Model Review - Air Sahara 767-300 by VTJets / Panda Models

YesterAirlines

Moderator
Staff member
Panda's new widebody moulds are getting on to the market and proving to be excellent additions. I just received my first of their 767-300s, made for VTJets, and I can't speak highly enough of what is a excellent combination of mould, print and QC. I look forward to seeing more Panda 767s in 2025, but here's the review of my first:


AIRSAHARA_B767-300_02.JPG
 
Panda's new widebody moulds are getting on to the market and proving to be excellent additions. I just received my first of their 767-300s, made for VTJets, and I can't speak highly enough of what is a excellent combination of mould, print and QC. I look forward to seeing more Panda 767s in 2025, but here's the review of my first:


View attachment 37884
Wow that was quick! It's still on pre-order at their local partner here 😅

Quick tidbit: 'Sahara' in the northern Hindi language loosely translates to 'companion' or 'support' or 'reliance' - in the manner in which the company used to portray it. And they were a long time sponsor of the national cricket team - and thus the colours and the logo on the box art.
 
Last edited:
This is without a doubt the best representation of a 767 in 1:400 scale, and I really appreciate that Panda has gone the extra mile and created the correct PW4000 and GE CF6's, as well as correct pylon lengths. Not to mention that they even created the RB211 engine, so I am hoping to see a QF release in the future. The nose is spot on, the landing gear detail is immaculate, and the wing to fuselage join is top tier.. NG really needs to revise their 767 because as long as Panda release 767s, I won't be buying NG.

I have received a few of the Panda 767s: Air Sahara, Delta, the CW China Eastern and China Southern releases, and they are phenomenal.

Okay, now that I have spewed my love for the tooling, I do have a few notes/critiques. I am by no means a subject matter expert with engines. It always appeared to me that the CF6 engines were larger in diameter to the PW4000s. I certainly know that they are longer, but I noticed with the Panda models, the PW4000 engines are larger and wider than the CF6 tooling.

Also, I was under the impression that the CF6 for both the 767-300 and 767-400 were the same size, but Panda has two different toolings for them. They are larger on the 767-400, with a shorter pylon, and smaller on the -300 with a longer pylon. Personally, I think the size of the -400 engine is more accurate, but the shape and length of the -300 pylon is more accurate. I don't know; hoping there is a subject matter expert on this that can say I am wrong.
 
Top