Boeing 737-700/800/900 Next Generation Moulds in 1:400 Scale
|
Updated: January 2021
|
|
The third generation of the Boeing 737 family (named the Next Generation and comprising the series 600-900) re-energised Boeing's ability to compete against the A320 family and has been ordered by airlines to the tune of over 7,000 units. Outwardly the primary differences between the 737 Classics and the NGs are a new wing, with a 25% greater area and 4.88 metre increase in span, plus a taller tail. The first 737-700 flew on February 9, 1997 followed by the larger 737-800 on July 31, 1997. The shorter series 600 flew in January 1998 and the longest variant the 737-900 first flew in August 2000. The last variant is the 737-900ER, basically a series 900 with modified internal layout, extra fuel and overwing exits.
Boeing 737NG in 1:400 Scale
This review will cover the 737-700 / 800 / 900. The 737-600 will be covered separately here:
In 400 scale the 737NG series has now had nine separate moulds made for it, however the majority of them are underwhelming or just ok. Only recently have better castings been introduced and the majority of releases are still on the inferior offerings from Phoenix, Gemini Jets and JC Wings. The breakdown of models by brand in 1:400 is as follows. As you can see there has been a significant amount of brands sharing usage of various moulds at different times:
Figures correct as of October 2020
Boeing 737NG Variants
The 737-600 is the same size as the series 500, the 700 similar to the series 300 and the 800 a lengthened version of the series 400. The series 900 and 900ER are almost 3 metres longer than the series 800 and designed to compete against the A321. Initially 737-700 sales were the highest but the series 800 has since proved much more popular (over 5600 compared to about 1128 units). The 900 only sold 52 units but the improved 900ER has achieved nearly 600 sales.
Below are the series 700, 800 and 900 roughly to scale:
Below are the series 700, 800 and 900 roughly to scale:
.jpg)
Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)
.jpg)
Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)
Since 1998 blended winglets have been trialled on 737NGs and they have become the de-facto standard nowadays. Many older airframes have been retrofitted with them. From early 2014 a new design of 'Split Scimitar' winglets have been available, which have replaced blended winglets on many frames. For more on winglets see here.
|
|
Moulds (in date order)
Herpa / Hogan Mould (2000-2007)
Herpa / Hogan Mould (2000-2007)
|
As is usual for them Herpa have dallied with the 737NG in 1:400 and actually appear to have released the first mould for it. It seems ok but is nothing special. I admit to never having seen one in the hand but from the photos the nose appears a bit too pointy, the rear undercarriage legs simplistic and the tailcone too short. Early releases often have quite poor cockpit window printing like this Delta 73H. Still its a passable effort and later releases seem better like this Qantas 73H and American 73H. The mould looks like it has fallen out of use since 2007. There is really no reason to be acquiring this mould in 2020.
|
|
Gemini Jets / Phoenix Mould 1 (2000-2014, 2020)
|
Gemini's first 737NG is still the most heavily used mould and was used by both Gemini (including Schuco rereleases) and Phoenix. Phoenix transitioned to their own mould in 2011 but Gemini kept using this mould until 2014/2015 when it was replaced by the JC Wings mould (see below). Somewhat oddly Gemini actually reused the mould in 2020 for a trio of 737-700s and nobody seems to know why that was. It was possibly as simple as a mistake!
|
|
The mould itself isn't bad and could be argued in some ways to be superior to both its successor moulds. Nonetheless the nose appears too long but at the same time too blunt. This does seems worse on some models than others and isn't a deal breaker for me. There is also a seam where the wings join the fuselage however it is quite discrete. Lastly as with Gemini's 737 classic mould the nose gear doors rather eat into the fuselage. On the plus side the rear undercarriage is well angled and the rest of the mould a good representation of the aircraft. Regardless of your thoughts on the mould it is hard to avoid having several of these in your collection.
Dragon Wings (2001-2012)
|
Dragons 737NG mould is a massive improvement over their A320, although that is somewhat damning with feint praise. It is another middling attempt at the NG. The nose is a bit chunky and the earliest versions, like the Copa in the below photos often have poor cockpit printing and chunky landing gear. By 2002 releases are much improved. |
|
In keeping with most Dragon models the undercarriage is very simplistic but it does at least give adequate ground clearance. Other issues with the mould are typical Dragon ones i.e. loose fitting of the plastic elements like the engines and vertical stabiliser. Then again as with most Dragon moulds the wings join seamlessly to the fuselage. The mould continued in use fitfully into 2012. This mould doesn't compare too well to modern 737NG moulds but as a fallback if no alternatives are available it is not dreadful.
