Personal Opinion on Aviation400

[Jazajia]

It seemed as if Richard and I were heading for a new episode of drama in the diecast forums over at the United 77Ws Aviation400 vs. NG thread. But that's not the case (we talked about it). Let's just call it a botched attempt of me trying to mess with him and his beloved Aviation400 .

It is true however that I wasn't pleased with the AV400 77W.

So here is my limited experience with the brand, and were I was coming from.

They were around when I was getting started into 1:400 collecting, but they were a niche brand that produced really random stuff. The only model that caught my attention back then was the Lan Chile 747-100, which I did not get because I had other priorities for my very limited funds at the time.

I got one of the BA 747s they released later on under the InFlight400 banner, so it wasn't technically an AV400 release. Anyway, it was a controversial model since it was a hot subject on a slot-in wing 747-200 mold, but it was riddled with design and quality issues.

Then I got a proper AV400 model, a USAF 727-100 from the scratch & dent bin at The Airplane Shop in Las Vegas. I bought that model as a donor.

Then I got another proper AV400 model, an Ansett 727-200 being sold as "damaged" on eBay, which I also bought specifically to use as a donor.

Recently, I finally got an AV400 model that I intended to keep as is, a Challenge Air Cargo 707. But it might as well have been an Aeroclassics model.

So, you see? up until now, I was conditioned to think that AV400 was a small player with some "nice" molds, but random release choices that were excellent candidates to be sacrificed for custom work . They included generic plastic stands in their models and that was nice (free stands!)

I noticed that recently the brand resurfaced, this time focusing on ultra-modern airliners (not even a 772??) and becoming well-known for being the brand that brought beacon jewels to 400 scale.

Since I mainly collect for nostalgia their current release sets were almost invisible to me. But I did notice that quite the hype was growing around them and suddenly they were right up there with NG, and many people said they were even better because of the jewels.

So I was really excited when they released the UA 77W as I was finally going to have a legit reason to check them out, and also compare it with the simultaneous NG release. And I was indeed expecting the AV400 one to be better than NG, given that NG's 777s have received some criticism.

Anyone who read the comparison between the two models knows that it was not the case and that there are arguably some issues with the AV400 77W mold. Besides that, I noticed that the essence of the original AV400 is still alive and well (they even still come with a free plastic stand! - this is a nice tradition to carry over I have to say). But remember that I did not have a particularly good image of that original AV400 (they made good donors though ).

What I can gather is that collectors who endorse the current Aviation400 do so almost entirely based on the cool factor of the molded-in details, the beacon jewels, tilting landing gear, etc. As a collector who is driven mostly by the nostalgia factor, it was a bit shocking to see the "power of the gimmicks."

This is all my personal opinion based on a very limited exposure to AV400, I know there is more to them than 77Ws, and they are working hard on bringing innovation and improving their product. Also, their A380 seems genuinely promising. Because of all this, my opinion should have stayed completely out of the comparison between the two United 77Ws. Sorry for unnecessarily stirring the pot a bit there.

And yes @YesterAirlines, when you come back from the holidays you can also tell everyone on this thread how great AV400 is

Here are my original AV400s - Not including the IF400 BA 747

 

[mike_charlie_lima]

btw, would be interested to see you also compare the 77w from JC and PH.
I've yet to own a NG one but all the other 3 brands.
now im tempted to get one to see myself how good NG it is (only when NG is making a unique livery and no one else is making).

 

[skonga]

The old AV400 and the current AV400 is different. You may check yesterdayairline website to study a bit bout the history of those manufacturers

 

[YesterAirlines]

I'm still here at the moment - leaving soon! I love your AVENSA 727s! It's good to hear some other opinions so no worries chum.

To be honest the original AV400 was as good as anyone at the time. The BA may have had issues but they made a whole raft of great models on, for the time, good moulds (707, 747, L-1011, 767-300), ok moulds (727, 737s) and rubbish moulds (A320s).

They don't seem to be related to this AV400 in any meaningful way (aside from the brand name and stands) and their quality was the same as Aeroclassics at the time since they were literally made in the same factory AC was just before them. As skonga says it's all covered in their brand history at the site:

The First Aviation400 (2007-2012)

The history of the first 1:400 Scale Die-cast Model airline manufacturer named Aviation400

www.yesterdaysairlines.com

Many of the old AV400 models are some of my favourites in my collection - like this Madagascar 747:

 

[josecolme]

It seemed as if Richard and I were heading for a new episode of drama in the diecast forums over at the United 77Ws Aviation400 vs. NG thread. But that's not the case (we talked about it). Let's just call it a botched attempt of me trying to mess with him and his beloved Aviation400 .

