News: Added Links For Twin Commander and Facebook Pages

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Vintage photos  (Read 28349 times)

donv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #165 on: May 08, 2019, 10:57:49 am »
I have a lot of time in Westwinds and Jet Commanders. I think the Jet Commander looks better than the Westwind-- just so much cleaner-- but the Westwinds are far better airplanes.

The Westwind, and Jet Commander, look fantastic in the air, less great on the ground.

Jeff Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #166 on: May 09, 2019, 12:00:28 am »
Looks like an Aerostar wing.

You can tell the lineage.


JMA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #167 on: May 09, 2019, 12:35:04 pm »
Always providing great knowledge, thanks as always DonV.

donv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #168 on: May 09, 2019, 12:41:23 pm »
Looks like an Aerostar wing.

You can tell the lineage.

You sure can! In fact, I think the Jet Commander was Ted Smith's last design before starting Aerostar, so no wonder.

I don't know if you've seen the Aerostar Jet, which was based off Ted's jet design. It has under-wing jet engines, but I think it would have looked so much better if he had put tail mounted engines on it-- then it would have looked just like a mini-Jet Commander. That's probably why he didn't do it, though.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2019, 12:43:02 pm by donv »

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #169 on: May 09, 2019, 07:32:40 pm »
Ted was a genius. His commonality between elevator and rudders on the Aerostar was a master stroke. One part fits all.
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.


JMA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #171 on: June 04, 2019, 05:55:42 pm »
May be a silly question, but was there a reason behind the naming conventions for the turbo commander?
690/840/980/1000?
Also, why dual numbers (i.e. a 980 is also a AC695)?

donv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #172 on: June 04, 2019, 06:05:21 pm »
May be a silly question, but was there a reason behind the naming conventions for the turbo commander?
690/840/980/1000?
Also, why dual numbers (i.e. a 980 is also a AC695)?

In a word... marketing.

For certification purposes, the 840 wasn't different enough from the 690B to require a new model designation, so it became the 690C. However, the sales people felt that they needed to differentiate it from the 690B, so they came up with the name "840" and designated it that way. They also referred to it as a "jetprop" which was new.

On the other hand, the 980, with different engines, was sufficiently different from the 690B that the FAA did require a new model designation for it... hence "695." However, 695 is lower than 840, and we can't have the premium model number be lower than the low-end model, so it was called "980" for marketing purposes.

When the 1000 came along, it was able to be on the 695 type certificate, and thus became the 695A, and eventually 695B. However, again, "1000" was a higher number than 980, so that's what the marketing people wanted.

When the 900 came along, weirdly enough the FAA was willing to let it be on the 690 type certificate, so 690D. But, again, they needed a number that slotted in between 840 and 1000, so 900.

Does that make sense?

JMA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #173 on: June 06, 2019, 08:08:36 am »
Very much so... Thanks!

JMA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #174 on: June 06, 2019, 08:07:29 pm »
Always interested in 80's history.  Had no idea lear put out a single turbo prop.  I found it an interesting watch, even shows the STARSHIP! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n037eiIhYOI

JMA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #175 on: June 11, 2019, 09:08:06 pm »
Sorry another possible silly question for the group.
Why did some of the jetprop engines have full metal near the front (by prop) vs. painted top half the metal circle??
Sorry if that is not a very well written question. 

donv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1927
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #176 on: July 02, 2019, 12:52:37 pm »
Sorry another possible silly question for the group.
Why did some of the jetprop engines have full metal near the front (by prop) vs. painted top half the metal circle??
Sorry if that is not a very well written question.

I think that was done as another way to visually differentiate the 980 from the 840 and 690 series. However, I think some people have put polished upper nacelles on the earlier airplanes, so it's not a perfectly reliable way to tell.

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #177 on: July 03, 2019, 07:17:26 pm »
Also, some of the earlier models had glassfibre spinners that wouldn't match a polished look, so that probably played a role as they matched better to a painted upper smile.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 02:39:18 am by Adam Frisch »
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

JMA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re: Vintage photos
« Reply #178 on: July 05, 2019, 02:39:01 pm »
Thank you both, always a wealth of knowledge.