Which is the best 777-300ER 1:200?
- Thread starter Sierra
- Start date
hasanabbas01
Member
Inflight200 is the best 777-300ER mould.
FanFlieger2014
New member
Hello, I’d also like to share my opinion, if the question is still relevant.
I only have 777 models (-300ER, -200ER and F) from JC Wings and Gemini Jets. As far as I can tell, both brands use the same mould.
Inflight200, in my opinion, uses the same mould as several other brands (Aviation200, B Models, etc.).
I can only judge those other brands from photos. One thing I do like more about Inflight200 and similar brands is the rear fuselage. On the real 777, there is a fairly sharp crease underneath where the belly transitions into the tail section. JC Wings / Gemini didn’t reproduce that line particularly well. On the other hand, from some photos I get the impression that JC Wings / Gemini might capture the nose shape, including the cockpit windows, slightly better than some of the others.
A real advantage of JC Wings / Gemini, in my opinion, is the availability of the “flaps down” version. The 777 looks especially impressive that way, even if the configuration (full flaps combined with a strongly flexed wing) is a bit unusual from a realistic flight perspective.
One more small detail: on the JC Wings models the landing lights at the wing root are represented with small crystal-like inserts, while on the Gemini version the landing lights are only printed. That’s really a shame and a genuine downside, in my opinion, because those little inserts actually sparkle quite nicely. I believe Inflight200 and similar brands use them as well.
Could you explain why you think that?
I only have 777 models (-300ER, -200ER and F) from JC Wings and Gemini Jets. As far as I can tell, both brands use the same mould.
Inflight200, in my opinion, uses the same mould as several other brands (Aviation200, B Models, etc.).
I can only judge those other brands from photos. One thing I do like more about Inflight200 and similar brands is the rear fuselage. On the real 777, there is a fairly sharp crease underneath where the belly transitions into the tail section. JC Wings / Gemini didn’t reproduce that line particularly well. On the other hand, from some photos I get the impression that JC Wings / Gemini might capture the nose shape, including the cockpit windows, slightly better than some of the others.
A real advantage of JC Wings / Gemini, in my opinion, is the availability of the “flaps down” version. The 777 looks especially impressive that way, even if the configuration (full flaps combined with a strongly flexed wing) is a bit unusual from a realistic flight perspective.
One more small detail: on the JC Wings models the landing lights at the wing root are represented with small crystal-like inserts, while on the Gemini version the landing lights are only printed. That’s really a shame and a genuine downside, in my opinion, because those little inserts actually sparkle quite nicely. I believe Inflight200 and similar brands use them as well.
hasanabbas01
Member
Inflight200 is the owner of the 777 Mould which is used by J-Fox, AV200, etc...
IF200 is one of the leading 1:200 manufacturers with the best toolings, with the most moulds, which are regularly changed.
GJ is like J-Fox, the moulds are JC.
IF200 is one of the leading 1:200 manufacturers with the best toolings, with the most moulds, which are regularly changed.
GJ is like J-Fox, the moulds are JC.
Ted Lin
Active member
Does Inflight owns AV200 and AV400 or they are a separate entity? I am aware that JFox is a solo guy running it but B-models, we have 0 information about it. Nobody seems to be able to find the past release done by B-Models or the upcoming announcement other than waiting for retailers to release the models which are up for preorder. Maybe Hasan can enlighten us a bit since ARD is a partial owner of IF200 from what I have heard from.
FanFlieger2014
New member
That’s all interesting information, but I’m not sure it really answers Sierra’s original question.
I understood the question as follows: Sierra is interested in a 1:200 model of the 777-300ER and would like to know which manufacturer delivers the closest reproduction of the real aircraft.
In my view, that mainly involves questions such as: Which manufacturer captures the overall proportions most accurately? Who gets critical areas closest to the real aircraft – for example the nose and cockpit window shape, or parts of the fuselage such as the rear section and, on the 777 in particular, the characteristic flattened upper fuselage behind the cockpit? Which manufacturer represents details best (for example the landing lights)?
Another important aspect is the level of abstraction that works best at this scale. This is closely related to how the model is engineered – for example where manufacturers choose to separate parts such as the wings and the fuselage. On the 777 I personally don’t see major differences in that respect, whereas on aircraft like the 747 or the A300 the manufacturers differ quite noticeably in how they handle these separations. Engine component separation is another area where differences can be seen – for instance, on aircraft like the Lockheed Tristar, manufacturers handle these parts quite differently.
If possible, one could also look at aspects beyond the mould itself, such as colour accuracy of the paintwork or the frequency of quality issues like printing errors.
Overall, for the 777 I don’t see any particularly crucial details that would clearly set one manufacturer apart from another. More critical differences appear on aircraft like the A320 family, the 747, the A300, or the 737. Personally, I would prefer a 777 model that includes the landing lights, and as I mentioned, I find the flaps-down version especially interesting. Considering these points, I tend to lean towards JC Wings, although the mould quality itself is generally fine across all brands.
I understood the question as follows: Sierra is interested in a 1:200 model of the 777-300ER and would like to know which manufacturer delivers the closest reproduction of the real aircraft.
In my view, that mainly involves questions such as: Which manufacturer captures the overall proportions most accurately? Who gets critical areas closest to the real aircraft – for example the nose and cockpit window shape, or parts of the fuselage such as the rear section and, on the 777 in particular, the characteristic flattened upper fuselage behind the cockpit? Which manufacturer represents details best (for example the landing lights)?
Another important aspect is the level of abstraction that works best at this scale. This is closely related to how the model is engineered – for example where manufacturers choose to separate parts such as the wings and the fuselage. On the 777 I personally don’t see major differences in that respect, whereas on aircraft like the 747 or the A300 the manufacturers differ quite noticeably in how they handle these separations. Engine component separation is another area where differences can be seen – for instance, on aircraft like the Lockheed Tristar, manufacturers handle these parts quite differently.
If possible, one could also look at aspects beyond the mould itself, such as colour accuracy of the paintwork or the frequency of quality issues like printing errors.
Overall, for the 777 I don’t see any particularly crucial details that would clearly set one manufacturer apart from another. More critical differences appear on aircraft like the A320 family, the 747, the A300, or the 737. Personally, I would prefer a 777 model that includes the landing lights, and as I mentioned, I find the flaps-down version especially interesting. Considering these points, I tend to lean towards JC Wings, although the mould quality itself is generally fine across all brands.
