NG Models Boeing 747-400 Mould Sample Review

[YesterAirlines]

Onto the Jumbos! I was going to include both 747 samples together in the same review but it got too unwieldy so I decided to split them out, especially because the series 200 has problems not shared by the 400. As NG have seemed to do I'll start with the 747-400, which actually comes with CF6-80 engines on it, not the advertised PW4000s. However we also do have the PW4000s, just not on the 400 sample! Personally I think this 400 looks pretty good but there's certainly scope for discussion around the nose as with other NG 747s.

By the way I want to thank @Phantom - his various bits about 747 differences have been very helpful

Boeing 747-400 1:400 Scale Mould Sample Review

An exclusive review of the new 1:400 samples for the Boeing 747-400 made by NG Models

www.yesterdaysairlines.com

 

[Mark22]

They should send samples with a livery on it like the KLM scheme (or at least windows and basic details), that way we can check both the mould and printing at once. Now we have to guess if it's good with the risk they start massproducing noticeable issues.

 

[OscarBravo992]

Haven't read the article yet but just noticed this small error.
Unless NG revealed these last year and I'm just stupid, that should say September 2023.

 

[Phantom]

I agree, the nose reminds me on their SPs nose. There's lots of room for improvement around the engines, but their final product usually looks more refined in this area so I'm confident.

 

[OscarBravo992]

The nose looks off to me, but I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with it. Maybe a bit too steep? Either way, I'm super excited for what looks like a great 744. Not looking forward to reading the 742 review though...

 

[Phantom]

They should send samples with a livery on it like the KLM scheme (or at least windows and basic details), that way we can check both the mould and printing at once. Now we have to guess if it's good with the risk they start massproducing noticeable issues.

Better would be to have two samples then.

Erroneous artwork can throw a correctly shaped body out of proportions and the same can be said vice versa.

I welcome to see these samples without artwork.

 

[KG3036_SS]

A bit surprised, but not totally so that RB211-524G/H are absent at the moment - guess they'll have them ready at some point Btw when will JC actually give their RB211-524s some loveOnly two are available at the moment(CX official Lettuce sandwitch VR-HOP & interactive CX silver bullet B-HUO)
I really can't tell if the nose are good or not - they look slightly odd to my eye but without windows and all the other elements I really can't tell how the outcome will be But at the moment it beats Phoenis's nose comfortably - no doubt (Well every 747 toolings in production today would probably beat the current Phoenix 744s comfortably so that's an awfully low bar, I think even the notorious Netmodels 744 looks more comfortable than Phoenix 744s today)
Wish NG don't come across the stupid error of mixing engines up like this case or like the JC Dragonair Cargo B744BCF on their actual releases - that would probably be dealbreaker for some - especially when consider NG's pricepoint are in the leagur of GJ/Phoenix while JC are much cheaper LOL.

 

[YesterAirlines]

Haven't read the article yet but just noticed this small error.
Unless NG revealed these last year and I'm just stupid, that should say September 2023.

View attachment 22620

Oops thanks fixed that.

 

[1/400collector]

Hopefully we will see EL AL 744 4X-ELD in the delivery livery

 

[pons399]

The forehead, like the one on the final -8, is definitely improved. The hump-nose transition is a lot sleeker.

One other issue is that the wing root is too rounded. Other than that, looks pretty good. Hoping to see these out soon.

 

[B767Avia]

Would you be able to take a quick snap of the underside of the wings? That's one part they struggled on the 748 and it would be good to double check here.

 

[YesterAirlines]

The forehead, like the one on the final -8, is definitely improved. The hump-nose transition is a lot sleeker.

You caught me just as I was taking new photos of the 8F. I'm still not 100% convinced they did change it. What do you think?

Would you be able to take a quick snap of the underside of the wings? That's one part they struggled on the 748 and it would be good to double check here.

Here you go. The detailing is rather obscured by the paint but as I say in the review it isn't as good as on the JC mould:

 

[CPHL1011]

Hard to have the overall impression when the model is all white, but 3 things concerns me.

Engine ground clearance, nose profile and the forehead.

Otherwise it look nice

 

[pons399]

You caught me just as I was taking new photos of the 8F. I'm still not 100% convinced they did change it. What do you think?

View attachment 22623



Here you go. The detailing is rather obscured by the paint but as I say in the review it isn't as good as on the JC mould:

View attachment 22622

These are for the pax, but the hump-nose transition is slightly less steep. From afar, the whole forehead section looks less "abrupt."

 

[YesterAirlines]

Hard to have the overall impression when the model is all white, but 3 things concerns me.

Engine ground clearance, nose profile and the forehead.

Otherwise it look nice

What's the concern with engine ground clearance? Looks quite good to me.

 

[Mark22]

You caught me just as I was taking new photos of the 8F. I'm still not 100% convinced they did change it. What do you think?

View attachment 22623

I'm pretty sure the nose on the right is sharper and the left is more fat underneath.

 

[1/400collector]

the engines look kinda weird but they seem to be ok.
Im just scared to see the 742 review XD

 

[pons399]

Here you go. The detailing is rather obscured by the paint but as I say in the review it isn't as good as on the JC mould:

View attachment 22622

Overall flap configuration seems fine, but like you said, the hinges are missing. It's tough to find a good underside view with the flaps retracted tho...

 

[CPHL1011]

What's the concern with engine ground clearance? Looks quite good to me.

View attachment 22630

Thank you, Richard.

It might be the angel of the picture and I trust you when you say it looks fine.

Overall it looks very promissing and I can’t wait to have an example in my hands

 

[B767Avia]

Here you go. The detailing is rather obscured by the paint but as I say in the review it isn't as good as on the JC mould:

View attachment 22622

Thanks. Since the inboard flap is triple slotted it looks good size wise. No spoilers on the underside this time around.

Only minor complaint is that the lines from the inboard flap seem to extend onto the flaperons when it should stop when it meets the flaperon.