




It's a metal diecast plane as you can see, but the livery has suffered over the years as the poor plane has been boxed during many moves. If this was another brand, i doubt it would have suffered this badly. I have to agree Schabak sux at size & painting qualityPIA10141 wrote:What is the material of this plane?? looks like foam?
though you might be right about the scale, that's a A310-200. I had an emirates A310-300 of the same scale and it looks different from this.samee380 wrote:It is A310-300, scale 1.500.
Aircraft models specially toy-like models like this PIA A310 model should never be compared with dimension/size of real aircraft.Nadir Ali wrote:though you might be right about the scale, that's a A310-200. I had an emirates A310-300 of the same scale and it looks different from this.
Photo link shows Air Transat A310-300 not -200.Nadir Ali wrote:Here's a pic of an A310-200 scale model:
http://www.longprosper.com/webdocs/imag ... 10-300.jpg
Nope. The other A310s i compared them to were of Emirates of the same brand and the same scale. yet their wingtips and fusalage seemed different from this one. When I'm in Karachi again, I'll post a pic of my Emirates planes to make a comparison. Maybe those ones are A310-200s then.Abbas Ali wrote:For the sake of information, all PIA Airbus A310s are A310-300.
A310-200s were built without wingtip fence whereas all A310-300s have wingtip fence. Photos posted by Nadir also show the aircraft model with wingtip fence so it's A310-300.
Aircraft models specially toy-like models like this PIA A310 model should never be compared with dimension/size of real aircraft.
like the same differences then between 777-300 and 777-300ER?A310-200 and A310-300 are nearly 100% identical aircraft from outside. The visible external difference between A310-200 and A310-300 is wingtip fence on all A310-300 models.
I found that picture when googling for Air transat A310-200s and that's the result i got.Photo link shows Air Transat A310-300 not -200.
Abbas