Boeing 767-400 Detailed Mould Comparison
Updated: July 2023
I had been aware that Gemini Jets had JC Wings working on a 767-400 mould for some time, and it was little surprise given the circumstances. Namely: Gemini's focus on the US, that the 767-400 sold almost entirely to US customers, it hasn't had a modern mould made for it and US collectors had been asking for it. Early production photos showed some interesting features but also some concerning ones and I wasn't entirely sure I was going to acquire the first release, since I already owned a decent Dragon version of it. But, here we are I couldn't resist taking a closer look.
JC Wings has been making some excellent moulds in recent times, both for itself and Gemini, so there is plenty of scope for this new 767 to be brilliant. There are two older moulds to compare it too, both are quite old. There is a year 2000 Dragon Wings mould and a 2005 vintage Herpa one. I have never owned the Herpa mould, so I will exclude it from this review, but I do own two Dragon Wings 767-400s.
Gemini Jets first release on the new mould is a Delta Air Lines example wearing the 1997 Ron Allen colours. It is in fact exactly the same livery and registration as Dragon Wings first release, which I own, and so the two make a nice comparison. It goes without saying that a mould made in 2023 should easily clobber a mould made in 2000 in this sort of review. Let's see if it does.
Models under review:
- Gemini Jets (2023 Mould)
- Dragon Wings (2000 Mould)
Gemini Jets
Dragon Wings
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 allotted for each mould for each area. Adding the combined scores together gives you the winner.
Scoring
NOSE / NOSEGEAR
Above is a 767-300 but there are really no differences between variants at the front
NOSE: The Dragon Wings 767 has always been blessed with a good nose and cockpit. The same can be said for the old Gemini Jets 767-200/300 and it appears the new series 400 has taken the same nose across to it. Both capture the nose very well.
NOSEGEAR: The Dragon landing gear is, of course, simplistic but does capture the basic elements and is an excellent height with a well-sized nosegear. The nosegear door is however too large. The Gemini Jets version has a much more finely detailed nosegear and better sized gear door. However, it has plenty wrong with it too. The nosegear door is slightly recessed into the fuselage, the tyre is too large, but worst of all it is clearly too short by some distance. This becomes clearer when the model itself doesn't even want to sit on it. My example spends most of its time with the nosegear raised off the ground and certainly looks better that way. It isn't awful by any margin, however decreasing the tyre size and lengthening the nosegear strut would significantly improve the entire model. By the way, yes the 767-400 does have a slightly nosedown angle but not this much - see lower down for more photos illustrating this issue.
The model sits naturally with the tyre off the ground.
WING FUSELAGE JOIN
|
|
Gemini Jets
|
Dragon Wings
|
WING FUSELAGE JOIN: The area where the wing joins the fuselage on a 767-400 is surprisingly complex. The leading edge surfaces clearly show a break just outboard of the landing light. Inwards the fairing curves into the fuselage. Dragon Wings pioneered slot in wings but you can see even with this approach the join doesn't look very realistic as the pointed front part doesn't exist on the real thing. Sadly, Gemini have taken the same approach as Dragon did. Yes there is no obvious seamline, like on the old 767-300, but what there is doesn't fit the real thing. It would be much better if they had taken the approach that JC Wings did with their new 747-400 mould whereby the area outward of the fairing is squared off. They could have done this just outside of the landing light and that would have allowed for a more realistic fairing. As it is neither is particularly accurate, but perhaps the Gemini is more subtle.
The approach taken on the JC Wings 747-400 allows for a more realistically shaped fairing
|
|
ENGINES & PYLONS
|
|
|
|
ENGINES: The 767-400 is powered by uprated General Electric CF6 engines broadly similar externally to those worn by the series 300. Dragon put a lot of effort into its engines. The nacelle has the upper and lower processes that the real thing does and also has the inner side fin. The long exhaust stage has the correct blunt profile at its end. The engine pylon curves up quickly after the end of the engine under the wing and there is plenty of ground clearance.
Surprisingly Gemini and JC appear to have reused exactly the same engine and wing components they used on the old 767-300 mould. This is a shame as they are very generic. The nacelle lacks the upper and lower processes and there is an exhaust nozzle sticking out the rear, which shouldn't be there. The shape of the engine pylon under the wing is not at all accurate. The curve down begins well after the engines so that when it curves upwards it is nowhere near them. The inside of the engine lacks the small fin that should be present.
Surprisingly Gemini and JC appear to have reused exactly the same engine and wing components they used on the old 767-300 mould. This is a shame as they are very generic. The nacelle lacks the upper and lower processes and there is an exhaust nozzle sticking out the rear, which shouldn't be there. The shape of the engine pylon under the wing is not at all accurate. The curve down begins well after the engines so that when it curves upwards it is nowhere near them. The inside of the engine lacks the small fin that should be present.
Note the inboard fin
|
|
WING ANGLE & ATTITUDE
Gemini Jets
Gemini Jets
Dragon Wings
WING ANGLE & ATTITUDE: Even taking into account the difference between taking a macro shot of a model a few cms away and a real 767 tens of metres away it is clear as day that there is too much anhedral on the wing of the Gemini mould. This helps to make the engines hang too low. Also note the impact the too short nosegear has. Yes the 767-400 does have a slight nosedown attitude but no way near as much as on the model.
The Dragon Wings edition has more dihedral and the wingtips are 3 or 4 mm higher than the Gemini's. There is still a slight nose down attitude and the height of the aircraft belly is more realistic.
TAIL & TAILCONE
Dragon on left. Gemini on right
TAIL / TAILCONE: Both moulds have good vertical and horizontal stabilisers, although the Gemini mould has a slightly better defined rudder region, especially at the join point to the fuselage. When it comes to the tailcone the Gemini mould's is too short and squared off by some distance. The Dragon Wings tailcome is longer, curvier and more accurate. Both moulds correctly have the small tailbumper fairing.
UNDERSIDE
On the underside the Gemini Jets mould is clearly superior. The Dragon Wings maingear is surprisingly decent but not as intricate as the new Gemini's. The Dragon also shows off the underside seam and is almost completely devoid of detailing.
AERIALS & PRINTING
The big thing that people will point out is that the new Gemini mould has aerials and the Dragon does not. This is hardly a surprise considering 23 years separates them. Interestingly the Gemini only has 2 of the 3 and skimps on the rear underside one. I'm not going to score this because to do so would be unfair I feel, but you can always add points as you feel you should for it..
Clearly the Gemini also has much superior print detailing. This isn't a mould feature but is worth pointing out. Again I'm not going to score for it but it does need to be taken into account.
Clearly the Gemini also has much superior print detailing. This isn't a mould feature but is worth pointing out. Again I'm not going to score for it but it does need to be taken into account.
Summary
|
A 2023 built mould should easily defeat a 2000 vintage one, but here that hasn't happenned. Score extra for print, aerials and rolling gear and I guess the Gemini does win - so it is up to you, as always, to decide.
This is no hatchet job. The Dragon Wings mould was always good and remains superior in a number of areas - especially the landing gear height, wing angle, engines and tailcone. It should be easy enough to rectify the nosegear and engine issues on the Gemini if there is a will to do so. Fix those issues and the Gemini mould will be comfortably better. Dragon Wings gets a lot of stick for the plastic wings and simple landing gear, but they don't have an adverse impact on their 767-400 mould at all. In fact, they have caught the overall look of the largest 767 well. The Gemini effort is ok but shows a lack of attention to detail in several areas.
|
|
Note I'm not saying anywhere here not to buy the Gemini version. As an overall package it looks fine but personally I don't think it is as good as it could have been.