NEW RELEASE: 1:200 Inflight200 Northwest Airlines DC-9-51

airParadigm.com · 05-20-2006, 01:37 AM

DC-9-51

1:200

Country:United States of America

North America

IF951001

12748

2006

Units Produced 408

"2003s" Colors. With "KLM / Northwest" Logo.

W2

Box Code: NA

N769NC

2 JT8D-17(HK3)

Add to My Collection

Add to My Wish List

Model Photographs

Gordon Werner · 05-20-2006, 04:11 PM

I am incredibly dissappointed with this model

The nose is wrong ... as david Hingtgen pointed out elsewhere the forhead is too pronounced and the WTB fairing matches no DC-9 variant.

for $69.00 US these should be a LOT better

which sucks ... cause there are so many DC-9s that are worth getting (if made)

jjorgemiami · 05-21-2006, 12:52 AM

Looks like it took a hit on the forehead, and now haas a bump!

whalesa3d · 05-22-2006, 11:20 AM

The thrust reverser stangs are not canted as on real production aircraft. L1 door is too long, crease beam too low. Nose is too pointed. This model is a piece of dung. Should have stayed with the British original producer instead of cheaping out to China. Sorry, Jetstreams you get an F+ for this one.

Gordon Werner · 05-22-2006, 01:49 PM

Inflight

Please please please please please please please fix these moulds ...

I really want to be able to put some '9s next to all the 707s, DC-8s and 747s I already own from you guys.

whalesa3d · 05-22-2006, 02:33 PM

I honestly doubt they will fix the moulds Gordon. It costs a fortune to re-tool a mould.They would have to add metal to the cockpit crown skin area to reduce its size. No, the only thing they can do is make a better mould and fire the idiot that approved this one. Vote with your wallet, Don't buy.

David Hingtgen · 05-22-2006, 05:38 PM

I think the #1 issue is that the nose reminds me of a 727 more than any Douglas product.

jjorgemiami · 05-22-2006, 11:11 PM

I am very disappointed that Inflight200 seems to have stopped consulting the collectorate, so that together a better model can come to be, and more money in their pockets, everyone wins.

When they showed those white tail prototypes, we all chimmed on the pointy nose, but again, to me the worse fault of all, is the cockpit cabin roof line!

David Hingtgen · 05-22-2006, 11:18 PM

I think the point of showing the prototypes was to NOT act on input from the collectorate that they'd get...

Flying Ace · 05-22-2006, 11:31 PM

Can't blame Inflight for the lack of participation on DAC. Not too long ago, they were really getting excessively hammered by all of the nitpicking by some participants on this forum, despite their efforts to share information and accept feedback. Let's be honest, some collectors truly went overboard here and their comments were ridiculous, anal, and not constructive. Although I am not a member there, I do know that Inflight does partipiapte on occaision over on 400 SH.

As far as the DC-9 mould, it is not reflective of the Inflight 200 name. It became evident to me when those first photos were published of the all white mock-ups.

So let's all congratulate Inflight 200 on their first not-so-gratifying mould. It won't be the first time a model manufacturer missed the mark on a mould...probably won't be the last either.

David Hingtgen · 05-23-2006, 09:31 PM

I think several people (at least myself) were rather put off by the "Those REALLY look like CF6 engines, are you sure the final product will be correct?" comments, which were followed by numerous replies of "We are working very carefully with the factory and you can be assured the engines will be right".

And yet we still got UAL 744's with GE engines. 200 bucks is a LOT of money for wrong engines. Plus having the left side and right side of the plane not match---that's quite Tucano-ish IMHO. (We all remember the TC KLM 744)

Sure they changed quite a few things on the UAL 744, but to get the engines wrong is a deal-killer, and a big one. It's not some little 1mm stripe that's 2% too pale, it's the ENGINES. There's 4 of them, and they're big and highly visible. They fixed the little things but not the big ones--that kind of misses the point IMHO. Kind of like how Dragon corrected the fin-tip antenna on their F-15E, but still have the entire conformal tank wrong.

