Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

venomvixen

Sea Venom from Cyberhobby

Recommended Posts

While I truely detest hammering a kit based purely on online pics I feel I can with this

one given my history with the type.

Heres my (and Fathers) conclusions so far

Fuselage:

Upper wing fairing over the gear well shape is to big and poorly shaped

Fuel filler points are in the wrong spot and recessed craters

"Duck bum" fairing over the hook shape is to fat

Hydraulic tank and voltage regulator is in the wrong spot, left VR is missing

Upper IFF aerial wrong spot

Main gear wells to thin

Gear doors shape is wrong

Nose gear well is laughable

Ejectors chutes in the wrong spot on the gun bay doors

Air conditioning unit panels in the wrong spot, no heat exchanger exhausts

Wing fold detail inaccurate

Generator blast tube inlet to big

Gun camera pod to big

Canopy looks far to tall

Noted the remark in the other thread that the radome is circular in cross section

that is correct and one of the very few things they did get right.

Cockpit

Panel is fictious

No detail on the observers console

Pilots console shape is out

Seats to small

I could crap on more but to be honest its far to early in the morning.

This kit is an utter waste of time, I doubt one could scrap it for bits to tart

up the old Frog dear.

Almost annoyed!

Edited by venomvixen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dannielle,

Luckily (it sounds to me) this kit isn't on my radar - but would be interested to know if you've ever taken a close look at the Matchbox/Revell 1:32 kit - and, if so, what your impressions of that were?

Sorry - have quite a few in the 'to do one day' pile and just starting to list what needs doing - especially now that Harold is working on patterns for 'pit and mainwheels...

Iain

Edited by Iain (32SIG)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Dannielle,

Luckily (it sounds to me) this kit isn't on my radar - but would be interested to know if you've ever taken a close look at the Matchbox/Revell 1:32 kit - and, if so, what your impressions of that were?

Sorry - have quite a few in the 'to do one day' pile and just starting to list what needs doing - especially now that Harold is working on patterns for 'pit and mainwheels...

Iain

The Matchbox kit is quite basic but accurate in outline, other than the "woof" at the aft end of the gun bays doors

that throws oout the engine cowl.

The cockpit is more FAW-21 than FAW-22 and in no way a FAW-53.

Needs some love but I'm very fond of the old Dear, it will be nice with Harolds goodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuselage:

Upper wing fairing over the gear well shape is to big and poorly shaped

Fuel filler points are in the wrong spot and recessed craters

"Duck bum" fairing over the hook shape is to fat

Hydraulic tank and voltage regulator is in the wrong spot, left VR is missing

Upper IFF aerial wrong spot

Main gear wells to thin

Gear doors shape is wrong

Nose gear well is laughable

Ejectors chutes in the wrong spot on the gun bay doors

Air conditioning unit panels in the wrong spot, no heat exchanger exhausts

Wing fold detail inaccurate

Generator blast tube inlet to big

Gun camera pod to big

Canopy looks far to tall

Noted the remark in the other thread that the radome is circular in cross section

that is correct and one of the very few things they did get right.

Cockpit

Panel is fictious

No detail on the observers console

Pilots console shape is out

Seats to small

All those 'features' for near as dammit the price of the CMR kit....!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well CMR's Sea Venom's will be with us real soon according to the owner, and he isn't worried about the Cyberhobby kit taking his sale, as he has seen its inaccuracies compared to what their release will be.

They have used some excellent references and pictures...I helped supply a few hundred snaps of a variety of airframes around the UK and he has had help from all over the world.

May be wise to save your hard earned ££££ and treat yourself to the CMR release. It'll come with all the extra etch, masks & multiple decal choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well CMR's Sea Venom's will be with us real soon according to the owner, and he isn't worried about the Cyberhobby kit taking his sale, as he has seen its inaccuracies compared to what their release will be.

They have used some excellent references and pictures...I helped supply a few hundred snaps of a variety of airframes around the UK and he has had help from all over the world.

May be wise to save your hard earned ££££ and treat yourself to the CMR release. It'll come with all the extra etch, masks & multiple decal choices.

One of the multiple decal options in WZ-895, the FAW-53 my Father restored to taxying condition in 1981 (damn fine year that one B) )

Here she is strutting her stuff in 1984

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this Dannielle. Will now avoid what sounds like a kit they tooled from a description over the phone rather than accurate scale plans and photos.

Disappointed to see yet another kit of a subject from my favourite genre has turned into a caricature and missed opportunity. Why bother Cyberhobby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I truely detest hammering a kit based purely on online pics

Well don't then, get the kit it in hand and make a proper and informed view based on actuality and review on reality rather than write a cyber warrior based view based what could be distorted images.

