Looks like a great mold and very sturdy landing gear! To bad she is more expensive due to the weight of the model. Explains a lot..am also waiting for the kl 95 years one, think I even buy the new livery one..or the gemini..choises, choises!,
Rui, thank you for the superb pics again! Youre contributions are great to this forum imho!
__________________
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.
Well, I just wanted to give some suggestions to the model, didn't have other purpose, but since it's unavailable in this thread, then fine... Sorry, I was blind!
Thank you so much for sharing these awesome pictures, I really appreciate! This model is so gorgeous and realistic, love it!! I hope this reply won't get me into trouble now...
Just curious, no pain no gain, if none of the suggestions are accepted, I have no idea how much the improvements will be... Anyways, understood, will keep that in mind:
Keep the thread clean.These images are for your viewing pleasure, not to use them and change them, for any comparison purposes, “constructive” criticism, slander or bashing, etc,
Why unavilable? Nobody has privilege here, I will point our the flaw whoever made the mistakes. And...push the thread back to the top!
The more I look at the pics, the better the model looks to me, and it didn't look at all bad at all to start off with! I think this 777-300ER mold sets a new high standard for 777-300ER models.
Last edited by Charlie Alpha; 05-25-2015 at 01:05 PM.
Why unavilable? Nobody has privilege here, I will point our the flaw whoever made the mistakes. And...push the thread back to the top!
Sorry Tonka. You and I usually see pretty much eye to eye on many things, but I have to say you are kind of missing the mark on this one.
To get a good comparison of the nose shapes, you would have to get BOTH pictures that show the view the top view from the same station back from the nose. Showing more of the nose of the IF model gives a distorted view. Also, the 1:1 photo is takes from a proportionall closer distance than the pic of the IF model which makes the cockpit windows appear wider due to to greater angular distance of the picture. If you take the static pics posted earlier in the thread and cover up part of the IF model's nose so you get the same view of the nose as the other 2 views, you will see how close the IF nose really is to the 1:1.
The more I look at the pics, the better the model looks to me, and it didn't look at all bad at all to start off with! I think this 777-300ER mold sets a new high standard for 777-300ER models.
CA
"flash lights made people blind", when you know more about moulding, you will know how much can be saved if make a mould like this, they know that. Hint: The square rods on landing gear.
Sorry Tonka. You and I usually see pretty much eye to eye on many things, but I have to say you are kind of missing the mark on this one.
To get a good comparison of the nose shapes, you would have to get BOTH pictures that show the view the top view from the same station back from the nose. Showing more of the nose of the IF model gives a distorted view. Also, the 1:1 photo is takes from a proportionall closer distance than the pic of the IF model which makes the cockpit windows appear wider due to to greater angular distance of the picture. If you take the static pics posted earlier in the thread and cover up part of the IF model's nose so you get the same view of the nose as the other 2 views, you will see how close the IF nose really is to the 1:1.
No, I will check their nose later, just playing with the online gif. marker and see if gif file can be used for signature, these two photos are test samples only, but you can consider as my "silent protest" for the rules set for this thread
Close but still incorrect I think better like this, also see how's the pylon attached to the wing. Try different angles like someone said.
Ok, I am REALLY going to apologize to everyone for this but here goes.....
First of all, the KLM photograph is distorted. If you look at the original on Airliners.net you can see the picture makes the KLM appear too short and too wide. In particular, the view of the engine is distorted. If you look at other pics there you will see the maximum thickness of the engine is about 1/3 of the way back from the inlet, not 1/2 way back as the KLM pics would have you believe. Even your reference drawing shows this to be the case. The GE-90 pics earlier in the post ( but not this one because it is not take from a level position) is a much better example, and matches the IF engine very closely. Also, because of the distortions in the KLM 1:1 pic, the rear of the fan cowl looks too large when compared to other pictures on that site.
Sorry, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but while your 'prototype' matches the KLM pic, it doesn't look like as good a shape as the InFlight model when compared to other GE90 pics in this thread or on Airliners.net. IMHO.