Flying Ace · 05-23-2006, 10:21 PM

Matbe so, but to start pontificating to expect a manufacturer to produce a model that is intended to retail for $69 and 1/200th the real thing to be able to incorporate sufficient detail to differentiate between a series -31 and -32 seems not only unrealistic, but obsessive and ludicrous...don't you think?

richie154 · 05-23-2006, 10:41 PM

David certainly thinks the details are worth having! I'd recomend never arguing against him on that.

David Hingtgen · 05-24-2006, 01:13 AM

Flying Ace--the WBF matches *NO* DC-9. Not the -10, 20, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 50, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 90, nor -95/717.

Did I expect them to tool 2 different ones for the -31 and -40? No.

Did I expect it to match ONE of the variants they were producing a mold for? Yes.

It would have been especially good/logical to do the one I suggested several times---the version used by the -33, -34, -40, and -50. You can do a LOT of planes with that one. Or just go for the -32 style, which by sheer number produced and number of paint schemes for it might have been the best choice for a mold. Any scheme you can think of or want, probably existed on a -31/32.

True it's a minor issue compared to the nose/cockpit, but it's there, showing that they apparently didn't look at any real DC-9 of any version. A DC-9-10's is exclusive to the series 10, but if they'd done that at least it'd match SOMETHING. The IF200 DC-9's looks kinda like a -50's if you shaved off half of the bottom and reshaped the main gear bays.

Flying Ace · 05-24-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hingtgen

Did I expect them to tool 2 different ones for the -31 and -40? No.

You did expect them to tool two different wings moulds though:

http://www.diecastaircraftforum.com/...055#post455055

whalesa3d · 05-24-2006, 11:34 AM

I am in total agreement with David. When I spend the kind of money I spend on this hobby, I want a detailed replica. Not something that "Kinda Looks Like" somthing. The in-flight DC-9's used to cost almost $200.00 and the attention to detail was breathtaking. Now that they have cheaped out for the Chinese crap you see what you get. A $69.00 piece of crap. Strong fax to follow!!!

David Hingtgen · 05-24-2006, 06:18 PM

Re: the post linked to. How is ANY of that a criticism? They didn't even exist yet! I was ASKING QUESTIONS. The sort of questions that would hopefully lead them to investigate/research some of the differences among the planes.

PS--you know, painting the belly right could help a LOT and could make it look decently close to a -31/32. Which is part of why I asked the "grey paint" question. It all went together.

UAA319 · 05-24-2006, 10:05 PM

IIRC Inflight encouraged input from the collectors re: the United 747 and David gave them more than enough information to produce an excellent model, in the least points to think about. I don't think David nor anyone was expecting them to act on all his information but if only they had acted on the important issues it would have been a remarkable model. Really what is the point in producing a model with intricate detail such as antenna, vents etc and than put the wrong engines on it, one of the most noticeable details. This is just my opinion but I feel Inflight don't have a mould for the PW engine for the 747-400 and went ahead with the United 747 with the wrong engines knowing they were wrong anyway.

As far as the new DC-9's go IMHO it's a fantasy aircraft. For me it's just missing those finer details that make it a DC-9. Also IIRC wasn't it Inflight themselves that said the new DC-9's were going to be an improvement over the Limited Edition models going as far as to say it wasn’t going to have the errors that the Limited Edition DC-9 had. I had directly heard it from the horse’s mouth that the first DC-9 in the new mould was going to be a NWA in the 'Bowling Shoe' livery. I was really disappointed when it was released in the new livery, but I can now see why, because if you were to apply the 'Bowling Shoe' livery to this mould it would really highlight that the centre crease line and strakes (correct term + spelling ???) are too low as others have already mentioned. I won’t be picking any of these up and have already cancelled my pre-orders for the 3 models I wanted.

funbird · 05-25-2006, 01:25 AM

I'm assuming moving production to China produced quite a few headaches for IF200, one of which was quality control: from wrong fonts to moulds being off.
Getting the mould right takes patience and money. However if you're spending thousands for a mould I would be in touch with the mould maker every day making sure it looked right.

