NG Models Airbus A340-200/300 Mould Sample Review

[KG3036_SS]

I feel like the discussion on the A332/A342 problem has completely spun out of control which is never my intention when I first raised it.

I originally raise the question as I would like to learn more about this "NEW" tooling. A342 is slightly different to A332, so an accurate A342 will NOT be made by using A332, though I understand and accept manufacturers (Such as Phoenix) make A342 by reusing the much more popular A332 tooling as the difference would likely not be noticed by many while the separate tooling would incurr a lot more cost for an aircraft type that has little liveries to offer - which on a business sense is totally unreasonable.

Don't get me wrong, NG A330ceos are a great offering in the market and as A340 goes would be competitive even when NG went the shortcut of reusing A332 fuselage. The thing that interest me is always the question: Has NG, like what they show in the past, bother to go into such detail on their toolings? (Like the RB211-535C for 757s, The Hot reversers for L1011's RB211-22 etc) Which to my pleasure, NG did

It's just that I would respect the manufacturers that went the effort on making a proper A342 - such as Aeroclassics, Panda, and as Richard has proved - NG. I also respect those who decided that it would be best not to release A342 if I don't bother to spend the money to have a proper tooling for A342 - JC and AV400 for this case. I accept Phoenix's approach to mix use A332 fuselage as A342 - but would hope eventually they'll come up with a better solution that don't compromise.

 

[Phantom]

Who the hell owns calipers??

Everyone who needs them and knows that you cannot get decent results with a ruler.

I also realize your dimemsions are in cm, something I'm not used to. I automatically thought mm. I'd be highly surprised if those parts really are off by 2-3mm. 0.3-0.5mm is what I'd expect and what can be found on such diecast. Might really explain part of the problem we two have.

Anyone on here with both a good caliper (or better) and an NG 332 at hand? I'm really curious.

 

[Phantom]

I feel like the discussion on the A332/A342 problem has completely spun out of control which is never my intention when I first raised it.

I originally raise the question as I would like to learn more about this "NEW" tooling. A342 is slightly different to A332, so an accurate A342 will NOT be made by using A332, though I understand and accept manufacturers (Such as Phoenix) make A342 by reusing the much more popular A332 tooling as the difference would likely not be noticed by many while the separate tooling would incurr a lot more cost for an aircraft type that has little liveries to offer - which on a business sense is totally unreasonable.

Don't get me wrong, NG A330ceos are a great offering in the market and as A340 goes would be competitive even when NG went the shortcut of reusing A332 fuselage. The thing that interest me is always the question: Has NG, like what they show in the past, bother to go into such detail on their toolings? (Like the RB211-535C for 757s, The Hot reversers for L1011's RB211-33 etc) Which to my pleasure, NG did

It's just that I would respect the manufacturers that went the effort on making a proper A342 - such as Aeroclassics, Panda, and as Richard has proved - NG. I also respect those who decided that it would be best not to release A342 if I don't bother to spend the money to have a proper tooling for A342 - JC and AV400 for this case. I accept Phoenix's approach to mix use A332 fuselage as A342 - but would hope eventually they'll come up with a better solution that don't compromise.

I couldn't have said it any better if I could. Exactly this.

 

[LeoMuse747]

I believe both Phantom and KG3036_SS have very valid points and their insights about the differences between A332 and A342 are very welcome. Good to know that we all get along and good to see all this amount of information being shared here too!

 

[1/400collector]

Guys it's a model it can't be a 1:1 replica.
I'm not saying the mould is absolutely perfect but u are all measuring it to the nanometers.
In anyways I'm waiting for the 747

 

[Phantom]

u are all measuring it to the nanometers.

Not with a ruler!

 

[mike_charlie_lima]

the only time i did use a caliper to measure the 1:400 model was to compare the 777's fuselage width on PH, JC and AV. as it appears that av's 777s are always skinnier, making it more 350-ish rather than the big fat round 777. and it turns out to be true, there is about 0.5mm difference. (standard 777 in 1/400 scale should be 15.5mm while AV's doesnt reach 15mm even) but bear in mind that the percentage difference also counts, and in longitudinal direction it's more subtle to notice such difference. I get both sides of the points, knowing if it's a brand new tool by the length difference is more than if that length is true to scale. despite that even if we know it's re-used tool it wont change anything.
anyway, in the 777 case, it still doesnt bother me much as I'm still choosing 777s from JC and AV rather than the PH.

