# Aurora Voyager



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

About a year ago I happened upon my old Voyager kit. I built it back in the mid-70's, and the thing had been in storage for about twenty years. The glue was so brittle the model practically fell apart in my hands -- almost as if it was begging to be restored. Well...after much sanding, paint removing, puttying and re-painting, the model looks better than ever. The only changes I made were a pair of scratch-built intake fans (kit-bashed jet intakes), rear exhaust ports fashioned from brass sheeting, and custom decal-enhanced control panels. Oh, the "miniaturizer" display stand was scratch built as well (yes, I still have the original clear plastic stand, but I like this one better).

The most helpful discovery I made during this project was clear sanding resin. I wanted the windshield to be absolutely, positively flush against the hull -- no seams. My local Plastics Supply Company recommended their own brand of sanding resin, and it really did the trick; it dries super hard and really clear, and most importantly, it won't craze or melt the clear plastic. After sanding and polishing, the seam was completely sealed.

This model will make a nifty counterpart to my Lunar Models Proteus... once the latter is finally complete.


----------



## DR. PRETORIOUS (Nov 1, 2000)

Excellent job!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Wish I had one,great job!!


----------



## kaos (Apr 5, 2003)

very nice! hint hint polar lights


----------



## Otto69 (Jan 2, 2004)

*Just one more thing needed*

A scale diorama to match the original box art. It featured "molecules" made of painted styrafoam balls with toothpick-like things stuck in them .

That's a beatiful buildup . Fantastic smooth paintjob. I wish I had one of these to build again.


----------



## Ray A (Mar 16, 2000)

Just out of curiousity, what show was this from?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

The ship pictured is the Voyager from the Filmation animated TV series "Fantastic Voyage," which was part of ABC's Saturday morning lineup in the late 60's/ early 70's (the show was loosely based on the 1966 film of the same title). 

It's a fairly rare kit; initial sales were poor, and relatively few were produced. Also, I believe the original mouldings for this were lost in the imfamous "Aurora railway disaster" in the late 70's (or is that a model making myth?).


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

Most of the molds were melted down by Monogram... not lost in the train wreck

Steve


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Thanks for clarifying, Steve.


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 20, 2000)

I used to be obsessed with that design those many years ago as a kid and no matter how hard I tried I could not find one in Minnesota. I still like it. Nice job.

Didn't someone post some nice pictures of a similar garage kit?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

GOD, I love that little ship!!
Beautiful.
Hello, Polar Lights? A Space Coupe but no Voyager?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

John P said:


> GOD, I love that little ship!!
> Beautiful.
> Hello, Polar Lights? A Space Coupe but no Voyager?


I'd love to be a fly on the wall when the development guy at Polar Lights goes to his new boss and says "Hey, how `bout we re-release that spaceship model nobody bought when Aurora released the first time -- you know, the one from the not-so-successful 1970 Saturday morning cartoon series based on that old Stephen Boyd/ Edmund O'Brien picture..."

Hey, I'd say yes in a heartbeat, but you have to admit it's a tough sell.

Speaking of the Voyager, did anybody happen to pick up one of the kits Lunar Models released ever-so-briefly back in 2001? I think Monsters in Motion offered it as well (it may even still be listed on their website). Randy Cooper did the pattern work, and as usual, he did a great job. Having seen Randy's original model, I jumped at the chance to pick one up when I stumbled across it on ebay. 

Yikes, what a mess! Definately one of those life's-too-short situations. The execution was so sloppy I'd still be trying to clean it up. Pity too, `cause Randy's model was gorgeous.


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> Most of the molds were melted down by Monogram... not lost in the train wreck
> 
> Steve


Dean Milano has the inventory log that indicated that the mold for this was still around. It may be a money issue that keeps it from being brought back. Talking with Dean's boss and one other manager brought little hope that they thought this would sell. Polar/playing mantis knows about this. They were the ones to tell me that R/M needs to be addressed about this.


----------



## john guard (Dec 31, 2001)

how about Lunar Models? will they reissue this kit??


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Then why don't we do an e-mail letter-writing campaign to Revell/Monogram and get this ship reproduced? 
Personally, I still have my original Voyager in storage waiting for its day of reconstruction, but having another mint-in-box-ready-to-be-built kit isn't a bad idea, either.
BTW, I'd like to learn more about this sandable clear resin stuff.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

*Re: sanding resin*



Seaview said:


> Then why don't we do an e-mail letter-writing campaign to Revell/Monogram and get this ship reproduced?
> Personally, I still have my original Voyager in storage waiting for its day of reconstruction, but having another mint-in-box-ready-to-be-built kit isn't a bad idea, either.
> BTW, I'd like to learn more about this sandable clear resin stuff.


I discovered sanding resin when I was preping my Lubliner Seaview. I knew going in that I wanted the eight bow windows to be absolutely flush against the surrounding hull -- no seams, no cracks, no raised edges... so smooth that if you ran your fingernail accross the bow it wouldn't catch on anything.

This presented a problem. So-called "Crazy Glues" sand OK, but they don't dry clear, and of course they tend to craze clear plastic. Same with filler or putty. When I talked to one of the helpful lads at my local plastics wholesaler he recommended a type of resin which, at least in this neck of the woods, is commonly used to fill dings in boats and surfboards. It's a two-part system that dries very fast, very clear, and very hard -- but not so hard you can't sand it. I was so pleased with the way it worked on the Seaview's bow windows (see "Lubliner Seaview" thread) I used it to fill-in the sail windows as well. The results in both cases were exactly as I had hoped: once the seams were filled, sanded and polished, I was left with perfectly smooth, clear windows with crisp lines and sharp edges that would have been very difficult to achieve by any other means (any other means I'm aware of, that is).

