Douglas DC-9 Noses
When I look at a model the most important part for me is the nose and cockpit
window printing.
First here is what the nose should look like:
First here is what the nose should look like:
|
|
|
Now onto the models. For each I will give a score out of 1-5 for the nose
section and look at its details. We'll start with the oldest.
Aeroclassics DC-9-10 (2001)
One of ACs earliest moulds. Some have simpler stalk like nosegear which looks dreadful. There is too much curve on the underside but generally the shape isn't bad. Examples like this TWA with the improved gear get 3/5 and others with the simple gear 2/5.
One of ACs earliest moulds. Some have simpler stalk like nosegear which looks dreadful. There is too much curve on the underside but generally the shape isn't bad. Examples like this TWA with the improved gear get 3/5 and others with the simple gear 2/5.
Aeroclassics DC-9-10 Nose
SMA DC-9-30/50 (2003)
This mould has fallen prey to what I call the snoopy effect. The nose is too big and chunky and the area for the cockpit windows is too small. It looks odd but at least the bottom of the fuselage is straight! - 2/5.
This mould has fallen prey to what I call the snoopy effect. The nose is too big and chunky and the area for the cockpit windows is too small. It looks odd but at least the bottom of the fuselage is straight! - 2/5.
Seattle Models DC-9-50 Nose
Net Models DC-9-30 High Nosegear - photo thanks to dennypayne
|
Net Models DC-9-30 Lower Nosegear - photo thanks to dennypayne
|
Phoenix / Net Models DC-9-30 (2003)
This mould also exhibits the snoopy effect but not as badly as the SMA. The front undercarriage also doesn't look great and is too high (a problem also with the maingear). Net Models seemed to use the same (or very similar) mould for 49 releases, with at least two types of undercarriage - some of which is very high and some slightly lower. Depending on the excessive nosewheel height the mould is still ok if not great - 3/5.
Gemini Jets DC-9-30 (2004)
This mould is very similar to the Phoenix mould and may be the same. It has all the same failings.
This mould also exhibits the snoopy effect but not as badly as the SMA. The front undercarriage also doesn't look great and is too high (a problem also with the maingear). Net Models seemed to use the same (or very similar) mould for 49 releases, with at least two types of undercarriage - some of which is very high and some slightly lower. Depending on the excessive nosewheel height the mould is still ok if not great - 3/5.
Gemini Jets DC-9-30 (2004)
This mould is very similar to the Phoenix mould and may be the same. It has all the same failings.
Phoenix DC-9-30 Nose
Jet-X DC-9-10 (2006)
The nose on this mould is too slanted downwards but at least the nose gear looks good. They have only used this mould 9 times and several have awfully misplaced cockpits however its good to have a modern DC-9-10 mould even if not perfect - 3/5.
The nose on this mould is too slanted downwards but at least the nose gear looks good. They have only used this mould 9 times and several have awfully misplaced cockpits however its good to have a modern DC-9-10 mould even if not perfect - 3/5.
Jet-X DC-9-10 Nose
Jet-X DC-9-30 (2008)
I only have one of the 21 releases of this but its hard to fault nosewise. Everything is in the right place and has the right shape. A great mould - the rest is pretty good too - 5/5
I only have one of the 21 releases of this but its hard to fault nosewise. Everything is in the right place and has the right shape. A great mould - the rest is pretty good too - 5/5
Jet-X DC-9-30 Nose
Aeroclassics DC-9-30/50 (2006)
Like the Jet-X mould this is hard to fault and forms the basis of my DC-9 fleet - 5/5.
Like the Jet-X mould this is hard to fault and forms the basis of my DC-9 fleet - 5/5.
Aeroclassics DC-9-30 Nose