Sorry, here goes the technical stuff. I still think your pylon in the pic is too low. The forward tip of the pylon should be at the the mean chord line of the wing (imaginary line from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge) as shown in your technical drawing. This is actually ABOVE the leading edge of the wing because the chord line slopes upward toward the front. The 'crown' of the engine should be at or just slightly below the leading edge. I think the pylon in the pics has the top of the pylon level with the leading edge of the wing, which is still too low, and the engine lower still. The InFlight model has the level of the engine right (approximately level with the leading edge of the wing), although the shape of the pylon could be closer to you technical drawing.
A final note. The 'prototype' engine that you show looks too 'square' and bulky to me, with the opening at the rear of the cowl too large, and the apex of the curve on the top of the cowl a little too far back. It matches the KLM pic, but not other GE-90 pics. The opening doors on the cowl, if ever done on an actual production model, would have to be precisely done in order not to show unprotypically large gaps in the seams and large hinge gap at the top. I would think working thrust reversers, if anything, would be a better bet.
Last edited by Charlie Alpha; 05-25-2015 at 02:14 PM.
Ok, I am REALLY going to apologize to everyone for this but here goes.....
First of all, the KLM photograph is distorted. If you look at the original on Airliners.net you can see the picture makes the KLM appear too short and too wide. In particular, the view of the engine is distorted. If you look at other pics there you will see the maximum thickness of the engine is about 1/3 of the way back from the inlet, not 1/2 way back as the KLM pics would have you believe. Even your reference drawing shows this to be the case. The GE-90 pics earlier in the post ( but not this one because it is not take from a level position) is a much better example, and matches the IF engine very closely. Also, because of the distortions in the KLM 1:1 pic, the rear of the fan cowl looks too large when compared to other pictures on that site.
Sorry, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but while your 'prototype' matches the KLM pic, it doesn't look like as good a shape as the InFlight model when compared to other GE90 pics in this thread or on Airliners.net. IMHO.
Sorry, here goes the technical stuff. I still think your pylon in the pic is too low. The forward tip of the pylon should be at the the mean chord line of the wing (imaginary line from the leading edge of the wing to the trailing edge) as shown in your technical drawing. This is actually ABOVE the leading edge of the wing because the chord line slopes upward toward the front. The 'crown' of the engine should be at or just slightly below the leading edge. I think the pylon in the pics has the top of the pylon level with the leading edge of the wing, which is still too low, and the engine lower still. The InFlight model has the level of the engine right (approximately level with the leading edge of the wing), although the shape of the pylon could be closer to you technical drawing.
A final note. The 'prototype' engine that you show looks too 'square' and bulky to me, with the opening at the rear of the cowl too large, and the apex of the curve on the top of the cowl a little too far back. It matches the KLM pic, but not other GE-90 pics. The opening doors on the cowl, if ever done on an actual production model, would have to be precisely done in order not to show unprotypically large gaps in the seams and large hinge gap at the top. I would think working thrust reversers, if anything, would be a better bet.
Ooops, don't look at my pylon, not done yet...I mean the wing attachment point, there should be a step before enter the wing.
Actually I like this kind of discussion with someone like you, we can work out something instead of bashing only. So far, none of the GE90-115B engine looks good to me, included Hogan/JCW/PHX and this one from IF, I do think you have a HG 777-300ER? Try compare them with the one showing here, for me, HG will be the better(not best)choice amoung all. Anyway, everyone have their own decision, and I protect my right to "speak" here
Well...am I push this thread back to top again? Sorry...
Not a problem. I think the first pic of the 1:1 GE-90 in this thread is a better reference. This one is taken fro a slightly rear position, and I think makes the engine look shorter and fatter than it really is. But that is just my opinion.
I agree with you about the engine pylon. From the front cap, it should generally follow the curve of the engine rearwards and downwards until the slight 'step' to join the underside of the wing just as the picture shows.