Since the Seaview, I've used sanding resin to achieve the same results on my Voyager canopy, as well as on the clear vacu-form lenses of my Monsters in Motion Martian War Machine. Yes folks, if you're fed up with the heartbreak of embarassing Window Gap, try Clear Sanding Resin! It's Res-O-Rific! (Sorry, got carried away there).


----------



## Otto69 (Jan 2, 2004)

Carson, whats the specific name and manufacturer of this clear "sanding resin" please?

Someone asked if Lunar would re-release the Voyager. I know they're pretty busy right now, but you could ask them if they would consider it. I'd suppose it's the law of supply and demand: projects may get moved up if there's a perceived immediate demand. It would not be cheap though, the original kit is very large (with a detailed interior...I wondered if the instrument panels could be backlit ala the Jupiter 2 panels). 

Lunar is at http://www.lunarmodelsonline.com/


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Otto69 said:


> Carson, whats the specific name and manufacturer of this clear "sanding resin" please?
> 
> Someone asked if Lunar would re-release the Voyager. I know they're pretty busy right now, but you could ask them if they would consider it. I'd suppose it's the law of supply and demand: projects may get moved up if there's a perceived immediate demand. It would not be cheap though, the original kit is very large (with a detailed interior...I wondered if the instrument panels could be backlit ala the Jupiter 2 panels).
> 
> Lunar is at http://www.lunarmodelsonline.com/


I honestly don't remember the "technical" name for the sanding resin I used, but I'll find out and get back to you on Monday.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

By the way, the Monsters in Motion website lists an Aurora Voyager resin re-cast... is anyone familiar with this kit? At $125.00, it's not the sorta thing I'd care to pay for sight unseen...


----------



## Otto69 (Jan 2, 2004)

*I'd be leery of MiM...*

My personal experience has not been positive with their ability to deliver in a timely manner or respond to email (in any manner, timely or not). They are not crooks, it's just that they have very poor customer service, particularly on items not yet in stock. 'nuff said.

I just looked up the Voyager ad at MiM. They don't say much about it at all. It could be they're actually sourcing them from Lunar, but there's not enough info presented to know. I do know that there are various vendors out there who resell Lunar kits (one of them is on ebay and reguarly sells the Lunar Proteus for example.)

The Lunar kit is large: the body is about 12" long as I recall, probably longer. If Lunar sells it you would probably pay a price at least at what you quoted (based on their pricing for the similarly sized Proteus, etc.), but you'd be getting something that was first generation and from a good guy, Randy Jarrett, the new owner of Lunar.

By the way, lest my comments be misconstrued, I have no connection to Lunar. I'm a member of a model club that has monthly meetings there on the San Francisco Peninsula, but that's only because Randy lets us gather there once a month. He's a really nice guy, and as best I can tell, very busy and working hard to make the new Lunar a going thing. But no comments of mine pro or con vs. Lunar or anyone else should be considered as anything other than my *personal* opinions.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Just so there's no confusion, the Voyager kit currently advertised on MiM's site is a re-cast of the Aurora model, not the Randy Cooper/ Lunar Models kit.

As I mentioned earlier, I purchased the Lunar/ Cooper kit a few years ago, and was extremely disappointed with what I received. I have always been a big Lunar Models fan, and have been doing business with them since 1987. This was the first, last, and only time they ever sold me a kit that was too badly warped/ bubbled to build. Hopfully, it was just a fluke. I for one would be happy to pay "Lunar Models prices" for a decent version of the Cooper Voyager, if they ever choose to give it another shot.

Just curious... did anyone besides me purchase the Lunar/Cooper kit when it was out -- and if so did you (i.e. could you) build it? Other than Cooper's original (which somebody posted a link to), I've never seen another build-up of this model.


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

Carson Dyle said:


> Hopfully, it was just a fluke.


*HEY! I had nothing to do with that! :freak: 

Great Job Carsen! Man I wish PL could do that kit!*

Wilco's Proteus will do just fine for now.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Great looking kit! Great job!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Otto69 said:


> Carson, whats the specific name and manufacturer of this clear "sanding resin" please?
> 
> Sorry it took so long to reply. The actual name of the sanding resin is HAPOL 1300-1E. I suspect it's manufactured by any number of companies, but if you have trouble finding it locally try Hastings Plastics in Santa Monica, CA. They've been around forever, and I'm pretty sure they'll ship anywhere.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> GOD, I love that little ship!!
> Beautiful.
> Hello, Polar Lights? A Space Coupe but no Voyager?


NO JOKE! I'd snap up a _Voyager _ in a heartbeat!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

And I would buy several. 

I would be very surprised if the nostalgia market for the Fantastic Voyage Voyager kit is not equal to or greater than those for the Aurora Skipjack, Invaders UFO and Flying Sub kits, all three of which have been found worthy of re-issue either last year or later this year.

If the molds for the Voyager still exist and are in serviceable condition, why the taboo on re-issuing it as well? The argument against re-issuing which rests on the fact that the original Aurora Voyager sold poorly is flawed; a re-issue to the nostalgia market would sell like hot-cakes today and that is what the current production decision should be based on.

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I read somewhere that hot-cake sales were on the decline. 

Just out of curiosity, how many Voyager kits would R/M (or whomever) have to sell in order to turn a profit? Anybody have any idea?


----------



## Otto69 (Jan 2, 2004)

*Licensing.*

They might have to figure out who owned the license to issue, etc. I'd buy one though, maybe two.


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

That's a purty model there


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

Otto69 said:


> They might have to figure out who owned the license to issue, etc. I'd buy one though, maybe two.


