I agree! Cheatline too high, especially at the rear where it meets the horizontal stabilizer - and look at that crumby nose-gear door, so typical for the 707-400... Is that plastic??? Also note the escape-routes on the wings. They didn't exist when Lufthansa operated this aircraft... A real shame!
__________________
View my Lufthansa model-collection at To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .
I agree! Cheatline too high, especially at the rear where it meets the horizontal stabilizer - and look at that crumby nose-gear door, so typical for the 707-400... Is that plastic??? Also note the escape-routes on the wings. They didn't exist when Lufthansa operated this aircraft... A real shame!
Yep, a missed opportunity for something great.
Im hoping the tidying up of the gear door and deletion of the exit markings follow on future releases - though no consolation to those who had the LH on order.
On IF200s website, the BOAC sample is even showing wing exit paths!!
The mind boggles - so much effort and research has gone into the CV880, and yet they can't pump out an accurate 707-430 (other than those Conways that look great by the way)!!
And don't get me started on the 731s engine pylons!!
Just for comparison: The original and the model... This is nowhere near the real thing! We definetely need a completely new 707 mould for the 300 and 400 series!
__________________
View my Lufthansa model-collection at To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .
at least they FINALLY managed to give the 707 a straight cheatline.
11 year old mould, well what did you expect? a whole new one...? - what looks a little crude is the way they attached the fuselage stab - they could have at least inserted it into the fuselage to make it more pleqasing to the eye than it seams this way.
i predict IF200 uses the same mould for the BEA -430.
__________________ Please NG Models, consider these for both 1:400 and 1:200: B707-320B/321, B727-200, MD-81/82/83
They totally cheated with the wing trailing edge near the wing root and also the left wingtip, which should be squared off instead of rounded off like a -320B.
This model has essentially the same wing trailing edge flap config and profile as a -320B, with the exception of the curved area where it meets the wing/body fairing. The trailing edge of the inboard main flap should run parallel to the edge of the flap that meets the aft part of the wing box. Instead, we have the trapezoidal shape of the -320B series flap. They thought they could fool us by simply adding the curved, kinked portion of the inner-most flap section where the -320B section meets the fairing at a perfect right angle.
I'm not so disappointed by the wing escape paths. They would have been present on this LH 707 as it was operating in the mid-late 70s.
at least they FINALLY managed to give the 707 a straight cheatline.
I'm still searching for the "straight cheatline". Looks messed up like all the other recent 707 releases so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by European Collector
what looks a little crude is the way they attached the fuselage stab - they could have at least inserted it into the fuselage to make it more pleqasing to the eye than it seams this way.
You have a valid point there. I agree on that. Looking bad the way they decided to attach it.
Nice to see another classic jetliner being made in 1/200.
But I wonder why on earth they couldn't have done both wingtips with the same profile (i.e. straight like the left one - otherwise nice to see the second HF aerial added on the wing, a feature typical of the '400 series).
Engine sound supressors should be painted in black for more realism.
Can't wait to see a Varig '441 being released in delivery cs, but please, correct the wingtip on the right wing.
We have an HF antenna on the right wingtip, it's fine, but if the right wingtip seems to belong to a B 707 400 or 320, I'm afraid that the left one belongs to a B 707 320 B or C.
Clearly, the left wing has the curved low drag wingtip (320 B or C) and the right one has the earlier blunt one (400 or 320).
One more thing, the wing planform, what we see from above.
This wing belongs to a 320 B or C.
It would be interesting to have two models, 400 and 320 B or C, seen from above, side by side.
If they have the same wing planform, THIS B 707 IS WRONG.
And I'm sure it is wrong.
We must remember that the 400 and the 320 have the same wing.
I attach a document showing the difference between a 400 (or 320) and a 320 B or C.
Look at the trailing edge between the fuselage and the engines 2 and 3.
The 400 doesn't have this extended chord, the chord being the distance between the leading edge and the trailing edge.
The escape way over the wings, I'm not sure, it depends when this plane was withdrawn from service.
Jean Pierre.
Last edited by AIR FRANCE 340; 07-24-2014 at 03:35 AM.
We have an HF antenna on the right wingtip, it's fine, but if the right wingtip seems to belong to a B 707 400 or 320, I'm afraid that the left one belongs to a B 707 320 B or C.