I actually have a Hogan, Skymarks, Hasagawa Phoenix and a JCW 777-300ER models. All have their strong points and weaknesses. The Hasagawa is good, but the top of the pylon goes straight back doesn't have the step on the pylon before it joins the wing. You would like the Skymarks model as the profile closely matches your 'prototype, but has an even more exagerated upper curve and the cowl is too short with too long of an exhaust nozzle. The back 2/3 of the Hogan GE-90 looks about right, but the top of the fan cowl never curves back down towards the intake lip, and the pylon again goes straight back to the wing leading edge without curving down. The JCW pylon mounts the engine too low, doesn't curve upwards enough on the top (reason for the low engine) and the engine is too small. Phoenix doesn't have enough curve on the top of the engine cowl, is too small, and although the engine pylon mounts the engine where it should be, it doesn't curve downward enough and lacks the step......
So, best engine shape? You're not going to like this but I think Hasagawa and
this new InFlight GE-90 mold. By comparison with LOTS of pics from Airliners.net.
Best pylon? Nobody. Most are close but are missing the mark. But I would have to say the Hasagawa one is the closest. But then again, that is a plastic model kit.
Last edited by Charlie Alpha; 05-25-2015 at 04:45 PM.
taking different angles on pics to compare is useless...
ghostk... i beg to differ. rui's shot is at a slightly higher and has a slightly biased focal point. this is evident from the following observations:
(i) the starboard main landing gear is slightly in front of the port side main landing gear; and
(ii) the starboard main landing gear is at a higher position than the port side main landing gear.
i think in terms of angle, the position of the front landing gear would not be as prominent compared to tonka's comparative shot if rui rotated the model ever so slightly clockwise (thus bringing the gears aligned as per tonka's shot). as for the cheatline, if rui had shot from a slightly lower angle at the exact same focus point (and again, bring the landing gears in line with as per tonka's shot), this would bring the cheatline down and yes, it wouldn't appear so high above the wingroot. just my two cents.
There has been lots of debate on here regarding the new inflight 777 mould, so when i was in KL recently i made a visit to Raymond at Dai Kong and decided to take a look at the Garuda inflight 777 and decide for myself.
I have to say the model does look very good, however as has been previously mentioned the landing gear (although sturdy) in my opinion really lets the model down. And yes the nose shape is definitely not wide enough (too skinny) and that is for sure i have seen this model close up and spend a lot of time around the real thing and it defiantly isn't right.
Having said that inflight has done a great job and if these 2 things can be fixed in the future then i would definitely purchase them. Oh and yes boy is it heavy so if anyone is looking to purchase and have it sent via mail then i imagine the shipping costs will be pricey for this one
There has been lots of debate on here regarding the new inflight 777 mould, so when i was in KL recently i made a visit to Raymond at Dai Kong and decided to take a look at the Garuda inflight 777 and decide for myself.
I have to say the model does look very good, however as has been previously mentioned the landing gear (although sturdy) in my opinion really lets the model down. And yes the nose shape is definitely not wide enough (too skinny) and that is for sure i have seen this model close up and spend a lot of time around the real thing and it defiantly isn't right.
Having said that inflight has done a great job and if these 2 things can be fixed in the future then i would definitely purchase them. Oh and yes boy is it heavy so if anyone is looking to purchase and have it sent via mail then i imagine the shipping costs will be pricey for this one
Hi Ben, nice to hear that you are back. Hopefully the manufacturer knows what to do with the other future releases an I personally wish is the model not to be that heavy.
ghostk... i beg to differ. rui's shot is at a slightly higher and has a slightly biased focal point. this is evident from the following observations:
(i) the starboard main landing gear is slightly in front of the port side main landing gear; and
(ii) the starboard main landing gear is at a higher position than the port side main landing gear.
i think in terms of angle, the position of the front landing gear would not be as prominent compared to tonka's comparative shot if rui rotated the model ever so slightly clockwise (thus bringing the gears aligned as per tonka's shot). as for the cheatline, if rui had shot from a slightly lower angle at the exact same focus point (and again, bring the landing gears in line with as per tonka's shot), this would bring the cheatline down and yes, it wouldn't appear so high above the wingroot. just my two cents.
I didnt do that on purpose, in fact Ive warned you all, many times, I am NO photographer, I dont even use a tripod for these pictures, i just hold my camera, with my other hand I turn the model and photograph it again.
