Airbus A310 Moulds in 1/400 Scale
|
Updated: August 2016
|
|
The A310 has always been a dumpy looking aircraft. Certainly in comparison to its rivals, the 757 and 767-200, it doesn't strike you as a looker, however in the right light it still has a certain majesty about it. The A310 is obviously a shortened version of the A300. It was produced in two versions: the series 200 was a competitor for the 757 and 767-200 whilst the series 300 was a match for the longer 757 routes and the 767-200ER. So it is against the Boeing relatives that it be best judged.
255 A310s were made between 1983 and 1998 - so not staggering numbers but decent enough given Airbuses relative position at the time, the low dev costs and the 767-200s 249 sales. It certainly held its own, winning the many orders from European majors and carving out an ETOPS niche across the Atlantic. It proved a good type for several of the smaller European nationals wanting to fly long-haul ops (CSA, Austrian, TAP, Tarom for example) and a precursor for later sales of A330s/340s. In the end I expect it was the larger A300-600R and 767-300ER that probably killed both their smaller cousins since their CASM must be much better.
Comparing it with the 757 and 767:
255 A310s were made between 1983 and 1998 - so not staggering numbers but decent enough given Airbuses relative position at the time, the low dev costs and the 767-200s 249 sales. It certainly held its own, winning the many orders from European majors and carving out an ETOPS niche across the Atlantic. It proved a good type for several of the smaller European nationals wanting to fly long-haul ops (CSA, Austrian, TAP, Tarom for example) and a precursor for later sales of A330s/340s. In the end I expect it was the larger A300-600R and 767-300ER that probably killed both their smaller cousins since their CASM must be much better.
Comparing it with the 757 and 767:
It looks pretty decent in terms of performance, though the 767-200ER does appear better in that it has a lower empty weight, better MTOW and longer range. One thing that stands out is the dumpy proportions which make for a roomy wide fuselage, plus its relatively small wing.
Here is the real thing in action:
Here is the real thing in action:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Models in 1:400 Scale
In 1:400 the A310 has until now been rather poorly treated despite there being 4 different moulds. That looks like it is about to change though as a 5th mould has just joined the market and in 1 month has kicked out 10 different A310s. Production up to September 2016 is as follows: So far there have been 56 models produced but I would expect the Aeroclassics total to at least double in the coming months. |
|
Dragon Wings (2003) - Used 13 times
Dragon's A310 is actually a decent effort and 13 distinct models (a couple were rereleased with runway sections and/or other models) were made between 2003 and 2009 covering a range of the most common A310 operators like Pan Am Singapore, Emirates, FedEx, TAP etc. The biggest issues with the mould are things that many Dragon models have problems with - the cockpit windows, tail join and the undercarriage. The cockpit windows often look simple and too large as in the Pan Am example below. The same models also shows the simple chunky undercarriage and wheels many Dragon models display. Unusually for a Dragon mould it is a cradle type so there is a small seam and I don't think the shape of the nose and cockpit window area is quite correct either. Still some models, as in the Singapore example below look pretty good. Until recently I may have considered adding some to my collection.
Dragon's A310 is actually a decent effort and 13 distinct models (a couple were rereleased with runway sections and/or other models) were made between 2003 and 2009 covering a range of the most common A310 operators like Pan Am Singapore, Emirates, FedEx, TAP etc. The biggest issues with the mould are things that many Dragon models have problems with - the cockpit windows, tail join and the undercarriage. The cockpit windows often look simple and too large as in the Pan Am example below. The same models also shows the simple chunky undercarriage and wheels many Dragon models display. Unusually for a Dragon mould it is a cradle type so there is a small seam and I don't think the shape of the nose and cockpit window area is quite correct either. Still some models, as in the Singapore example below look pretty good. Until recently I may have considered adding some to my collection.
|
|
Herpa (2003) - Used 5 times
Herpa seem to rather reluctantly dip into 1:400 from time to time producing an impressive number of moulds which they rarely use. This isn't always a bad thing as some of the moulds are rubbish. Their A310 is an example of this. It has seemingly odd proportions. The nose cone seems too straight in its upper edge under the cockpit and the rear fuselage very fat and dumpy, which in concert with a tail that looks too small gives the model a slightly odd look. Despite being a seamless mould I prefer the Dragon mould of the same vintage myself. Annoyingly Herpa are the only ones to have made a Swissair A310.
Herpa seem to rather reluctantly dip into 1:400 from time to time producing an impressive number of moulds which they rarely use. This isn't always a bad thing as some of the moulds are rubbish. Their A310 is an example of this. It has seemingly odd proportions. The nose cone seems too straight in its upper edge under the cockpit and the rear fuselage very fat and dumpy, which in concert with a tail that looks too small gives the model a slightly odd look. Despite being a seamless mould I prefer the Dragon mould of the same vintage myself. Annoyingly Herpa are the only ones to have made a Swissair A310.
|
|
Gemini Jets (2004) - Used 23 times
Gemini's mould has also been used by both Phoenix and JC Wings. For many years it was the best A310 mould but then again the competition wasn't very strong. The overall shape of the mould is pretty good and the small wing join seam forgivable. The biggest issues with the mould sit with the wings and pylons. Firstly the wings are far to level even to the point that they sometimes seem to point downwards. They should have a slight upward sweep. I can forgive this but it doesn't help the biggest mould issue - that of the engine pylons. These point downwards too far giving the engines very little ground clearance. As with the Dragon mould the nose is also quite blunt and the transition from the cockpit to radome not obvious enough. When Gemini print their cockpit windows properly this isn't too obvious however.
