Model teaser from HX model, partially physical.
- Thread starter panda_CAT
- Start date
_KAviation
Member
BA’s best livery hands down, G-BNLY would be perfect!Imagine a Landor... it would be a killer!
planes_on_a_shelf
Well-known member
The Cathay Cargo BCFs... beauties
The front sections look weird - more than the usual - not only the landing gear height, but the nose profile looks off
aviation456
Member
ARD are going to have the HX PanAms in stock soon. Surely it's only a matter of time!
They look OK to me, same with the Lufthansa...
Phantom
Well-known member
The v.tail - or better said, the entire aft of HX 747s is one of the major things that keep me from buying any.
Not so sure... this Etihad F1 still needs improvements
As I understand it ARD have
I hadn't realised but apparently what they've done is make a load of different versions of this changing the F1 date on each! Crazy really as that's 9 different models and then double it for the flaps down versions for 18 overrall.
I hadn't realised but apparently what they've done is make a load of different versions of this changing the F1 date on each! Crazy really as that's 9 different models and then double it for the flaps down versions for 18 overrall.
Lovely
planes_on_a_shelf
Well-known member
I know everyone's excited by the HX 747s, and legitimately so.
They need to iron out all the many kinks in the mould. That ways it'll become truly unbeatable
They need to iron out all the many kinks in the mould. That ways it'll become truly unbeatable
I have to disagree here. There aren't many kinks. This is being massively over-inflated. So far I have heard the following:
Landing gear too high - true but not by a lot and not a big issue
Tail wrong - barely noticeable to the extent I'm not sure what the issue even is
Rear fuselage - completely unsubstantiated to date
hump shape - again largely unsubstantiated
Engines having separate ring for rims - not a problem
Pylon shape - again barely an issue frankly
Wing join on 748 - this is an issue but would require a complete rebuild and that isn't going to happen
We keep on asking manufacturers to fix issues that really aren't worth fixing or nobody has actually substantiated with actual evidence to prove they are even issues! Of the above I am not convinced 5 are even real problems.
Sithan400
Well-known member
Very excited to see some new Jumbos hit the market as @planes_on_a_shelf mentions.
HX's offering is very good.Their 744 seems slightly better than JC's most recent incarnation. Great news, since that mould is quite good - getting past any QC issues.
I don't think anyone here has more discerning eyes than @Phantom, but for me that V tail, after he pointed it out - is bothersome (the slope at the bottom is too angular). The rest looks great.
Their 748 comes up second to NG because of that wing root.
HX's offering is very good.Their 744 seems slightly better than JC's most recent incarnation. Great news, since that mould is quite good - getting past any QC issues.
I don't think anyone here has more discerning eyes than @Phantom, but for me that V tail, after he pointed it out - is bothersome (the slope at the bottom is too angular). The rest looks great.
Their 748 comes up second to NG because of that wing root.
planes_on_a_shelf
Well-known member
I will attempt to diagram when I have the time (I am excluding the 748 from this discussion)
1) the nose gear doors are pretty hideous in their size and the consequent extra large reg printing
2) the underbelly portion from the nose to the wing fairing is quite unfinished - there's a substantial inward bump / depression at the nlg portion, and a convex inward slope by the time the fuselage hits the wing fairings - thus making the front portion kind of 'bulge' downward - not unlike the GJ/JC MD-90 front section. HX's A346 has the same issue - which makes the aircraft look 'squished' downward, either end of the wing section
3) while I understand these tend to retail (at least in Asia on MHH as I see it) at a price-point between NG Lite and JC (NG Lite - 140-145MYR | HX - 165-180MYR | JC - 220-245MYR - all prices for a 747, though the recent HX Pan Am set is priced at 200-220 MYR apiece) - the printing is too toy-like - insufficiently graded in both line thickness and greyscale. Thus, while there are more 'lines' in terms of details - because of their non-gradation - they look like the ABS/plastic toys kinda. Even if they achieve the NG Lite level of printing, it'll be okay.
