PDA

View Full Version : Model Review: AV400 Egypt Air 747-300



Speedbird91
10-07-2008, 01:58 AM
Model: AV4743002
Airline: Egypt Air
Aircraft: Boeing 747-300
Registration: SU-GAM
Release Date: 2008
Units: 744
Notes: New Colours

EgyptAir is the flag carrier airline of the Arab Republic of Egypt and a member of Star Alliance. The airline operates through its main hub at Cairo International Airport. It is wholly owned by the Egyptian government, with scheduled passenger and freighter services to more than 70 destinations in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, the USA, and Canada, as well as running extensive domestic operations.
EgyptAir is Africa's second-largest airline. The airline joined Star Alliance on July 11 2008, becoming the first Middle Eastern member of the alliance.
The airline's logo is Horus, the sky deity in ancient Egyptian mythology, who is usually depicted as a falcon or a man with the head of a falcon. The airline has taken Horus as its logo because of it ancient symbolism as a winged god of the sun.

The Pros
Now, before I start my review I would like to state that I in no way support any misadventures or business dealings of the people at Aviation 400.
I am not a big fan of Aviation 400 due to the choice of the airlines they replicate and the initial quality issues of their DC-10 mould, and I am only really interested in their 747 and 767 moulds mainly because they are updated AeroClassics and Big Bird moulds as are many of you.
After bypassing Magic’s versions which are available in old and oldest MS colours and were released about a year before, I was waiting for the model to be released on the AC/ BB400 mould hopefully by AeroClassics. When AV400 released it I was hesitant to purchase due to the QC issues the company faced but also the political situation AV400 was in on these forums, but eventually I risked both and ordered the model.

Putting all the above aside I finally received Horus -300 and the model has become one of my favourites in a collection of about 600 models!
As mentioned above, Aviation 400 use a slightly updated AeroClassics/BB400 747 mould. By updated I mean that the ‘new’ mould features seamless wings, a major plus, and rolling landing gear, a plus to some atleast. The rest of the mould is the same as version 1.

The logos/ livery all seem to be correct in terms of position and colouration. The sky God, Horus, is the correct scale on the tail and has even been painted in the correct gold paint. All this set upon a background of a dark shade of royal blue, again close to the 1:1 version. The same shade of blue has been used on the ‘Egypt Air’ titles on the forward fuselage and the engines which also feature small images of Horus the same as depicted on the tail.

The details list is also extensive and the model features every little detail from landing lights to the IATA wings logo on the sides of the fuselage. The airplanes given name ‘Cleopatra’ is also printed at the forward part of the model near the cockpit static tubes. The wings feature spoiler and flap outlines which are engraved into the metal. The cabin doors and windows and the cockpit windows are framed in a silver outline which makes them stand out from the euro white background of the aircraft’s fuselage. The smallest details even down to the door handles on the cabin doors and cargo bay doors are depicted on the model and a feature which has become standard on all 1:400 models today.

The Cons.
The landing gear.
As I have said before, one feature 1:400 models didn’t need was rolling gear. They are wonky and often oversized, and although AV400 models don’t feature the silly Tonka-like rolling gear most Phoenix wide body models have, rolling gear are still a feature of this otherwise great mould. Some of you might not agree with me that rolling gear are a problem but when you are spending two hours trying to put the nose wheel back together, it becomes quite annoying! We don’t roll our models along our airport dioramas and play airport (or do we?) so I really don’t see any reason for rolling gear! The models were not designed to be played with anyway..........

The corroguard on the wings is not realistic. If there is one issue which stuffs this model up it is the corroguard. It is way too shiny and looks like our stainless steel refrigerator’s surface. It changes with the light so the only way you will get the colour right is the way you display the model, at what angle it is displayed to the viewer and in what light conditions it is displayed in.

At closer inspection the model features tiny scratches on the fuselage and the model obviously had dust particles on at the painting stage because it features small dots under the paint, when scratched off with a fingernail, reveal barely visible dots where the metal was covered by a foreign particle.