 

[Phantom]

the only time i did use a caliper to measure the 1:400 model was to compare the 777's fuselage width on PH, JC and AV. as it appears that av's 777s are always skinnier, making it more 350-ish rather than the big fat round 777. and it turns out to be true, there is about 0.5mm difference. (standard 777 in 1/400 scale should be 15.5mm while AV's doesnt reach 15mm even) but bear in mind that the percentage difference also counts, and in longitudinal direction it's more subtle to notice such difference. I get both sides of the points, knowing if it's a brand new tool by the length difference is more than if that length is true to scale. despite that even if we know it's re-used tool it wont change anything.
anyway, in the 777 case, it still doesnt bother me much as I'm still choosing 777s from JC and AV rather than the PH.

That's interesting. I'm awaiting delivery of my first AV400 777 so I'm curious whether I could spot the difference.

I'm only using measuring equipment for other things than diecast models (a quick visual check is just enough on them), but doing so sounds like fun beyond the usual photo comparison.

 

[Madridista]

Well, after Alex and Richard - almost - clarified the misunderstandings and remaining disputes, I would like to add that I’ve always been a supporter of precise replica in the means of dimensions and shape. Of course, a difference of quarter to a centimeter (or a 10th part of an inch) appears to be negligible but in the end, as Alex pointed out, it would be unnecessary if a completely new mould was developed just because it was made from scratch and could have been engineered more precisely. This goes not for a mould of a similar type of aircraft that is re-used as long as the difference of fuselage lengths is negligible and there are no other differences in shape or something - which Alex also pointed out.

The one and major question might then be: what makes a difference in dimensions remarkable or negligible.

 

[Phantom]

Well, after Alex and Richard - almost - clarified the misunderstandings and remaining disputes, I would like to add that I’ve always been a supporter of precise replica in the means of dimensions and shape. Of course, a difference of quarter to a centimeter (or a 10th part of an inch) appears to be negligible but in the end, as Alex pointed out, it would be unnecessary if a completely new mould was developed just because it was made from scratch and could have been engineered more precisely. This goes not for a mould of a similar type of aircraft that is re-used as long as the difference of fuselage lengths is negligible and there are no other differences in shape or something - which Alex also pointed out.

The one and major question might then be: what makes a difference in dimensions remarkable or negligible.

Thanks for this.
IMO the borderline between neglibility and remarkability is purely visual here.
When I hold a model in hand or see a picture of it and the eyes are ok with what they see, then its negligible.
And those with a better eye for detail are then defined as "nitpickers".

Not in my wildest dreams would I put a caliper to a model to determine whether I like it or not. I have better things to do.

Things would be different when I'd be supplied with a prototype/sample for review and the supplier would ask for feedback.

 

[Madridista]

Things would be different when I'd be supplied with a prototype/sample for review and the supplier would ask for feedback.

That’s something I wholeheartedly agree with. That’s the natural expectation when a reviewer’s work is concerned.

 

[YesterAirlines]

That’s something I wholeheartedly agree with. That’s the natural expectation when a reviewer’s work is concerned.

Seriously? You expect me to be measuring the bloody samples with calipers (because rulers aren't good enough). You guys are incredible. I'm amazed you buy any models at all.

Tell you what, you pay me my daily rate for these reviews and I'll think about listening to your advice. What a bunch of ungrateful dicks some of you are.

 

[Phantom]

You expect me to be measuring

No, I (likely others as well) only expected you to communicate those blody 42" to NG.
Do you ever realize not everyone is posting about YOU when posting? Get past your own ego.
PM later when I get the time to.

 

[YesterAirlines]

No, I (likely others as well) only expected you to communicate those blody 42" to NG.
Do you ever realize not everyone is posting about YOU when posting? Get past your own ego.
PM later when I get the time to.

If you think it is important then you report it to them. I'm not your personal go to with NG - you have their e-mail address. Do it yourself if you think it matters. I am not NG's representative and I will review the models and report back to NG the way that I choose. I don't work for you or them and I don't have to listen to you.