Clearly, the left wing has the curved low drag wingtip (320 B or C) and the right one has the earlier blunt one (400 or 320).
One more thing, the wing planform, what we see from above.
This wing belongs to a 320 B or C.
It would be interesting to have two models, 400 and 320 B or C, seen from above, side by side.
If they have the same wing planform, THIS B 707 IS WRONG.
And I'm sure it is wrong.
We must remember that the 400 and the 320 have the same wing.
I attach a document showing the difference between a 400 (or 320) and a 320 B or C.
Look at the trailing edge between the fuselage and the engines 2 and 3.
The 400 doesn't have this extended chord, the chord being the distance between the leading edge and the trailing edge.
The escape way over the wings, I'm not sure, it depends when this plane was withdrawn from service.
Jean Pierre.
You are completely and totally correct. See my above post as well.
The cockpit is too high making all manufacturers placing the cabin windows and doors too high.
Interesting enough, the indentation across the length of the fuselage indicates where the floor line is, yet the doors are always placed too high in relation to this line.
The worse I have ever seen is the MSA 707, those doors and windows were ridiculously high, at least on the photos that I have seen.
I am very excited to see a new Lufthansa release with that sorely missing livery. I'm equally excited to see that glorious polished belly. At first glance, I fell in love with this 707, but after reading the comments about its inaccuracies, I'm less enthusiastic. Though they're not deal-killers by any means and I would be happy to have it in my hangar. I was under the impression that BBOX was one of the elite line of models out there. It is odd to see such discrepancies pass by QC unchecked. I am no expert when it comes to the 707, but did the actual aircraft have two different kinds of wingtips? And what is with that Fisher-Price-looking nose gear? (no offense to Fisher-Price) Let's just hope like someone had said that the model goes through its teething issues and BBOX fine-tunes it.
It was obviously a lazy attempt to placate the needs of retro collectors and fill the demand for early 707s. But clearly a half-baked attempt at doing so. Truly unfortunate. Don't think I can write any checks for these 707s.
Unfortunate indeed. If they just put some effort into it as was done with the stunning CV880, this would be a money-maker all day. Surely the 707 is a much more well known aircraft and is highly sought after. I so want to have a 707 in my collection and was hoping that these new models would show us the kind of potential these manufacturers have.
No offence - but you must be joking after all the discussion in this thread...
__________________
View my Lufthansa model-collection at To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .
For those who would like to have a better understanding of the different wings used on all the B 707 variants, please go to the thread related to the BOAC B 707 436, the post sent by EGPFGLA is excellent.
Is it a shame to say that dispite the flaws on both LH and BOAC 707's I will buy them anyway??
I just love the 707 so I will take them as they are..Almost no madel is perfect and I am very glad that manufacturers take the effort to bring these classics back to life in 1/200..
The LH 707 release seems to be very popular. Sold out in just one day at aviation megastore! I am glad that I had mine on pre order, just as the BOAC..
The LH 707 release seems to be very popular. Sold out in just one day at aviation megastore!
That's just what I thought would happen. These model-manufacturers can release what they want - some collectors will buy anything... This is absolutely hilarious after all the flaws that have been discussed in this forum!
Now let me think: How about a new 727-mould with two-underwing engines? And surely some forum-members wouldn't mind an A340 without winglets... I mean who needs them? Oh yes, and a Concorde with a delta-wing on one side and a normal wing on the other should also find some dedicated followers around here, I bet!
__________________
View my Lufthansa model-collection at To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .
That's just what I thought would happen. These model-manufacturers can release what they want - some collectors will buy anything... This is absolutely hilarious after all the flaws that have been discussed in this forum!
Now let me think: How about a new 727-mould with two-underwing engines? And surely some forum-members wouldn't mind an A340 without winglets... I mean who needs them? Oh yes, and a Concorde with a delta-wing on one side and a normal wing on the other should also find some dedicated followers around here, I bet!
Not necessary collectors bought the models,especially DAC members
There are thousands of people out there that have millions of reasons to buy the model as they may related with LH employee ,relatives that have connection with the aircraft and many more reasons.......
Modestos
__________________
My collection: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That's just what I thought would happen. These model-manufacturers can release what they want - some collectors will buy anything... This is absolutely hilarious after all the flaws that have been discussed in this forum!