Finally, 1:400 manufacturers, especially Aviation 400 and Gemini Jets have to learn that printing your logo on the bottom of the model in giant font is noticeable! If you place the model directly in front of you, you can make out the Aviation 400 logo underneath which curves with the fuselage upward. Do you guys not understand that it is not necessary and wrecks the overall appeal of model?

Below are ratings out of 10, with 1 being the worst and 10 being excellent.
1: Worst
2: Bad
3: Poor
4: Could be better
5: Satisfactory
6: Average
7: Good
8: Great
9: HOT!
10: Excellent

Mould (Airframe): 8.0
Detail (Inc. Spoilers, Flaps, Gear bay doors, Cargo Doors): 9.0
Printing (Accuracy, Colour, Finish, Correct Fonts): 7.0
Quality (Any Scratches, Chips, Bent Pylons, Finish): 7.5
Value (Price, Money well spent): 8.0
Verdict: 7.5/10

Final Verdict
I was planning to make a comparison Q&A of this model to the Magic model but after some thinking I decided not to! This model, although it has issues, is brilliant compared to Magic’s 747-300 mould. Magic’s MS 743 has too many issues, many more than this model to warrant a comparison. After all, how can you compare and updated BB400/AC mould to a substandard other? If you like the colours or collect the airline I would say buy it, but this model is definitely not a ‘must have’.

Note: Picture courtesy of PeeWee. Ill post my pictures later.... And my model does not feature the downward angled pylon shown in the picture.

CO Rudy
10-07-2008, 02:44 AM
Thanks for your review.

For me this is a "must have".

Do you also have the Magic in the old colors?

I'm thinking of purchasing this for already a long time, but i'm not so sure about Magic models.

Can you please advise me?

CO Rudy.

Sportyboy
10-07-2008, 03:05 AM
Fantastic review!

Thanks!

;)


We don’t roll our models along our airport dioramas and play airport (or do we?) so I really don’t see any reason for rolling gear! The models were not designed to be played with anyway..........

I know I do!

:lol:

Speedbird91
10-07-2008, 03:58 AM
Thanks for your review.

For me this is a "must have".

Do you also have the Magic in the old colors?

I'm thinking of purchasing this for already a long time, but i'm not so sure about Magic models.

Can you please advise me?

CO Rudy.

Thanks for your question.
Unfortunately, I do not have the Magic MS old colours so I cannot comment on that actual model, but I have the Qantas 747-300 and just as the Egypt Air old colours it is the only model that features standard QF colours in 1:400 so already you are limited.

As the mould goes, it isn't the best 747 mould around but it does the job of filling in a gap. You can read a review of the Magic/Blue Box mould for further details.
Just look in the review subsection and find Model Review: BB The Hawaii Express 747-100 at the bottom of the page. Even though it states BB for Big Bird, this model is fake Big Bird and made on the BBX/Magic mould.

I am planning on writing a review for the Qantas 747-300 by Blue Box/Magic soon.

Hope this answers your question, if you have any more then do not hesitate to ask again...and again. ;)

:)

Speedbird91
10-07-2008, 03:59 AM
Fantastic review!

Thanks!

;)



I know I do!

:lol:

You are able to Lorenzo as your pictures are worth it! :)

Sportyboy
10-07-2008, 04:11 AM
You are able to Lorenzo as your pictures are worth it! :)

Thanks!

;)

egpx
10-07-2008, 08:00 AM
Adam, I don't know if it is the same with the -300 and -400 mould but I would say that the differences between the old BB -200/100 mould and the new AV400 are sufficient for them to be considered as different moulds rather than simply updated. The fin, tailplane and engines all show subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, differences. I think the hump is shaped slightly differently as well.

I'm not convinced that the AV400 -200 mould is a development of the old mould at all and simply a brand new development. We have also seen the old mould produce some PAMC models since the new mould appeared which would suggest that it hasn't been altered. Indeed, I don't know much about it but I would have thought that adapting the old mould would be more complex than producing a new one.