It is true however that I wasn't pleased with the AV400 77W.

So here is my limited experience with the brand, and were I was coming from.

They were around when I was getting started into 1:400 collecting, but they were a niche brand that produced really random stuff. The only model that caught my attention back then was the Lan Chile 747-100, which I did not get because I had other priorities for my very limited funds at the time.

I got one of the BA 747s they released later on under the InFlight400 banner, so it wasn't technically an AV400 release. Anyway, it was a controversial model since it was a hot subject on a slot-in wing 747-200 mold, but it was riddled with design and quality issues.

Then I got a proper AV400 model, a USAF 727-100 from the scratch & dent bin at The Airplane Shop in Las Vegas. I bought that model as a donor.

Then I got another proper AV400 model, an Ansett 727-200 being sold as "damaged" on eBay, which I also bought specifically to use as a donor.

Recently, I finally got an AV400 model that I intended to keep as is, a Challenge Air Cargo 707. But it might as well have been an Aeroclassics model.

So, you see? up until now, I was conditioned to think that AV400 was a small player with some "nice" molds, but random release choices that were excellent candidates to be sacrificed for custom work . They included generic plastic stands in their models and that was nice (free stands!)

I noticed that recently the brand resurfaced, this time focusing on ultra-modern airliners (not even a 772??) and becoming well-known for being the brand that brought beacon jewels to 400 scale.

Since I mainly collect for nostalgia their current release sets were almost invisible to me. But I did notice that quite the hype was growing around them and suddenly they were right up there with NG, and many people said they were even better because of the jewels.

So I was really excited when they released the UA 77W as I was finally going to have a legit reason to check them out, and also compare it with the simultaneous NG release. And I was indeed expecting the AV400 one to be better than NG, given that NG's 777s have received some criticism.

Anyone who read the comparison between the two models knows that it was not the case and that there are arguably some issues with the AV400 77W mold. Besides that, I noticed that the essence of the original AV400 is still alive and well (they even still come with a free plastic stand! - this is a nice tradition to carry over I have to say). But remember that I did not have a particularly good image of that original AV400 (they made good donors though ).

What I can gather is that collectors who endorse the current Aviation400 do so almost entirely based on the cool factor of the molded-in details, the beacon jewels, tilting landing gear, etc. As a collector who is driven mostly by the nostalgia factor, it was a bit shocking to see the "power of the gimmicks."

This is all my personal opinion based on a very limited exposure to AV400, I know there is more to them than 77Ws, and they are working hard on bringing innovation and improving their product. Also, their A380 seems genuinely promising. Because of all this, my opinion should have stayed completely out of the comparison between the two United 77Ws. Sorry for unnecessarily stirring the pot a bit there.

And yes @YesterAirlines, when you come back from the holidays you can also tell everyone on this thread how great AV400 is

Here are my original AV400s - Not including the IF400 BA 747

View attachment 25435


View attachment 25436

View attachment 25434

Funny, this CAC 707 was the first 1:400 that got me into the scale. Wasn't the first I owned though Those were two Schabak 1:400s. A KLM MD-11 and an Iberia 747-200.

 

[pons399]

Today's AV400 has accurate moulds and great gimmicks like beacon lights, tilting gears, removable gears etc. Their models lack refinement however, as oversized aerials screw with the proportions.

But I must stress, ALL 1:400 brands not named NG lack refinement to some degree; wonky wing joints, oversized aerials and ugly gears are everywhere. It's why 1:200 is generally the way to go if you're looking for accuracy. Criticizing AV400 for crudeness while giving JC/GJ, PH and AC a pass, especially with such a small sample size, would be remiss. I'd highly recommend trying out their A350 and (especially) A380 as well.

 

[YesterAirlines]

Funny, this CAC 707 was the first 1:400 that got me into the scale. Wasn't the first I owned though Those were two Schabak 1:400s. A KLM MD-11 and an Iberia 747-200.

They can't have been Schabak 1:400s as Schabak never made 400 scale. Probably 600 scale like this one from my collection:

 

[YesterAirlines]

Today's AV400 has accurate moulds and great gimmicks like beacon lights, tilting gears, removable gears etc. Their models lack refinement however, as oversized aerials screw with the proportions.

