Paul A H Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Can we get back on topic please? I want to know about these mysterious bulges! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomvixen Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 Personal issues aside, it would not be right to start this thread then leave it in a mess I have purchased the offending kit and when it arrives I will present my findings compared with the prototype. I have been able to source the Vol ones for the FAW-20 and 21 as well as the FAW-53 publications already held. This will cover the differences between variants. My Father will photograph the areas in question on WZ-907 during his visit to the museum today. He will also photograph the areas of the airframe requested by Harold. I will post those later today. My health is poorly yet again so I am unable to attend. I hope this is acceptable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David H Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Sigh. WTF is going on at CyberHobby? Their Meteor was great, but it seem they've been on a downhill slide ever since. First the Hellcat. Then the Sea Vixen. Now this? Its NOT as if these were/ are esoteric subjects. I'm hoping for the best regarding their upcoming Helldiver, but i seriously wonder what's going on with those folks. There's tons of people all over the world with the knowledge and expertise. Why not take advantage of it? david Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Prospective variants of answers:- Early series / late series in one modification? - On a photo the individual experimental completion which has turned out, well for example, as a result of replacement of pneumatic of wheels by wider? - Museum creativity? B.R. Serge Or...............................the manufacturers have got it right here and the drawings are wrong? Could it be????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul A H Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I've seen photos of Sea Venoms with both type of bulge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I've seen photos of Sea Venoms with both type of bulge Very interesting - I'll do some digging through my books - and see what I can find.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary C Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) So, if I have this correct generally the kits overall shape is reasonably okay (apart from the wing blisters and wingspan, and D.A hook shroud?) and all of the other issues are mostly in the finer detail? That's the way it reads to me, as long as there's no big shape issues then it's looking like a nice kit. Blisters on a 21... http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Navy/D...b427dcf81c419ac Looks like they're different between domestic and export versions perhaps. Edited March 4, 2012 by Gary C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Indeedy - and the other type on this Australian FAW Mk 53 Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I have a sneaky feeling that he IS the HMRC judging by the support he gives them! I've described the situation. I'd be grateful if you or Nick could point me to the bit where I said I supported it, as I seem to have missed that part when I was typing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I've described the situation. I'd be grateful if you or Nick could point me to the bit where I said I supported it, as I seem to have missed that part when I was typing it. Sean, I went back and re-read your post to make sure, and I could find no where that you supported it. As I work in the freight industry and knowing how much is paid commercially for the services RM does for £8 I gladly pay it. This subject has been done to death on these forums. If anyone gets kits from overseas above the threshold (and yes we know they lowered it to get more revenue!) then you have to factor in the VAT and the £8. Do this and you wont be disappointed. Dont get caught and its a bonus. Back to the thread, looking forward to more pics from Dannielle. Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 My health is poorly yet again so I am unable to attend. Get well soon, Dannielle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul A H Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Looks like they're different between domestic and export versions perhaps. That's what I'm putting my money on. I reckone Cyberhobby have produced an FAW.53 rather than an FAW.21. I've taped the main airframe together to give everyone a better idea of the overall shape of the kit. To my eye it looks reasonably good, but the tail booms seem a little too narrow. What does everyone else think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomvixen Posted March 4, 2012 Author Share Posted March 4, 2012 Everyone got it wrong. The drawing from the AP is wrong (To pointed at the rear edge) Cyberhobby has made it to fat and molded it as part of the wing, not a section that is attached to the upper surface. For the record the wing was the same for the FAW-20/21/22 and FAW-53. The 21, 22 and 53 are all the same airframe with different engines (Ghost 104 in the 21 & 53, Ghost 105 in the 22) and radio/radar installations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Everyone got it wrong.The drawing from the AP is wrong (To pointed at the rear edge) Cyberhobby has made it to fat and molded it as part of the wing, not a section that is attached to the upper surface. For the record the wing was the same for the FAW-20/21/22 and FAW-53. The 21, 22 and 53 are all the same airframe with different engines (Ghost 104 in the 21 & 53, Ghost 105 in the 22) and radio/radar installations. Thanks Dannielle, What a lot of people fail to appreciate is that the AP's often don't reflect the reality - either things have changed which didn't make it to the schematic or more often than not, the tech author's use the wrong data, the maintainers see this but because it doesn't cause them any problems things don't get changed shck horror! That happens all of the time folks - speaking as one who has worked in aircraft maintenance for nearly 30 years I can tell you that really is the case. All this is useful, makes me want to keep hold of my Tasman versions of the Frog kit (especially as one of them has an Aeroclub undercarriage too - see my sales post for details). Please do keep posting as there aren't too many people out there that have access to the real thing like you do, we need people that tell it like it is not how people think it should be. Wez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viscount806x Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Did the FAW.53 have different upper wing blisters compared to the FAW.21? That's all I can think of. I did come across a nice overhead photo of a RN Sea Venom in Ian Allan 'Vampire, Venom & Sea Vixen' (Postwar Military Aircraft:5), on page 80. This appears to have large blisters as seem to be on the CH kit or close to it. I do not have the kit myself so maybe someone can have a comparison for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The drawing from the AP is wrong (To pointed at the rear edge) Cyberhobby has made it to fat and molded it as part of the wing, not a section that is attached to the upper surface. So... the incorrect bulges can be sanded off. Easy. Maybe some enterprising AM manufacturer will produce some correctly shaped bulges which can be glued on. Thanks for the photo, Dannielle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetgrob Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Just bought this today and appears to be quite a nice kit. I wil have to get my Venom book out and see about the bulges and Booms. Nice to see British aircraft from the 50's & 60's getting some attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Hughes Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Gentlemen, please allow me to step in here? I received an email from Petr Buchar of CMR this morning, who is just recovering from surgery. He and his colleagues from 4+/Mark 1 are in the process of boxing up the new Sea Venom kits. Somebody has pointed him in the direction of this thread and this was his comment: "Our Sea Venom has many details, including two PE sets, canopy paint mask, optional payload (bombs, drop tanks, rockets) while Dragonn has nothing like that with their plastic kit. And - also important fact is that our export price will be at the same price level as is the Dragon plastic kit which is quite expensive when this is for the injection moulded plastic kit, right???" Petr is renowned for going as close to the source as possible when it comes to research, including access to manufacturers' archives and measuring and photographing actual airframes. So, there you have it. You've seen some of the comments here about his Buccaneers (which won him a Gold Medal at the Nuremberg Toy Fair a couple of years ago), if the Sea Venoms are anything like, they should be winners. And yes, I really like the guy because he's a fellow modeller and his prime motivation is not to rip off fellow modellers but to give us the best he can ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomvixen Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 Mines arrived today. I will post my findings in the next few days, initially its not quite as bad in some area's and far far worse in others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now