You can attempt to discuss this with Dean Millano of Revell/Monogram. He sometimes comes around this board. 

Dean stated that the reason that the Invaders ship is called the UFO is because the owner of the license can not be found. So they could reissue the Voyager the same way if nobody can be found for it.


----------



## RB (Jul 29, 1998)

The current owner of the Filmation library is a UK company called Entertainment Rights. The situation might be more complicated in that the animated series was based off of the film, which is a property of Fox (wasn't Kent Productions also involved in some way?). So the licensing situation on the Voyager might be quite thorny. It WAS a great little kit...


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Okay, if you don't like the term "hot-cakes" then I'll say that they will sell like Wilco Proteus's. I gather that Steve Iverson sold out of his shipment of those little gems in under one week.

The Voyager would be equally popular.

Huzz


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

At this past WF, I was talking with Randy of Lunar about some of the kits he had while hanging at the Cult suite. During our conversation I did bring up the Voyager. If memory is correct, he said that he was working on projects that he wanted to see come out first. That he was working on the molds; correcting flaws, etc.

Hope this helps.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Ahhh! Most encouraging news!


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

I read once that Irwin Allen was involved in the "Fantastic Voyage" tv series, I believe that he was hired to produce it. I don't know if he also owned a piece of it though.

Wasn't "the Invaders" a Quinn Martin production? 

PerfesserCoffee, the actual term is, "I'm a fixing to do it".

David.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Krel said:


> PerfesserCoffee, the actual term is, "I'm a fixing to do it".


Good point! The option of adding an 'a' in front of verbs is an aspect of the Southern dialect as well. Aspirating vowels at the front of words is another. It looks as though I have quite a few more lessons to cover. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Hi Krel,

Yes, the Invaders was a Quinn Martin production. I have a couple of episodes on VHS tape so I can make that statement without fear of disseminating flawed information.

Huzz, DFI SAE


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Okay, if you don't like the term "hot-cakes" then I'll say that they will sell like Wilco Proteus's. I gather that Steve Iverson sold out of his shipment of those little gems in under one week.
> 
> The Voyager would be equally popular.
> 
> Huzz


Okay, let's assume you're as correct as you know you are, and that a Voyager kit would be as popular as Wilco's Proteus. Is that degree of interest enough for a company like Polar Lights or Revell/ Monogram to justify the expense of re-releasing the old Aurora kit (assuming the patterns still exist)? Could a company with a significantly larger overhead than the Sarge reasonably be expected to turn a profit with this particular subject? I mean, I don't know the answer, that's why I'm asking. If someone out there can demonstrate that it makes sense on paper, I'll spearhead the letter-writing campaign myself.


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

I really don't think I would sell that many Voyager kits. Its something that would only appeal to die hard Aurora collectors. Look at how many Aurora reissues pretty much tanked for Polar Lights: the monster rods, the dick tracy kits, the custmizing kits. Those are all rare to extremely rare, yet none were spectacular sellers for PL. 

For me, the popular Aurora kits all have tie ins to popular Sci Fi: Lost in Space, Land of the Giants, and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. For me, the figure kits have been really slow sellers. The Fantastic Voyage series is horribly obscure. Whenever any one sees the kit, people have no clue what it is. My guess is I could move 6 to 12 Voyager models if it were reissued. 

Just to put things in perspective, cool resin kits from obscure movies don't sell well either. I've sold lots of Proteus and Icarus kits, but the Cosmostrators are sitting very patiently waiting for buyers.

Steve


----------



## Otto69 (Jan 2, 2004)

*Cosmostrator sales...*

I hate to threadjack, but... well the Cosmo is a neat model and all, but I just can't get over that it reminds me of some 70's vintage Danish candle holders . I loved the movie though, wish I had it on DVD. More interesting subjet material from the movie might be a dio with the strange shaped "trees" on the planet, or the mud scene with the conical ramped tower and some astronauts. But it is a tough movie to model from.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

The answer to your question is unequivocally "Yes". It does make very good sense on paper.

Here is my business case.

I suggest that the Fantastic Voyage Voyager ought to have sales which are at least similar to that of the Flying Sub, Invaders Saucer and Aurora Skipjack. Those three kits have been re-issued recently by Revell Monogram or will shortly be re-issued in the case of the Flying Sub. This would be practical for the Voyager if the molds still exist and can be made ready for an acceptable cost. Also, as the market for such kits is primarily the nostalgia market, one must recognize the fact that this market's demand for the Flying Sub and Invaders Saucer has already been partially satisfied in the past by previous re-releases of those two kits in the mid 1990's. Thus current demand would be somewhat dampened. Even in view of that, these kits are the subject of current re-release. However, no such re-releases of the Voyager have occurred since Aurora last produced it. It is reasonable to conclude then, barring an in-depth market analysis, that a re-release of the Fantastic Voyage Voyage Voyager would experience greater demand than that currently being realized for the Flying Sub and Invaders Saucer.

The critical point in this analysis is "what is the market for this kit?" If one accepts that *it is the same group who are buying nostalgia kits like the Flying Sub and Invaders Saucer*, then one must accept that these people know what the Voyager is and would very much want to have one. I recognize Steve's comments above, but I think they may be wrong. I've always known of the Voyager, Proteus and Icarus since I was ten; two months ago I was asking what a Cosmostrator was, even though I now have a kit of it. I think us sci-fi nostalgia buffs recognize the Voyager and there is high pent up demand for it (witness the sell-out of the Proteus and Icarus), hence this plan is viable.

Consequently, barring cost issues with readying the supposedly existing Voyager molds, I submit that there is simply no reason why this kit should not be produced immediately.

