Flaps Down - What are your opinions?

If given the choice, what would you choose?

  • Flaps up

    Votes: 16 53.3%
  • Flaps down

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • Both

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • Don't mind

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • Depends

    Votes: 6 20.0%

  • Total voters
    30

OscarBravo992

Well-known member
Flaps down. It's not really a new concept anymore, as we have had it from JC Wings for quite a few years now. What are your preferences?
 
Flaps down. It's not really a new concept anymore, as we have had it from JC Wings for quite a few years now. What are your preferences?
I love the flapsdown variant on the 747. JC Wings did an awesome job. But variant option depends on how you wish to display the model.
 

Attachments

  • 16666136148057398267020918235569.jpg
    16666136148057398267020918235569.jpg
    2.7 MB · Views: 17
Ever since I first got into commercial aviation I was always intrigued by the wonders of the control surfaces. Therefore I'd definitely favor flaps down models. The one major reason that draws me back from getting these though, is the wing flex. For some reason, many of these moulds come with immense wing flex which I don't understand (I'm looking at you JC). I understand these models represent the landing configuration but I don't think that justifies the need to have the wings bent up like it is inflight (some are even angled up beyond inflight config).

With that being said I would have to vote for both. If they eliminate the unnecessary wing flex and diversify the flaps down moulds I would lean towards that option.
 
I had been wondering about this, so I'm glad someone brought it up. I have one flaps-down model in my collection: an ANA 747-400 made by Hogan and it comes with a precise replica of Haneda's runway 34L's threshold, so it is in the landing configuration. Flaps-down is a somewhat generic term. I think JC's flaps-down models are best used for approach/landing flare setups, and maybe a maintenance setup. Full flaps for takeoff or at the gate is unrealistic, and full flaps on the runway after landing without the spoilers raised is equally unrealistic. I'd imagine they look cool simply displayed like that as an added level of detail, but not a factor that influences my decision to buy a model at this time.
 
I’m not big on the idea of flaps down, I like all my models to look uniform. And a flaps down model stands out like a sore thumb to the rest of my models.
 
I'm not a fan of the "flaps down" or interactive models. I just prefer the standard ones without those features.
 
As of now, none of my models are "flaps down". I do like the idea, but personally I have no preference
I agree with this assessment. I have wanted one for a while (same with an interactive model), but have never found the right oppunitriy. I don't want to feel as if I can only use them for landing or at the hangar I guess. Really hope to get one soon!
 
I had been wondering about this, so I'm glad someone brought it up. I have one flaps-down model in my collection: an ANA 747-400 made by Hogan and it comes with a precise replica of Haneda's runway 34L's threshold, so it is in the landing configuration. Flaps-down is a somewhat generic term. I think JC's flaps-down models are best used for approach/landing flare setups, and maybe a maintenance setup. Full flaps for takeoff or at the gate is unrealistic, and full flaps on the runway after landing without the spoilers raised is equally unrealistic. I'd imagine they look cool simply displayed like that as an added level of detail, but not a factor that influences my decision to buy a model at this time.
This assessment as well is excellent.
 
I think these are fantastic specially for collectors with dioramas.
I prefer the regular flaps up version but the flaps down are also very cool. I think I would only have a flaps-down model if I also had a duplicate in flaps up configuration. Would be also cool if we could swap wings, like snap-fit models.

Just imagine if models could come with an extra pair of wings? Would be something quite interesting LOL
 
Top