Boeing 747-100/200 Moulds in 1/400 Scale
|
Updated: May 2017
|
|
Although it didn't really introduce any new groundbreaking technology the sheer size of the first widebody jet, the Jumbo, has meant it is seen as a revolution in aviation and cemented its place in the popular imagination as the 'Queen of the Skies'. The first 747 went into service on January 22, 1970 with Pan Am, however the early years of the 747 were not problem free. The engines weren't really up to the task and even the inauguration flight was delayed and then substituted due to engine problems. The 1973 oil crisis also had a major impact as lots of US airlines especially had ordered 747s they didn't really need. They converted areas to piano bars and such but most would sell on their 747s quite quickly. Fortunately the type was perfect for transatlantic and trans-pacific routes and especially in the longer ranged series 200B version carved a strong niche out for itself. In total 167 747-100s, 29 747SRs, 9 747-100Bs and 393 747-200B/F/C/Ms were made. These are the types covered by this review, but obviously development of the 747 has extended well beyond these base-line fuselage length types. The last passenger 747-200 wasn't finally retired until May 2016, by Iran Air.
Boeing 747-100/200 in 1:400 Scale
Naturally as you'd expect the 747-100/200 has seen a lot of attention in 1/400 attracting a wide range of manufacturers and moulds. Unfortunately a lot of this attention was at the dawn of 1/400 manufacturing and the level of mould sharing has been huge as moulds have been passed down through various brands. It is a bit of a nightmare trying to work out what has gone on and I don't expect that I have got this fully correct, especially as I don't own examples of all the different brands. In the past 6 years the classic old 747 moulds seem to have largely disappeared from circulation and only Gemini Jets slip out the occassional new 747-100/200, rather ironically on one of the oldest and least impressive moulds.
Here is the usage as I see it. Note the sheer number of brands (these numbers are from the DiMA database - I suspect there are more brands as DiMA often seems to lump brands together) but also the consistent number of moulds across both series 100 and 200:
Here is the usage as I see it. Note the sheer number of brands (these numbers are from the DiMA database - I suspect there are more brands as DiMA often seems to lump brands together) but also the consistent number of moulds across both series 100 and 200:
|
|
- Note BigBird models were sometimes branded as 400 Your Craftsman
- Some of the BigBird models may actually be BigBird Mk2s. There was a lot of dodgy stuff going on with 'fake' BigBirds it seems
- I'm far from certain about the first Phoenix mould. Was it a standalone effort or one of the Blue Box or Jet-X moulds?
Boeing 747-100/200 Variants
Standard length 747s had relatively few areas from which an enthusiast could identify the sub-type from the outside. 747-100s are renowned for only having 3 upper deck windows but in fact only early series 100s had such a small number of windows. The most obvious differences were in the engines. The 747-100 only came with Pratt & Whitney JT9D-3 or -7 engines. The 747-200 came with a series of upgraded engines from the big 3 engine manufacturers - either P&W JT9Ds, General Electric CF-6-45 or -50s, or Rolls Royce RB211s. To add to the confusion Saudia's 747-100Bs also had Rolls-Royce engines, whilst All Nippons 747SR-81s (basically 100s) had General Electric engines.
This must be a -100 because of the upper deck windows but not all 100s had only 3. Note also the P&W engines
A 747SR-81 (ex All Nippon) with General Electric Engines
An Alitalia 747-243B with General Electric CF6-50s
A British Airways 747-236B with Rolls Royce RB211-524D4s
Model Moulds
I'll look through the moulds in the usual date of release order:
Gemini Jets (1999-2017) - used 58 times (still in production)
This is the grand daddy of all 1/400 moulds as I believe it includes the first ever releases in this scale. It is somewhat surprising therefore that Gemini Jets are still using it, but they are albeit in modified form. The original mould captures the general shape of the 747 quite well and as such even old releases actually still look ok. Having said that the mould is very dated by modern standards. The undercarriage is very simple - not far away from just being stalks (a bit like early Dragon models). The nosegear doors are tiny and underneath there is sometimes no standhole. Interestingly the rear main gear legs actually move in their placements (a feature shared by many 747 moulds). The wings completely lack the rearward pointing aerials that are such a feature of 747s at the wingtips, whilst the engine pylon / wing join is famously clumsy and ugly. As you'd expect from such an early mould it is a cradle fit but the seam line follows the wingtop line well so this is not a major issue. Lastly, as with many early Gemini moulds there is a secondseam line to enable fitment of the horizontal stabilisers. Partly because of this lack of features this is literally a solid mould and although not anyone's first choice nowadays given the scarcity of the other moulds it will still feature in your collection as a backup if you've got lots of 747s. One printing point to make is that often Gemini printed rather large cockpit windows on this mould.