QED

Start writing your letter.

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Krel said:


> I read once that Irwin Allen was involved in the "Fantastic Voyage" tv series, I believe that he was hired to produce it. I don't know if he also owned a piece of it though.
> 
> 
> David.


As far as know, Irwin Allen was never involved with the "Fantastic Voyage" animated series. There were at one point plans for a "Voyage to the bottom of the Sea" cartoon, but it never got of the ground (or under the sea, as the case may be). Allen also toyed with the idea of an animated series based on "20,000 Leagues under the Sea," but that never went anywhere either.

Sequel rights to "Fantastic Voyage" are owned by Fox, who would like nothing more than to revive this "sci-fi classic." Indeed, when it comes to making artistically challenged but financially lucrative sci-fi sequels, Fox is the undisputed champ (Fox's marketing prez., the aptly named Tony Sella, is an absolute master at what he does). Following the success of "Independence Day," Rolland Emmerich and Dean Devlin were attached to make a sequel to "Fantastic Voyage." Their concept involved a pitched battle between humans and aliens that was to take place within the body of a giant alien (i.e. "independence Day" meets "Fantastic Voyage"). Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on how you look at it -- "Godzilla" bombed before the Emmerich/ Devlin "F.V.2" was still in pre-production, and the project quietly went away.

By now I'm sure most of you have heard that a sequel to "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" has gotten the green light. This is probably bad news for general audiences, but good news for toy collectors, model makers, and Irwin Allen fans.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> I suggest that the Fantastic Voyage Voyager ought to have sales which are at least similar to that of the Flying Sub, Invaders Saucer and Aurora Skipjack.
> 
> Huzz


I respectfully disagree with your suggestion for the reasons Steve Iverson was kind enough to outline above. I love the Voyager, but I do think it is simply too obscure to be a viable candidate for mass production.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Otto69 said:


> I hate to threadjack, but... well the Cosmo is a neat model and all, but I just can't get over that it reminds me of some 70's vintage Danish candle holders . I loved the movie though, wish I had it on DVD.


 So what's keepin ya? 
http://www.dvdplanet.com/product_listing.asp?productid=12869&format=DVD


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Carson, see my revised post.

Yes in terms of the general public, most people would say "what the heck is that?" Those same people would also fail to recognize the popular Flying Sub, Invaders Saucer, Proteus and Icarus. However, the nostalgia buffs who buy these kits recognize the Voyager as readily as they recognize those other kits.

the market for a Voyager is not the general public; *its us geeks and nostalgia buffs!*

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Carson, see my revised post.
> 
> 
> the market for a Voyager is not the general public; *its us geeks and nostalgia buffs!*
> ...


You're partly right; the market for the Flying Sub and Invaders UFO is geeks and nostagia buffs -- and there are just enough of them for Revell/ Monogram and Polar Lights to have made a few bucks off the aforementioned kits. 

On the other hand, based on Steve Iverson's reckoning, the market for the "Fantastic Voyage" Voyager consists of you, me, and about six other guys (and he oughta know).


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

And that's where you and Steve are wrong; if you know what a Flying Sub is, then you are part of that group that also knows what a Voyager is and are just as likely to buy one as the other.

If Revell Monogram can make money with yet another re-issue of the Flying Tub and Invaders Hubcap, they can do even better with a Voyager.

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

We shall agree to disagree.


----------



## john guard (Dec 31, 2001)

GEEZ! you guys are all hot and heavy about the issues!! I JUST WANT A VOYAGER KIT!!! WAAAAHHH! if i hold my breath and stamp my feet, will that get me one????


----------



## Otto69 (Jan 2, 2004)

*I gotta say...*

I remember being somewhat ambivalent about the original Aurora kit even when browbeating my dad to buy it for me. It just didn't quite "sing" for me. But nowadays, well, I'd like to have one. Guess I'll wait for the Lunar kit to be released.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

One last comment then.

The Fantastic Voyage Voyage Voyager regularly appears on "wish list" threads on the Polar Lights bulletin board; most everyone there is familiar with sci-fi vehicles and Aurora and also recognizes the Voyager. It is a topic that has been consistently asked for many times over the years by many people in the threads I have seen here since 1998.

Unless you can show me some market research to disprove what I am saying, (and of course I don't reasonably expect that you could) I firmly believe that a Voyager would sell sufficiently well in the nostalgia sci-fi geek market to justify it; at least as well as the Flying Sub and Invaders Saucer which are also aimed squarely at that same market.

Huzz


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> If Revell Monogram can make money with yet another re-issue of the Flying Tub and Invaders Hubcap, they can do even better with a Voyager.


Amen, brother! :wave: 

I got the shrinking spirit inside me! Bring on that Aurora repop, PL!

(Or maybe Sarge has one coming out soon?  )


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

While I'd never pay $40 for a resin kit of the _Voyager_ like I would for the _Proteus_, if there was a styrene version on the shelf (or on Steve's site!) for $12.99-19.99 I'd probably spring for one. I only have the vaguest memories of the cartoon from my youth, but I do remember the ship and it looked pretty cool.

Was I the only one, back in the pre-internet days, that used to see "Aurora Fantastic Voyage Voyager" listed in catalogs like Green's (That had no photo's) and just assumed there was an injection molded kit of the _Proteus_ that was outside my price range....


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

Even the folks at Polar Lights did not feel they could make money reissuing this kit. I am sure that the folks are Revell/Monogram would be more than happy to pop these for someone willing to front the cash. So far, no one has done that. I suspect its because no accountant or business manager can come up with a plan to make it profitable.

