Homebee Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 (edited) Seen at the All Japan Model & Hobby Show 2013, a poster announcing a 1/72nd de Havilland DH.112 Venom NF.3 kit by Dragon/Cyber-hobby - ref. 5116. Source: http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/blog/1310182 V.P. Edited March 7, 2018 by Homebee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted October 25, 2013 Author Share Posted October 25, 2013 (edited) Source: http://www.dragon-models.com/d-m-item.asp?pid=CHC5116 Box art + 3D renders V.P. Edited March 7, 2018 by Homebee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit Leader Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 (edited) OK - I'm no Venom expert, however I do not believe that the Swedes operated the NF.3 variant, rather the NF.51 which was the export version of the NF.2a. The radar nose contours are noticeably different. The Dragon model link in the above post also mentions that this version of the venom featured Ejector seats? Wasn't this only a feature on the later mark of Sea Venoms. Please - I hope that I am wrong, however if I am proven to be correct then this is another case of poor modelling research. C'mon - should these errors really be made in this day and age.. I know we are only looking at test shots and possible proposed Boxart, however if proven to be correct, then we have yet another case of schoolboy R & D.. Cheers.. (How hard can it be) Dave Edited October 25, 2013 by Rabbit Leader 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Looks like the kit would have different radomes. Anyhow, if they haven't changed the wings, they'll be too short; IIRC Venomvixen had caught that for the first release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flarpen Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 (edited) OK - I'm no Venom expert, however I do not believe that the Swedes operated the NF.3 variant, rather the NF.51 which was the export version of the NF.2a. The radar nose contours are noticeably different. The Dragon model link in the above post also mentions that this version of the venom featured Ejector seats? Wasn't this only a feature on the later mark of Sea Venoms. Please - I hope that I am wrong, however if I am proven to be correct then this is another case of poor modelling research. C'mon - should these errors really be made in this day and age.. I know we are only looking at test shots and possible proposed Boxart, however if proven to be correct, then we have yet another case of schoolboy R & D.. Cheers.. (How hard can it be) Dave You are quite correct that the swedish version was a NF.51 / NF.2 The swedish machines did not have ejection seats. A nice resin kit from CMR/Rebell Hobby already excists http://www.rebell.com/j33-venom-swaf-night-fighter-see-info.html The swedish machines were in fact put in active duty before the britsh counterparts for reasons that alude me right now. Edited October 25, 2013 by flarpen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomvixen Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Same inaccurate POS as previously released. Dont waste your coin. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Why are they still in business? I mean, how can one single company consistently get it so comprehensivly wrong? Great choice of subjects in my opinion but I haven't the slightest desire to own one of these mis-shapen abomonations. Do it right or not at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 What's a nightfighter doing with rocket rails anyway? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viscount806x Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Why are they still in business? I mean, how can one single company consistently get it so comprehensivly wrong? Great choice of subjects in my opinion but I haven't the slightest desire to own one of these mis-shapen abomonations. Do it right or not at all! Well it might be nice if they just left well alone wouldn't it? Problem with this as I have said previously, is that it will probably stop someone else doing the same subjects and therefore doing none of us any favours in the end. I suppose you could look at their kits as a box of aftermarket parts to use on other models. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Well it might be nice if they just left well alone wouldn't it? Problem with this as I have said previously, is that it will probably stop someone else doing the same subjects and therefore doing none of us any favours in the end. I suppose you could look at their kits as a box of aftermarket parts to use on other models. I did consider going that route with their Sea Venom as a source of parts to convert the Airfix T-11 Vampire but give the price and fact that most of the relevant parts are inaccurate it seemed a pointless exercise. Agree with you they reduce the likelihood of another manufacturer doing the same subject better and cheaper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 I rather doubt that Airfix would not do a Venom/Sea Venom because Dragon produced an inaccurate one at three times the Airfix selling price which wasn't sold in many outlets for Airfix kits. The effect of this kit on potential Airfix sales has to be slim. It is understandable that a company might not want to release a new kit in the same year as the same subject from another company, but not that they would abandon the idea altogether. I suspect a more potent threat to Airfix sales would be a Revell release of the old Matchbox kit, timed to undercut a new tooling. The answer to that would be a single-seat Venom... I see the Dragon BoB Spitfire and Hurricane seem to have disappeared from prospect - not entirely disappointingly so, given their track record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOPGUN88 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 Oh fiddle sticks. I was just going to ask where I would find decals for leuchars based 151 squadron markings for this kit as I had bought it thinking the boxart looked awsome and not f what I was getting. Is any of this kit useable at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trenton guy Posted March 7, 2018 Share Posted March 7, 2018 Not that I have 3 hours ago, TOPGUN88 said: Oh fiddle sticks. I was just going to ask where I would find decals for leuchars based 151 squadron markings for this kit as I had bought it thinking