This is the grand daddy of all 1/400 moulds as I believe it includes the first ever releases in this scale. It is somewhat surprising therefore that Gemini Jets are still using it, but they are albeit in modified form. The original mould captures the general shape of the 747 quite well and as such even old releases actually still look ok. Having said that the mould is very dated by modern standards. The undercarriage is very simple - not far away from just being stalks (a bit like early Dragon models). The nosegear doors are tiny and underneath there is sometimes no standhole. Interestingly the rear main gear legs actually move in their placements (a feature shared by many 747 moulds). The wings completely lack the rearward pointing aerials that are such a feature of 747s at the wingtips, whilst the engine pylon / wing join is famously clumsy and ugly. As you'd expect from such an early mould it is a cradle fit but the seam line follows the wingtop line well so this is not a major issue. Lastly, as with many early Gemini moulds there is a secondseam line to enable fitment of the horizontal stabilisers. Partly because of this lack of features this is literally a solid mould and although not anyone's first choice nowadays given the scarcity of the other moulds it will still feature in your collection as a backup if you've got lots of 747s. One printing point to make is that often Gemini printed rather large cockpit windows on this mould.
Gemini still use this classic mould but have gone to some trouble to fix the issues it has. Quite early on they got rid of the second seam at the rear and added in a stand hole, but since 2006 they have used a more thoroughly updated version of the mould. This features new landing gear, which is far superior to the old. The wings have also been recast with HF wingtip aerials, albeit slightly chunky ones. Gemini's printing is now also much better than it once was. What hasn't changed is the poor pylon join point, which remains the moulds achilles heal. The most recent 2 releases (both Pan Am 100s) also have had aerials added to them. Despite the updates Gemini don't use this mould much and have made only about 15 models since 2006.
Gemini have, as well as civilian versions, also produced models of Air Force One (VC-25) and the Airborne Command Post (E-4B). These both feature lots of aerials and bumps and look pretty good.
Gemini have, as well as civilian versions, also produced models of Air Force One (VC-25) and the Airborne Command Post (E-4B). These both feature lots of aerials and bumps and look pretty good.
Dragon Wings (2000-2011) - used 110 times
Dragon Wings and Jet-X used to share moulds and their 747 is still regarded by many as one of the best - mainly I suspect because it is seamless around the wing. Dragon were a pioneer of slot in wings but then again when your wings are made of plastic and the fuselage is made of metal you haven't got a lot of choice! It is a superbly shaped 747 and the use of plastic in this case doesn't bother me as it is done well. Unlike the original Gemini the wings have the HF aerials (albeit a bit short) and they also have a really nice engine pylon / wing join. The Dragon Wings 747 suffers from 3 issues all of which are fairly standard for Dragon models:
Dragon never really fixed the issues with the mould, which is a shame. Nevertheless it is still a better mould than the Gemini Jets one and nowadays Dragon 747s (and Dragon models in general) do not command high prices so they are relatively easy to pickup. I own quite a few DW 747s and am very happy with them. I have however replaced some of the less good ones with other moulds.
As with Gemini Dragon have also produced models of Air Force One (VC-25) and the Airborne Command Post (E-4B). These both DO NOT feature any aerials and still have very old fashioned landing gear despite dating from 2011. Dragon also made the NASA shuttle transporter too.