JIMBO1 · 05-25-2006, 06:45 AM

question anyone..where were the inflight 200 produced prior to moving production to China?
regards
Jim b

whalesa3d · 05-25-2006, 09:17 AM

They were supposedly produced in England. I was told that the limited edition IF models were also hand finished. They were some beautiful models.The reason they moved the operation to China was to lower cost and speed up production.

martin Beacom · 05-25-2006, 12:13 PM

Inflight LE Were produced in England by myself for Inflight. Also the LE's that were put onto chinese castings. The LE aspect of Inflight are no more but continue as 27R models .Expensive they may be but it is nice to note that they are regarded as good models.
Martin

jjorgemiami · 05-25-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JIMBO1

question anyone..where were the inflight 200 produced prior to moving production to China?
regards
Jim b

Well, technically Inflight Models which had decals were produced in England, Inflight200s were never produced there, but were made in China and tampo printed. However, after Inflight200 began, the Inflight line became known as Inflight LE, and then had a mixture of British produced models and some of the Inflight200 Chinese produced models, modified in England with decals of differrent airline colors, in limited edition runs.

To the best of my knowledge this is how it has taken place.

Martin do you have a new site for 27R Models? What's the URL?

martin Beacom · 05-25-2006, 03:01 PM

Hi jjorgemiami,
That is the simplistic history of Inflight LE models. The 27R models are available through Aviation Retail Direct . A new Small World web site should be live in the next month, this will be linked from ARD's web site it is possible that some of the 27r range will become Small World models this is under discussion at the moment. I will post a message when these things are resolved.
Martin

Gordon Werner · 05-25-2006, 07:50 PM

One of my favorite models is my Ace Freighters L049 by Small World Models ...

05-21-2006, 12:52 AM	#3
jjorgemiami Complete Wacko! Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: MIAMI Age: 47 Posts: 5,870	Looks like it took a hit on the forehead, and now haas a bump! __________________ Fly United Airlines we are R I S I N G !

05-22-2006, 05:38 PM	#7
David Hingtgen Complete Wacko! Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Iowa Posts: 4,055	I think the #1 issue is that the nose reminds me of a 727 more than any Douglas product. __________________ *We need more TWA twin-stripes!*

05-22-2006, 11:11 PM	#8
jjorgemiami Complete Wacko! Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: MIAMI Age: 47 Posts: 5,870	I am very disappointed that Inflight200 seems to have stopped consulting the collectorate, so that together a better model can come to be, and more money in their pockets, everyone wins. When they showed those white tail prototypes, we all chimmed on the pointy nose, but again, to me the worse fault of all, is the cockpit cabin roof line! __________________ Fly United Airlines we are R I S I N G ! Last edited by jjorgemiami; 05-23-2006 at 12:31 AM.

05-22-2006, 11:18 PM	#9
David Hingtgen Complete Wacko! Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Iowa Posts: 4,055	I think the point of showing the prototypes was to NOT act on input from the collectorate that they'd get... __________________ *We need more TWA twin-stripes!*

05-22-2006, 11:31 PM	#10
Flying Ace Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,150	Two sides of the coin! Can't blame Inflight for the lack of participation on DAC. Not too long ago, they were really getting excessively hammered by all of the nitpicking by some participants on this forum, despite their efforts to share information and accept feedback. Let's be honest, some collectors truly went overboard here and their comments were ridiculous, anal, and not constructive. Although I am not a member there, I do know that Inflight does partipiapte on occaision over on 400 SH. As far as the DC-9 mould, it is not reflective of the Inflight 200 name. It became evident to me when those first photos were published of the all white mock-ups. So let's all congratulate Inflight 200 on their first not-so-gratifying mould. It won't be the first time a model manufacturer missed the mark on a mould...probably won't be the last either. Last edited by Flying Ace; 05-22-2006 at 11:39 PM.

05-20-2006, 04:11 PM	#2
Gordon Werner Insane Collector Join Date: Jun 1998 Location: Somewhere else Age: 38 Posts: 2,059	I am incredibly dissappointed with this model The nose is wrong ... as david Hingtgen pointed out elsewhere the forhead is too pronounced and the WTB fairing matches no DC-9 variant. for $69.00 US these should be a LOT better which sucks ... cause there are so many DC-9s that are worth getting (if made)

05-22-2006, 11:20 AM	#4
whalesa3d Junior Collector Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 14	The thrust reverser stangs are not canted as on real production aircraft. L1 door is too long, crease beam too low. Nose is too pointed. This model is a piece of dung. Should have stayed with the British original producer instead of cheaping out to China. Sorry, Jetstreams you get an F+ for this one.

