Jet-X Continental DC-9-10 PICS!!!!

psalover · 11-16-2006, 02:42 PM

Here they are. The Jet-X Continental DC-9-10's. Another joint effert between Blue Box, and Jet-X, although Brian stated that the mould was already done. I hope that you take a lokk at it, and give your honest assesment of it.

Oh, and if someone could download my pics, and post them over at the Buzz, I couldn't do it(having problems), and Im sure they would appreciate it,Thanks.

And Thanks to Brian, and Jimmy for an awsome releases IMO.

M1968Q · 11-16-2006, 03:14 PM

The paint schemes look great. It is very difficult to judge a model by photos, but two things that jump out are the nose, which looks too "stubby" to me and the tail fin, which doesn't look wide enough and appears too tall. Again, it is very difficult to judge a model by pictures alone, so I might be wrong with my assessment.

This is being sold as a set, correct? I really like the 60's "Golden Jet" delivery scheme, and probably will try and find one of these separately.

Mike Q.

ba777-236 · 11-16-2006, 04:05 PM

My honest opinion?

Not bad... But as Mike pointed out, the tail and nose have issues.. More so the thin tail (which is a Netmodels trait) rather than the nose.

And being baby nines, shouldn't these have bare, silver wings?

DLmd11 · 11-16-2006, 04:15 PM

I also agree that the tail looks a little too tall.

I also wonder about the double wing exit windows on the delivery colors.

I did not know that the DC-9-10 had doubles. I thought they started with the DC-9-30's.

airParadigm.com · 11-16-2006, 04:21 PM

Someone painted MD-80 wings on this model. Tail is also way too tall and almost looks too narrow. As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words. Also what are the registrations on each of these models?

Jet-X · 11-16-2006, 04:30 PM

Room for improvement, and we know it - continually making adjustments

psalover · 11-16-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB

Someone painted MD-80 wings on this model. Tail is also way too tall and almost looks too narrow. As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words. Also what are the registrations on each of these models?

N526TX
N8962
N651TX
N38641
N8903

psalover · 11-16-2006, 05:23 PM

So I listened to what you guys said, and went back to take more pics. These pics compare the Aeroclassics baby nine with the Jet-X version. The tail of the Jet-X is on the right. Although it looks taller, the plane sits higher. What gives the appearence of a taller tail, is what faheem said. A narrow tail, which in this case is correct. The nose pics, although bad pics shows Aeroclassics on left, and Jet-X on right.

psalover · 11-16-2006, 05:32 PM

Here is the SMA version with the Jet-X version. The SMA version sit lower, but the tail is also the highth as the Jet-X, and Aeroclassics versions. Again, the tail is thinner, giving the appearance of being taller. The SMA is on the right on all the pics. Compare the noses.

continental · 11-16-2006, 06:07 PM

IIRC, this is a test run. So don't pooh-pooh the entire line...

Phantom · 11-16-2006, 06:14 PM

There really is lots of room for adjustments. Honestly, I think these look horrible, and remind me on the old Tucano mould with just a shortened fuselage. Are these DC-9-10 wings at all? The engravings and details look like a 9-20/30/40/50 wing, let alone the MD80 style printing - again reminds me on the old Tucanos/PHX/Net releases.
I've been waiting for a shorty 9 for years, but this could be the biggest disappointment for me this year. I'm afraid retooling all the issues on this means the same effort as creating an all new mould.

psalover · 11-16-2006, 06:33 PM

I think this is a good start though. Wings can be fixed very easy, and the tail other then being thin, is the right highth. As long as the fusalage is good to go, or good enough, thats the real issue.

As stated in this thread, This is a test run, and put out to be picked over to find out what people think. The adjustments will come.

KenB · 11-16-2006, 06:44 PM

The tail really looks off but I don't think the nose is that bad. It would be useful to see a comparison with the real thing. Also, why should one model sit so much higher than the other. Is one wrong or are they both somewhat off?

Phantom · 11-16-2006, 06:53 PM

Even more shocking is that these models have exactly the same (wrong) Continental font as the Netmodel CO 9's had it - even the wrong letter spacing in the titles is exactly the same.
A Netmodels/Tucano 9 (with a shortened fuselage) and the very same artwork as seen on the Nets, now JX?

psalover · 11-16-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phantom

Even more shocking is that these models have exactly the same (wrong) Continental font as the Netmodel CO 9's had it - even the wrong letter spacing in the titles is exactly the same.
A Netmodels/Tucano 9 (with a shortened fuselage) and the very same artwork as seen on the Nets, now JX?

Wrong Fonts? Im confussed. I have pretty much all the Meatball liveries out there, and there aer variations of the titles. I have, and have seen small titles as well as large titles. What is wrong with the fonts?