Dragon Wings and Jet-X used to share moulds and their 747 is still regarded by many as one of the best - mainly I suspect because it is seamless around the wing. Dragon were a pioneer of slot in wings but then again when your wings are made of plastic and the fuselage is made of metal you haven't got a lot of choice! It is a superbly shaped 747 and the use of plastic in this case doesn't bother me as it is done well. Unlike the original Gemini the wings have the HF aerials (albeit a bit short) and they also have a really nice engine pylon / wing join. The Dragon Wings 747 suffers from 3 issues all of which are fairly standard for Dragon models:
- Simple landing gear (they can be removed as with all Dragon models)
- Poor cockpit windows (Dragon sometimes print too small but not always)
- Poorly fitting vertical stabiliser (as it's plastic it is a slot in part)
Dragon never really fixed the issues with the mould, which is a shame. Nevertheless it is still a better mould than the Gemini Jets one and nowadays Dragon 747s (and Dragon models in general) do not command high prices so they are relatively easy to pickup. I own quite a few DW 747s and am very happy with them. I have however replaced some of the less good ones with other moulds.
As with Gemini Dragon have also produced models of Air Force One (VC-25) and the Airborne Command Post (E-4B). These both DO NOT feature any aerials and still have very old fashioned landing gear despite dating from 2011. Dragon also made the NASA shuttle transporter too.
Aeroclassics / BigBird (2003-2014) - used 288 times
For many people the definitive 747-100/200 is the BigBird / Aeroclassics mould used from 2003. This is partly due to the sheer scarcity of these models. They were made in relatively small numbers and are very highly sought after making them easily the most expensive models in 1/400 scale. Some can be gotten cheaper than others but there aren't many that don't command north of $40-50 even at Waffle Sales let alone on eBay, where they can go for much much more. The mould is excellent. It has a great fuselage shape plus comes with very finely done landing gear (the nosegear comes detached when new in a separate bag as it is very prone to damage) and long fine wingtip HF aerials. The engine pylon join is fine as is the vertical stabiliser fit so this mould is undoubtedly superior to the earlier Gemini and Dragon moulds. Issues with the mould are hard to find although the tail is not correct - it is too thin. Compare the models below with the real thing looking at the tail top for proof. The only other compromise is that it is a cradle mould and so has a seam, which effectively matches that of the earlier Gemini. At this point in time literally nobody was making seamless moulds aside from Dragon.
This mould has had more 747s made on it than any other, but that doesn't seem to impact how hard they are to find. BigBird seem to have left the scene in 2006/07 and Aeroclassics look like they stopped using it in 2008.
As I understand Aeroclassics didn't own the mould and it was then taken back by its owner, or somehow passed to - Witty Wings who in later years used it very rarely under their Apollo brand. It is worth pointing out that Witty themselves never seem to have used it for own-branded models for which they used their own seamless mould - see below.
For many people the definitive 747-100/200 is the BigBird / Aeroclassics mould used from 2003. This is partly due to the sheer scarcity of these models. They were made in relatively small numbers and are very highly sought after making them easily the most expensive models in 1/400 scale. Some can be gotten cheaper than others but there aren't many that don't command north of $40-50 even at Waffle Sales let alone on eBay, where they can go for much much more. The mould is excellent. It has a great fuselage shape plus comes with very finely done landing gear (the nosegear comes detached when new in a separate bag as it is very prone to damage) and long fine wingtip HF aerials. The engine pylon join is fine as is the vertical stabiliser fit so this mould is undoubtedly superior to the earlier Gemini and Dragon moulds. Issues with the mould are hard to find although the tail is not correct - it is too thin. Compare the models below with the real thing looking at the tail top for proof. The only other compromise is that it is a cradle mould and so has a seam, which effectively matches that of the earlier Gemini. At this point in time literally nobody was making seamless moulds aside from Dragon.