I wanted to show it in detail from every point of view, every tiny part, indeed macro doesnt help much, ANY MODEL, so I will stop doing this.
Maybe it is better to just show three or four pictures, and let people go and see the model in the stores.
As of lately, too many conclusions after seeing only two pictures, the experts cancelling orders and bashing models constantly, its becoming tiring, but I guess its all learned in some special school, with their teachers monitoring constantly their special trained pupils.
Again, I AM NO photographer. Check the models for yourselves, in the shops. ANY shops!
I didnt do that on purpose, in fact Ive warned you all, many times, I am NO photographer, I dont even use a tripod for these pictures, i just hold my camera, with my other hand I turn the model and photograph it again.
I wanted to show it in detail from every point of view, every tiny part, indeed macro doesnt help much, ANY MODEL, so I will stop doing this.
Maybe it is better to just show three or four pictures, and let people go and see the model in the stores.
As of lately, too many conclusions after seeing only two pictures, the experts cancelling orders and bashing models constantly, its becoming tiring, but I guess its all learned in some special school, with their teachers monitoring constantly their special trained pupils.
Again, I AM NO photographer. Check the models for yourselves, in the shops. ANY shops!
please don't get me wrong... your shots are excellent. do keep 'em coming. it's just that i don't understand why others take photographs as definitive representations of a model. like u said, go check the models yourself... and i very much subscribe to that edict myself. many factors can and will distort ones perceived view of a particular shot. for anybody to do a worthwhile comparison, then the model should be taken at exactly the same angle and 200th scale distance as the actual plane was taken... with a 200th scale camera and lense! only then would we ever see a worthwhile comparative shot. definitely not your fault, rui...
please don't get me wrong... your shots are excellent. do keep 'em coming. it's just that i don't understand why others take photographs as definitive representations of a model. like u said, go check the models yourself... and i very much subscribe to that edict myself. many factors can and will distort ones perceived view of a particular shot. for anybody to do a worthwhile comparison, then the model should be taken at exactly the same angle and 200th scale distance as the actual plane was taken... with a 200th scale camera and lense! only then would we ever see a worthwhile comparative shot. definitely not your fault, rui...
Yes, you are right.But sadly this is not the case, maybe if I take a profile picture from a distance, maybe then comparisons would be more credible.
Its a model, not the real thing made in Seattle by the Boeing company.
But funny enough, Boeing knows about these models, IF200 is fully licensed by them. Check the boxes and read whats in the bottom. But some "people" will still do whatever they can to try and bring them down, and I say TRY, they must be real desperate.
Whatever, as I said, its an amazing model, well proportioned, well shaped, and a couple of things have been improved as I write these lines.
All that crap about leading the market, I would rather say " flooding" the market.
Its the truth.
That's fine as long we see the same levels of ultra critical analysis for other manufacturers products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 777300ER
There has been lots of debate on here regarding the new inflight 777 mould, so when i was in KL recently i made a visit to Raymond at Dai Kong and decided to take a look at the Garuda inflight 777 and decide for myself.
I have to say the model does look very good, however as has been previously mentioned the landing gear (although sturdy) in my opinion really lets the model down. And yes the nose shape is definitely not wide enough (too skinny) and that is for sure i have seen this model close up and spend a lot of time around the real thing and it defiantly isn't right.
Having said that inflight has done a great job and if these 2 things can be fixed in the future then i would definitely purchase them. Oh and yes boy is it heavy so if anyone is looking to purchase and have it sent via mail then i imagine the shipping costs will be pricey for this one
Am I ultra critical for those wings and gears? Numerous personal attacks inside this thread. Okay, well proportioned, well shaped... I don't have special trained pupils, like Ben said, we spent years on the real thing, it just not look right when put in front of you.
From the good people at INFLIGHT200, I am authorized to post the following short message, and I quote;
"...Just got back from the tooling factory and the corrections for the 777 will be made which are
Scribe lines corrected on the wing
Wing connection to the fuselage and made straight
Nose wheel 1mm forward
These will be in the next release which is the KLM model around July ...."