4) something is off with the relative vertical proportions of the front section in terms of the horizontal median / centre line of the fuselage - forehead to nlg - the nose looks stubby-ish and upward turned - very clearly observed in the 2 CX Cargo examples.
5) The wingroot on their 744s are pretty clunky - compared to their 741s
6) landing gear height, exacerbated by point (1)
7) the V tail base - I can't unsee it now LOL
these for now. I view the photos on the phone or Tab, so once I see them on the desktop I'll know/see more/better
Last edited:
I really think you're seeing things that either aren't there (4) or are incredibly minor (2 and 7) and made to look worse by macro photography. Nothing you're mentioning would warrant me knocking off anymore than a point from a mould perspective.I will attempt to diagram when I have the time (I am excluding the 748 from this discussion)
1) the nose gear doors are pretty hideous in their size and the consequent extra large reg printing
2) the underbelly portion from the nose to the wing fairing is quite unfinished - there's a substantial inward bulge / depression at the nlg portion, and a convex inward slope by the time the fuselage hits the wing fairings - thus making the front portion kind of 'bulge' downward - not unlike the GJ/JC MD-90 front section. HX's A346 has the same issue - which makes the aircraft look 'squished' downward, either end of the wing section
3) while I understand these tend to retail (at least in Asia on MHH as I see it) at a price-point between NG Lite and JC (NG Lite - 140-145MYR | HX - 165-180MYR | JC - 220-245MYR - all prices for a 747, though the recent HX Pan Am set is priced at 200-220 MYR apiece) - the printing is too toy-like - insufficiently graded in both line thickness and greyscale. Thus, while there are more 'lines' in terms of details - because of their non-gradation - they look like the ABS/plastic toys kinda. Even if they achieve the NG Lite level of printing, it'll be okay.
4) something is off with the relative vertical proportions of the front section in terms of the horizontal median / centre line of the fuselage - forehead to nlg - the nose looks stubby-ish and upward turned - very clearly observed in the 2 CX Cargo examples.
5) The wingroot on their 744s are pretty clunky - compared to their 741s
6) landing gear height, exacerbated by point (1)
7) the V tail base - I can't unsee it now LOL
these for now. I view the photos on the phone or Tab, so once I see them on the desktop I'll know/see more/better
On number 7 for example while I agree it isn't correct this is the discrepancy. Literally 90% of all moulds in 400 (and 200) scale have multiple far far worse issues than this:
If you're looking for Phantom levels of accuracy then I really think 400 is going to struggle to ever make acceptable moulds. As they say 'Perfection is the enemy of progress' and rather than focusing on the minor issues I'd have thought it was more worthwhile to focus on what is correct, which is almost everything else. I don't see HX being likely to redesign much if anything and I doubt it'd be cost-effective or worthwhile to try except for the v tail and nosegear door.
I haven't seen any print issues myself - not sure where that's coming from. This factory previously made JC Wings so the print is at least at that level and JC's printing is in general better than Phoenix and Gemini.
I just received the Pan Am 747s so I'll take a closer look next week, but these are undoubtedly the best 747-100/200 ever made in 400 scale, and people need to take off their rose-tinted glasses when it comes to the Dragon mould too because when I sit these 2 PA examples side by side the Dragon also has your issue 2, sits nosedown, has an awful tail join to the fuselage, the wrong engine pylons, poor wingtip aerials, arguably a worse nose shape and that's before you get to the landing gear, let alone engine fans, aerial, printing etc.
Lastly HX sits at the nose less than a mm higher than the Dragon, which I'd argue has a too short nosegear anyway.
planes_on_a_shelf
Well-known member
Looking forward to that review!
I'm eager to pick up the N747PA FD in the cheatline scheme. The only hesitation being the excessive bling. Let's see, I nonetheless may still do so.
They are quite blingy!
The only issue that bothers me is the too long gears. They could indeed be shorter. NG got this correct, at least.
These tail issues pointed by Phantom don't bother me at all, i'm not very picky at this.
These tail issues pointed by Phantom don't bother me at all, i'm not very picky at this.
planes_on_a_shelf
Well-known member
Similar threads
