BEA red square Tridents AC v. GJ - the verdict!

Adrian · 06-16-2008, 09:13 AM

Which BEA red square Trident is best?

At last I finally got a Gemini Jets BEA red square Trident yesterday and was itching to compare it with the Aeroclassics version. Well here are my findings, should you be considering which to buy:

The bad points/errors:

Aeroclassics

1)'Trident Two' tail logo is wrong font for an operational aircraft. This is how its been incorrectly repainted on G-AVFB as preserved at Duxford.
2) Exhaust for centre engine is virtually non-existant, as it's too small.
3) Trident 2s had a white '2' on the nose so ground crew could recognise the variant when it was taxying towards them. Missed off on this model.
4) Extreme tip of nose should be MATT black (radar)
5) White Royal Mail crown missed off on passenger doors.
6) Wing fences incorrectly painted grey - were always natural metal.

Gemini Jets

1) Incorrect wing markings.
Ailerons and rear of wingtips incorrectly painted silver. ALL BEA Trident 2s were delivered with light grey bellies and entire rear of wing included ailerons painted LIGHT GREY (See photo - yes I know it's a Trident 1, but scheme is the same). Ailerons are too large making BEA wing logo too small. The red on the wingtip should be parallel to the fuselage.
2) Fuselage appears a little too 'fat'.
3) Two black rescue hatches omitted from top of roof.
4) APU 'pod' at base of fin too large.
5) Wing fences too large and wrong shape.
6) No wing root fairings - just a 90 degree join between wings/fuselage
7) Although the centre engine exhaust is better, there is a gap between the exhaust and body where you can see daylight through!! It appears to be a separate casting stuck on afterwards.

The Good points

Aeroclassics

1) Correct wing colours and markings. Rear of wings and ailerons correctly painted light grey and red on wingtip parallel with fuselage. Better size BEA wing logo.
2) Mould includes accurate wing roots with red wing paint correctly up to wing root fairing.
3) Correct shape and dimensions of wing fences.
4) Black rescue hatches depicted on top of roof.
5) Correct size/shape APU pod at base of fin.

Gemini Jets

1) Correct 'Trident Two' font on tail.
2) More detailed fuselage printing.
3) Wing fences correctly painted silver.
4) Closed undercarriage doors printed on belly.

The verdict

The more accurate model for shape and livery accuracy has got to be Aeroclassics. If Gemini had got their wing colours and markings right, then there would not be a lot to choose between them.

Okay, some of you couldn't care less and say I'm a 'nitpicker' but if two manufacturers are going to make exactly the same model - and registration - then it's good to compare and you need to know what the differences are and which manufacturer does his research!

Although I have listed several pluses and minuses, these are all fairly small points and at the end of the day I'm happy that on my Heathrow layout both AC and GJ Tridents will share parking space without enough differences to warrant excluding either. I am disappointed that GJ got the rear or the wing painting wrong, but the one BIG issue that really bugs me is that they BOTH chose to do this scheme on a Trident TWO and BOTH chose G-AVFB! Although GJ told me they didn't have time to change theirs after Aeroclassics announced theirs, I'm sure they could have at least changed the reg at the last minute - not a big deal! Also I would have liked at least ONE of these to be a Trident ONE in this scheme!!

Striving for perfection is one thing, achieving it is something else!

Junkcollector · 06-16-2008, 09:32 AM

Well done Adrian~ There are some subtle details that you've pointed out, that I would have missed. Taking the time with photos and critique is very helpful.
I think GJ may slightly modified the larger series three aux (fourth), engine exhaust nozzle faired over to look like the much smaller series 1 & 2 bullet apu fairing. The AC looks more correct.

Herb-

dboyd001 · 06-16-2008, 10:09 AM

..... Good analysis. One more point... The AC Trident wings seem thinner (and more correct) than the GJ Trident. I recall this from boarding CAAC Tridents way back when I lived in Hong Kong and thought how damned thin the wings looked.
..... Just an additional thought: if the tail font was rendered as the plane is in the museum, then it is correct for the museum plane if not an operational plane back in the day. Kind of a "wrong, but it's not really wrong".
Dave (Trident flyer, Trident lover)

aviator8883 · 06-16-2008, 11:06 AM

Great thread, thank you very much Adrian. I have the AC version and now I'm even happier with the choice I made.

The errors you point out appear to be more evident in the GJ version. The lack of printing detail on the AC fuselage, for example, is much harder to spot than the GJ's incorrect wing paint.

aViatOr

Adrian · 06-16-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dboyd001

..... Good analysis. One more point... The AC Trident wings seem thinner (and more correct) that the GJ Trident. I recall this from boarding CAAC Tridents way back when I lived in Hong Kong and thought how damned thin the wings looked.
..... Just an additional thought: if the tail font was rendered as the plane is in the museum, then it is correct for the museum plane if not an operational plane back in the day. Kind of a "wrong, but it's not really wrong".
Dave (Trident flyer, Trident lover)

Yes Dave, I would agree with you on both counts. Overall the AC version is better and I would like to see the few schemes left done on the AC mould - Kuwait Airways delivery scheme is priority!

centaur747 · 06-16-2008, 07:30 PM

I agree with everything but one thing is missing. The Aeroclassics is a third more expensive than the GJ. The accuracy comes with a price that some (younger) collectors may find to be a deterrent.

gospodin · 06-16-2008, 07:44 PM

I still find the tail engine intake too small and the wrong shape on the AC version. I like both GJ and AC takes on this particular model, and I'll continue to collect both. Also, aren't the AC nosewheels kind of tiny?

aklein707 · 06-16-2008, 08:14 PM

No, GJ wheels are kind of clunky!

dboyd001 · 06-17-2008, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklein707

No, GJ wheels are kind of clunky!

..... Yes Indeed! So everyone... do away with this "rolling gears" crap thank you very much.
Dave (definitely NOT a fan of rolling gears)

BuddyK · 06-17-2008, 11:46 AM

Adrian,

Thanks for the comparison / analysis.
Great stuff ... interesting .... this is what the hobby needs.

Buddy

Mystère · 06-17-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrian

I would like to see the few schemes left done on the AC mould - Kuwait Airways delivery scheme is priority!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dboyd001

..... Yes Indeed! So everyone... do away with this "rolling gears" crap thank you very much.
Dave (definitely NOT a fan of rolling gears)

100% agree with both of you !

Adrian · 06-17-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centaur747

I agree with everything but one thing is missing. The Aeroclassics is a third more expensive than the GJ. The accuracy comes with a price that some (younger) collectors may find to be a deterrent.

It depends where you buy yours from. Prices vary? There are plenty of AC and GJ BEA Tridents around so some sellers will reduce the price to sell them! Having said that, you pay for quality!

centaur747 · 06-18-2008, 07:34 PM

Quick check at one of my regular suppliers GJ 21.95 vs. AC 29.95 The price difference is significant, I would say.

My next shipment has 3 AC's so that tells you what I value, but, and it is a big but I will buy less and less this year. Buy three AC's and the difference in price is one GJ.