Steve


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I'd love to have another FV Voyager. My original was among the casualties of a house breakin/vandalism/robbery back in '74.


----------



## john guard (Dec 31, 2001)

so what are the chances we will see one from Lunar Models???
i'd pay 40 to Wilco! he makes awesome stuff!!!!!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Thanks for clarifying your position Huzz, `cause I wasn't quite sure where you stood.

On a semi-related note, does anyone know why Aurora elected to produce the Voyager instead of the Proteus in the first place? I can imagine it must've had something to do with the "model kits are for kiddies" mentality (God, how things have changed), but given the success of the "Fantastic Voyage" feature it seems strange they went with the cartoon version. Unless of course they had some sort of deal with ABC/ Filmation...

Anybody know?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Steve, yes I recall those comments a while back from Polar Lights re the Voyager. However, Polar Lights has oft-times admitted that these boards are a good barometer of demand for a kit. In view of the demand for a Voyager that I've seen here over the years and on this thread today, I am at a loss to explain their conclusion that the Voyager would not be successful. I do not acept their assessment. I'd put the Voyager in the same market segment with the Flying Sub et al kits mentioned before, but wth perhaps greater appeal due to the Voyager's much greater scarcity. It may have been a grand flop in its day, kind of an Edsel of model kits; but most sci-fi modelers today know quite well what the legendary Fantastic Voyage Voyager is. In my humble opinion of course!

Carson, that is a very good question. I have always wanted a Proteus model. I can only speculate that the original decision makers at Aurora felt that a continuing TV series would give a directly related product better and longer term exposure, resulting in consistent and sustained sales for the life of the TV show. They likely felt that the movie (and a related product like a Proteus) was a short duration thing and would be forgotten more quickly than a recurring series. However, it is my understanding that the TV show was relatively unsuccessful with only a short run, resulting in a similarly short run for the tie-in model product. Note that Polar Lights experienced a similar flop with the Drej Alien from the film Titan AE a few years ago, which was a box office flop; causing Polar Lights to announce theh end of their movie tie-ins.

However, in the final analysis, its probably not a bad thing. I can't imagine Aurora producing a Proteus kit equal to or superior to the Wilco version, even with its several minor inaccuracies. So for me anyway, the wait has been long, but worth it.

Huzz


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Carson Dyle said:


> Thanks for clarifying your position Huzz, `cause I wasn't quite sure where you stood.
> 
> On a semi-related note, does anyone know why Aurora elected to produce the Voyager instead of the Proteus in the first place? I can imagine it must've had something to do with the "model kits are for kiddies" mentality (God, how things have changed), but given the success of the "Fantastic Voyage" feature it seems strange they went with the cartoon version. Unless of course they had some sort of deal with ABC/ Filmation...
> 
> Anybody know?


The Voyager was released in 1969, which was the year that _someone_ at Aurora apparently decided that Saturday morning cartoons were good source material for kits. Aurora also released Archie's Car and The Banana Splits Banana Buggy that same year. I was just aging away from model building and toward girls and sports at that point in time, having been an Aurora fanatic since the age of 7. I remember thinking then how _lame_ these kits were - after such a golden run of Universal Monsters, Secret Agents, Superheroes, and Prime-Time Sci-Fi vehicles. They seemed more like subject matter for pre-schoolers than for the average grade-school builder - merely because of the association with _cartoons_. Apparently I wasn't the only one who felt this way, as all three kits tanked and are therefore now pretty collectable due to low production runs. As an adult Aurora collector, the year 1969 has always seemed to me to be the year Aurora started to lose their pop-culture compass, and I see that year as the beginning of their decline. Voyage To The Bottom of The Sea (1964-68) and The Invaders (1967-68) are both _much_ better remembered _Prime-Time_ television programs than is the animated Fantastic Voyage, and therefore have much more _pop-culture resonance _with baby-boomers - including those boomers who might just buy the _occasional_ model kit for nostalgic reasons (that's how I got back in the hobby - The Monogram Luminators rekindled my Aurora Monster jones). I would have to side with those who say a Voyager re-pop probably wouldn't be a smart business venture due to it's relative _pop-culture_ obscurity.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

That's a very astute analysis. I don't think enough emphasis can be placed on the importance of movies and prime-time television shows to Aurora's past successes and continued allure amongst us nostalgia junkies. In the days before videos and DVD's, kits like the Seaview, Flying Sub, Spindrift, Invaders Flying Saucer, etc. enabled fans to extend and expand their entertainment experience through additional means. That 1969 should mark the beginning of the end for Aurora is ironic, given the space craze engulfing the nation at the time. The writing may have been on the wall though, for if ever a movie or TV spaceship kit was begging to be produced it was the Jupiter 2. Hindsight is 20-20, but to this day it is inconcievable to me that Aurora dropped the ball in that regard... but for Polar Lights's sake, I'm glad they did.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I still don't know anything about the Cosmostrators. But I do remember the Voyager kit very well and would just love to have another, whether it be injection styrene, resin, or vacuform. I'm in with the crowd that thinks the appeal is there.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

"On a semi-related note, does anyone know why Aurora elected to produce the Voyager instead of the Proteus in the first place?"

They probably got letters asking for the ship from Fantastic Voyage, and made the wrong one.

I remember buying one, and then being upset when I opened the box. This is the wrong *&*&^%@!# ship!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

terryr said:


> "On a semi-related note, does anyone know why Aurora elected to produce the Voyager instead of the Proteus in the first place?"
> 
> They probably got letters asking for the ship from Fantastic Voyage, and made the wrong one.
> 
> I remember buying one, and then being upset when I opened the box. This is the wrong *&*&^%@!# ship!


