Boeing 747-400 Detailed Mould Comparison - 2025 VERSION
Updated: October 2025
This is the second version of a 747-400 detailed comparison and in the 4 years since the last version 2 100% new moulds have appeared from HX Models / YY Wings and NG Models. I'm not going to re-review 4 of the 5 moulds from the 2021 version, but I will include the JC Wings / Gemini Jets 747-400 because it is clearly the third main competitor. If you believe the poor Phoenix mould is a competitor then this review won't change your mind so I'll leave it out, while the pair of 2024 Aeroclassics releases (using a dreadfully moulded variant of the classic Big Bird) were just embarrassing! A better version of the Big Bird mould is still being used by the new Apollo Models, but it is the same as that reviewed in the previous version of this.
For the previous detailed comparison for the 747-400 featuring 4 other 747-400 moulds (Dragon Wings, Gemini Jets, BigBird and Phoenix) see here as it is still valid for those moulds:
The models and 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.
Scoring
NOSE / NOSEGEAR
NOSE: The printing of the cockpit windows has a significant impact on the look of the product and none of the three get that quite correct (oversized on the JC and HX and undersized on the NG). Trying to ignore that, all three have effective nose and cockpit regions with probably the NG having the best lines. From overheard (see below) the NG appears to have a chubbier nose and I think from above the HX looks best.
NOSEGEAR: The nosegear has been a source of criticism on two of the three moulds and is an area of significant difference. Starting with the nosegear door. It is too small on the JC Wings, too large on the HX Models and correctly sized on the NG Models, but not angled correctly. The gear leg of the JC Wings version is way too short and often gives the models a nose down attitude. It also impact engine ground clearance and is a major turn-off for me. The gear leg of the HX is slightly too long, mainly because of the geardoors rather than the proportion of the visible leg beneath it. The NG has the most accurate gearleg height, but the detail elements, such as steering actuators and torque link, are too low on the leg overall. None of the gearlegs and door are perfect, but to my eye the JC is the weakest as it impacts the overall look of the entire model negatively.
|
|
WING JOIN
Chris Lofting (GFDL 1.2 or GFDL 1.2 ), via Wikimedia Commons
All three moulds have slot in wings, but the NG Models version attempts this with a very different look to the other pair. The NG has a taller squarer join at the front of the wing, which I don't think captures the look as well as the other pair, however it also has a straight line wing-fuselage join along its length, whereas both the JC and HX have several cut-ins, which I'm not seeing on the real thing. Note the printed JC landing lights are too far inboard.
ENGINES & PYLONS
|
Above: General Electric CF6 Engines
Left: Pratt & Whitney Engines |
NACELLES & PYLONS: Of these two models the Air China and Dragonair both are equipped with Pratts and the EVA with General Electric CF-6s. The inboard pylon on both the JC and HX are a little too long, more so on the JC Wings, which doesn't help with its ground clearance already impacted by the too short nosegear. The form of the pylons is worst on the JC on the outboard engine too, with the connection to the engine hot section not great. In fact, it looks like the Dragonair is incorrectly wearing CF-6s rather than Pratts. NG Models have stopped using hollowcore fans and so their engine doesn't have a separate nacelle rim, unlike the other pair.
MAINGEAR
MAINGEAR: The maingear bogies of the NG Models mould do not pivot and the gear legs are noticeably less detailed, aside from the outer gear torque links, which are nicer than on the JC and HX. Both the JC and HX have pivoting gear.
Arpingstone, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
From the front the gear legs are finer on the NG, with slimmer wheel trucks, but less detailed and the inner gear support struts are not wide enough, which has the knock on effect of making the gap between the gear units and doors too wide. It doesn't help the doors to the inner gear units aren't angled correctly as well. The HX has nice gear units, but for some reason the inner doors angle incorrectly towards the gear legs, not away. On the JC Wings version the inner gear doors correctly angle inwards. Note that the gear bogies are prone to hanging at odd angles.
FRONT CROSS SECTION
FRONT CROSS SECTION: From ahead the NG Models 747 appears to capture the figure of 8 look of the fuselage slightly better than the other pair. The short undercarriage and too long inner engine pylon of the JC version count against it. The solidcore fans of the NG engines are definitely superior to the other pair, although I prefer the detailing of the hollowcore engines on the HX to the solidcore detailing of the JC Wings.
TAIL & TAILCONE
|
|
V STAB: All three moulds have a nice vertical stabiliser and tailcone, but small differences are apparent. The dorsal fillet join of the tail leading edge to the fuselage is too heavily curved with the HX mould. The fit into the fuselage is nicer with the JC Wings. Overall stabiliser shape and rudder detailing is good all round.
TAILCONE: At the tailcone the JC Wings version lacks the APU pipe itself, the corret cut out shape for it and detailing beneath is a little chunky. The NG is much better but hasn't got the shape quite as nicely modelled as the HX, which I think has the APU pipe, cut out and detailing spot-on.
TAILCONE: At the tailcone the JC Wings version lacks the APU pipe itself, the corret cut out shape for it and detailing beneath is a little chunky. The NG is much better but hasn't got the shape quite as nicely modelled as the HX, which I think has the APU pipe, cut out and detailing spot-on.
WING DETAILING & EXTRAS
The NG Models moulds is distinctly less detailed on the underside. The flaps have no hinges, the fuel dump pipe is not moulded in to the wings trailing edge and there's less detail on the belly too. It also has significantly smaller winglets, although I admit I'm not certain if they are more accurate or not. Both the JC and HX versions come with a flaps-down variant.
Summary
|
It is another close contest among the 3 newest 747-400s. If JC Wings would fix the length of its nosegear the mould would immediately pickup 2 extra points, but it would still be marginally behind the other pair in my view.
The HX Models and NG Models 747-400s are quite different in a variety of areas and all three moulds often lose points for different things in the same scoring sections.
Personally for me, the undercarriage height makes me wary of the JC Wings mould, but when it comes to printing of cockpit windows (that wasn't scored here) all three could do with some work. The other elephant in the room is usage. None of the moulds have been used particularly well to date, unless that is you want an obscure cargo airline (JC Wings), Air China (NG) or something Asian (HX). Ultimately all three are decent selections if the airline choice works.
Where there are multiple options of the same mould, such as the recent Singapore Tropicals (made on all of these 3 plus the Apollo) you could make an argument for any of the 3 reviewed here, although I'd probably favour the HX or NG myself.
|
|