Phantom · 11-16-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psalover

Wrong Fonts? Im confussed. I have pretty much all the Meatball liveries out there, and there aer variations of the titles. I have, and have seen small titles as well as large titles. What is wrong with the fonts?

Everything. It's just the wrong font for the titles. This gets obvious when looking at the "O". While the JX/Netmodels/BBX Continental font has an almost round "O", the real thing is quite different. Other letters like the "C" or the "E" show noticeable differences as well.
Airliners.net Photos: Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32
Airliners.net Photos: Continental Airlines Douglas DC-9-14
And there's also the wrong spacing between the last three letters (T_AL).

Here's Netmodel's 9-30 (from eztoys (Diecast Model Airliners) - [HOME])

Steven De Lisser · 11-16-2006, 08:28 PM

I wouldnt buy these.

I hate being really hard on the JetX guys but this simply does make the grade for me. I know the market is flooded with crap, but theres also some truly exceptional stuff being produced right now. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, any of us could make these models but success comes down to money, skill and knowledge.

For the life of me I cant understand why people have such a hard time producing a good model with all the great reference material available these days for free - theres really no excuse.

Steven De Lisser

Mtrain005 · 11-16-2006, 08:41 PM

Test run?? What do you mean by test run?! What ever happened to the sampling phase? Isn't the sample used for the purpose of assessing the quality of the model BEFORE mass producing and releasing it to the public?? If the model is obviously flawed, then why even bother release it? Wouldn't that hurt the company's image?

Gavin Miller · 11-16-2006, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psalover

Here is the SMA version with the Jet-X version. The SMA is on the right on all the pics.

I think you meant the SMA is on the LEFT, not right. The one on the right is scrap metal IMHO. [ ... GROAN ... ]

Why did JetX get into bed with the "diecast Philistines"?

I LOVE my JetX (DW) Electras and JetX (DW) 727-100s and -200s.

Gavin

L-1011-Heavy · 11-16-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven De Lisser

I wouldnt buy these.
I hate being really hard on the JetX guys but this simply does make the grade for me. I know the market is flooded with crap, but theres also some truly exceptional stuff being produced right now. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, any of us could make these models but success comes down to money, skill and knowledge.
For the life of me I cant understand why people have such a hard time producing a good model with all the great reference material available these days for free - theres really no excuse.
Steven De Lisser

Truly. The Bar Has Been Set By SMA & Now The Even More Superior Aeroclassics.
Issues I See:
Fuselage MUCH Too Fat By At Least 4-5 MM (Represents 3 Feet In This Scale, So The Damed Model Is
As Fat As A 6 Abreast Boeing 707/DC-8 As Opposed To A 5 Abreast Pencil It's Supposed To Be. Even The SMA Were 1-MM Too Wide (At Least One Foot In Scale Difference)), Just Like The Aeroclasics Baby 9.
Nose Is Fat & Looks Like Tucrappo/Gemini
Has Net Style Tail, But Much Worse, Too Tall, Chord MUCH Too Narrow.
Engines Oversized, Not the Right Shape & Not Angled.
The Wings Are Another Issue.

Jet-X · 11-16-2006, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-1011-Heavy

Fuselage MUCH Too Fat By At Least 4-5 MM

And you can tell this by a photo

The apocalypse must truly be happening.

psalover · 11-16-2006, 10:39 PM

Well, I like them, and am glad to have them. Ya, so they are not perfect. Neither is any other plane out there in 1/400. Aeroclassics DC-4, Electra, and 727-200's, but I still own them. Gemini Jets DC-9's nose, And I do not know where to start with Dragon Wings. Continental MD's from Dragon/Jet-X Gold not true Gold, but I STILL LOVE THEM!!!

You guys just have to remember one things. They are JUST models.

psalover · 11-16-2006, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-1011-Heavy

Truly. The Bar Has Been Set By SMA & Now The Even More Superior Aeroclassics.
Issues I See:
Fuselage MUCH Too Fat By At Least 4-5 MM (Represents 3 Feet In This Scale, So The Damed Model Is
As Fat As A 6 Abreast Boeing 707/DC-8 As Opposed To A 5 Abreast Pencil It's Supposed To Be.

Actually your off. I used my digital callipers to measure the thickness of the fuselage, and although there is a varience between the Aeroclassics,SMA and the Jet-X DC-9's. The varience is not what you indicate here. I used the MM side of the digital Calipers, and this is what I came up with.