Now let me think: How about a new 727-mould with two-underwing engines? And surely some forum-members wouldn't mind an A340 without winglets... I mean who needs them? Oh yes, and a Concorde with a delta-wing on one side and a normal wing on the other should also find some dedicated followers around here, I bet!
Agreed. Accuracy has always been a selling point of this class of diecast model product. If you are selling accuracy, then what you are selling better live up to your marketing promise.
Those of us who frequently take issue with the level of accuracy being delivered to the market are often the target of accusations that we expect absolute perfection. That is far from the case. My personal beefs are things like obvious structural shortcomings of the model (such as the flaws we are discussing in this thread about the 707-320/420 mold), the omission of a particularly noteworthy element of a color scheme (the absence of white passenger window frames on Braniff solid Girard 1965-1971 schemes comes to mind), the use of a totally incorrect font for a title or other component of a scheme (the Clipper title printing on the IF200 Pan Am 747-121 delivery scheme comes to mind), the presence of wing exit paths where none should be applied or vice versa (the LH 707-330B in the 1967 scheme further up this thread comes to mind) and things like that.
It is totally reasonable for me, as a repeat customer who is paying $100 and up for these models to hold manufacturers accountable for their laziness, carelessness or whatever other reason they make their mistakes. For them not to present a prototype in a forum like this for review/inspection/feedback from the many members here who are best qualified to assess and help correct omissions, mistakes or other inaccuracies is really nothing more than ego on the part of manufacturers -- I can really arrive at no other conclusion.
That said, I cannot justify ever spending money on any version of this 707-320/420 mold. And that's a big disappointment -- not just for me, but also for the manufacturers and distributors, who will never be sharing the $1000 or so dollars I would have otherwise chosen to spend over the coming years on Pan Am, TWA, LH, BOAC, AF and other versions of these models.
This model is already sold out at many retailers. As long as people buy their models, manufacturers will continue to produce the same kind of model. And people will continue to buy them, including me. I have the LH model on pre-order. Because there isn't anything better available.
If the model is bad enough, people won't buy it. Hobby Master A310 is an example. They sold some, but not as many as if the mold was good.
If someone makes a better model, people will probably buy that one instead.
It's called 'free market capitolism'. Like it or not, that is the way it works. And no amount of whining or complaining about the models or your fellow DaC members will change that.
Those of us who frequently take issue with the level of accuracy being delivered to the market are often the target of accusations that we expect absolute perfection. That is far from the case. My personal beefs are things like obvious structural shortcomings of the model (such as the flaws we are discussing in this thread about the 707-320/420 mold), the omission of a particularly noteworthy element of a color scheme (the absence of white passenger window frames on Braniff solid Girard 1965-1971 schemes comes to mind), the use of a totally incorrect font for a title or other component of a scheme (the Clipper title printing on the IF200 Pan Am 747-121 delivery scheme comes to mind), the presence of wing exit paths where none should be applied or vice versa (the LH 707-330B in the 1967 scheme further up this thread comes to mind) and things like that.
It is totally reasonable for me, as a repeat customer who is paying $100 and up for these models to hold manufacturers accountable for their laziness, carelessness or whatever other reason they make their mistakes. For them not to present a prototype in a forum like this for review/inspection/feedback from the many members here who are best qualified to assess and help correct omissions, mistakes or other inaccuracies is really nothing more than ego on the part of manufacturers
The reason they give for not presenting a prototype is the danger of their designs being copied.
As for corrections/ommisions it was a "Forum Expert" who submitted incorrect drawings for the 707.
Errors will be corrected for future issues
QUOTE=spear.m;1085970]Those of us who frequently take issue with the level of accuracy being delivered to the market are often the target of accusations that we expect absolute perfection. That is far from the case. My personal beefs are things like obvious structural shortcomings of the model (such as the flaws we are discussing in this thread about the 707-320/420 mold), the omission of a particularly noteworthy element of a color scheme (the absence of white passenger window frames on Braniff solid Girard 1965-1971 schemes comes to mind), the use of a totally incorrect font for a title or other component of a scheme (the Clipper title printing on the IF200 Pan Am 747-121 delivery scheme comes to mind), the presence of wing exit paths where none should be applied or vice versa (the LH 707-330B in the 1967 scheme further up this thread comes to mind) and things like that.