 The box art wasn't a clue as to the contents?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Zorro makes some very good points!

Market assessments like we are discussing here will ultimately come down to a judgement decision on the part of the decision maker, unless some sort of formal market survey is done to gauge customer demand. The more costly the venture, the greater the need for a formal survey due to the greater risks involved.

My hope would be that the folks over at Revell Monogram would see this as a low-cost venture (if the molds are serviceable) and be willing to target a Voyager re-release at us guys. I know I would snap up a few just like I plan to do with the Flying Sub. 

Huzz


----------



## Zorro (Jun 22, 1999)

Trek Ace said:


> The box art wasn't a clue as to the contents?


And that's another thing - around this same time, Aurora began another trend away from what had worked so well for them - the Voyager "box-art" is a _photo_ of the assembled kit rather than _painted box-art (_granted - the LOTG Spindrift used photo art the year before)_. _Nobody in the business came _close_ to Aurora when it came to grabbing the 10 year-old model builder's eye with fantastical subject matter painted by some of the best artists in the business. If The Voyager had featured beautifully painted box art of the miniature submarine coursing through moleculer whirlwinds I _guarantee_ you it would have enjoyed much higher sales figures. Compare the box art for The Voyager to that of The Flying Sub or The Invaders saucer and tell me which invokes more visceral exitement in you even to this day.


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> .....Just to put things in perspective, cool resin kits from obscure movies don't sell well either. I've sold lots of Proteus and Icarus kits, but the Cosmostrators are sitting very patiently waiting for buyers.
> 
> Steve


Perhaps a reference video of the Cosmostrator would help. Then again, that may harm sales. When I showed a friend a copy of the DVD ($4.50 at walmart) his head just about exploded. His memory of the movie was far better than the movie! I had trouble giving away that DVD. Once seen, never wanted.


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> Even the folks at Polar Lights did not feel they could make money reissuing this kit. I am sure that the folks are Revell/Monogram would be more than happy to pop these for someone willing to front the cash. So far, no one has done that. I suspect its because no accountant or business manager can come up with a plan to make it profitable.
> 
> Steve


It's funny how Polar Lights was not interested in repopping this. I am familiar with a person who had $20,000.00 available and offered it to Polar Lights to assist in the production of the Voyager. They indicated that they had to much on their plate. They also indicated that since the molds still existed at Monogram/Revell, that it would not be cost effective to recreate the molds.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Oh, _that's_ what a Cosmostrator is.

I recognize the design, but not the name.

I haven't seen the film in many decades.

I may just have to get one of those. 


BTW, the FV Voyager's box art being a photo rather than a painting was a big drop in marketing quality compared to what was offered with their other classic kits. It still didn't keep me from buying one, though.


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

terryr said:


> "On a semi-related note, does anyone know why Aurora elected to produce the Voyager instead of the Proteus in the first place?"....


At the time of the release of the Fantastic Voyage movie, Revell was approached with the exclusive rights to create and sell a kit of the Proteus. The guy in charge at Revell wrote back telling 20th century fox a story of how long it would take to ramp-up and how so much was already in the pipline. I met this guy at one of the Richta shows, he's currently owner/president of accutate models. He indicated that he and the rest of the staff at Revell thought that the movie was a "B" grade endevor and would fail at the box office. Hence the "nice" letter back turning down the chance to produce the Proteus. If you wish to see a copy of this letter, talk to Dean Milano at R/M. I belive he still has copies of it and the 8x10 studio pictures of the Proteus.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I have one of Wilco's Cosmostrator kits. 

Its typical Wilco - high quality and it has few if any of the glitches (like voids, flash and pinholes) that occur with far greater frequency on other resin kit manufacturers' stuff. I recommend it highly.


Huzz


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Heiki - maybe we can convince Dean M to repop the Voyager.

Huzz


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Well, speaking from memory, I was very much a fan of the Saturday morning cartoon and really liked the photographic box art. I was also really into playing with the Spindrift and the Voyager because to my 10-year-old mentality, these kits were built to the actual "scale" they were on TV, and had a real blast with them in my backyard.
Last week, I pulled my Voyager out of it's storage box. OMG!!! I forgot that I very badly brush-painted it white and the sloppy gluing job I did on the windshield!  
Looks like I've got a renovation project to do :thumbsup:


----------



## Otto69 (Jan 2, 2004)

*Photo vs painting*

I remember the Voyager box very clearly. As a kid I found the photos a bit less enticing than painted box covers. For one thing, it shows you what the kit *really* looks like, and kits seldom completely measure up to what's in our minds . The other thing is that modern photograph box covers look quite sterile to me. Compare the old Ethan Allen sub kit with the modern 'visible' polaris sub kits. For me, the old box showing the sub with cutaway view crusing underwater was a lot more enticing than the sterile "hey here's a model built by a good modeler" on the cover. For example, would you buy this based on the photo of the actual kit?:

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/DEATH STAR PAGE.htm

If Lunar or anyone else ever comes out with a Voyager kit I'm very very tempted to do up a diorama like the box cover of the Aurora voyager. This consisted of 'molecules' made of painted styrofoam balls with little toothpick like things sticking out of them. What's really needed for such endeavors are readily purchasable cast resin "Aurora" logos .


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

heiki said:


> Revell thought that the movie was a "B" grade endevor and would fail at the box office. Hence the "nice" letter back turning down the chance to produce the Proteus. If you wish to see a copy of this letter, talk to Dean Milano at R/M. I belive he still has copies of it and the 8x10 studio pictures of the Proteus.


I would LOVE to see a copy of that letter! How do I get in touch with Dean?


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 20, 2000)

Are those pictures still around of that larger Voyager garage kit that was posted here some time ago? Luv to see those photos again.