Aeroclassics DC-9-10 is 8.03mm thick
SMA DC-9-30 is 8.45mm thick
Jet-X DC-9-10 is 8.75mm thick

There is a difference, but all under 1mm.

gospodin · 11-16-2006, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psalover

Well, I like them, and am glad to have them. Ya, so they are not perfect. Neither is any other plane out there in 1/400. Aeroclassics DC-4, Electra, and 727-200's, but I still own them. Gemini Jets DC-9's nose, And I do not know where to start with Dragon Wings. Continental MD's from Dragon/Jet-X Gold not true Gold, but I STILL LOVE THEM!!!

You guys just have to remember one things. They are JUST models.

I have to agree here. Every model produced so far has its critics. Being less discriminating, I enjoy most of the models some of you ubercollectors turn your noses up at. I know they're flawed, but c'mon guys, these are little gems that couldn't even be produced twenty years ago, at least not with the amount of detail they have now. I also agree that some are much better than others, and by trial and error, I've sorted them out. But most of what you guys find wrong with these planes is nitpicking, and I don't think you're ever going to get a "perfect" copy in 1/400. Enjoy the hobby, look past some of the imperfections. I don't mean you have to accept crappy models, but I have enough imagination to see the real plane in the slightly imperfect models I collect.

L-1011-Heavy · 11-16-2006, 11:48 PM

They're Just Models When They'r Only 5 bucks, But When You Buy As Many As I Do, It's Over 20,000 Dollars. It's Only a Car.

You Can Say These Are Not Perfect, True, You Can Say Other Models Are Not Perfect, Either, True.
But There Are Stellar Models Out There That Are Near Perfect.
And You Cannot Compare A Not Perfect Model That Is Extremely Far Off The Mark To One That Is Only Slightly Off The Mark To Justify It's Existance.

Anyway, You Guys Are Taking This A Bit Too Seroiusly. I Was Just About To Post a Pic As A Joke, But I Think A Few Of You Guys Would See Red.

11-16-2006, 02:42 PM	#1
psalover Retro Junkie Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: IN HELL!!!! Gotta Get Out!!! Age: 37 Posts: 2,886	Jet-X Continental DC-9-10 PICS!!!! Here they are. The Jet-X Continental DC-9-10's. Another joint effert between Blue Box, and Jet-X, although Brian stated that the mould was already done. I hope that you take a lokk at it, and give your honest assesment of it. Oh, and if someone could download my pics, and post them over at the Buzz, I couldn't do it(having problems), and Im sure they would appreciate it,Thanks. And Thanks to Brian, and Jimmy for an awsome releases IMO. Last edited by psalover; 11-27-2006 at 06:48 PM.

11-16-2006, 04:05 PM	#3
ba777-236 400SH Co-Owner Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: About a 40 minute drive from Toronto, Canada Posts: 5,574	My honest opinion? Not bad... But as Mike pointed out, the tail and nose have issues.. More so the thin tail (which is a Netmodels trait) rather than the nose. And being baby nines, shouldn't these have bare, silver wings? __________________ Faheem Ahmed 400 Scale Hangar Maintained Websites

11-16-2006, 05:23 PM	#8
psalover Retro Junkie Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: IN HELL!!!! Gotta Get Out!!! Age: 37 Posts: 2,886	Dammit!!! So I listened to what you guys said, and went back to take more pics. These pics compare the Aeroclassics baby nine with the Jet-X version. The tail of the Jet-X is on the right. Although it looks taller, the plane sits higher. What gives the appearence of a taller tail, is what faheem said. A narrow tail, which in this case is correct. The nose pics, although bad pics shows Aeroclassics on left, and Jet-X on right. Last edited by psalover; 11-27-2006 at 06:48 PM.

11-16-2006, 05:32 PM	#9
psalover Retro Junkie Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: IN HELL!!!! Gotta Get Out!!! Age: 37 Posts: 2,886	Jet-X vs. SMA's DC-9-30 Here is the SMA version with the Jet-X version. The SMA version sit lower, but the tail is also the highth as the Jet-X, and Aeroclassics versions. Again, the tail is thinner, giving the appearance of being taller. The SMA is on the right on all the pics. Compare the noses. Last edited by psalover; 11-27-2006 at 06:48 PM.

11-16-2006, 06:07 PM	#10
continental I am come from Texas. Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: I might keep suffering all my life Posts: 1,910	IIRC, this is a test run. So don't pooh-pooh the entire line... __________________ Continental Apply suction to the object of your choice, n00bs.

11-16-2006, 03:14 PM	#2
M1968Q Senior Collector Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Meriden, CT Age: 40 Posts: 312	The paint schemes look great. It is very difficult to judge a model by photos, but two things that jump out are the nose, which looks too "stubby" to me and the tail fin, which doesn't look wide enough and appears too tall. Again, it is very difficult to judge a model by pictures alone, so I might be wrong with my assessment. This is being sold as a set, correct? I really like the 60's "Golden Jet" delivery scheme, and probably will try and find one of these separately. Mike Q.