05-22-2006, 01:49 PM	#5
Gordon Werner Insane Collector Join Date: Jun 1998 Location: Somewhere else Age: 38 Posts: 2,059	Inflight Please please please please please please please fix these moulds ... I really want to be able to put some '9s next to all the 707s, DC-8s and 747s I already own from you guys.

05-22-2006, 02:33 PM	#6
whalesa3d Junior Collector Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 14	I honestly doubt they will fix the moulds Gordon. It costs a fortune to re-tool a mould.They would have to add metal to the cockpit crown skin area to reduce its size. No, the only thing they can do is make a better mould and fire the idiot that approved this one. Vote with your wallet, Don't buy.

05-23-2006, 09:31 PM	#11
David Hingtgen Complete Wacko! Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Iowa Posts: 4,055	I think several people (at least myself) were rather put off by the "Those REALLY look like CF6 engines, are you sure the final product will be correct?" comments, which were followed by numerous replies of "We are working very carefully with the factory and you can be assured the engines will be right". And yet we still got UAL 744's with GE engines. 200 bucks is a LOT of money for wrong engines. Plus having the left side and right side of the plane not match---that's quite Tucano-ish IMHO. (We all remember the TC KLM 744) Sure they changed quite a few things on the UAL 744, but to get the engines wrong is a deal-killer, and a big one. It's not some little 1mm stripe that's 2% too pale, it's the ENGINES. There's 4 of them, and they're big and highly visible. They fixed the little things but not the big ones--that kind of misses the point IMHO. Kind of like how Dragon corrected the fin-tip antenna on their F-15E, but still have the entire conformal tank wrong. __________________ *We need more TWA twin-stripes!*

05-23-2006, 10:21 PM	#12
Flying Ace Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,150	Matbe so, but to start pontificating to expect a manufacturer to produce a model that is intended to retail for $69 and 1/200th the real thing to be able to incorporate sufficient detail to differentiate between a series -31 and -32 seems not only unrealistic, but obsessive and ludicrous...don't you think?

05-23-2006, 10:41 PM	#13
richie154 Retired Hookah Master Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Valley of Heart's Delight Age: 24 Posts: 3,719	David certainly thinks the details are worth having! I'd recomend never arguing against him on that. __________________ The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villian with a smiling cheek, a goodly apple rotten at the heart. Oh, what a goodly outside falsehood hath! Private Pilot: 10/20/2005 Private Multi Engine: 05/09/2008 The more things change, the more Mesa still sucks.

05-24-2006, 01:13 AM	#14
David Hingtgen Complete Wacko! Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Iowa Posts: 4,055	Flying Ace--the WBF matches NO DC-9. Not the -10, 20, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 50, 81, 82, 83, 87, 88, 90, nor -95/717. Did I expect them to tool 2 different ones for the -31 and -40? No. Did I expect it to match ONE of the variants they were producing a mold for? Yes. It would have been especially good/logical to do the one I suggested several times---the version used by the -33, -34, -40, and -50. You can do a LOT of planes with that one. Or just go for the -32 style, which by sheer number produced and number of paint schemes for it might have been the best choice for a mold. Any scheme you can think of or want, probably existed on a -31/32. True it's a minor issue compared to the nose/cockpit, but it's there, showing that they apparently didn't look at any real DC-9 of any version. A DC-9-10's is exclusive to the series 10, but if they'd done that at least it'd match SOMETHING. The IF200 DC-9's looks kinda like a -50's if you shaved off half of the bottom and reshaped the main gear bays. __________________ *We need more TWA twin-stripes!* Last edited by David Hingtgen; 05-24-2006 at 01:17 AM.