This mould has had more 747s made on it than any other, but that doesn't seem to impact how hard they are to find. BigBird seem to have left the scene in 2006/07 and Aeroclassics look like they stopped using it in 2008.
As I understand Aeroclassics didn't own the mould and it was then taken back by its owner, or somehow passed to - Witty Wings who in later years used it very rarely under their Apollo brand. It is worth pointing out that Witty themselves never seem to have used it for own-branded models for which they used their own seamless mould - see below.
Blue Box & Magic (2004-2008?) - used 94 times
In the early-mid 2000s there seem to have been a lot of brand names in use and who they were and what they were doing seems largely lost in the mists of time. BlueBox made some Tristars on their own mould but I know nothing about Magic. There was also NetModels and C&C too. All were making 747s using a mould, which looks similar to the Aeroclassics / BigBird but is different. Judging from comments made it doesn't seem that the mould is a clone of the original BigBird. Certainly both the above manufacturers raised the blood pressure of Aeroclassics owner Andrew Klein at some point so I assume they were dodgy in some way. All are long gone now so I doubt the full story will ever be known.
The mould itself looks pretty good and appears to have a characteristic notch at the bottom of the rudder as well as maybe a slightly longer nose than the BigBird. The wing seam actually looks very similar to the Gemini Jets mould. Apparently these models suffer a lot from Zinc Rot so it's anyone's guess how many are surviving. Certainly they never appear in Waffle Collection Sales so must be considered very rare. Note that most of the examples in the photos below also have bubbing on the wings and/or fuselage suggesting production methods were not as good as other brands.
In the early-mid 2000s there seem to have been a lot of brand names in use and who they were and what they were doing seems largely lost in the mists of time. BlueBox made some Tristars on their own mould but I know nothing about Magic. There was also NetModels and C&C too. All were making 747s using a mould, which looks similar to the Aeroclassics / BigBird but is different. Judging from comments made it doesn't seem that the mould is a clone of the original BigBird. Certainly both the above manufacturers raised the blood pressure of Aeroclassics owner Andrew Klein at some point so I assume they were dodgy in some way. All are long gone now so I doubt the full story will ever be known.
The mould itself looks pretty good and appears to have a characteristic notch at the bottom of the rudder as well as maybe a slightly longer nose than the BigBird. The wing seam actually looks very similar to the Gemini Jets mould. Apparently these models suffer a lot from Zinc Rot so it's anyone's guess how many are surviving. Certainly they never appear in Waffle Collection Sales so must be considered very rare. Note that most of the examples in the photos below also have bubbing on the wings and/or fuselage suggesting production methods were not as good as other brands.
Jet-X / BigBird Mk2 (2004-2008?) - used 53 times
Sometime in the mid-2000s Jet-X split from their association with Dragon Wings and began using their own moulds like the BAE 146 and DC-9. They also made some 747 classics using a mould that was apparently an illegally cloned version of the original Aeroclassics/BigBird mould. The nosegear often looks too short (they apparently sometimes used 1/500 scale gear!) and the front fuselage too slab sided, plus the wingroot is different. BigBird Mk2 seem unrelated to the original BigBird and they used this inferior mould for their 747s probably before Jet-X did. The printing quality of these models is not very impressive. Several sub-brands used this mould too - Sky400 and Dreamflyers.
The photos below give the chance to look at a BigBird Mk2 but also compare it to an Aeroclassics / BigBird Mk1 using the same livery:
Sometime in the mid-2000s Jet-X split from their association with Dragon Wings and began using their own moulds like the BAE 146 and DC-9. They also made some 747 classics using a mould that was apparently an illegally cloned version of the original Aeroclassics/BigBird mould. The nosegear often looks too short (they apparently sometimes used 1/500 scale gear!) and the front fuselage too slab sided, plus the wingroot is different. BigBird Mk2 seem unrelated to the original BigBird and they used this inferior mould for their 747s probably before Jet-X did. The printing quality of these models is not very impressive. Several sub-brands used this mould too - Sky400 and Dreamflyers.
