JC Wings 1:400 Release Hints (December)

[planes_on_a_shelf]

Couldn't agree more, although you missed out mentioning their APU. Still needs work....

Yes you're right, I consciously left the APU discussion out - it used to bother me initially, but I now realise that I don't mind it as JCs probes are too prominent when one sees it - as are Av400s.
It does need work yes - and would be nice to have it moulded in - but in the greater scheme of things - overall - it doesn't detract as much as the other aspects add to the overall.
The NG's 772s defo are better than the competition overall, granted that in the 773 space - the lack of the moulded in APU is a bit annoying.
As I'd mentioned, I'll opt for the JC flaps down versions if I'm inclined towards them - but otherwise I'll go for NG's. The recent 77W retro schemes (Qatar / Garuda x2 / Saudi) look spectacular on the JC FDs - just right for displaying on a stand.

 

[planes_on_a_shelf]

I think you guys are being harsh on the JC Wings 777, which is a better mould than the Aviation400 version and pretty much on par with the NG....

JCs isn't bad at all and I'm hoping that's not what's being implied.
It's just that, post NG's, I've been forced to look closely at the real thing over and over - and then at JCs and NG's - and then a number of aspects begin to clearly stand out.
I've not had the time to document it, but, for instance, I once did an intensive cockpit template analysis - and curiously, I noticed there are possibly (2) different templates that become apparent on JCs. I also realise how, I'd become accustomed or conditioned to seeing the JC 777 in model form as accurate since it's always been the best one by far - until faced with NG's - when I needed to do a complete revision and revisit - literally rewrite my own visual or mental analysis if you like, and then, seeing it with the real thing, one observes many (especially subtle) aspects that make the NG look so much more realistic.
I'll see if I can get the time and space to revisit that analysis, and this time document it, to be able to share.

 

[pons399]

My issues with the JC 777 mould are more like general gripes with JC (and non-NG) 1:400s.


1. Gears look sloppy, with excess material sticking out all over the place. They consequently don't roll well.

2. Oversized aerials mess with the proportions.

3. I find JC's paint texture to be quite flat, lacking NG's gloss or "pop." It's more apparent on vibrant liveries.

4. QC is horrible. This might just be rotten luck on my part, but the vast majority of my JCs came with problems.


Anyone who's not a ridiculous stickler for detail would be perfectly happy with JC's 777. It and the AV400 are both great moulds. I just happen to be in the minority that can't tolerate anything less than a 1:200 in 1:400 size...

 

[planes_on_a_shelf]

JC's 777 mould is great, and anyone who's not a ridiculous stickler for detail would be perfectly happy with it. I just happen to be in the minority that can't tolerate anything other than a 1:200 shrunk down to 1:400 size...

... NG has proven what is possible in 1:400 - with the level of detail and precision that puts 1:200 to shame - and every time I see close ups like those @Phantom posts - it's very very clear, that 1:400 is no longer an excuse for sloppy detailing and printing (we know who we're talking about) - especially when NG's price point is, broadly, the same.
So I agree with you, and perhaps am in that minority you mention of, that sees 1:400 as justifiably the new frontier - in 2023.
These are meant to be diecast miniatures - and especially when one sees the kind of intricacy within other diecast genres - NG's is perhaps the only one really holding fort (now in 2023)

 

[keji833]

JCs isn't bad at all and I'm hoping that's not what's being implied.
It's just that, post NG's, I've been forced to look closely at the real thing over and over - and then at JCs and NG's - and then a number of aspects begin to clearly stand out.
I've not had the time to document it, but, for instance, I once did an intensive cockpit template analysis - and curiously, I noticed there are possibly (2) different templates that become apparent on JCs. I also realise how, I'd become accustomed or conditioned to seeing the JC 777 in model form as accurate since it's always been the best one by far - until faced with NG's - when I needed to do a complete revision and revisit - literally rewrite my own visual or mental analysis if you like, and then, seeing it with the real thing, one observes many (especially subtle) aspects that make the NG look so much more realistic.
I'll see if I can get the time and space to revisit that analysis, and this time document it, to be able to share.

I second this, it's those subtle details that make all the difference, thickness, curvature of wing, size of aerials, wabble gears, etc. No comparison no harm, but "unfortunately" there is NG...

In Chinese market, this difference is justified by almost a $15 difference in price. However this is not the case here in the States as JC and NG are largely priced the same around $50, so buying NG definitely has higher utility.

 

[pons399]

... NG has proven what is possible in 1:400 - with the level of detail and precision that puts 1:200 to shame - and every time I see close ups like those @Phantom posts - it's very very clear, that 1:400 is no longer an excuse for sloppy detailing and printing (we know who we're talking about) - especially when NG's price point is, broadly, the same.
So I agree with you, and perhaps am in that minority you mention of, that sees 1:400 as justifiably the new frontier - in 2023.
These are meant to be diecast miniatures - and especially when one sees the kind of intricacy within other diecast genres - NG's is perhaps the only one really holding fort (now in 2023)

Well said.