Once again, I'm talking about the 747 Classic mould and not the stretched upper deck that you have been reviewing as I don't have an AV400 -300 to hand. However, I wouldn't be too surprised in the -300 and -400s produced by AV400 are on a brand new mould.

Speedbird91
10-07-2008, 05:00 PM
Adam, I don't know if it is the same with the -300 and -400 mould but I would say that the differences between the old BB -200/100 mould and the new AV400 are sufficient for them to be considered as different moulds rather than simply updated. The fin, tailplane and engines all show subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, differences. I think the hump is shaped slightly differently as well.

I'm not convinced that the AV400 -200 mould is a development of the old mould at all and simply a brand new development. We have also seen the old mould produce some PAMC models since the new mould appeared which would suggest that it hasn't been altered. Indeed, I don't know much about it but I would have thought that adapting the old mould would be more complex than producing a new one.

Once again, I'm talking about the 747 Classic mould and not the stretched upper deck that you have been reviewing as I don't have an AV400 -300 to hand. However, I wouldn't be too surprised in the -300 and -400s produced by AV400 are on a brand new mould.

Well, I compared my Cathay Pacific -300 made by BB400 and this model and I have to say they do look pretty similar. The AV400 mould even features the same errors as the BB400 such as the slight curvature of the fuselage at the back of the model with the tail.
The only real difference is the wings with the above AV400 model having inflight wings and the BB400 having ground (drooping) wings.
The hump on both models is also the same..............?

I did read a couple of posts by Andrew, where he said that the 'pirates' moved into the old Big Bird factory and therefore where able to use BBs old moulds (767 and 747) but were updated first, by that meaning that the obvious seems and landing gear changes had taken place.

R. Minor
10-07-2008, 05:55 PM
Nice job on this one. ;)

irishque
10-07-2008, 09:11 PM
does this model has wingtip antennas?

Speedbird91
10-08-2008, 12:44 AM
does this model has wingtip antennas?

No, it doesn't feature wingtip antennas :)

Ferihegy
10-08-2008, 01:36 AM
The Magic seems to be ready for a review... The aviation400 version is quite nice though, thanks for the article!

Yukon 880
10-08-2008, 01:41 AM
Nice review, Adam.
Thanks!

Speedbird91
10-08-2008, 02:28 AM
Nice review, Adam.
Thanks!

Glad y'all like it, Thanks for the compliaments. ;) :)

egpx
10-08-2008, 02:56 AM
Well, I compared my Cathay Pacific -300 made by BB400 and this model and I have to say they do look pretty similar. The AV400 mould even features the same errors as the BB400 such as the slight curvature of the fuselage at the back of the model with the tail.
The only real difference is the wings with the above AV400 model having inflight wings and the BB400 having ground (drooping) wings.
The hump on both models is also the same..............?

I did read a couple of posts by Andrew, where he said that the 'pirates' moved into the old Big Bird factory and therefore where able to use BBs old moulds (767 and 747) but were updated first, by that meaning that the obvious seems and landing gear changes had taken place.

I have to say that whatever AV400 did, be it develp a brand new mould or adapt the old one, I'm surprised that they did. There wasn't much wrong with the Big Birds, in fact the Classic was indeed a classic. Still, credit where it is due - I'm all for hiding seams and they have done a nice job ;)

Speedbird91
10-08-2008, 04:21 AM
I have to say that whatever AV400 did, be it develp a brand new mould or adapt the old one, I'm surprised that they did. There wasn't much wrong with the Big Birds, in fact the Classic was indeed a classic. Still, credit where it is due - I'm all for hiding seams and they have done a nice job ;)

Precisely! Big Bird set a benchmark other manufacturers are still trying to reach.

aviator8883
10-10-2008, 11:26 PM
The AV400 747s really are fantastic. I just received my Caledonian 742 about a week ago and I am very happy with it!

aViatOr

Kappel
10-20-2008, 02:56 AM
Nice review! I hope AV400 releases a KL 743 soon too!