05-24-2006, 11:34 AM	#16
whalesa3d Junior Collector Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 14	I am in total agreement with David. When I spend the kind of money I spend on this hobby, I want a detailed replica. Not something that "Kinda Looks Like" somthing. The in-flight DC-9's used to cost almost $200.00 and the attention to detail was breathtaking. Now that they have cheaped out for the Chinese crap you see what you get. A $69.00 piece of crap. Strong fax to follow!!!

05-24-2006, 06:18 PM	#17
David Hingtgen Complete Wacko! Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Iowa Posts: 4,055	Re: the post linked to. How is ANY of that a criticism? They didn't even exist yet! I was ASKING QUESTIONS. The sort of questions that would hopefully lead them to investigate/research some of the differences among the planes. PS--you know, painting the belly right could help a LOT and could make it look decently close to a -31/32. Which is part of why I asked the "grey paint" question. It all went together. __________________ *We need more TWA twin-stripes!* Last edited by David Hingtgen; 05-24-2006 at 06:21 PM.

05-24-2006, 10:05 PM	#18
UAA319 Collector Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 71	In David's defense IIRC Inflight encouraged input from the collectors re: the United 747 and David gave them more than enough information to produce an excellent model, in the least points to think about. I don't think David nor anyone was expecting them to act on all his information but if only they had acted on the important issues it would have been a remarkable model. Really what is the point in producing a model with intricate detail such as antenna, vents etc and than put the wrong engines on it, one of the most noticeable details. This is just my opinion but I feel Inflight don't have a mould for the PW engine for the 747-400 and went ahead with the United 747 with the wrong engines knowing they were wrong anyway. As far as the new DC-9's go IMHO it's a fantasy aircraft. For me it's just missing those finer details that make it a DC-9. Also IIRC wasn't it Inflight themselves that said the new DC-9's were going to be an improvement over the Limited Edition models going as far as to say it wasn’t going to have the errors that the Limited Edition DC-9 had. I had directly heard it from the horse’s mouth that the first DC-9 in the new mould was going to be a NWA in the 'Bowling Shoe' livery. I was really disappointed when it was released in the new livery, but I can now see why, because if you were to apply the 'Bowling Shoe' livery to this mould it would really highlight that the centre crease line and strakes (correct term + spelling ???) are too low as others have already mentioned. I won’t be picking any of these up and have already cancelled my pre-orders for the 3 models I wanted.

05-25-2006, 01:25 AM	#19
funbird Master Collector Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: north florida Age: 41 Posts: 527	I'm assuming moving production to China produced quite a few headaches for IF200, one of which was quality control: from wrong fonts to moulds being off. Getting the mould right takes patience and money. However if you're spending thousands for a mould I would be in touch with the mould maker every day making sure it looked right.

05-25-2006, 06:45 AM	#20
JIMBO1 obsessed collector Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: SURREY,ENGLAND Posts: 122	question anyone..where were the inflight 200 produced prior to moving production to China? regards Jim b __________________ mad and bad!

05-25-2006, 09:17 AM	#21
whalesa3d Junior Collector Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 14	They were supposedly produced in England. I was told that the limited edition IF models were also hand finished. They were some beautiful models.The reason they moved the operation to China was to lower cost and speed up production.

05-25-2006, 12:13 PM	#22
martin Beacom Junior Collector Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: england Posts: 30	Inflight LE Models Inflight LE Were produced in England by myself for Inflight. Also the LE's that were put onto chinese castings. The LE aspect of Inflight are no more but continue as 27R models .Expensive they may be but it is nice to note that they are regarded as good models. Martin __________________ embee

05-25-2006, 03:01 PM	#24
martin Beacom Junior Collector Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: england Posts: 30	Hi jjorgemiami, That is the simplistic history of Inflight LE models. The 27R models are available through Aviation Retail Direct . A new Small World web site should be live in the next month, this will be linked from ARD's web site it is possible that some of the 27r range will become Small World models this is under discussion at the moment. I will post a message when these things are resolved. Martin __________________ embee Last edited by martin Beacom; 05-25-2006 at 03:25 PM.

05-25-2006, 07:50 PM	#25
Gordon Werner Insane Collector Join Date: Jun 1998 Location: Somewhere else Age: 38 Posts: 2,059	One of my favorite models is my Ace Freighters L049 by Small World Models ...