NG Models Airbus A340-200/300 Mould Sample Review

[Jazajia]

Nice!
Take one for the 744 maybe, but save the one for the 742 until you have an actual 747Classic at hand.

I actually sympathize with this statement. I'm concerned with the 742 because it will require more than a new wing, but also a modified fuselage to receive it. They can still use the current casting for their 747-400F.

 

[keji833]

well you can always purchase a 1:1 model from Airbus with 100% correct dimensions and details .

 

[Phantom]

well you can always purchase a 1:1 model from Airbus with 100% correct dimensions and details .

My order is on hold until IKEA delivers the display case for it.

 

[LeoMuse747]

well you can always purchase a 1:1 model from Airbus with 100% correct dimensions and details .

not even that! The A340-200/300 are no longer in production. Second-hand market is the only option

About this discussion... the length difference of the A330-200 and A340-200 is simply minimal and, in my opinion, people shouldn't even bother about it... too small to be noticeable in 1:400. Actually I can't even see the difference in real life lol

 

[Travertineeye]

the over all length difference between one and the other is 0.57m but the fuselage length difference is greater at 1.06m.

NG last created a mold for an A318 which is 2.40m. I wonder if one meter difference is too small a difference for NG’s A340-200.

Nobody has made a tailor made A342 fuselage in this scale ever, have they?

 

[Phantom]

I wonder if one meter difference is too small a difference for NG’s A340-200.

From an engineering point of view, it depends on where they start from:

- if they really do a new mould (cavity) then they should do it correct as there's no reason not to get it correct - other than not knowing it
- if they use a modified 332 cavity then 1m is 1m too much

 

[pommy80]

Sorry if I came across grumpy. Sometimes I feel the expectations of collectors are a little unrealistic. This is one of those cases.

I don't think whether it is a 'new' fuselage or the A330-200 will make an ounce of difference to whether Phoenix or anyone else make A340s.

I agree with you Richard. Some of the nitpicking is ridiculous with these new NG moulds.

You'll never have the exact replica of a plane in 1:400. If you want it perfect, maybe people should look at producing their own models.

 

[B767Avia]

Even as someone who has supplied NG with countless nitpicks and minor errors, the fuselage length is negligible in my opinion. A 106 cm difference corresponds to roughly 2.7 mm in 400 scale; probably isn't something that stands out on its own without its counterpart right next to it.

I wholeheartedly agree they should update the fairings on the A330neo and whatnot, and I will keep emailing NG about those issues. These are the issues, when supplied with a visual diagram for comparison, identifible by eye (having the A340 slat configuration on an A330, having the old generation fairings for an A330neo, etc), not the kinds that require a vernier caliper.

Personally I don't see why NG should redevelop an entire new fuselage for the 2.7 mm. Not that these shouldn't be mentioned as it is always good to know these things, but compared to the rather small change in the end result it takes a lot of effort on their end.

Edit: corrected the measurements...

 

[Phantom]

A 57 cm difference corresponds to roughly 1.5 mm in 400

I see many talking 57cm Richard came up with, but the actual fuselage difference is two frames (2×21") which equals to 106.7cm or 2.7mm in scale. Everyone look at the drawing posted in #2.

 

[B767Avia]

I see many talking 57cm Richard came up with, but the actual fuselage difference is two frames (2×21") which equals to 106.7cm or 2.7mm in scale. Everyone look at the drawing posted in #2.

You're right. 58.57 - 57.51 = 1.06 m = roughly 2.7 mm in 400 scale. Assumed Richard took the correct measurements but I guess that wasn't the case.

Still not sure if it's a difference worthy enough to produce an entirely new tooling but a difference is a difference. It could be noticeable if both aircraft are placed side by side, but it isn't an issue that stands out on its own.

 

[Phantom]

Still not sure if it's a difference worthy enough to produce an entirely new tooling but a difference is a difference.

Like I said, if NG did a new tooling (mould) then yes. If they just re-tooled an existing 332 then this is perfectly understandable.
My point was just, that if they tried the first then it would only be fair to tell them they messed up. And someone got offended.

