be disconnected and reconnected (and tested to make sure you did it right). If the jet engine is mounted under the wing, that’s yet another challenge you have to deal with.

Yeah, the most likely reason to even attempt to trailer anything larger than one of these tiny single prop pleasure craft is if it’s physically incapable of getting airborne. Even then, unless it’s a recovered wreck, it might be easier to service it in place. One potential hurdle, there, is the airworthiness certificate. They mentioned on an episode of Flying Wild Alaska that one of their planes (a rather large one, that had a ramp under the tail like a C-130) had to make it to a specific airport by midnight so it could be issued a new airworthiness certificate before the old one expired.

@MCLegoboy:
Clearly not you, if you thought the B-model uses more wheels than the A-model.

It’s actually quite common to send aircraft by road or sea. All those Cessnas around the world have to get there from the factory somehow. The wings can be removed from the fuselage and the whole lot fits into a shipping container. There’s a stunt plane at a local airstrip near me right now called a Yak 110, which is two Yak 55s stuck together. It was shipped from the USA to Australia in two containers and reassembled at its destination.

Fighter jets are smaller than you think and even the fuselage of a twin engine jet is not much wider than a truck, so they’ll fit on most main roads once dismantled.

For larger aircraft a bit more work is required. The below link is a picture of an ex-RAAF Lockheed Orion (a bit smaller than a 737) being transported to the Queensland Air Museum. Large airframes are surprisingly modular - this aircraft is no longer airworthy but it was dismantled and transported in sections for the trip from its final landing to where it is now on display.

https://qldairmuseum.au/qam-content/aircraft/orion/A9-760-92.htm