But I must stress, ALL 1:400 brands not named NG lack refinement; wonky wing joints, oversized aerials and ugly gears are everywhere. It's why 1:200 is generally the way to go if you're looking for accuracy. Criticizing AV400 for crudeness while giving JC/GJ, PH and AC a pass, especially with such a small sample size, would be remiss.

To be honest there's plenty of crap in 200 scale as well but you're right and that was the point I was trying to make in the other thread. If you're reviewing AV400 models and giving them bad reviews then the reviews for all the other brands, aside from NG, are going to be as bad or worse because AV400 is near top in the scale. At that point it becomes pointless to review 400 scale if every review says the models are rubbish. These AV400 models, ignoring NG, are near the pinnacle of what has been produced in the scale to date. Expecting everyone to be up to NG's standards, which themselves are hardly faultless, is not realistic.

 

[pons399]

To be honest there's plenty of crap in 200 scale as well but you're right and that was the point I was trying to make in the other thread. If you're reviewing AV400 models and giving them bad reviews then the reviews for all the other brands, aside from NG, are going to be as bad or worse because AV400 is near top in the scale. At that point it becomes pointless to review 400 scale if every review says the models are rubbish. These AV400 models, ignoring NG, are near the pinnacle of what has been produced in the scale to date. Expecting everyone to be up to NG's standards, which themselves are hardly faultless, is not realistic.

Yep, and I'd wager a lot of NG's refinement advantages are simply due to how new their moulds are. I'm no industry insider, but 3D modeling's probably come a long way since the 2000s/2010s.

You're right regarding 1:200. The removable gears are a nightmare for the most part, as they wobble like crazy because of incorrectly-sized holes. Inflight200 is still recycling crappy old moulds, while JC's printing and QC issues never seem to go away. Paying north of $150 for a consistently substandard product leaves a real bad taste in one's mouth...

 

[LeoMuse747]

I like the old AV400 because they had classics. I have zero interest in the new AV400 because I currently don't collect moden-day aircraft.
I love that CAC 707! I bought one and will put my hands on it very soon - my aunt is coming in from the US and will bring it to me
Aviation400 have released some fine 707s and L-1011s... and some Jumbos too, although I don't own any.
I hope to add the L-1011 to my collection in a near future aswell. Air Ops and Air Atlanta!

 

[josecolme]

They can't have been Schabak 1:400s as Schabak never made 400 scale. Probably 600 scale like this one from my collection:

View attachment 25445

No, they weren't 1:600. I also have a few of them. Perhaps they were another brand. I'll check on them and get back in a few days with that.

 

[Irish]

I think AV400 makes some great models, one of my favorites right here!

 

[LeoMuse747]

No, they weren't 1:600. I also have a few of them. Perhaps they were another brand. I'll check on them and get back in a few days with that.

Maybe they were RBA-Fabbri in 1:460 scale?
They look a bit like the Herpa Old generation in 1:500.

See the Iberia 747


and the KLM MD-11

 

[KG3036_SS]

Busy with my final exams and seems like I miss some discussions on 77W by NG and AV400 respectively Really appreciate someone for mentioning my comparison post published a few months ago.

I do think that current AV400 went a very "gimmicky" approach - which I ain't always a fan of. Sometimes these gimmicks just throws the visual balance of the models off even when done right in 400 scale, let alone those that is in wrong size.

Don't get me wrong, some features really makes the difference when done right - like the magnetic gears, which is a really nice feature and really gives us collectors the freedom to dispay in different configurations, while the included stand could really allow the models to be displayed in in-flight configuration. Oh I should mention that the use of the generic stand hole by AV400 further enhance the usability of these stands as now I can easily display the various PH/JC/NG I own on these stands too.

