Moulds we want to like, but just can't seem to... - DA.C
 

Go Back   DA.C > Ground Control > 1:200 Scale Model Aircraft

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 12-09-2016, 06:10 PM   #1 (permalink)
Insane Collector
 
IflyHA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Age: 26
Posts: 1,508
Default Moulds we want to like, but just can't seem to...

I am bored at work, so to pass the time and give the impression of wok to my boss, I compiled a list of moulds and releases that I feel could have been killers, but instead have just disappointed me. And given how particular we are for accuracy, I am surprised that not many other people have raised these concerns. Feel free to add to this, even if it’s a complaint you don’t think others will understand. I am actually curious to hear others views on moulds. Surely we have our gripes.

GJ/JC Moulds

ERJ-145: From most angles, this mould is terrific, but there is one thing that bothers me about it. The offset of the main gear are placed too far apart. If you look at the model from a head-on perspective, then the center point of the engines roughly line up with the strut of the main gear.

ERJ-170: Overall, I think this mould is crap. The fuselage seems too thick, the engines hang too low to the ground, the cockpit printing is incorrect, and the main landing gear sit making the model look like the gear have collapsed. This is arguably my least favorite mould of one of my favorite small jets.

ERJ-190: Another mould that stops me from buying great releases. The spacing of the main gear is wrong, the engine is too close to the ground, and they slapped the -170 horizontal stabilizers on this mould. The -190 is longer and less stubby looking.

737-700/800/900: The winglets. First and foremost, I think the traditional winglet is misshapen. Seems like an attempt to make a winglet, but not necessarily the most accurate one. The second thing is the size of the tires. The nose gear tire I feel is too small, with the main gear tires seeming too large. In fact, I have swapped out all of my tires with Hogan’s 1/200 737-300 tires. They make the mould look much more accurate. The third thing is the engines and how they appear. I think the engines are slightly too large. For example, when I place gear in a 1/200 Gemini 737-700 the length of the fuselage along with the engines make the model sit weird in comparison to the real deal.

757: the gear. Enough said. It sucks. Oversized, crudely shaped. Just sucks. Also the wing to fuselage root is wrong.

767: Same sentiment as the 757. Main gear especially terrible; tires spaced too close together. The 767 is a wide sitting plane.

747: The wing flex. Even if you display the models on the stand, having ground flex doesn’t ruin the look. But having flight flex on a gear down model looks weird especially when theres zero flaps down. Look at a 747 from a head on view and youll notice how there is too much dihedral in the wings. The way they are inserted to the fuselage makes the wings appear too high. Also the gear needs work. We have all discussed this.

777: not even gonna discuss the -300, but the -200 needs some love. I think we need all three engine represenations, instead of this cross breeding of all three engines in one slapped on a model regardless of accuracy. I remember seeing a photo from Tonka showing samples of new engines coming. Tonka, any news on this…?

737-300/400/500, Fokker 70/100: The main tires as thin as pizza slices… why…?

ATR-42/72: the nose is too rounded. Does not really give it the ATR look.

Q400: main gear too low. Makes the whole model sit too low.

717: Again, main gear set too low, and nose gear appears chunky. Why not use the DC-9 gear which are perfect…

787: continuous gear and pylon failure.

A330: The recent mod of the removable gear is a great needed idea. I have not seen the model in person yet, but its better than it was. The gears are its Achilles Heal. Also the nose has gone through more work than Michael Jackson, yet still looks off….
IflyHA is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-09-2016, 08:54 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Collector
 
Jamenator1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: melbourne
Posts: 236
Default Re: Moulds we want to like, but just can't seem to...

I must say, you have listed just about every mold in existence, but failed to mention the one which is in my opinion the worst by far (the one which seems noticeably off from almost every angle):

The GJ/JC A320 with IAE engines.

Its horrible, the engine pylons are far too big, meaning the engines are far too low, and the entire forward fuselage is miss-shapen, it's upper fuselage begins to taper down towards the nose from basically the wing box.