the boxart looked awsome and not f what I was getting. Is any of this kit useable at all? Not that I have been able to find. Sadly, a nice kit but only an approximation of a Venom, in almost every respect. It’s CMR or nothing, I’m afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viscount806x Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 Hannants have just announced a restock of this kit so caveat emptor as they say... Oddly, an IPMS USA reviewer seems to have loved this kit, ejector seats, rockets and all. Maybe the reviewer simply likes building kits but cares nothing for the accuracy of the subject etc. Should that sort of review go in to print though? A bit misleading to say the least for anyone researching the possibility of a purchase. Here it is if anyone wants to read it: https://web.ipmsusa3.org/content/dehavilland-dh-112-venom-nf3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, viscount806x said: Hannants have just announced a restock of this kit so caveat emptor as they say... Oddly, an IPMS USA reviewer seems to have loved this kit, ejector seats, rockets and all. Maybe the reviewer simply likes building kits but cares nothing for the accuracy of the subject etc. Should that sort of review go in to print though? A bit misleading to say the least for anyone researching the possibility of a purchase. Here it is if anyone wants to read it: https://web.ipmsusa3.org/content/dehavilland-dh-112-venom-nf3 A significant segment of the modelling population don't give a fig for accuracy, and care primarily about the building experience. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 13 minutes ago, Procopius said: A significant segment of the modelling population don't give a fig for accuracy, and care primarily about the building experience. A view I find strange in SCALE modelling 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 1 minute ago, Dave Fleming said: A view I find strange in SCALE modelling If I have to pick, I'll almost always choose accuracy over ease of build, but I think you'll find it's just as easy to capitalize the second word instead of the first. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Thompson Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Procopius said: If I have to pick, I'll almost always choose accuracy over ease of build, but I think you'll find it's just as easy to capitalize the second word instead of the first. Yes, but since modelling means making a scale representation of the real thing it doesn't change the sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Paul Thompson said: Yes, but since modelling means making a scale representation of the real thing it doesn't change the sentiment. My interest in dickering with you about semantics is phenomenally low, but the fact remains, many people don't give a fig for accuracy but do care immensely about the build experience. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 The CMR kits appear to have vanished (not sure if the company are producing anything now) so unless one is lucky enough to find either a 2nd hand kit or a hobby shop with a secret stock, it appears to be a choice between Dragon and nowt. Edge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Procopius said: If I have to pick, I'll almost always choose accuracy over ease of build, but I think you'll find it's just as easy to capitalize the second word instead of the first. It's interesting, I know modellers whose interest is in the craft/build, some even have no real interest in the subject they are modelling. Don't say I understand them, but horses for courses. It doesn't encourage manufacturers to make accurate kits though! 🙂 Edited September 18, 2018 by Dave Fleming 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albeback52 Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 9 hours ago, Procopius said: My interest in dickering with you about semantics is phenomenally low, but the fact remains, many people don't give a fig for accuracy but do care immensely about the build experience. A view which I am happy to share.😀. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viscount806x Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 Any aspect of active modelling is ultimately good for the hobby generally whether it is rivet counting or building for destruction with an air rifle or anything else in between and all the above points of view are equally valid as a result. However..... The query I had on the IPMS USA review was whether or not a widely available write up purporting to be an expert opinion (and it may well be so), and which doesn't address or mention deficiencies or gross inaccuracies in a kit should be put forward for untold idiots such as myself, to use as a yardstick as to said kits efficacy. Should it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 1 minute ago, viscount806x said: Any aspect of active modelling is ultimately good for the hobby generally whether it is rivet counting or building for destruction with an air rifle or anything else in between and all the above points of view are equally valid as a result. However..... The query I had on the IPMS USA review was whether or not a widely available write up purporting to be an expert opinion (and it may well be so), and which doesn't address or mention deficiencies or gross inaccuracies in a kit should be put forward for untold idiots such as myself, to use as a yardstick as to said kits efficacy. Should it? I think it's functionally no worse than a review where they just look at the sprues and tell us how nice the details are, but don't actually check to see how buildable the kit is. Ideally a good review combines both an evaluation of the kit's accuracy as well as how it is to build. Very few if any do both, however. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayprit Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 21 hours ago, Procopius said: My interest in dickering with you about semantics is phenomenally low, but the fact remains, many people don't give a fig for accuracy but do care immensely about the build experience. I will go with that...…...I build as accurately as possible, BUT if I have to revert to an easy way out, I will do it, if I don't, I get a stalled model that collects dust on the shelf of doom...…………..could give examples, BUT it may open a 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