The photos below give the chance to look at a BigBird Mk2 but also compare it to an Aeroclassics / BigBird Mk1 using the same livery:
Sometimes it is a challenge to tell the above 3 moulds appart. Below we have a spot the difference. The Boeing house colours is Aeroclassics, the Saudia is Blue Box and the JAL is Jet-X. Note the differing positions of where the seamline joins the wing. Note also that the Aeroclassics seems to have a rounder seamline at the front of the wing. The Magic / Blue Box looks like it has a notch at the rudder base plus two bumps on the hump and the others do not. The Jet-X / BigBird Mk2 looks the worst to me but probably has the cleanest wing seam.
Aviation 400 / Witty Wings (2007-2014) - used 40 times
As I understand it Witty Wings owned the original BigBird / Aeroclassics mould and in 2007 it looks like they tried to fix the issues with it by producing a seamless example of the mould with a better tail. Sadly by then most 747s had been made and this mould never really got the usage it deserved. It's a really nice mould and is possibly the best 747-100/200 available. Aside from the slot in wings it has all the positive features of the BigBird / Aeroclassics mould. Interestingly it does seem to have the tail notch of the Blue Box / Magic mould so maybe that was what it was based upon? Either way you can't go wrong having some of these in your collection and they include some pretty obscure airlines like Air Madagascar, Air Algerie and Libyan Arab. Following Witty's collapse in 2014 I believe it is JC Wings that now owns this mould and it is a crying shame they don't use it.
As I understand it Witty Wings owned the original BigBird / Aeroclassics mould and in 2007 it looks like they tried to fix the issues with it by producing a seamless example of the mould with a better tail. Sadly by then most 747s had been made and this mould never really got the usage it deserved. It's a really nice mould and is possibly the best 747-100/200 available. Aside from the slot in wings it has all the positive features of the BigBird / Aeroclassics mould. Interestingly it does seem to have the tail notch of the Blue Box / Magic mould so maybe that was what it was based upon? Either way you can't go wrong having some of these in your collection and they include some pretty obscure airlines like Air Madagascar, Air Algerie and Libyan Arab. Following Witty's collapse in 2014 I believe it is JC Wings that now owns this mould and it is a crying shame they don't use it.
Herpa (2003) - used 8 times
Herpa have done their usual and created a mould they have then barely used. Is it any good? It doesn't really matter but for completeness I'll include it and say no - not really. It is seamless but the tail join looks poor and isn't the nosegear too far forward and too short? Without the gear it looks pretty decent, but seriously how many people own one of the 8 models they've made?
Herpa have done their usual and created a mould they have then barely used. Is it any good? It doesn't really matter but for completeness I'll include it and say no - not really. It is seamless but the tail join looks poor and isn't the nosegear too far forward and too short? Without the gear it looks pretty decent, but seriously how many people own one of the 8 models they've made?
Hogan (2006) - used 12 times
Hogan only seem to make 1/400 scale models for the Japanese market and usually seem to use Herpa's moulds. Not with the 747-100/200 however where they have their own mould. It looks pretty good as its seamless and well proportioned. What is really interesting however is that Hogan have done new things with the mould producing both a flaps down passenger version and a freighter with open doors. Awesome, but no doubt hard to find and very expensive!
Hogan only seem to make 1/400 scale models for the Japanese market and usually seem to use Herpa's moulds. Not with the 747-100/200 however where they have their own mould. It looks pretty good as its seamless and well proportioned. What is really interesting however is that Hogan have done new things with the mould producing both a flaps down passenger version and a freighter with open doors. Awesome, but no doubt hard to find and very expensive!
Flaps down in 2012 - 4 years before JC Wings got to it
How cool is that!
