4 new moulds - am 100% sure they are MD11, 717, DC8 and C130 Hercules.
the DC-8 would be possible, as Herpa is about to release a 707-400, so maybe GJ200 will do a 8-55 or -61... borrowing the MD-11 is also a logical step - C-130? mould sharing or complete new mould? if it was borrowed by some other manufacturer i wouldn't count it as a new release.
__________________ Please NG Models, consider these for both 1:400 and 1:200: B707-320B/321, B727-200, MD-81/82/83
I'm surprised there are no "reliable" rumors or hints as to what these new molds are. You'd think if a totally new mold (such as an early DC-8 or DC-8-61) was imminent that rumors would be all over the place. Then again we have less than a week to wait and all will be known... The "collectorate" is getting antsy! We want answers!!!
I'm surprised there are no "reliable" rumors or hints as to what these new molds are. You'd think if a totally new mold (such as an early DC-8 or DC-8-61) was imminent that rumors would be all over the place. Then again we have less than a week to wait and all will be known... The "collectorate" is getting antsy! We want answers!!!
That's an excellent point. If one of them isn't a 747-8, I'm guessing these moulds are new to Gemini, but not necessarily being introduced by Gemini. But we'll see! Regardless, it's fun to speculate.
That's an excellent point. If one of them isn't a 747-8, I'm guessing these moulds are new to Gemini, but not necessarily being introduced by Gemini. But we'll see! Regardless, it's fun to speculate.
I agree - it's fun to speculate. It will be even better if the new molds are something people really want. I'm guessing the answer is yes, considering the costs associated with producing these little beauties!
"The new three new 1:200 moulds have two, three and four engines/turboprops/propellers etc. The 747 is not one of them."
This is from GeminiJets on their Facebook page.
Hmmm... For us retro prop lovers... F-27/FH-227, Electra, DC-6/7, Connies, Vickers Vanguard (not many users there), Canadair, or it could be one of the smaller props... The 3 or 4 engine hint sure seems to point to an MD-11 and maybe an A-346. Or maybe, just maybe, a DC-8-20/30/40/50 or 61 is in the works (he says praying to the diecast Gods). The wait is tough - more hints for us impatient ones
Uh, the F-27 wasn't around in the 50's. 1950's props would be Dc-6&7's, Strats, Connies, C-46's, Dc-3's, and maybe some Martin 404's (?) and Convair twins.
The F-27 was most definitely around in the 50s, so there's a chance of hopefully seeing one released. I've been patiently waiting for someone to make a great looking 1/200 F-27 mould. So many liveries I want to see on it. Especially one in particular.
Hmmm... For us retro prop lovers... F-27/FH-227, Electra, DC-6/7, Connies, Vickers Vanguard (not many users there), Canadair, or it could be one of the smaller props... The 3 or 4 engine hint sure seems to point to an MD-11 and maybe an A-346. Or maybe, just maybe, a DC-8-20/30/40/50 or 61 is in the works (he says praying to the diecast Gods). The wait is tough - more hints for us impatient ones
I'm definitely thinking the 3 engine one has to be the MD-11
The F-27 was most definitely around in the 50s, so there's a chance of hopefully seeing one released. I've been patiently waiting for someone to make a great looking 1/200 F-27 mould. So many liveries I want to see on it. Especially one in particular.
If it is the F-27, I hope the mold is capable of being altered to make an FH-227 in Mohawk colors. That along with the GJ200 CV-440 Mohawk release and the BAC-111 Mohawk release will finish my collection of late 1960s Mohawk aircraft that I flew or watched on a daily basis back at KROC... Now if a quality UAL Caravelle and a decent UAL 737-200 (delivery colors) comes out my KROC 1960s collection will be almost complete!
Hmmm... For us retro prop lovers... F-27/FH-227, Electra, DC-6/7, Connies, Vickers Vanguard (not many users there), Canadair, or it could be one of the smaller props... The 3 or 4 engine hint sure seems to point to an MD-11 and maybe an A-346. Or maybe, just maybe, a DC-8-20/30/40/50 or 61 is in the works (he says praying to the diecast Gods). The wait is tough - more hints for us impatient ones
Praying for the DC-8 too Hoping that the diecast Gods hear us!