 

[B767Avia]

Like I said, if NG did a new tooling (mould) then yes. If they just re-tooled an existing 332 then this is perfectly understandable.
My point was just, that if they tried the first then it would only be fair to tell them they messed up. And someone got offended.

That must've been the part I missed. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[YesterAirlines]

@Phantom I didn't get offended I got annoyed by your attitude - perhaps it was lost in the way you wrote your response but I thought you were being a jerk.

The difference between an A318 and A319 is obvious to the eye. The difference between an A340-200 and A330-200 is not. In fact I'd argue most people didn't even know they were different lengths - I didn't in fact. However, even had I known I wouldn't have been measuring it given it is 2.7 mm on a much large aircraft. I don't think I've ever measured a single mould I've received. There's no conspiracy here for me to withhold knowledge - I simply didn't think about it, which probably partly comes from doing all this in my spare time when I have a full time job and a family.

I might add that the fact NG are bombarded with these kind of e-mails is part of the reason they generally listen to me and don't always listen to others. I guess they trust my judgement.

The measurements I did give showed the A340-200 sample isn't the same length as the A330-200 anyway but regardless unless I'm doing it wrong literally every mould I measured was the wrong length (and I measured all the 4 A340 moulds I have).

Why don't you guys measure some of the moulds you have for A330s and A340s and report the results here. I'd be interested to see the results but I don't have the time to do it myself.

 

[Phantom]

I guess I have to blame it on my English skills that I still fail to get my message through to you.

 

[YesterAirlines]

I guess I have to blame it on my English skills that I still fail to get my message through to you.

Let's just leave it. I think I understand your point but personally it still doesn't amount to anything that matters to me. I would be interested to see some A330/340 mould measurements though from anyone.

I'm sure you'll enjoy the 747 review, which I haven't started yet.

 

[Phantom]

Let's just leave it. I think I understand your point but personally it still doesn't amount to anything that matters to me. I would be interested to see some A330/340 mould measurements though from anyone.

I'm sure you'll enjoy the 747 review, which I haven't started yet.

Yes, it doesn't have to matter to you but to NG and you're the one I'm asking to communicate those 2.7mm to NG. I guess they know already but don't care (using a 332 retool), and I'm ok then. But if they do, the collector gets a better product.

As for the different dimensions measured. They come to no surprise for various reasons. Post processing (deflashing/polishing) can well account for the difference. And of course the engineering of the mould. The ones I know can have several cavities for the same part, so that you could get maybe 3 or 4 fuselages with a single shot. Of course, cavity 1 might slightly differ from 2 or 3, particularly after a longer tool life or even repairs. Just in case, did they ever send you pics of theirs? I've seen quite a few but never one of those Chinese diecasts.

I don't have any 332s or 342s to measure as I don't really like their looks, but maybe others can take those dimensions. I just kindly ask to use proper measuring equipment

 

[YesterAirlines]

But they don't measure the same as I have stated.

A340-200 measures 14.3 by my ruler (not the 5857/400=14.64 it should) and the A330-200 measures about 14.15 (not 5751/400=14.3)

As I said they are both wrong (as are all the A340s by everyone) unless I'm doing it wrong. So should they retool their A330s as well? This is my point. What you are asking for is completely unrealistic and pointless to boot.

 

[Phantom]

But they don't measure the same as I have stated.

A340-200 measures 14.3 by my ruler (not the 5857/400=14.64 it should) and the A330-200 measures about 14.15 (not 5751/400=14.3)

As I said they are both wrong (as are all the A340s by everyone) unless I'm doing it wrong. So should they retool their A330s as well? This is my point. What you are asking for is completely unrealistic and pointless to boot.

Could you please tell me what you think I'm asking for?

 

[Phantom]

Btw, if you're really using a ruler then you're definitely doing it wrong.

I only now realize the word ruler.
Could it be we're having this interesting discussion over nothing but a parallax error?

 

[YesterAirlines]

Who the hell owns calipers?? I can literally lay the ruler along the fuselage - it's not a parallax error.

Anyway you have NG's email so feel free to raise it with them.