11-16-2006, 04:15 PM	#4
DLmd11 Master Collector Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: suburb of chicago Posts: 724	I also agree that the tail looks a little too tall. I also wonder about the double wing exit windows on the delivery colors. I did not know that the DC-9-10 had doubles. I thought they started with the DC-9-30's.

11-16-2006, 04:21 PM	#5
airParadigm.com Got Koalas? Join Date: Jan 1999 Age: 22 Posts: 5,243	Someone painted MD-80 wings on this model. Tail is also way too tall and almost looks too narrow. As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words. Also what are the registrations on each of these models?

11-16-2006, 04:30 PM	#6
Jet-X E-Thug Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: West Coast Posts: 497	Room for improvement, and we know it - continually making adjustments

11-16-2006, 06:14 PM	#11
Phantom Insane Collector Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Bavaria Posts: 1,957	There really is lots of room for adjustments. Honestly, I think these look horrible, and remind me on the old Tucano mould with just a shortened fuselage. Are these DC-9-10 wings at all? The engravings and details look like a 9-20/30/40/50 wing, let alone the MD80 style printing - again reminds me on the old Tucanos/PHX/Net releases. I've been waiting for a shorty 9 for years, but this could be the biggest disappointment for me this year. I'm afraid retooling all the issues on this means the same effort as creating an all new mould.

11-16-2006, 06:33 PM	#12
psalover Retro Junkie Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: IN HELL!!!! Gotta Get Out!!! Age: 37 Posts: 2,886	I think this is a good start though. Wings can be fixed very easy, and the tail other then being thin, is the right highth. As long as the fusalage is good to go, or good enough, thats the real issue. As stated in this thread, This is a test run, and put out to be picked over to find out what people think. The adjustments will come.

11-16-2006, 06:44 PM	#13
KenB Insane Collector Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: Washington, D.C. USA Posts: 1,262	The tail really looks off but I don't think the nose is that bad. It would be useful to see a comparison with the real thing. Also, why should one model sit so much higher than the other. Is one wrong or are they both somewhat off?

11-16-2006, 06:53 PM	#14
Phantom Insane Collector Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Bavaria Posts: 1,957	Even more shocking is that these models have exactly the same (wrong) Continental font as the Netmodel CO 9's had it - even the wrong letter spacing in the titles is exactly the same. A Netmodels/Tucano 9 (with a shortened fuselage) and the very same artwork as seen on the Nets, now JX?

11-16-2006, 08:28 PM	#17
Steven De Lisser Master Collector Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 784	I wouldnt buy these. I hate being really hard on the JetX guys but this simply does make the grade for me. I know the market is flooded with crap, but theres also some truly exceptional stuff being produced right now. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, any of us could make these models but success comes down to money, skill and knowledge. For the life of me I cant understand why people have such a hard time producing a good model with all the great reference material available these days for free - theres really no excuse. Steven De Lisser

11-16-2006, 08:41 PM	#18
Mtrain005 Senior Collector Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NYC, NY Age: 30 Posts: 376	Test run?? What do you mean by test run?! What ever happened to the sampling phase? Isn't the sample used for the purpose of assessing the quality of the model BEFORE mass producing and releasing it to the public?? If the model is obviously flawed, then why even bother release it? Wouldn't that hurt the company's image? __________________

11-16-2006, 10:39 PM	#22
psalover Retro Junkie Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: IN HELL!!!! Gotta Get Out!!! Age: 37 Posts: 2,886	Well, I like them, and am glad to have them. Ya, so they are not perfect. Neither is any other plane out there in 1/400. Aeroclassics DC-4, Electra, and 727-200's, but I still own them. Gemini Jets DC-9's nose, And I do not know where to start with Dragon Wings. Continental MD's from Dragon/Jet-X Gold not true Gold, but I STILL LOVE THEM!!! You guys just have to remember one things. They are JUST models.

11-16-2006, 11:48 PM	#25
L-1011-Heavy The Heavy One Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada, Eh? Trijets & Landors 4 EVER Age: 45 Posts: 4,754	They're Just Models When They'r Only 5 bucks, But When You Buy As Many As I Do, It's Over 20,000 Dollars. It's Only a Car. You Can Say These Are Not Perfect, True, You Can Say Other Models Are Not Perfect, Either, True. But There Are Stellar Models Out There That Are Near Perfect. And You Cannot Compare A Not Perfect Model That Is Extremely Far Off The Mark To One That Is Only Slightly Off The Mark To Justify It's Existance. Anyway, You Guys Are Taking This A Bit Too Seroiusly. I Was Just About To Post a Pic As A Joke, But I Think A Few Of You Guys Would See Red. __________________ *The Heavy Armada* *"In The Absence Of Excellence, There Is Only Mediocrity."*