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

Well, just for everybody's info, I just found resin re-casts of the Aurora Voyager kit for sale over at Monsters In Motion for the "mere pocket change" of $125 plus shipping.
Knock yerselves out :wave:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nightingale said:


> Are those pictures still around of that larger Voyager garage kit that was posted here some time ago? Luv to see those photos again.


Go to the CultTVman home page, click on "contributors" and select "Mike Aucutt." There you'll find some nifty shots of the Lunar Models (a.k.a. "Randy Cooper") Voyager you're refering to. I don't know Mike, but I have a great deal of respect for anyone with the skill and patience to put that thing together. The one I ordered was so warped and bubble-ridden I fled in terror. I love Lunar Models, but this was not their finset hour.


----------



## Otto69 (Jan 2, 2004)

I saw a castup of this at Lunar at my last model club meeting. The one I saw is bubble free (as are most Lunar kits I've seen since they're pressure cast). I'm hoping that Lunar rereleases this as when you see it up close, it's really big, and nice. It's on my "to get" list for sure, even though I'll have to buy a bigger airbrush to paint it .


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

That's great news, Otto. A decent cast of this kit would definately be worth owning. I've seen Randy's original up close; properly painted and finished, it is a very striking model.


----------



## Nightingale (Jan 20, 2000)

Ahh, thanks. I knew those photos were here somewhere. It's such a simple, yet great design. Wonder who came up with it? Some random animator?


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

Well this thread is six pages long....

The Aurora Voyager must mean something to more than a few people?

I would buy one in a heart beat!

*Q: Does ANYONE have ANY idea what the MiM resin re-issue is like?....Lets see akit review!*


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Thanks Fluke,

I rest my case! :thumbsup: 

Huzz


----------



## The Batman (Mar 21, 2000)

www.culttvman.com/jeff_brown_s_voyager.html


- GJS


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

The Batman said:


> www.culttvman.com/jeff_brown_s_voyager.html
> 
> 
> - GJS


Funny how each of the projector heads on the miniturizer are different in that picture but the same in others!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

fluke said:


> Well this thread is six pages long....
> 
> The Aurora Voyager must mean something to more than a few people?



What this prooves is the Aurora Voyager has a small following of devotes who are very passionate and very opinionated about this particular subject.

I too would like to get a look at the MIM recast. It's been around for a number of years... anyone out there (amonst the vast legions of Voyager fans) ever see one?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Actually, no it does not prove that there are a small following of devotees.

It merely defines the lower limit on the size of the target market but not the potential upper limit on the size of that market.

Suggested reading:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684849623/104-6973814-8599145?v=glance

and

http://www.lowrisk-highreward.com/endorse.htm


----------



## ssgt-cheese (May 31, 2000)

*Have an idea.*

I wonder how hard would it be to replicate the kit using vacufomed methods?

The design is simple, no unusual angles, exept for the windshield area. The wings can be scratchbuilt using sheet styrene, and the main body can be carved using balsa wood and applying thin styrene sheet to it.

Anybody still has the old instructions for the kit for reference?

Mike


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Actually, no it does not prove that there are a small following of devotees.



Hey, I thought you said you rested your case. Personally, I think both our cases are exhausted and need a long vacation.

In response to the question posted above, re vacu-forming a scratch-built kit, that's exactly what Randy Cooper did -- and how he did it. I'm not sure what Randy used for reference, but I suspect it was the old Viewmaster reels of the cartoon series. Other than the size, the main difference between Randy's Voyager and the Aurora kit is that the hull on Randy's kit is wider at the bow than at the stern. The Aurora kit is just the opposite: wider at the stern than at the bow. I'm not sure which version is more accurate, and considering the subject it's probably a moot point.

Reality check: it's been over 30 years since I last laid eyes on an episode of the cartoon series, but I distinctly recall some sort of spinning light effect (not unlike the O.S. Enterprise) within the triangular areas at the front of the wings. For modeling purposes I went for more of a jet intake look (see pix), but I'm curious if anyone remembers the effect I'm talking about.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Well, I agree that your case definitely is!!! :jest: 

Huzz


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I've always preferred the cartoon _Voyager _ over the movie _Proteus_. But then, that cartoon hit me at a very impressionable age (about 8 or 9) just right for such sci-fi cartoon fare.

I think it'd be a pretty easy scratchbuild if there were some halfway authentic plans out there. Does anyone know of any?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I've always preferred the cartoon _Voyager _ over the movie _Proteus_. But then, that cartoon hit me at a very impressionable age (about 8 or 9) just right for such sci-fi cartoon fare.
> 
> I think it'd be a pretty easy scratchbuild if there were some halfway authentic plans out there. Does anyone know of any?


BLASPHEMY!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> BLASPHEMY!


Not me! I'm just seditious! :devil:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I've always preferred the cartoon _Voyager _ over the movie _Proteus_.
> 
> I think it'd be a pretty easy scratchbuild if there were some halfway authentic plans out there. Does anyone know of any?



Here's a shot for comparison; funny how alike the two vessels are without really being all that alike. There are also a couple of new shots at the top of the thread.

When it comes to the Voyager, I'm not sure there's any such thing as "authenticity." Certainly the animators must have had style guides to work from, but judging from the Viewmaster images, they played pretty fast and loose with the rules (the ship's configuration is all over the map).