I ditched 1:200s entirely because existing ones have zero merit over 1:400 NGs. Mould, gears, proportions and printing are all on par, and NG's fan detailing (on their new solid core engines) is better than anything in 200 scale. 1:200's "bonus" features like removable and pivoting gears are gimmicks that add zero utility for me.

1:200 has to step up with gear and engine detailing to truly stand out. Removable gears that actually fit snugly would be cool as well. Ironically, NG's own efforts seem to have fallen flat in that regard...

 

[Sithan400]

Where the JC WINGS' 777-300 mould is certainly one of their better moulds, their 200 series fails in my opinion. The nose shape and cockpit window printing is all wrong. I considered the flaps down variant of their Air Canada 772, but after seeing that nose... Will wait for NG to get around to some AC examples.

 

[CO777]

There are already some photos online. Is it just me but some of the models looking pretty weird.
For example the colours of the Alaska are totally wrong. And the front wheel is in the wrong position?
The cockpit windows are way too Iow on the Flybe E190. And so on… I hope these are not the final releases.

 

[pons399]

SQ blue looks weird as well, it's too light/purplish like on their 787-10 release.

 

[Bulgogi77]

There are already some photos online. Is it just me but some of the models looking pretty weird.
For example the colours of the Alaska are totally wrong. And the front wheel is in the wrong position?
The cockpit windows are way too Iow on the Flybe E190. And so on… I hope these are not the final releases.

Oh goodness gracious that Alaska looks awful. This is how the colors are supposed to look in real life:




NG would blow this model to smithereens.

 

[mike_charlie_lima]

SQ blue looks weird as well, it's too light/purplish like on their 787-10 release.

and the gold is also off, too.
not only their 787s, but their SIA 380 are the same color palette.

 

[pons399]

and the gold is also off, too.
not only their 787s, but their SIA 380 are the same color palette.

Looks like one of those chronic issues they never bother to address, like the angry 748s in 1:200.

 

[Mark22]

Oh goodness gracious that Alaska looks awful. This is how the colors are supposed to look in real life:

View attachment 24663
View attachment 24666

NG would blow this model to smithereens.

Looks like a $10 toy with these huge antennas and nosegeardoors aswell, but wouldn't surprise me if people still pay full price for it.

Edit: the picture JC posted on Instagram is better, the blue color is not nearly as dark

 

[planes_on_a_shelf]

... NG has proven what is possible in 1:400 - with the level of detail and precision that puts 1:200 to shame

these release pictures just reinforce the points myself and @pons399 were making earlier. ........

 

[pons399]

these release pictures just reinforce the points myself and @pons399 were making earlier. ........

Yep, it really is NG, AV400 and everyone else.

 

[YesterAirlines]

Yep, it really is NG, AV400 and everyone else.

You guys are getting rather extreme and Aviation400 has had a stinker of a year really. We all know the JC Wings 737-800 is poor.

The pair of 777s in this set look very good. I wouldn't judge the colour of the SQ blue from a single photo witha strong light source and reflective surface.

 

[CO777]

You guys are getting rather extreme and Aviation400 has had a stinker of a year really. We all know the JC Wings 737-800 is poor.

The pair of 777s in this set look very good. I wouldn't judge the colour of the SQ blue from a single photo witha strong light source and reflective surface.

I disagree with you. The SQ looks not good. Titles are way too bold, wrong window settings behind door 2L. Front landing gear doors too high... Usually I am not a nutpicker but the first glimpse is not the best. The 773 Boeing house colors looks better somehow.

 

[YesterAirlines]

Titles too bold? I don't see that at all.

I agree there is 1 window extra not plugged behind the L2 door but really.

As for the nosegear height it is marginal and in the JC photo the horizon is clearly not level which makes it look like the model is nose high when it isn't.

 

[YesterAirlines]

My point overall (and considering I'm called an NG apologist the irony is rich) is that

a) the praise of NG here is getting out of hand. They are not perfect. Did any of you buy the recent Bolivian A330 from them? If you did - did you turn it over because it's completely missing the massive belly logo
b) The JC 777 is at least as good as the NG one (and better than the AV400) and it just is a case of picking the aspects you dislike the most when choosing between them
c) NG's printing isn't any better than JC Wings or Pandas or AV400s. Infact, at times NG has reproduced printing poorly like on the Virgin A350-1000 I reviewed

Plus if people are going to make criticism of moulds then they could at least add some evidence rather than making blanket statements.

 

[quanng]

the recent Bolivian A330 from them? If you did - did you turn it over because it's completely missing the massive belly logo

I agreed with Rich in this point. When I first unboxed it, I didn't notice and thought it would be placed somewhere high in the Model of the Year list. But when I put it on display in my cabinet whose floor is made out of glass, I am in complete shock! Such a large and standout detail is forgotten by NG is shocking - but not really! Also worth mentioning is the BoA window line is a bit higher than my liking. They also missed the registration on the VN 789 starboard wings (they had that on the 78X release but the font was a mess on that model) - which I think I would ask my friend to apply the decal reg for me. NG has their ups- and downs this year.