Jump to content

Aero commander 680, Comet 1/81


Recommended Posts

Many of you may know that I don't build "modern" planes.

However, when I was sent this as a gift by one of my kit providers because it was missing a part, I couldn't but smile at the utter naivete of this old kit:

 

47011052444_cfd0e86c11_b.jpg

 

I mean, look at this: 39 cents:

46884027015_98711c0ed8_b.jpg

 

And even better: remember when the customer was king? the time when agencies and even private entities would advocate for consumer rights? Yes, young ones and fledglings: once upon a time customers were not, like now, the slaves and best enemies of the merchants and corporations, they were people with rights. Imagine that. So as you can see in the box "Good Housekeeping" will grant his seal and warranty to those merchants of quality goods willing to give a damn about their customers. Amazing, n'est pas?

40834079443_645e5291a1_b.jpg

 

Verbal instructions, the (yellowy) paper predecessor of Siri:

33923307728_1fe4f3dcaa_c.jpg

 

Contents:

40834079543_d8bc413733_b.jpg

 

Those horrid, absolutely ruin-it-all engraved placement marks for the decals. Oh, my, who was the one guilty of concocting this "help"? off with his head! :

46884027065_3736e79613_b.jpg

 

More:

33923307638_47cd764dfd_b.jpg

 

And more still:

47800251911_f5897800f1_b.jpg

 

Rather hefty but not totally unclear transparencies:

33923307768_560ec0c66d_b.jpg

 

The decal sheet, Not the sharpest print, and in any case I don't think I would like to use them:

46884027045_8e55967f51_b.jpg

 

The horizontal tail, fortunately free of inscriptions.

40834079653_6d103e0ac9_b.jpg

 

A proof-of-concept trial run for making the replacement for the missing part (engine front):

32856818547_c43ec61fea_b.jpg

 

And now another, a bit better one:

47800251741_ed309bf74d_b.jpg

 

47800252001_5feb03b729_b.jpg

 

33923307948_d48b19daac_b.jpg

 

And we now have the replacement ready:

40834079733_180f435da5_b.jpg

 

Next step: struggle to fill those despicable and absolutely stupid and unnecessary engravings, without destroying the otherwise quite nice surface detail.

 

And at this point I rhetorically ask myself: would I really like to build this one?

Would I scratch the interior?

Where is the landing gear? (I refuse to use that démodé ugly base with stick, so paseé and unsightly!). 

What were these primitive kitmakers thinking...it's like getting into the mind of a trilobite, or a primordial worm...

Why spend all those resources on a relatively nice (even engraved panel lines!) surface and then ruin it all engraving the detail for which you provide the decals anyway?

Why such detailed exterior and then inside the mysterious void, the philosophical vacuum?

Was it a reflection or statement on human nature?

 

We are not just mere kitbuilders after all, we are philosophers, social critics, anthropologists, historians (and some among us are even unbearable sods, to cover all bases).

I leave you now to reflect upon the precedent in the soothing solitude of your monastic cell, facing the building board where surely lies that half-cooked project.

 

Talk to you soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, now. In their infinite wisdom, they knew the decals would go brittle and break into a million pieces when you tried to use them, so they engraved those nice masking guides for you. Who needs decals anyway?

 

Seriously, I had no idea there was a kit of any of the commander series. They are nice looking airplanes. Shame about the scale, 1/81!?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But apparently they only ever thought that modellers would only buy one of their model - what if you didn't want to make N680SC? Ask for your Good Housekeeping approved refund?

 

It is a lovely looking kit (rubbish stand excepted) with pretty neat detailing (decal placement guides excepted too). 

 

Have you a scheme in mind?

 

Jeff

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HA!  I used to have one of those years and years ago!!!!  It came to me built but not painted or decalled. I had a go at painting in all those markings with moderate success ( I was only about 12 then)  I passed it on to a guy at the club for a small fee as it had by then, a missing prop.  I did have a go at adding undercarriage from surplus parts.

 

Look forward to seeing what magic you can cast over this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of rhetorical questions there Moa but putting questions and decal locations aside, the kit couldn't have come to a better person. You have demonstrated your prowess with warty old kits, worked your magic and produced some smashing subjects. I don't think it'll be long before we see another fine example of your work.

 

Stuart

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, pinky coffeeboat said:

Have you a scheme in mind?

 

Jeff

I started to look at alternatives and there are actually many interesting ones. I will post some later.

 

 

9 hours ago, Paul J said:

I used to have one of those years and years ago!!!!  It came to me built but not painted or decalled.