There's nothing to report in my opinion - the two moulds are not the same length and even if they were there's no sane reason to change it - ergo there is nothing to report.

You have been directly criticising the quality of my reviews and by proxy me, it's not ego - that is what you have been doing. You have been both patronising and condescending and then throwing your toys out the pram when I dare not do what you tell me to. You appear to have zero emotional intelligence as some of the comments you have written appear to exist only to piss me off and drag on this pointless conversation for absolutely no purpose.

 

[Madridista]

Seriously? You expect me to be measuring the bloody samples with calipers (because rulers aren't good enough). You guys are incredible. I'm amazed you buy any models at all.

Tell you what, you pay me my daily rate for these reviews and I'll think about listening to your advice. What a bunch of ungrateful dicks some of you are.

Richard,

First of all, please calm down. Then, please take note of that I do not necessarily need to share your view. As you said, NG tends to believe in what you say rather than in what the various (probably thousands) e-mails they receive from people of all over the world trying to tell them what they are doing wrong. Of course, this - at least for a big part - derives from the presence of your website which is very well done and offering a lot of information and well structured reviews. The industry tries to find outsider information and to feel the pulse of the market, so it's in their own interest to provide you with information and/or samples. There's nothing uncommon with this pratice and, therefore, criticism of your work and your 'connection' to NG Models is totally silly.

As for the 'caliper' topic: I do not expect anything from you. You are doing your website for your personal interest and enjoyment, and you are collecting donations for it. Since it is your private pleasure, I am not in the position to expect anything specific from you. But, as a reviewer in a different market, I can tell you (or Alex) what I'd expect from me or what I'd do if as a reviewer of scale models. Concerning the accuracy of today's 1/400 models, I would try and identify any relevant detail and this definitely includes a general measurement of dimensions in order to determine which the most accurate replica is. Many aspects are a matter of the visible characteristics and impressions, a few are not. Fuselage diameter, all-over fuselage length, wingspan und tail height (depeding on landing gear design and assembly) belong to these few things I would definitely determine on all-new designed moulds. And I can imagine that the industry is also interested in a feedback on this or might be forced to improve on future moulds if they get to know.

That being said, I will leave it up to you whatever details you are reviewing or not. It's your business, not mine. But I think I'm entitled to my own view and opinion on this topic.

 

[YesterAirlines]

You are indeed entitled to your own view and I am more than happy for it to be different to mine. Nowhere have I said that isn't the case, but this particular topic was discussed on page 1 of this thread and the positions established. There has been no need for anymore of this discussion yet Phantom won't drop it even when I have tried to move on from it and the tone of his remarks I find unhelpful to say the least. Without hopefully sounding too much like you know who it makes me question why I bother at all because in recent months all Yesterday's Airlines has brought me a lot of work, the disapproval of my wife and buckets of stress and hassle.

I imagine you are correct that NG receive thousands of e-mails and they may give mine more weight (I'm not sure they do to be honest) but if they do part of that reason is because they trust my judgement and this is one of those times when my judgement is not the same as a few on here. In that scenario those people are well within their rights to write to NG because I am not going to do it for them. I would also imagine the majority of the industry is not at all interested in your or my feedback and that the level of BS NG receive risks killing the goose laying the golden eggs (or at least the goose engaging with collectors)

For me taking detailed measurements of the samples is not something I want to do - mainly because I feel the effort and hassle involved isn't worth the likely tiny reward. I can't think of any moulds that have had issues with general measurements enough to be noticeable (maybe the Jet-X DC-9-30). It just isn't a thing.

As for the donations - I ask for them in a couple of places at the site but I don't get them often. I think this year I have received one. I'm not dependent on them so that is ok but it irks when all I get his hassle however well-meaning.

 

[LAN子]

I'll send you an electron microscope for your next reviews!

 

[Phantom]

I'll send you an electron microscope for your next reviews!

I don't know what an electron microscope would help here, but if you've got some I'd gladly take one too.

In the meantime, someone over at the other forum had a brilliant idea that would have ended this discussion on page 1:
Just hold a 332 and the 342 sample main gears to main gears. Do the nose gears match? I'm feeling guilty asking for a measure. Mea culpa.