I hope this puts some minds to rest,
Rui
GREAT news for me!!! I really like the new mold and I am SO happy to hear that these problems will be corrected. There is so much that is 'RIGHT' about this new mold and I'm SO glad InFlight decided to correct these things. The other issue that I know that will be brought up is the engine pylons. Correct them and InFlight will have addressed just about every issue that was raised about this mold.
Thank you Retroguy. I really appreciate your taking the time to let us all know! It is nice to have a tentative time frame for the KLM model also. Thanks for that too.
Last edited by Charlie Alpha; 06-09-2015 at 10:11 AM.
GREAT news for me!!! I really like the new mold and I am SO happy to hear that these problems will be corrected. There is so much that is 'RIGHT' about this new mold and I'm SO glad InFlight decided to correct these things. The other issue that I know that will be brought up is the engine pylons. Correct them and InFlight will have addressed just about every issue that was raised about this mold.
Thank you Retroguy. I really appreciate your taking the time to let us all know! It is nice to have a tentative time frame for the KLM model also. Thanks for that too.
Good, as mentioned before, this is the advantage of zinc model, you can make changes easy without breaking the mould.
I also find the Garuda 777 excellent looking, but did you ever post pictures of your Eva 747-400? I wanted to see some pictures of that beautiful bird..
__________________
I WANT TO BELIEVE...
...that one day I will see many more colorful JC Wings MD-11 models and the long-awaited Gemini 200 TWA twin stripes 727-200!
I always fly America's favorite airline: Southwest Airlines and the World's oldest KLM!
Pariswas the greatest city on earth! Vive la France! Tokyo 2020!
I also find the Garuda 777 excellent looking, but did you ever post pictures of your Eva 747-400? I wanted to see some pictures of that beautiful bird..
Here it is, the thread showing those pics plus the Freighter pics kindly posted by another member.
Enjoy!
I don't actually have either the TAM or Garuda models on pre-order. For these first 2, I want to see them in person. I will probably end up getting one or he other.
It would be fun to have one of the originals, and it would also be nice to be able to compare them to the updated ones. The KLM '95h Year' is the first one that I have on actual pre-order.
I don't actually have either the TAM or Garuda models on pre-order. For these first 2, I want to see them in person. I will probably end up getting one or he other.
It would be fun to have one of the originals, and it would also be nice to be able to compare them to the updated ones. The KLM '95h Year' is the first one that I have on actual pre-order.
herr tonka and herr a6-ego is gonna have a field day with this. i already smell blood
I actually hope so
What good is a nearly perfect mold when IF can`t even put these things together correctly.
Well any way my retailer has authorized the return so back it goes.
I`ll be sure to post here the additional costs involved.
This will teach the new collectors about some of the pitfalls of our beloved hobby.
__________________
Ron
My photos
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Here is a picture of my wonderful arrival
Nice job InFlight
This is disappointing. I hope InFlight makes the improvement they have promised on their 777-300ER mold and get the quality control straightened out. This could be a good model and good competition for JCW's improved 777-300ER mold if they get these issues under control.
I have a funny feeling that the time is running out though. I thing JCW will release their improved mold very soon. Expect another revised GE-90 mold with possible nose and cockpit printing upgrades. I expect a substantial improvement with that release, and the bar will be raised again, just as it was with their 747-400 mold.
Last edited by Charlie Alpha; 06-26-2015 at 11:08 AM.
I actually hope so
What good is a nearly perfect mold when IF can`t even put these things together correctly.
Well any way my retailer has authorized the return so back it goes.
I`ll be sure to post here the additional costs involved.
This will teach the new collectors about some of the pitfalls of our beloved hobby.
i suppose they were bound to compromise something to have these birds out at the speed for which they're being released into the market (ooh... i can already hear herr tonka and herr a6-ego going, "but that doesn't happen to jcw releases" ). i would personally inspect my models before i part with my cold hard cash... but i guess that's not always possible. so far so good...
Re: Inflight200 Garuda B777-300ER...pics!
I hope this reply won't get me into trouble now...
I think better like this, also see how's the pylon attached to the wing. Try different angles like someone said.
Your Privacy Choices