__________________
Main collections: Lufthansa, KLM, Martinair, Transavia, Pan Am, Delta. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I would have to agree, I am sure they will come out with the FedEx MD-11 within the first few releases. Hopefully it will be the Panda Express FedEx Md-11!
Last edited by Citris717; 08-15-2014 at 10:54 AM.
Reason: Added details.
If we get a FedEx MD-11 and either a Delta or AirTran 717 its shaping up to be another expensive month for me. Especially if the Canadian release is the WestJet 737-700
If we get a FedEx MD-11 and either a Delta or AirTran 717 its shaping up to be another expensive month for me. Especially if the Canadian release is the WestJet 737-700
I agree if it is the FedEx MD-11 and the AirTran 717 are released then it will be an expensive month for me as well! I am excited to see a WestJet 737 come out, but I am hoping for the Disney one.
The F-27 was most definitely around in the 50s, so there's a chance of hopefully seeing one released. I've been patiently waiting for someone to make a great looking 1/200 F-27 mould. So many liveries I want to see on it. Especially one in particular.
The F-27 was a turboprop, or in the lexicon of the day, a jet prop.
If Gemini teases with a 'prop', and produces a F-27, their research person isn't doing their job. For all of you F-27 fanatics out there, you can hope Gemini screws up their terminology.
Gemini has a habit of releasing something in 1/400 first (usually), then in 1/200. My guess would be a Dc-6 or -7 personally. That would be a real 'prop' aircraft model. Or maybe a better version of the Connie. More likely, it may be the Martin 404. That was my gut feeling when I saw the 'prop' tease.
The F-27 was a turboprop, or in the lexicon of the day, a jet prop.
If Gemini teases with a 'prop', and produces a F-27, their research person isn't doing their job. For all of you F-27 fanatics out there, you can hope Gemini screws up their terminology.
Gemini has a habit of releasing something in 1/400 first (usually), then in 1/200. My guess would be a Dc-6 or -7 personally. That would be a real 'prop' aircraft model. Or maybe a better version of the Connie. More likely, it may be the Martin 404. That was my gut feeling when I saw the 'prop' tease.
You are the only person I have ever heard of that so rigidly differentiates between the generic term prop and the more specific turboprop or piston engined prop terms.
I have been flying aircraft for over 25 years and no one in the industry makes such a technical distinction in casual conversation.
A Prop is a prop (turbine and piston) and a Jet is a jet (turbojet or turbofan).
You are the only person I have ever heard of that so rigidly differentiates between the generic term prop and the more specific turboprop or piston engined prop terms.
I have been flying aircraft for over 25 years and no one in the industry makes such a technical distinction in casual conversation.
A Prop is a prop (turbine and piston) and a Jet is a jet (turbojet one turbofan).
Dan
Ok, so where does a Prop-Jet fit in? (Lockheed Electra et al)
You are the only person I have ever heard of that so rigidly differentiates between the generic term prop and the more specific turboprop or piston engined prop terms.
I have been flying aircraft for over 25 years and no one in the industry makes such a technical distinction in casual conversation.
A Prop is a prop (turbine and piston) and a Jet is a jet (turbojet one turbofan).
Dan
I've been flying for over 40 years, and believe me, there was a BIG difference in the 50's, 60's and 70's in the industry for aircraft companies and airlines in the United States. The term was important during the transition from piston engined aircraft to turbine powered aircraft and jets. The term designated the new aircraft as 'new and modern'. The distinction is still widely used in general aviation today.
Anything powered by a piston engine was called a 'prop plane'. Anything powered by a turbine engine with a propeller was called a 'Jet Prop' (mostly by airline marketing departments to link the planes to the new jets) or a Turboprop. This included Electras ( frequently were called 'Jet Props'), Twin Otters, F-27's, CL-44's, Viscounts ect. As pure jets became the norm for commercial carriers in the early to mid 1970's, the terms didn't have as much meaning and by 25 years ago would have been out of vogue.
