JC Wings Undercarriage Height Issues

[YesterAirlines]

The recent purchases of United 747-400 and Cathay Tristar served to illustrate an issue that impacts at least 4 JC Wings moulds. It is something that should be easy to remedy and would make a big difference and that is the undercarriage height. JC are one of my favourite brands but I wish they'd fix this on these 4:

https://www.yesterdaysairlines.com/model-airport-blog/jc-wings-undercarriage-height-issues

 

[pons399]

Maybe I was just unlucky, but their 748's nosegear is too short as well.

 

[LeoMuse747]

Their B737-300/400/500 also suffer from weird gear length. The nose gear is too long and the main gears are too short. The result is an annoying nose-up attitude. It's very noticeable on the B737-500 sometimes.

 

[planes_on_a_shelf]

Their B737-300/400/500 also suffer from weird gear length. The nose gear is too long and the main gears are too short. The result is an annoying nose-up attitude. It's very noticeable on the B737-500 sometimes.

Yes. They've had some really nice releases and announcements recently, but for me they're a no-go. Their A340-300 as well. And the spate of recent ATRs - but but strangely not on the Thai Landor ATRs where the landing gears are correct. Absurd how this can be.
Also need to mention how they've messed up the A220s which now sit tail down as well, and the MAXs too

 

[thiscooldude]

I remember reading a post on this forum stating that moulds shouldn't be inaccurate, cause they are supposed to be able to be, triple-checked in the factory. Assuming that post is to be trusted, how are moulds supposed to be inaccurate. if they can be supposedly triple-checked. are they just out-sourcing who makes the moulds?, or is there another reason.

 

[YesterAirlines]

Their B737-300/400/500 also suffer from weird gear length. The nose gear is too long and the main gears are too short. The result is an annoying nose-up attitude. It's very noticeable on the B737-500 sometimes.

Yes. They've had some really nice releases and announcements recently, but for me they're a no-go. Their A340-300 as well. And the spate of recent ATRs - but but strangely not on the Thai Landor ATRs where the landing gears are correct. Absurd how this can be.
Also need to mention how they've messed up the A220s which now sit tail down as well, and the MAXs too

Yeah I didn't include these as they are old pre-2010 Gemini moulds that have been refurbished whereas the ones I called out are all quite recent JC Wings moulds. Should have mentioned the A340 - obviously the same as the 330 with different wings and centre maingear

You also have to bear in mind that JC Wings models and Gemini models are not made by the same exact people or to the same standards.

 

[YesterAirlines]

I remember reading a post on this forum stating that moulds shouldn't be inaccurate, cause they are supposed to be able to be, triple-checked in the factory. Assuming that post is to be trusted, how are moulds supposed to be inaccurate. if they can be supposedly triple-checked. are they just out-sourcing who makes the moulds?, or is there another reason.

I'm not sure what you really mean. The moulds themselves are a mixture of accurate to much less accurate across different brands. That is a problem that affects every model using them.

The individual models should be checked as they come off the line but obviously they often aren't or the qc procedures in place aren't great. Not too surprising when the workers aren't well paid, don't speak English and know nothing about aircraft. That is an issue not related to the mould in use.

 

[planes_on_a_shelf]

You also have to bear in mind that JC Wings models and Gemini models are not made by the same exact people or to the same standards.

@YesterAirlines could you throw some more light on this? What you are implying is that JC doesn't make the GJ models in their own factory, if I understand this correctly. Also profit margins may dictate the kind of attention that is given - considering that GJ models would (presumably) mean lower margins? However, say even if GJ and JC have separate manufacturing bases, that still doesn't explain how JC, on their own release sets, have differing standards of quality or say mould consistency - if I look at the disparity between the recent Azul and Thai Landor models, for example.

 

[YesterAirlines]

@YesterAirlines could you throw some more light on this? What you are implying is that JC doesn't make the GJ models in their own factory, if I understand this correctly. Also profit margins may dictate the kind of attention that is given - considering that GJ models would (presumably) mean lower margins? However, say even if GJ and JC have separate manufacturing bases, that still doesn't explain how JC, on their own release sets, have differing standards of quality or say mould consistency - if I look at the disparity between the recent Azul and Thai Landor models, for example.

I hear bits and pieces. My understanding is there are two production lines separated from each other using different staff. Whether they are in the same factory or not I can't say. This is why there is this variation between JC and GJ and GJ has the mistakes re hushkits, undercarriage and nosegear size. I also heard that Gemini stipulated using less glue than JC to keep costs down.

 

[Alzyerpal]

Let's not forget their 767-300 and it's leaning legs, seen here compared to the Gemini edition.

 

[OscarBravo992]

Aside from the A330s, these issues haven't affected me much. It's a shame that this has become a trend with new moulds lately, and I hope the problems will not affect the A310 when it finally comes to market.