Model Review - Jetstar Airbus A320 VH-VQH

[YesterAirlines]

Say what you want about NG Models' release choices but they, and perhaps Av400, are still the brand most likely to put together a near perfect combination of model, livery and quality control. Their A320 hasn't been getting that much use and certainly what has been made on it has been repetitive, however of the four Jetstar 320s recently made this is the only one I wanted and probably the least likely of the four to get made, so there ya go. Sometimes livery variants are worth it. Either way this is a fine model:

Jetstar Airways | Airbus A320-232 | VH-VQH | NG Models

NG Models is beginning to attract criticism for its current release strategy, which is focused on mainly modern releases and multiple versions of an airline / livery combination from a relatively small set of airlines. That criticism is fair but it is a b

www.yesterdaysairlines.com

 

[Phantom]

There's two things I'd score less optimistic here:
- the windowline sits too high (not much, but it's irking my eyes)
- and the overwings exits sit too far front for the overwing markings. This is particularly interesting as it's an issue common to all AC, Pandas and NG 320s. Need to get me one to check whether this is just an artwork issue or a dimensional error of the moulds.

You say the mould is excellent (it is!) - but if you go into detail it is only correct for 2 out of 13 releases so far. VH-VQH is one of them. Of course I'm overly picky here, but I wish NG would use their mould for subjects it is perfect for: 320s built not later than 2009. Where are all those 1990's colors releases?

 

[Mark22]

The windows look a little too small, or is this just me?
Also the registration and Airbus A320 titles are placed too far to the rear (there are 3 windows behind these titles on the real aircraft, only 2 on the model). The engine pylons are also painted incorrectly, too much dark grey.

 

[Phantom]

Also the registration and Airbus A320 titles are placed too far to the rear (there are 3 windows behind the titles on the real aircraft, only 2 on the model).

Not really, no.
The model depicts the aircraft in its earlier service life. It got a new SpaceFlex layout installed later which added an additional (24th) window in the aft cabin.

 

[Mark22]

Thanks for the information, didn't know that. All pictures of the real aircraft used in the review show 3 windows so it's a little confusing.

 

[YesterAirlines]

You guys are making nitpicking an artform. If I used that level of criteria for every one of my releases they'd all drop by 3 or 4 points. Face it this is an excellent release for 400 scale.

I agree 100% about the wish for earlier A320s though. Preferably ones from before 1995 as in my wishlist here:

Classic A320s: A Wishlist 1987-95

The A320 family is hardly under-represented in 1:400 scale. Even so most manufacturers are fixated on the now and looking back to the service entry of the original A320 is way outside their interest. That’s a shame as there are plenty of cool models that

www.yesterdaysairlines.com

 

[redriveraviation]

Nice one!

 

[Phantom]

If I used that level of criteria for every one of my releases they'd all drop by 3 or 4 points

Sounds like a good idea and as long as it's the same level for every model

When the naked eye without any reference pic identifies two issues that are
- not related
- systemic
- not to be excused with technical limitations (of the process)
aren't enough to decrease a rating, but a slightly too straight printed line on the belly justifies -1 (that's 10% off!), I question standards.
You know, I'm not a fan of a 0-10 rating and that -1 on this line is a good example for why not.
If it's -1 for every issue spotted my reviews would barely get more than 0 points btw

I'm not a fan of rating such models as it's pretty subjective, but if I'd had to rate this model I'd probably end at
- 90% for the mould
- 73% for printing/livery
resulting in an overal rating of 84% which is an extremely good value

This model is a pretty good one, not excellent, but pretty good and far above average. No doubt about. But it's not a perfect one.

 

[YesterAirlines]

Sounds like a good idea and as long as it's the same level for every model

When the naked eye without any reference pic identifies two issues that are
- not related
- systemic
- not to be excused with technical limitations (of the process)
aren't enough to decrease a rating, but a slightly too straight printed line on the belly justifies -1 (that's 10% off!), I question standards.
You know, I'm not a fan of a 0-10 rating and that -1 on this line is a good example for why not.
If it's -1 for every issue spotted my reviews would barely get more than 0 points btw

I'm not a fan of rating such models as it's pretty subjective, but if I'd had to rate this model I'd probably end at
- 90% for the mould
- 73% for printing/livery
resulting in an overal rating of 84% which is an extremely good value

This model is a pretty good one, not excellent, but pretty good and far above average. No doubt about. But it's not a perfect one.

I understand but if you're reviewing models you need a simple way of doing it. 1-10 has its limitations but has worked overall well so far. I don't think the windowline height is an issue and the mismatch of the emergency exits and overwing markings is tiny (arguably not even present at the rear exit).

I generally knock off 1 for issues that matter (like the angle of the belly line here) and 0.5 for smaller things. You could knock off half a mark for each of your two finds I guess here if you wanted but it doesn't materially change the overall excellence of the model.

I don't know where your loss of points for the mould comes from and you've cut over a quarter of the print score for three small issues. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. 73% is bizarre. That was always an issue I had with Jon Champs reviews I could never work out how he deducted points.

There's literally no point in reviewing models if they can't score top marks and Phantom I feel you'd never ever give a model full marks. This is an excellent release and about as good as it gets, or ever will, in 400 scale.

By the way can you imagine the threats I'd get if I applied your level of attention to Aeroclassics and Gemini releases!!!!

 

[Phantom]

I feel you'd never ever give a model full marks

Yes, that's the very point exactly.
Take the real VH-VQH "as is", shrink it to 400 and you get the full 100%.
Richard, this is scoring scaled down replicas of the real thing. 100% is NOT possible. Once you do it, you render your entire scoring system pointless.
If this is 100%, what will a nextNG A320 be scored? 110%?

90% is a pretty high value. One that I'd attribute to only few moulds.

The 73% is easy explained (don't forget, 90 is roughly your 10):
- 70% for mould specific detailing (cabin, cockpit, wings...) and here the issues with the cabin are obvious (to me at least) among a few other things
- 80% for livery - that straight line you mention and the rather glittery mica, fonts..

I weigh airframe over livery, so end up at 73

Playing with numbers is nice, but I'm not much a fan of model scorings due to the mentioned subjectiveness.
I'm not interested in this model despite its high score but much rather get one that might be in the 70s or so.

 

[OscarBravo992]

Say what you want about NG Models' release choices but they, and perhaps Av400, are still the brand most likely to put together a near perfect combination of model, livery and quality control. Their A320 hasn't been getting that much use and certainly what has been made on it has been repetitive, however of the four Jetstar 320s recently made this is the only one I wanted and probably the least likely of the four to get made, so there ya go. Sometimes livery variants are worth it. Either way this is a fine model:

Jetstar Airways | Airbus A320-232 | VH-VQH | NG Models

NG Models is beginning to attract criticism for its current release strategy, which is focused on mainly modern releases and multiple versions of an airline / livery combination from a relatively small set of airlines. That criticism is fair but it is a b

www.yesterdaysairlines.com

View attachment 20220

An excellent model, and one that I am looking forward to receiving in the near future. Thanks for the review!