Also the Phoenix 787 (and to some extent the GJ/JC 787) has absolutely no aerofoil shape to the wing what so ever. The wings are literally thin flat plates with rounded leading and trailing edges.

By the way, the E190 horizontal stabilisers are not E170 stabilisers, they have the shape of the E170's with the span half way between the E170 and E190 (meaning they are not even correct on the E170). I'm currently manufacturing new horizontal stabilisers for my E190, using highly modified A320 stabilisers
Jamenator1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2016, 10:12 PM   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Whitehorse
Posts: 2,106
Default Re: Moulds we want to like, but just can't seem to...

The 737-200 is the most disappointing to me.
Zendocon is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 12-10-2016, 05:35 AM   #4 (permalink)
1:200 and 1:72 Collector
 
geeforce9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Exeter
Age: 39
Posts: 1,723
Default Re: Moulds we want to like, but just can't seem to...

Low slung / wrong shape engines on various molds is my biggest gripe...the looooow 2 and 3 (mainly CF6 classics) on the 747, even loooooweerrrr groundscrapers on the 787s probably being the worst examples.
__________________
Regards, Andy


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
geeforce9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 06:36 AM   #5 (permalink)
aka Goonybird
 
Aviaction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Planet Gong
Posts: 2,086
Default Re: Moulds we want to like, but just can't seem to...

I think if that is your opinion then you're in the wrong hobby.
we live in an imperfect world.
__________________
79x 1/200 Concordes plus 3x JCW/Gemini - and the fleet keeps growing. 5x 1/200 Concordskis - 24x 1/400 Concordes
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Aviaction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 07:33 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Collector
 
Jamenator1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: melbourne
Posts: 236
Default Re: Moulds we want to like, but just can't seem to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aviaction View Post
I think if that is your opinion then you're in the wrong hobby.
we live in an imperfect world.
Respectfully disagree, part of the hobby for me is taking these imperfect models and bringing them up to standard (even if it means killing the re-sale value)
Jamenator1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2016, 12:00 PM   #7 (permalink)
long time collector
 
Charlie Alpha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: san diego
Posts: 5,648
Default Re: Moulds we want to like, but just can't seem to...

My favorite model to hate is the JCW/GJ 777-300ER. There is a lot that is right with this mold. Good livery selection, GREAT landing gear and lower price and weight (saves on shipping costs). But the mold falls short for me. The main problem is the position of the center of the nose, which is too high and crowds the cockpit windows, and gives the whole nose a slightly 'pug nose' appearance..

The other problem is the engines. Although the redesign made them bigger (too big in fact), they have an odd shape that is slightly off. The top of the fan cowl curves down too much, and the alignment of the fan cowl and hot sections are a little bit off too, but if the nose section was fixed I would probably start buying models made on this mold again. Engine pylons could be a little thicker too.

A little more detail on the tail and an actual APU casting would complete the package. I know I criticize this mold a lot, but it because it has SO much potential to be great with just a few upgrades.

My other favorite models to 'hate' are the JCW/GJ A320 for all of the reasons mentioned above and more. Their current 737s aren't bad, but the nose section and nose gear are a disaster, ruining an otherwise good model. The new 737MAX looks like it may be getting a little better

Last edited by Charlie Alpha; 12-10-2016 at 12:07 PM.
Charlie Alpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2016, 09:50 PM   #8 (permalink)
Insane Collector
 
TheFSXPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Georgetown, Ontario
Age: 16
Posts: 2,131
Default Re: Moulds we want to like, but just can't seem to...

I have the Gemini Jets Q400 the 767 and the 737-800 and the 737-700 as well, and I am thoroughly satisfied with my product. That is just what I think.
__________________
Daniel

If you have any of the following models for sale please PM me!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

-Inflight200 WestJet 737-200 90 CAD or less please

Manufacturers! Are you able to make a WestJet 737-600???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

________________
TheFSXPilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:11 AM.

Latest Threads
- by yloizos
- by Three50
 

Models of the Week
 



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.