Last edited by Charlie Alpha; 08-15-2014 at 04:23 PM.
I've been flying for over 40 years, and believe me, there was a BIG difference in the 50's, 60's and 70's in the industry for aircraft companies and airlines in the United States. The term was important during the transition from piston engined aircraft to turbine powered aircraft and jets. The term designated the new aircraft as 'new and modern'. The distinction is still widely used in general aviation today.
Anything powered by a piston engine was called a 'prop plane'. Anything powered by a turbine engine with a propeller was called a 'Jet Prop' (mostly by airline marketing departments to link the planes to the new jets) or a Turboprop. This included Electras ( frequently were called 'Jet Props'), Twin Otters, F-27's, CL-44's, Viscounts ect. As pure jets became the norm for commercial carriers in the early to mid 1970's, the terms didn't have as much meaning and by 25 years ago would have been out of vogue.
Time to "get with the times" then.
Nobody involved in Aviation under the age of 50 still talks that way.
You are the only person I have ever heard of that so rigidly differentiates between the generic term prop and the more specific turboprop or piston engined prop terms.
I have been flying aircraft for over 25 years and no one in the industry makes such a technical distinction in casual conversation.
A Prop is a prop (turbine and piston) and a Jet is a jet (turbojet or turbofan).
Dan
In ATC we differentiate pistons from turbos and not just because of performance.
Or maybe time to learn a little of the history of the industry that you have been involved in for the last 25 years.
Oh I know the history of my industry just fine.
Ten years of Military flying (C-130s) and fifteen so far of Commercial flying (B777s currently) gives me a fairly good background I would say.
In casual conversation one usually does not differentiate between props and turboprops - they're all props. This has been born out by Gemini's announcement that their prop is in fact turbine powered.
Please, oh please, I promise to eat all of my vegetables if we could get a Frontier 732 in the "bow and arrow" and Saul Bass schemes. A 727-100 or 727-200 "bow and arrow" would be just fine also.
Please, oh please, I promise to eat all of my vegetables if we could get a Frontier 732 in the "bow and arrow" and Saul Bass schemes. A 727-100 or 727-200 "bow and arrow" would be just fine also.
Please, oh please, I promise to eat all of my vegetables if we could get a Frontier 732 in the "bow and arrow" and Saul Bass schemes. A 727-100 or 727-200 "bow and arrow" would be just fine also.
Wonder what the chances of that 717 being a TWA are? How well did the 1/200 TW 727 sell? Just saying.
Or will we have a Delta 717?
Hw well did the 1/200 TW 727 sell? Just saying.
Now, how about an Air Wisconsin Dash 7?
I wish they would do twin stripes. Granted, I realize a twin stripe 717 never existed but to your question...I don't kbow. What I do know is that the 727 is still widely available, the 757 was available for years, but the 767 seemed to go quickly.
Ten years of Military flying (C-130s) and fifteen so far of Commercial flying (B777s currently) gives me a fairly good background I would say.
In casual conversation one usually does not differentiate between props and turboprops - they're all props. This has been born out by Gemini's announcement that their prop is in fact turbine powered.
Dan
Dude, give it a rest.
If civil aviation makes a distinction, and ATC also makes a distinction, you are the one that is out of step.
ATC is the important one, and as someone in the industry should know if ATC were to call it a duck, it is a duck and everyone in the air sure better refer to it as such. It would also be a good idea if it learned how to quack! (sorry, inside joke)
It may not be the same in Canada, but down here in the United States, there is a distinction.
Sorry but your 'I fly 777's' doesn't trump anything. I really don't care if you fly the space shuttle. If you want to talk or react as someone outside the industry, that is your prerogative. But I would think as someone in the industry, the controlling factor would be what Air Traffic Control calls the aircraft and not what it is called by some toy manufacturer.
Last edited by Charlie Alpha; 08-16-2014 at 10:27 AM.
Re: Gemini September Releases
. Should be fun when the announcement is made
Your Privacy Choices