The internet is great, but this part is terrible, get the get kit inhand first and comment and your credility will be enhanced, otherwise your view is dubious and you are just another internet warrior.

Marty...

Edited by marty_hopkirk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well don't then, get the kit it in hand and make a proper and informed view based on actuality and review on reality rather than write a cyber warrior based view based what could be distorted images.

The internet is great, but this part is terrible, get the get kit inhand first and comment and your credility will be enhanced, otherwise your view is dubious and you are just another internet warrior.

Marty...

For the record

I currently maintain FAW 53's WZ-907 and WZ-897.

With my Father I have assisted with WZ-895, WZ-931 and WZ-937.

As for being a "Cyber warrior" I will happily put my knowledge of Sea Venoms up against anyone who

chooses to try. The errors I have noted in the kit are based on my first hand knowledge of the airframe

and engine not a boo hoo over perceived issues.

My credibility is fine Sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Dannielle. I appreciate the time you spent to compare to the real thing. It looks like strike two for CyberHobby. I'll wait for CMR. If their kit is as good as their Buccaneers, I'll be happy!

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, even if Cyberhobby do get it pretty much spot on, I think I'd rather spend the extra fiver and get the CMR kit. Their recent packages have been absolutely outstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well don't then, get the kit it in hand and make a proper and informed view based on actuality and review on reality rather than write a cyber warrior based view based what could be distorted images.

The internet is great, but this part is terrible, get the get kit inhand first and comment and your credility will be enhanced, otherwise your view is dubious and you are just another internet warrior.

Marty...

I for one really appreciate Dannielle's heads-up on this kit and having some knowledge of her hands-on expertise from her prior posts here and elsewhere, fully trust her ability to perceive obvious flaws in the kit from photographs. As a result, I'll take a pass as well and wait for the CMR kit as well. She has taken the time to do some of us a service here and doesn't deserve to be castigated as you have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Upper wing fairing over the gear well shape is to big and poorly shaped

I can probably live with the errors on the underneath seeing as I wouldn't have to look at them (heresy!). (Does anyone else remember Bex's solution to the Trumpeter Lightning tailpipes - display it facing forwards :D ). However those upper wing bulges are a very odd shape - potentially fixable with lots of sanding maybe?

Pat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please play nicely Gents and of course VV. I'm pretty sure that Dannielle will get here oily mitts on a kit and no doubt confirm or deny (if required) the issues she has brought up already. Hopefully she will also produce a thread with pics so us mere mortals when it comes to the Sea Venom can easily follow the issues and make our own minds up.

Cheers

Greg B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be honest, even if Cyberhobby do get it pretty much spot on, I think I'd rather spend the extra fiver and get the CMR kit. Their recent packages have been absolutely outstanding.

I agree, but I've only purchased one kit from them - the FAA Buccaneer. The detail is absolutely incredible, and it comes complete with all of the aftermarket stuff you need!

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could crap on more but to be honest its far to early in the morning.

This kit is an utter waste of time, I doubt one could scrap it for bits to tart

up the old Frog dear.

The Frog kits probably only has 2% of the details that are mentioned.

Unlike the Sea Vixen the overall shape though looks good and if the canopy is a little out this can replaced with a a vacform that will no doubt appear from Pavla shortly.

The reason for not buying this kit is the cost! If it was £10 I'd be getting one. As for the CMR kit, Ill wait till Telford and buy it direct and save a 1/3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this thread as a heads up for the issues I can see based on some years experience with the aircraft in question.

I'm sure I dont need the kit in hand to see stuff like how bad the instrument panel is when I've spent hours sitting behind one.

As always I appreciate the supportive comments but I have to admit I'm am majorly pee'd off at Mr Hopkirks comments given

that I think I have more than proved my knowledge on the aircraft in more than one previous thread almost always backing up

my comments with evidence.

Have to be honest here people, I'm rapidly losing interest in offering any form of info when I'm continually running in to this sort

of thing. "Play nicely" does it for me,I think I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danielle - please don't stop posting info - I asked the earlier Q about the 1:32 kit because I respect your knowledge and knew I'd get a well reasoned response.

I too thought that Marty's post way OTT and very confrontational in tone. I do agree with him that all too often (in various other 'places') there are shot from the hip comments based upon photos rather than actual parts - combined with a lack of *real* knowledge of the subject matter. But that's not the case here...