You also got a rescue kit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That kit originally sold for the princely sum of 29¢ in 1956! I know, because that year I was a 10-year-old spending my $1-a-week allowance on plastic models, and that kit was one of my favorites. Give it a break already.

 

I have some drawings which may help with details of landing gear and interior, if you are interested. Email me: mcmurtreyjames(at)twc(dot)com

Edited by Space Ranger
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Space Ranger said:

That kit originally sold for the princely sum of 29¢ in 1956! I know, because that year I was a 10-year-old spending my $1-a-week allowance on plastic models, and that kit was one of my favorites. Give it a break already.

 

I have some drawings which may help with details of landing gear and interior, if you are interested. Email me: mcmurtreyjames(at)twc(dot)com

Interesting information, thanks for adding it.

I will not give it a break, no sir. It's part of the fun. And sometimes the best part. Your attachment to this spawn of the 50's comes from subjective beliefs and not from kit science.

The poking shall and will continue.

Cheers

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Nikolay Polyakov said:

Very interesting, @Moa!👍 Why not to paint these decal placement marks? It’s something old school’ish 😌

Nikolay: It is not an unlikely proposition, to finish the kit as it was intended originally, but...hum...better not 😉

I just couldn't look at it after that.

Besides, it's too late:

47754078222_f279f81a16_b.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Moa said:

Nikolay: It is not an unlikely proposition, to finish the kit as it was intended originally, but...hum...better not 😉

Yes, I know you’re only feeling right with a kit after some sanding! 😹

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of these than could be chosen. Some are from Argentina, either in official capacity (LQ-) or privated (LV-).

One, LQ-IFH, worked for the INTA (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria -National Institute of Agriculture and Livestock Technology-), a research institute my son worked for long ago (from the Peter Keating Collection website):

http://aflyinghistory.com/search-aeroplane-photographs?query=Aero+Commander

 

11865-i-brigada-aerea-moron-1964.jpg

 

From Airliners.Net:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Aero-Commander-680-Commander/2475309/L

 

2475309.jpg?v=v40

 

Many others are being also considered.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, not so fast. LQ-IFH is actually a Commander 500, therefore it differs from the kit in some areas (note for example the end of the engine gondola).

So that one won't fly, so to speak.

There is a NASA machine that is not bad, but the search continues.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike the box art, the real airframe has an elegant shapes and looks superb with the landing gear extended. Have you planned to scratch build the landing gear or just use a supplied pedestal base?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nikolay Polyakov said:

Unlike the box art, the real airframe has an elegant shapes and looks superb with the landing gear extended. Have you planned to scratch build the landing gear or just use a supplied pedestal base?

If you read above at the beginning of the post you will realize I will not be using the pedestal, but add the landing gear.

I can't think of anything that detracts more from a model than that. It makes them look like those simplified "desk" models. More like a marketing device than a real replica. Brrrr!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moa said:

If you read above at the beginning of the post you will realize I will not be using the pedestal, but add the landing gear.

Yes, sorry! I skipped it because of «smart picture loading» feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or N171SC, seen in Belize December 1986 (The US register/FAA incorrectly shows this as a 560, which is no great surprise since it was/is an impounded drug runner and could be anything!) 

 

Aero Commander 560 N171SC Belize (3)

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

How about G-AWOE, seen circa 1982 at Elstree, UK?

 

Elstree (1)

 

Not bad. On one hand it's not particularly cheerful color-wise, on the other, all that black will effectively hide the unavoidable little blemishes that will result for the extensive elimination of the undesired engravings (it was black on the top wings too).

Under consideration, and thanks for posting it.

Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Or N171SC, seen in Belize December 1986 (The US register/FAA incorrectly shows this as a 560, which is no great surprise since it was/is an impounded drug runner and could be anything!) 

 

Aero Commander 560 N171SC Belize (3)

 

Thanks for posting these.

This one has an unhappy color combination, and a scheme that sort of says "I am old" 😁

The search continues

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moa said:

Not bad. On one hand it's not particularly cheerful color-wise, on the other, all that black will effectively hide the unavoidable little blemishes that will result for the extensive elimination of the undesired engravings (it was black on the top wings too).

Under consideration, and thanks for posting it.

Cheers

Better/clearer photos than mine are available on the net: plus it gained stroboscopic prop blades later in life too. I see it's still there, 35 or more years later, though not so shiny now. I was never quite sure why it was painted thus, but it's an interesting scheme.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...