Witty Wings / Aviation 400 (2008)
|
The Witty stable of brands (including Inflight 400, Aviation 400, Apollo and Witty) produced a 737NG mould in 2008 which sits passably well alongside its competition. Its not going to win any awards however and it is with the nose, as always with 737s, that the mould shows imperfections. It is too rounded and not pointy enough, especially in the lower half. This mistake is repeated on their 1/200 mould which appears to be a scaled up version of this. Overall I still think it is a decent representation of the aircraft and vastly better than Witty's A320 mould, however given the opportunity I would always replace examples of this mould if I could. The mould doesn't have rolling gears.
|
|
Phoenix (2011 - Present)
|
Phoenix split from Gemini in 2011 and introduced their own mould with rolling gears. The mould has been used prolifically by Phoenix but often not very well. It's another ok mould, As per usual its nose isn't quite correct. In this case the form around the cockpit window is wrong and results in them looking like they are sliding down the nose, which itself has an upturned duck-like curve on the top edge. Still its not a disaster to the mould which is otherwise pretty good. One other small issue is the rear undercarriage which sometimes seems too straight and not long enough.
|
|
The big issue with this mould isn't the mould itself but Phoenixes' inability to print the cockpit windows properly. On far too many of the releases the windows droop downwards at the back and do not have a straight upper line, ruining the aircraft's appearance. The problem is usually much more obvious on the left hand side of the model. This is often a deal breaker for me on the releases concerned - to see what I mean compare this poor Malev to this much better China Eastern. Several of the models below show this error to varying degrees (Ruili, CUA and Xiamen). Additionally, even when printed straight, the cockpit windows are often too thin.
Sometime in 2016 Phoenix modified the nosegear of this mould making it both longer and chunkier. It looks awful. The model no longer sits correctly and the gear is both too high and not aligned properly. It ruined the mould as the releases looked like old style Matchbox toys. The below photo shows the difference between a newer Jeju Air example and an older Hainan Airlines example. The Jeju also has shocking cockpit window printing. This nosegear change was reverted in 2017 but be aware some Phoenix 737s have this awful problem.
In 2015 Phoenix also released a 737 version with the new split scimitar winglets however the Phoenix wing was a complete disaster. See Jon Champs review of one of the two releases for a complete rundown. Suffice to say that the wing had bizarre deep lines on it, whilst the winglets themselves were rather chunky. Given it has only been used twice it is probably fair to say Phoenix themselves noticed the problem too.
Panda Models / Aeroclassics Mould (2014-2019)
|
Aeroclassics had given an indication that is was going to start making 737NGs when its 737-300 boxes showed the larger series on them. These models appeared in 2014 to decent reviews, though the mould itself has subsequently been rubbished by Andrew Klein (that's Mr Aeroclassics) himself! It turns out that the mould is actually owned by Kang Kai and Aeroclassics was using it under licence. Following some form of disagreement Aeroclassics ceased to use the mould and Kang Kai started releasing models on it, in the Chinese market only, under the brand names Panda Models. The mould itself is like all the 737NG moulds not perfect, but it was the best made at the time.
|
|
The angular lines around the cockpit have been criticised but the nose itself was probably the best 737NG one available until the new NG Models mould. The only other issue is the rear undercarriage legs, which as with the newer Phoenix mould appear too straight. Lastly several of the early models (mainly the 73Gs) had engines that nearly touched the ground. This has been fixed in later releases and aerials have been added. In 2019 Panda announced that they would stop production of this mould and replace it with a new version.
I have reviewed the mould in detail for a specific release at Model Airliner.com:
JC Wings / Gemini Mould 2 (2014 - Present)
|
Gemini's partnership with JC Wings has seen them using many of JC's moulds in recent years including the new JC 737NG. When it was first released I was very disappointed with it but since then the mould does seem to have been tweaked and now it actually is a passable mould - better than the Phoenix offering.
|
|
Early examples, like the 9 Air one below, had a nosecone that was way too pointy and an incorrect angle between the cockpit and cone also. As with JC Wings A330s often the wings had an upward flex in them bringing the winglets not far away from level with the fuselage roof! Later versions, like the China Eastern Enshi model below, have a much better nose area and wings at a sensible level.
Compare the difference in nose shape and wing height between an early 9Air model and a later China Eastern one.
The landing gear - especially the nosegear, is still not perfect. The gear legs are too short, the tyres too large and the nosegear doors wrongly angled. The same issues exist with the maingear but are less of a problem.
I have reviewed the mould in detail several times for specific releases at Model Airliner.com:
NG Models (2019 - Present)
|
The NG Models 737-800 represents the current high water mark for Boeing 737-800s and is a superb mould that leaves all the competition in the dust. I first reviewed the sample models back in December 2018 and since then NG has made good use of the mould, although they do only have the 737-800 version at present. They also have all three wing variations available.
|
|
The only criticism of any weight that can be levelled against this mould is that sometimes the nosegear is fitted poorly and so is too high. This is more a QC issue than a mould problem.
I have reviewed the mould in detail several times for specific releases at Model Airliner.com also:
In keeping with their general philosophy NG have slightly modified this mould over the course of its use. As you can see from the December 2020 Aeromexico release the nosegear door size has been increased and the curve down from the cockpit to the nosecone changed. The gear doors are better but I'm not sure about the nosecone modification.
Original nose and gear doors
|
Modified nose and gear doors
|
Panda Models (2020 - Present)
Panda's new 737-800 mould made an appearance in mid-2020 but has so far only been used for a trio of P-8 Poseidons. Regardless of the failings of the models as P-8s the underlying 737-800 looks very nice and has the potential to become a competitor to the NG Models mould. For my full review of the initial P-8s see:
