Boeing 777-200 Detailed Mould Comparison
Updated: December 2023
Despite the Triple Seven 200 rapidly entering the phase of its career where there are more freighters than passenger versions in service it has still received a lot of attention in recent years from 400 scale brands, presumably helped by the fact its larger series 300ER sister is still going strong. Even so, when Aviation400 produced their own series 300ER mould they didn't bother with the series 200 at all. This gives the mould comparison for the shorter type a different edge and with the old seamed Gemini mould now firmly replaced in production by the newer JC Wings version there are a trio of active series 200 moulds to take a closer look at.
The moulds to be compared in this detailed comparison will be the following three from my collection:
The review will take the form of a comparison of various areas of each mould to the real aircraft, with a score out of 5 alotted for each mould for each area. Adding the combined scores together gives you the winner.
It is a testament to the Phoenix mould that a casting dating originally from 2004 is still competitive with much newer ones.
It is a testament to the Phoenix mould that a casting dating originally from 2004 is still competitive with much newer ones.
Scoring
NOSE / NOSEGEAR
The 777 has a well rounded nosecone, quite unlike anything Airbus has ever produced. It is a shape that has not proven overly difficult to replicate and looking at the three attempts here none really have an issue with it or the cockpit form. The doubts I once had with the NG Models samples roofline are not present on the production models. In terms of nosegear the JC Wings version above is a little too tall, caused by the gear door being too deep. It doesn't bother me much and gives plenty of ground clearance for the engines but it does mean the aircraft doesn't have the slight nose down stance of the series 200.
The NG Models mould has a nosegear door that is not deep enough, but fortunately the gear leg is a little longer in its lower portion so the overall height remains good. The gear leg is finer and has more detail than the JC Wings version.
You need to ignore the cockpit printing on this Phoenix version but otherwise the nose is good. The gear door is a too recessed into the fuselage and also too deep. This means it intersects the leg too low. The leg has the least detailing on it but is decent. I'm not a massive fan of the silvery gear leg but it is no worse than the light grey legs of the other pair.
ENGINES (SIDE ON) & PYLONS
In this section of the review I have substituted the Phoenix 777-200 for a 2022 release 777-300ER as the engines were fitted poorly on the original release and it had PW engines rather than GE90s.
The JC Wings edition has a great shape to the nacelles and exhaust portions. My only criticism is that the cone isn't very pointy. The engine pylons hang the engines well and have a nice form under the wing except that the curve around to the engine exhausts is too straight and not curvy enough.
The NG mould has a really sharp form to the nacelles, exhausts and pylons. Certainly the sections under the wing are finer and a better shape than on the JC version. This is near perfect. Perhaps the pylons could hold the nacelles ever so slightly higher.
Phoenix
It is unsurprising that the oldest mould has the weakest combination, although this mould has been updated with all new engines in recent times. The engine nacelles are good, although not fitted especially straight in this model. The exhaust cone is a little long maybe. It is the pylons that rather let down this mould. The engines are hung at a good height and there is a nice curve on the underside but there is also a massive gap between the pylon and hot section of the exhaust that should not be there.
MAINGEAR
One of the differences between the series 200 and 300 is that the maingear of the 200 lacks the forward hydraulic actuator. It is correctly missing on all 3 moulds.
|
JC Wings
|
NG Models
|
Phoenix
|
|
The maingear detailing on both the JC Wings and NG Models version is superb but only the JC version of the two pivots and also has the small triangular inner gear door component (see photo on the left). It also has more accurate leg details, especially obvious from the front. Both have very accurate gear doors.
The Phoenix gear does pivot and the leg itself is fine, however the gear door shape is somewhat rudimentary in terms of shape and detailing. |
ENGINE FANS (GE90-110/115B)
|
|
|
|
Once again the desire to have see through fans has damaged the likeness of the engine fans to the real thing. Only the NG Models version, which has very intricate solid core fans, gets close and spot on. The real engines (both GE90 and Pratts) have 22 blades whereas the JC engine has 16, the NG 20 and the Phoenix 13. The JC fans at least are a more sensible width compared to the Phoenix.
TAIL & TAILCONE
|
|
|
|
In terms of vertical stabiliser form there is little between the NG and JC moulds. The older Phoenix still has a full length contact margin with the fuselage, not taking into account the rudder as the other pair do. At the tailcone the old Phoenix has a simple blade shape rather than the upper strobe light and the lower tip. The APU is simply printed on. Surprisingly the much newer NG Models 777 has also gone down this route. It's tailcone is sharper but otherwise no better than the Phoenix. Only the JC Wings version attempts the correct form with the strobe, lower lip and a moulded in APU. You could argue that the upper strobe is a little too large but it is better than having none at all.
FUSELAGE DETAILING & FLAP TRACKS
On the underside the moulds all look good and the differences are quite minor. The JC Wings mould has the maingear doors scribed into the mould and not just printed. I like this feature, it just adds a bit more feeling. All three moulds have the NACA air intakes moulded in but the shape on the Phoenix mould is not as good as that of the other pair.
A minor irritation with the NG mould is the shape of the innermost flap track fairing. It is something I called out on the original samples but hasn't been modified. It is not large or curvy enough and matches the outermost flap tracks incorrectly. The form on the other two moulds is good.
Obviously note here that the Phoenix model being a base series 200 correctly does not have the wingtip extensions of the other two, which are 777-200LRFs.
FRONT & SIDE
In general all the 777s look good from the front. I've substituted the Phoenix model for an older version because the poor QC on the Boeing example rather damages the look of the model, especially from the front.
The 777-200 has a very slight nosedown stance but it is almost imperceptible. The NG version shows this the most but overdoes it a little. The JC and Phoenix versions have straight backs. I'm not sure one is better than the other. The JC Wings mould has slightly oversized aerials (a common JC feature). This Phoenix model is old enough not to have aerials but in general Phoenix aerials are well sized.
Summary
|
The competition ends with effectively a photo finish between the JC Wings and NG Models 777-200s. They differ in a variety of areas but neither is dominant.
The NG Mould has better:
The JC Wings has better:
The JC Wings mould has been my favourite for sometime but there are some lovely detail finishes to the NG which make it a really tough choice. Modification to the tailcone and inner flap track would probably see it as the best of the two.
I'm sure your own detail scoring will be slightly different to mine so I'd suspect either could come out on top for many people.
It is no surprise that the Phoenix 777 comes off third best in this review. The mould is a lot older than its nearest competitor and no mould that old should be beating a modern-era casting. It is no shame on the Phoenix mould that it loses. It is still a fine mould but there is no doubt that the other two moulds are superior as a whole unit.
|
|