Delta Airlines Boeing 767-300ERw N195DN Gemini Jets GJDAL1452 2015

Delta Airlines Boeing 767-300ERw N195DN Gemini Jets GJDAL1452 2015

Delta Airlines 767-300ER
Delta Airlines 767-300ER

I have no great love for Delta Airlines, it’s entire fleet policy, commercial attitude and monopolistic inclinations are not my idea of how an airline should be run. And I don’t like that they own 49% of Virgin Atlantic. It offends my English sensibilities! However, having purchased the catastrophically bad Gemini Delta MD-90 – it literally fell apart out of the box, wings, tail, everything – I decided it was time Delta were given an upgrade. In Diorama World, Northwest are still a major player for me – how I love their last livery!  The MD-90 was replaced back in 2013 by the retailer and is now going up for sale on e-bay. The 767 is replacing it until the A350’s appear.

Having only two main does seems oddly dated and less efficient
Having only two main does seems oddly dated and less efficient

Firstly I love the 767 when it has those huge winglets and Delta uses a large number of them into Heathrow, though it has to be said with varying success. Many have dire paint and look seriously dilapidated. Recently Delta quietly announced it was giving the LAX flight to London back to Virgin Atlantic – it seems they haven’t had much success with it and Virgin is booming on the route, having given up one of its flights for the Atlanta slot, they’re now back to two using 787-9’s. What would you want to fly on? A dilapidated 18 year old Delta 767 or a brand new VS 787-9? Exactly.

Anyway, now to the model. It’s the latest generation of Gemini Jet’s improvements. Aerials, high quality print and what looks to be metal landing gear! So let’s see how well this pretty standard and simple model actual fares. It was certainly expensive enough at the best part of £34/$50.

IMGP8447 - Version 2

1) Fuselage

This version is laid out with only one main door, two over wing exits and one rear door. (Many versions have the four door layout without the over-wing exits). Two aerials up top, with one below, some paint-on domes and, it has to be said, some pretty fine printed detail. All in all it looks pretty smart and rather neat. Delta’s livery always strikes me as being rather formal and this replicates it perfectly. There is a huge Delta logo under the body, which is well done.

IMGP8457 - Version 2

2) Wings and Landing Gear

The wings are very good, Gemini have got the paintwork down to a fine detail without excessive gloss. The huge winglets are well done and exceptionally neat.  The problem is the cradle element where the fuselage mounts it. The over-wing arch of the root is too much of a gap and so much so that you can see through to the other side if you hold it up to the light. The rear gap is the same as it used to be, and the general fit of the underside of the cradle is no different to the ancient BA 767-300ER G-BNWD that dates back to 2006 (GJBAW706). However the gappy fuselage to wing mould on the 2006 model just doesn’t appear. Yes the old BA has no winglets,  so it must be the winglets mould that is at fault rather than the fuselage which is identical. Annoyingly there is one area where paint from the central area has leaked into the rear grey.

Odd marks, excessive gaps and a paint leak
Odd marks, excessive gaps and a paint leak

Landing Gear is metal with plastic wheels carrying rubber tyres, though some of the tyres are very lumpy. You never used to get all these lumps where the tyres have been cut off their spigots so why are we now? The old BA model has metal gear but the tyres are solid plastic on axels – no wheel is present. While the current way of doing things is better, the tyres need to be re-evaluated and some quality control applied. The same, frankly, applies to Phoenix.

IMGP8460 - Version 2

3)  Engines

They’re OK, I’ve seen better, but I’ve definitely seen a great deal worse. The intake paint, so often a disappointment is actually pretty good and looks neat and tidy with the naked eye, no chips or paint runs. Close up the engine mounting is no great shakes and even with the naked eye the upper edge looks thin on paint. However it’s acceptable.

IMGP8455 - Version 2

4) Tail

Because of the dark colouration, it’s harder to see the pretty chronic orange-peel effect in the tail fin paint. Just don’t let strong light on it and you won’t notice. The starboard stabiliser is the most annoying element as it’s not far enough in and is a little rough around the fuselage edges. Other than that, again from a naked eye perspective, it’s all pretty good.

Starboard stabiliser fit is a let down as is the orange peel on the tail paint, although it's fairly hard to see.
Starboard stabiliser fit is a let down as is the orange peel on the tail paint, although it’s fairly hard to see.

5) Nose

It’s actually excellent, I have no issues.

IMGP8454 - Version 2

6)  Colours

Gemini are excellent in general at colour selection and this is no exception. Not that it’s that hard to get right. Fault free.

IMGP8465 - Version 2

7) Score

As usual it has to be based on what can be seen with the naked eye. There the main issues are the starboard stabiliser and the gap between the fuselage curve and the wings. each of those gets a -1 to give a score of 8/10. It;s a big improvement n general quality and I find myself actually liking this model a great deal. She may be a 1997 vintage aircraft but when produced this neatly, she still looks relevant, and not that dated. In general a good job from Gemini.

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER @1400Reviews
FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
@1400Reviews