Gemini had improved the mould with rolling gears in its later versions like this Thai Airways but nothing had been released since 2008, until October 2015 anyway. Gemini surprised us by releasing a Pan Am A310 out of the blue. Curiously they reverted to the much inferior static gear but they did add aerials (as JC Wings has been doing to older Gemini moulds like this). The model looked good from distance but I was quite disappointed by mine when it arrived. The wing and pylon issues remain, whilst my example came with an inability for the nosegear to sit on the ground and an unstuck vertical stabiliser. Gemini's association with JC Wings does seem to have introduced some QA issues. Even more recently JC Wings released a couple of Singapore examples for MyHobbyHouse. Again they look ok but all the earlier issues are still apparent.
Jet-X (2008) - Used 12 times
Jet-X was the last manufacturer to produce an A310 but sadly despite this it is probably the worst mould of the four. I have previously been very dismissive of the mould but some recent close-up shots provided to me by my friend James C. Kruggel of his Libyan example show it in a slightly better light than the database photos I had seen up till then. Still it has an odd shape around the nose, huge wing seam and the undercarriage looks too short giving it a very dumpy look. Some of the pictures I've seen make it look truly awful, check out this KLM example, but Jim's Libyan example appears better. I think if they lengthened the undercarriage then it would look a lot better and avoid the same too low engine appearance that the Gemini mould also suffers from (but for different reasons).
Jet-X was the last manufacturer to produce an A310 but sadly despite this it is probably the worst mould of the four. I have previously been very dismissive of the mould but some recent close-up shots provided to me by my friend James C. Kruggel of his Libyan example show it in a slightly better light than the database photos I had seen up till then. Still it has an odd shape around the nose, huge wing seam and the undercarriage looks too short giving it a very dumpy look. Some of the pictures I've seen make it look truly awful, check out this KLM example, but Jim's Libyan example appears better. I think if they lengthened the undercarriage then it would look a lot better and avoid the same too low engine appearance that the Gemini mould also suffers from (but for different reasons).
"Aeroclassics" (2016) - Used 10 times
Just last month a new A310 appeared. Oddly it came out in between the standard release cycles and seemingly wasn't owned by anyone, however everything about it has Aeroclassics stamped all over it - from the lack of aerials, to the printing, to the mould construction, to the undercarriage, to the subjects chosen. No matter how much Andrew suggests AC don't have an A310 mould we all know better. The real puzzle is why he isn't embracing it as it is effectively the first new mould of 2016!
Just last month a new A310 appeared. Oddly it came out in between the standard release cycles and seemingly wasn't owned by anyone, however everything about it has Aeroclassics stamped all over it - from the lack of aerials, to the printing, to the mould construction, to the undercarriage, to the subjects chosen. No matter how much Andrew suggests AC don't have an A310 mould we all know better. The real puzzle is why he isn't embracing it as it is effectively the first new mould of 2016!
So what to make of the mould itself. It is superb but not without issue. Let's compare it to the real thing and the Gemini Jets A310:
The later Gemini Jets have aerials, but that is about the only place where they are better than the Aeroclassics. You can see that the nose and especially cockpit shape is more angular in the new AC mould and much more realistic. This improved shape also allows for better printing of the cockpit windows. The Aeroclassics nosegear is much more detailed, whereas the Gemini's is static and the bogies are an amorphous blob. The wing joint in the Aeroclassics almost perfectly models the real thing whereas the cradle fit in the Gemini is slab sided and ugly. Onto the wings and in the AC mould they are correctly angled slightly upwards, whilst the engines sit an accurate distance above the ground - quite the opposite of the Gemini. Another important point, which becomes much more obvious at the rear, is that the AC mould is correctly a bit nose high whereas the Gemini has a completely level back. I even prefer the tyre size on the AC mould.
|
AEROCLASSICS (left)
|
GEMINI JETS (right)
|
Pratt & Whitney PWJT9D/4000
|
General Electric CF6-80C2
|
Now onto the engines and this is where we have a problem Houston! The A310 came with two options - the PW4000 or the GE CF6. Pan Am's, Delta's and Singapore's A310s all came with the Pratts so why are they wearing the GEs on the new mould? It appears Aeroclassics has skimped on the engine choice and of the new models only the Lufthansa's are wearing the correct engines!
|
That's pretty stink especially as the Gemini gets it right. It's a pretty major cock-up and comes close to ruining an amazing mould. It's even more unforgiveable as the engines are separate entities which could easily be swapped out so its not even a mould problem. Hell I'm tempted to try swapping the Gemini engines in. I love AC but this is just one of a series of sloppy mistakes they've made recently. Sometimes it is research errors and sometimes it just seems to be a lack of care. It's not even the only problem with the engines of these releases as the Singapore nacelles should be grey not white. Given the rest of the mould is so superior I can live with this but I don't have to like it.
From the rear the superiority of the Aeroclassics mould continues. The Gemini is much higher at the rear as it has failed to show the nose high attitude of the real thing, whilst the rear wing joint is much more realistic in the AC too. The vertical stabiliser - fuselage join on the Gemini is also a clunky affair. Printing wise Aeroclassics again seem keen to add features that aren't there with some dark outlining around the horizontal stabilisers that shouldn't be there. I should also say that 2 of my 4 A310s arrived with an area of smudging on them. Aeroclassics QC isn't as bad as JC/Geminis at the moment but these issues aren't giving me lots of confidence. They are supposed to be getting better - not worse!
Underneath the seamless Aeroclassics mould looks better, though the Gemini does mould some features that are only outlined on the AC mould.
|
|
From the front you can see the AC moulds superiority clearly. The wings are angled better, the engines much higher from the ground and overall detail everywhere better. In the end I don't think you can argue that the Aeroclassics mould isn't the best, however it is only 'As Real As It Gets' when mated with the correct engines. Still I'm not hesitating in replacing my old Geminis.