Two questions from someone new to collecting

[Thingswithwings]

Hi everyone,
I started a (small) collection this past year after realizing that diecast models are a thing, I had only ever seen larger plastic models and the toys before. after stumbling on the forums and blogs in the community, I’ve greatly appreciated learning about models, molds, and manufacturers from the collective wisdom. That being said there two questions that I’ve been wondering about and was hoping to hear thoughts on.

First - How do you all care for your models? Is there anything you need to do to give them longevity, other than keeping them out of direct sunlight and give them a gentle dusting here and there? At this point, I don’t have a lot of space to dedicate to models, so the 3 I have are just out on my desk for easy enjoyment. So enclosed cabinets seem unlikely for me, but curious how you all think about this.

Secondly - are some molds better at depicting their respective types in flight than others? I’ve especially appreciated the discussions and comparisons of the molds from different manufacturers and about their various pros and cons. It seems like the majority of models depict the planes on the ground, but personally I enjoy thinking of these little gems in flight and thus really appreciate the magnetic gears on the AV400s. But beyond the gears, how accurate are these molds of their types in flight? Are there types that have less wing flex in flight (perhaps an A380?) so the models are more reflective of this stage? While it seems that the more accurate 787 molds (NG, AV400, JC) do not show wing flex are best displayed on the ground? I hope I’m getting across my question and would love to hear others thoughts.

And because it seems to be the thing to do here, below is a picture of my “collection”.

 

[YesterAirlines]

Welcome to the forum and collecting. As far as I've seen as long as the models are kept out of strong light they should be good. I don't think there is anything else needed.

In terms of inflight. Aircraft tend to show more wingflex rather than less in flight and this appears to have increased in recent years with types like the 787. There have been several moulds with quite highly flexed versions in the past but they all have fixed undercarriage (Phoenix 747-8 had a flexed wing version once and their 787s all do).

Dragon Wings were the only brand to really offer wheels up options before AV400 just started but they didn't change the moulds for inflight. I think most of the moulds are fairly accurate for inflight but obviously don't show different control surface settings. I assume you're aware of the flaps down versions by JC/GJ and recently YY Wings?

 

[Thingswithwings]

Welcome to the forum and collecting. As far as I've seen as long as the models are kept out of strong light they should be good. I don't think there is anything else needed.

In terms of inflight. Aircraft tend to show more wingflex rather than less in flight and this appears to have increased in recent years with types like the 787. There have been several moulds with quite highly flexed versions in the past but they all have fixed undercarriage (Phoenix 747-8 had a flexed wing version once and their 787s all do).

Dragon Wings were the only brand to really offer wheels up options before AV400 just started but they didn't change the moulds for inflight. I think most of the moulds are fairly accurate for inflight but obviously don't show different control surface settings. I assume you're aware of the flaps down versions by JC/GJ and recently YY Wings?

Thanks for your thoughts. I’ve really appreciated your blog and the detailed mold comparisons. It’s fun to think about which manufacturer might be more accurate on the parts that catch my eye the most. On model care, I’d seen some people say you should wear gloves when handling, but that seems tricky when I have mine out on my desk.

I went back to look at some pictures I took on an A380 flight and can now see the wing flexing up in flight, though maybe it’s also less noticeable inside the plane. I feel like it’s been more noticeable on some planes more than others, but that may also be a perception issue on my part (e.g., a320s vs 737s, leaving planes like the 787 aside). And glad to hear you think most molds are reasonably accurate for inflight. I have seen the flaps down models online, but not on person. Flaps down would be more accurate for taxiing and takeoff/landing phases while flaps up versions would be more representative of cruising though, right? Much of this may be moot as I suspect I’ll end up collecting more narrow bodies in the future just due to space constraints, though I definitely still have wide bodies on my wishlist (like a 1990s 747-200 ANA).

 

[Jazajia]

Flaps down would be more accurate for taxiing and takeoff/landing phases while flaps up versions would be more representative of cruising though, right? Much of this may be moot as I suspect I’ll end up collecting more narrow bodies in the future just due to space constraints, though I definitely still have wide bodies on my wishlist (like a 1990s 747-200 ANA).

I haven't seen any of the current flaps-down offerings in person (or at least outside the cradle), though I own a Hogan version. It seems to me that most of them actually represent landing flaps configurations (full or close to fully extended). Rarely such settings are used (as in approved for use) for takeoff.

Aside from landings, those models can also be used on maintenance hangars, and if at the gate, the scenario should be "flaps stuck extended after landing." Anything else is unrealistic, however cool it might look.

I think most models look okay on a stand regardless of configuration. It is not uncommon to see 1:1 airplanes displayed like that. It is understood that it is done for better appreciation, or space constrains and not to accurately simulate an in-flight situation.

 

[Thingswithwings]

I haven't seen any of the current flaps-down offerings in person (or at least outside the cradle), though I own a Hogan version. It seems to me that most of them actually represent landing flaps configurations (full or close to fully extended). Rarely such settings are used (as in approved for use) for takeoff.

Aside from landings, those models can also be used on maintenance hangars, and if at the gate, the scenario should be "flaps stuck extended after landing." Anything else is unrealistic, however cool it might look.

I think most models look okay on a stand regardless of configuration. It is not uncommon to see 1:1 airplanes displayed like that. It is understood that it is done for better appreciation, or space constrains and not to accurately simulate an in-flight situation.

I’ll have to pay more attention to the flaps the next time I fly. Thanks for sharing!