Please keep posting stuff - there isn't exactly a huge pot of info on the Sea Venom out there and I'm relying on you for info when I start one of mine!! ;)

Iain

Edited by Iain (32SIG)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep posting. Your insight has always been particularly valuable. You have both access and the knowledge to back it up and I for one respect your open and honest style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's always someone in an internet mafia ready to leap to the defence of the indefensible, and object to any criticism. Presumably on the grounds that if they can't see anything wrong with a kit, then there can't possibly BE anything wrong with it. In my experience, if a kit looks wrong in a decent photo - allowing of course for some possible distortion - then it probably is wrong, and in most cases there is more wrong that cannot be seen or readily judged from a view of the sprues or even a finished model. Revell Halifax, anyone? The odd comment on this or that can be doubted, but when someone comes up with a long list of errors, then that kit going to prove flawed.

I've been on the internet long enough to recognise your authority and enjoy your input, but it is fair that a newcomer might not. He still should have had enough sense to recognise your expertise from the detail knowledge displayed by the list of faults. You'll be familiar with one version or another of the saying "Nil Illegitami Carborundum". Please do not let this discourtesy drive you away. Partly because the exchange of information is at the heart of this worldwide community, and partly because then the Illegitami will have won again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danielle - please don't stop posting info - I asked the earlier Q about the 1:32 kit because I respect your knowledge and knew I'd get a well reasoned response.

Please keep posting stuff - there isn't exactly a huge pot of info on the Sea Venom out there and I'm relying on you for info when I start one of mine!!

Me too!

Why is it assumed to be impossible to give an evaluation of a kit based on photos? If it's obviously a bag of spanners what's with forewarning others, and why waste your money on such a kit so you can say "gee I got it right here", then post some pics just like the ones posted before. I'm sure you've saved some folk some money, which is a good thing, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well don't then, get the kit it in hand and make a proper and informed view based on actuality and review on reality rather than write a cyber warrior based view based what could be distorted images.

The internet is great, but this part is terrible, get the get kit inhand first and comment and your credility will be enhanced, otherwise your view is dubious and you are just another internet warrior.

Marty...

But in principle that is no different from anyone on here saying how good or bad a built up model looks from a photo posted on the forum. The only way anyone can pass on comment in your view would be if they actually got hold of the model and compared it to some 'ideal'. Many of the members on here have a lot of experience of working with the real thing and are more than capable of passing informed comment.

VV - keep up the good work!!!

Peter

Edited by dambuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please keep posting Danni, your knowledge and expertise is much needed. :)

Absolutely. I can quite understand your feeling pee'd off and had a twinge of it myself when I got flamed (not on this forum) for what I thought was a fairly inoffensive comment. Yes, there are internet warriors prepared to damn any kit but I'm sure that the vast majority of B-M readers appreciate that, with your access to the real thing, you do not fall into that category. The solid information, usually supported by photographic evidence so we can make our own minds up and disagree if we want to, you bring to this board on such abstruse subjects as Vengeances and Gannets is a major reason why I come here. Your readiness to put yourself out to help me assess the relative merits of the Trumpeter and Revell Gannets is fondly remembered and you've done the same for others. Britmodeller would be much the poorer without your contributions.

As regards the idea that one has to buy a kit before daring to venture an opinion on it, I'm afraid I can no longer afford to buy models purely for evaluation. I used to, but ended up with cupboards cluttered with useless turkeys like the Airfix MiG-15. And anyway, once I've bought the kit, that's a result for the manufacturer, isn't it? As long as he has my money, he doesn't care whether I'm delighted or disgusted with it. I decline to encourage poor products so am grateful to others for warning me against the Revell Halifax and Cybermodeller Sea Vixen: that's what mates do for each other. I'll reserve my position on the Sea Venom just little longer until the kit does actually appear, more in hope than expectation. But the omens do not look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mates,

I remember when I was building my Gannet last year and I had some questions about the painting of the Fairey-Youngman flaps and, more specifically, the color of the lower wing that the flaps retracted into. Try Googling that and finding an answer!

Anyway, I posted the question on this forum, and it was Danni who went out to the Gannet they have in their collection, and had a look at the flaps (without benefit of hydraulics) to have a peek inside. This was on an aircraft whose wings were folded, so it was not easy to get to the area!

She went far beyond the call of duty to help a fellow Britmodeller achieve an accurate finish. Her input is always welcome in my book, and it would be a sad day indeed if she elects to no longer contribute because of a comment posted here. So please folks, let's all think a wee bit before we post remarks that could be inflamatory.

Please don't leave us, Danni! I have a Xtrakit Sea Vixen in my stash and I just know I'll have some questions about her!

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×