Yet the jewel beacons and the aerials are way oversized (My EVA 77Ws, which are some of the earliest 77W out of AV400 mold, has aerials that are even taller than the newer UA 77Ws) to the point that it looks odd to me, especially when a AV400 77W is placed next to 77W by other brands. The jewel beacons are so large that some Chinese collectors curious if AV400 just grabbed the beacon units for 200 scale models and slap them on the 400 scale models. The see-through, sometimes spinnable, fanblades are nortoriously prone to breakage - and I do heard that AV400 at the factory has be struggling with getting the fanblades on their models, mostly Trent XWB for A350s and GE90-115B for 77Ws, to stay in one piece since they're so thin that the plastics becomes prone to breakage. Sometimes I feel like AV400 poured so much effort on implementing new features that they just let go some accuracy on their molds - the A330neos nose profile just loks unconvincing to me while the 77W are, as I previously mentioned, slightly too slender(aka narrow) and the wingjoin just ain't look right. Main gears of it's models actuates - but with a twisted note that some details are scrapped so as to give room for the acuate mechanism to work (Those in 77Ws are a perfect example) - which just kills the purpose of being more realistic.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I know, on a numeric side these errors might just be a few mms - or some case less than 0.5mm off from real thing, but given that:
1) A difference of 1mm on model can translate to a difference of 40cm on the real thing!
2) AV400 was so keen on telling everyone that they have some of the most accurate models on the market...
3) Sometimes on a model, details being visually off is just - off to us naked eyes¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To me, sometimes AV400's gimmick just miss the spot - on achieving extra details on a models they overdo them and makes the models looks weird and out of proportion to the naked eye. These details just not working as they intended and I really hope AV400 would stop by and rething where the balance shall be set between extra details and the general proportions of their products - especially when they charge such premium to overseas markets.

 

[keji833]

Today's AV400 has accurate moulds and great gimmicks like beacon lights, tilting gears, removable gears etc. Their models lack refinement however, as oversized aerials screw with the proportions.

But I must stress, ALL 1:400 brands not named NG lack refinement to some degree; wonky wing joints, oversized aerials and ugly gears are everywhere. It's why 1:200 is generally the way to go if you're looking for accuracy. Criticizing AV400 for crudeness while giving JC/GJ, PH and AC a pass, especially with such a small sample size, would be remiss. I'd highly recommend trying out their A350 and (especially) A380 as well.

Before getting into my opinions I'd like to say competition is always welcomed in this space.

I tend to agree with this statement. IMO it's really either NG or something else. The problem is we are so spoiled by NG's high standards that everything else looks somewhat crap, especially under a "microscope".

I like that you pointed out the crude gear and oversized aerials, these are absolutely true. For me, the gear issue is the most prominent. 1) Most of the time the gears on JC/AV/PH hate balance (can't all touch ground) or will have an extra metal sticking out here or there (PH's issue can be manually corrected with some force but not JC/AV). 2) Sometimes they are either too high or too low, JC 777's front gear and A330's front gear. 3) Sometimes they have completely wrong shapes: AV400 and JC A350 both have nearly the wrongest shape out of all models (sorry AV400 A350 fans, that main gear struggles to hide its sin).

But like I said before, each to their own and collectors should form their own opinion when it comes to their wallets. That said I very selfishly hope AV400 releases all popular models so that price on NG, PH won't be driven too high .

Edit: I checked my backlog and found I had some 20 old AV400 models, including some very interesting stuff. Those are very nice, especially the AF1 using some variant of the BB mould. IMO old AV400 is better than the modern AV400.
Edit 2: found some old photos, that AF1 looks gorgeous in that all 747 airport.

 

[josecolme]

Maybe they were RBA-Fabbri in 1:460 scale?
They look a bit like the Herpa Old generation in 1:500.

See the Iberia 747
View attachment 25453

and the KLM MD-11
View attachment 25452

No, they did come in a box. I'm thinking they might have been 1/500. I still have them so I'll look for them and share some pictures in a few days.

 

[Phantom]

No, they did come in a box. I'm thinking they might have been 1/500. I still have them so I'll look for them and share some pictures in a few days.

Schabak had a 1/500 line as well. I remember they added this one in their later years. Only ever got one of them - one of the first they did IIRC.
There was an Iberia 747-300 (801/20) and KLM MD-11 (843/5) as well.

Edit: I can find the KLM MD-11 in Schabak's 1997 order form, but not the Iberia (not even the mould) so this must have been a later release. 1/500 doesn't appear in their 1990 order form. Sadly I've lost all my other order forms and stoped collecting Schabak post 1998.

But now back to AV400

 

[Phantom]

As AV400 vs. AC 707 has been mentioned somewhere here. That's what the two moulds look like "naked"
AVAC_1280 by Alexander Kern, auf Flickr

 

[Mikeymag]

Would this be from AV400?

 

[OscarBravo992]

Would this be from AV400?

From the looks of it, yes.