It is totally reasonable for me, as a repeat customer who is paying $100 and up for these models to hold manufacturers accountable for their laziness, carelessness or whatever other reason they make their mistakes. For them not to present a prototype in a forum like this for review/inspection/feedback from the many members here who are best qualified to assess and help correct omissions, mistakes or other inaccuracies is really nothing more than ego on the part of manufacturers
The reason they give for not presenting a prototype is the danger of their designs being copied.
As for corrections/ommisions it was a "Forum Expert" who submitted incorrect drawings for the 707.
Errors will be corrected for future issues[/QUOTE]
well I wonder who THAT was Malcolm????? but nice to see corrections will be made for future releases!!
__________________
I BUY WHAT I LIKE. AND LIKE WHAT I BUY!!!
Those of us who frequently take issue with the level of accuracy being delivered to the market are often the target of accusations that we expect absolute perfection. That is far from the case. My personal beefs are things like obvious structural shortcomings of the model (such as the flaws we are discussing in this thread about the 707-320/420 mold), the omission of a particularly noteworthy element of a color scheme (the absence of white passenger window frames on Braniff solid Girard 1965-1971 schemes comes to mind), the use of a totally incorrect font for a title or other component of a scheme (the Clipper title printing on the IF200 Pan Am 747-121 delivery scheme comes to mind), the presence of wing exit paths where none should be applied or vice versa (the LH 707-330B in the 1967 scheme further up this thread comes to mind) and things like that.
It is totally reasonable for me, as a repeat customer who is paying $100 and up for these models to hold manufacturers accountable for their laziness, carelessness or whatever other reason they make their mistakes. For them not to present a prototype in a forum like this for review/inspection/feedback from the many members here who are best qualified to assess and help correct omissions, mistakes or other inaccuracies is really nothing more than ego on the part of manufacturers
The reason they give for not presenting a prototype is the danger of their designs being copied.
As for corrections/ommisions it was a "Forum Expert" who submitted incorrect drawings for the 707.
Errors will be corrected for future issues
Excuse me if I am missing something, because someone will have to explain to me exactly how the risk of the model being copied decreases after its official release. I cannot see the logic in this defense.
And besides -- the manufacturers must be aware of who their "go to" members should be for consultation on certain moulds/airlines by now. We have been very vocal and unafraid to share our knowledge here once the mistakes are revealed. I can count at least four other members who post here who have as much detailed knowledge as I on the specifics of the many variants of 707s, for example. If IF200 were smart, they would be emailing us photos directly and asking us what we see that is problematic. I would be happy to do it for them at no extra charge...
The 707 is a particularly difficult animal. But there have been many books published that explain it all from the beginning.
Location: Hangzhou, Zhejiang; Peoples Republic of China
Posts: 7,259
Re: BBOX B707-430 Lufthansa & B777-300ER ANA 2020
Thanks for posting those photos; now I know NOT to buy it; what a wasted effort!!
__________________
Enjoying aviation from a "TSA-free Zone"!!
Take the money-grab & deceit out of our hobby, and bring back ethics and quality!!
Just say NO to Apollo400/Black Box/NG(No Good)/Panda Models/Junk-X/First Choice/C&C/IF400/Witty400/Magic/AV200/AK200/Flightline/Flightline200/Flightline400/Pegasus/Blue Angle/5stars & any BigBirds (real or fake)
so disappointed they didnt use the new gear on the ana 777-300 that tail and engine is just ready to be dragged down the runway...i dont understand why they don't give the same care and attention to the 777 release that they finally did to the new dc-10 releases by inflight...i dont have that many 777's in my fleet because of the landing gear issues...just the AA 2nd release, oneworld, klm 777-300 and delta 777-200...no more until quality control issues are addressed.
so disappointed they didnt use the new gear on the ana 777-300 that tail and engine is just ready to be dragged down the runway...i dont understand why they don't give the same care and attention to the 777 release that they finally did to the new dc-10 releases by inflight...i
This model was used with un-sold JC Wings ANA 777-300s that were made before this year.
BBOX B707-430 Lufthansa & B777-300ER ANA 2020
Brings back good memories of Frankfurt in the seventies.
Your Privacy Choices