Phoenix (2008) - used 7 times
It is ironic that the newest 747-200 mould is probably the joint worst (the Jet-X and Herpa aren't doing well either). Not content with a dreadful 747-400 Phoenix, after using what looks like one of the earlier BigBird clone moulds for years, decided to create a new 747 and it looks quite similar to their series 400. I can't quite put my finger on what I don't like about it and have never seen it in person, however the undercarriage looks too high (and maybe too far back), whilst the wing seems too far forward. Plus the engine pylons look weird and the slot in wings don't seem to fit well. I'd really like to own an Air Siam 747 but I'm not getting this one. It's just as well retro-jets aren't Phoenix' thing as they've barely used the mould anyway.
It is ironic that the newest 747-200 mould is probably the joint worst (the Jet-X and Herpa aren't doing well either). Not content with a dreadful 747-400 Phoenix, after using what looks like one of the earlier BigBird clone moulds for years, decided to create a new 747 and it looks quite similar to their series 400. I can't quite put my finger on what I don't like about it and have never seen it in person, however the undercarriage looks too high (and maybe too far back), whilst the wing seems too far forward. Plus the engine pylons look weird and the slot in wings don't seem to fit well. I'd really like to own an Air Siam 747 but I'm not getting this one. It's just as well retro-jets aren't Phoenix' thing as they've barely used the mould anyway.
FUSELAGE/WING JOINT IN 1/400 SCALE 747's OF VARIOUS BRANDS
As an interesting aside my friend Akira Hiraco has done some interesting deconstruction work on the 747 moulds, which illustrates some of the constructional differences between the moulds. I don't suggest you start taking apart your 747s but this does show some of the different mechanisms and quality between the manufacturers. Text and photos below are from Akira:
I have been curious about how the wings are correctly aligned with the fuselage in diecast airplane models. Just for such a curiosity, I detached the wings from the fuselage in the models of Aeroclassics, BigBird, Gemini, Herpa, Dragon and Magic (5 stars). I attempted to do it also in the models of Phoenix and Aviation 400, but couldn't do it because the joint is too firm in their models.
The structure for the fuselage/wing joint is categorized into two types.... (i) type I is that the right & left wings are provided by a single piece, and the single piece is jointed to the fuselage through one or two pins, just as PH, AC, BB, GJ, DW & MM (5 stars), while (ii) type II is that the right & left wings are provided by respective two pieces, and the two pieces are jointed to the fuselage through insert/slot fitting, just as AV400 & Herpa.
I have been curious about how the wings are correctly aligned with the fuselage in diecast airplane models. Just for such a curiosity, I detached the wings from the fuselage in the models of Aeroclassics, BigBird, Gemini, Herpa, Dragon and Magic (5 stars). I attempted to do it also in the models of Phoenix and Aviation 400, but couldn't do it because the joint is too firm in their models.
The structure for the fuselage/wing joint is categorized into two types.... (i) type I is that the right & left wings are provided by a single piece, and the single piece is jointed to the fuselage through one or two pins, just as PH, AC, BB, GJ, DW & MM (5 stars), while (ii) type II is that the right & left wings are provided by respective two pieces, and the two pieces are jointed to the fuselage through insert/slot fitting, just as AV400 & Herpa.
The AC's model is nice in the joint structure....I think that the pins are "not" parts of the castings..but "machined" parts machined with high accuracy. Actually no adhesive is used for the joint !! The joint is made by only very tight fitting of the pins in the holes. It is noted that the cavity is provided, probably, for shifting the center of gravity forward, so as to assure contact of the front gear wheel with the base
As the AC's model, the GJ's model and the MM' model have the joint structure with the fitting of the pins in the holes. Unlike the AC's model, the pins are parts of the castings. The fracture of the pin in GJ's model is the evidence. If it were made of machined steel, it couldn"t be fractured when I detached the wings from the fuselage. The MM's model depends on adhesive for the joint.
In the AV 400's and Herpa's models, the two wings are jointed to the fuselage with the inserts being fitted in the slot. I dont know how the slot is machined accurately. (maybe, wire cut ?). This structure requires a higher technique in manufacturing process, as compared with the structure of AC, GJ, MM but provides better looking fit without seam between the fuselage and the wings being exposed.