I've still got the original Aurora instructions. Though not exactly in pristine condition (paint-spattered instructions are not a big concern to a 9-year-old), they might still be helpful to someone attempting a scratch-build. If you're interested, send your email address via private message and I'll forward jpgs.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Otto69 said:


> I saw a castup of this at Lunar at my last model club meeting. The one I saw is bubble free (as are most Lunar kits I've seen since they're pressure cast). I'm hoping that Lunar rereleases this as when you see it up close, it's really big, and nice. It's on my "to get" list for sure, even though I'll have to buy a bigger airbrush to paint it .


 I've never really liked castup - it's too thin and runny.

I prefer kechtup, myself. It's thicker and tastes better. You have to wait longer for it to come out of the bottle, though.


----------



## Paraclete1 (Nov 27, 2000)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I've always preferred the cartoon _Voyager _over the movie _Proteus_. But then, that cartoon hit me at a very impressionable age (about 8 or 9) just right for such sci-fi cartoon fare.
> 
> I think it'd be a pretty easy scratchbuild if there were some halfway authentic plans out there. Does anyone know of any?


I have to agree that I always perferred the cartoon Voyager as well. I think it's because the animated version looked more like an aircraft and the movie version was a sub. Being retired USAF, I'd have to say I favor aircraft. While I'd probably purchase both if available as styrene kits, I'd prefer the animated one. I do plan to attempt to scratch build one if I can get the plans or decent drawings to work from, but as someone pointed out, the window would present a problem and I'm still unsure as to how to shape the curves in the main fuselage with my limited tools and resources.

Carson, expect an PM from me in reference to the kit instrucitons.

Don


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

Lets face it....Both ships are go! like, they are swell!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Thanks for all the great photos. They're a great reference.


----------



## veedubb67 (Jul 11, 2003)

Speaking of the Proteus, has anyone seen the new GE commercial with the doctor daydreaming of being on the Proteus? Great shots of the ship and the crew!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

See the link I posted over on the "First Impressions - Wilco Proteus" thread.

Huzz


----------



## Pygar (Feb 26, 2000)

Hey, I have the same daydream, except mine involves Raquel and antibodies...


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

God, that's great! Thanks for posting the link. 

By the way, does anyone remember the American Heart Association public service spot from the late 60's/ early 70's? It intercut stock effects shots of the Proteus with Special Shoot footage of a "doctor" (narrator) sitting in one of the forward observation seats; note-worthy mainly for having been filmed in the original Proteus interior.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

That's interesting Carson!

I don't recall that ad which you mention but the Cloudster site notes that the original full scale Proteus sub which included the interior no longer exists. It apparently was modified for the Poseidon Adventure and not used in that film. There is no hard evidence as to what happened to it but it is assumed to have been destroyed some time after that.

It seems then that the ad must be from the period befor the Poseidon Adventure. Wouldn't it be neat if the original Proteus is still around on a backlot somewhere? Ah well; I can dream...........

Huzz


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I remember that commercial very well! They played it quite a bit. I knew what it was from having seen the movie by that time and appreciated the sequences very much.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Cloudster site notes that the original full scale Proteus sub which included the interior no longer exists. It apparently was modified for the Poseidon Adventure and not used in that film. There is no hard evidence as to what happened to it but it is assumed to have been destroyed some time after that.
> Huzz


The P.S. spot was shot either during principle photography, or shortly thereafter. I'd love to find a copy.

The Cloudster site you refer to is maintained by Phil Broad, an old cohort of mine. We used to sneak onto studio lots together, and have shared many a misadventure over the years. Sadly, rumors of the Proteus's demise are true; she was destroyed shortly after having been re-fitted as a "rescue sub" for "The Poseidon Adventure" (the footage was cut from the film). My source for this is art director Bill Creeber, whom I met back in the late `80's while an intern at Disney Imagineering. The description on Phil's site is apparently pretty accurate: the flange was cut off, the windows were plugged up, and the exterior was painted a bright fire engine red. Yikes!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Double Yikes!!AT least the 5 foot "miniature" is still around!


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

Nothing really to add to the discussion, other than to say I would buy a re-issue from RM, if the molds still exist. Has it been established that they do, or were they "destroyed" in the infamous train wreck ? I too have always liked the design of the cartoon one better than the movie. With all of the DVD releases these days, perhaps there might be a Filmation Fantastic Voyage DVD in the works; this would potentially provide an incentive for RM to re-issue the kit ?


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

heiki said:


> Dean Milano has the inventory log that indicated that the mold for this was still around. It may be a money issue that keeps it from being brought back. Talking with Dean's boss and one other manager brought little hope that they thought this would sell. Polar/playing mantis knows about this. They were the ones to tell me that R/M needs to be addressed about this.


According to Heiki, the molds still exist and are owned by Revell Monogram. That company would have to decide whether or not they could make enough money from a re-issue to justify the cost of that. And that is a topic we have debated in this thread, however without access to hard marketing and cost data its really all speculation on our part. However, if you want a re-issue, I suppose you could ask Dean Milano at Revell Monogram about it. 

One thing we haven't discussed is the price point. If the potential market is small, then perhaps the business case would fly if the kit was priced higher. 

Huzz


----------



## john guard (Dec 31, 2001)

i would pay a high price as compared to the cost of getting a vintage Voyager off ebay or the price from Lunar Models should they decide to issue their version again!
i'm sorta desperate!!!!!!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I don't see why we can't get together and come up with a supplier of cast parts for difficult items and blueprints for the rest in an agreed upon scale. Most of it looks like easily cut and glued sheet styrene to me. :thumbsup:


----------



## ssgt-cheese (May 31, 2000)

I just happen to find this link over at pcmodeler.

http://emachineshop.com/

Maybe these guys can help built the Voyager in parts all they need is a decent drawing.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Well, the reissued "Satans Crate" was a hybrid effort and I think the appeal of the Voyager may be more than the Crate. I got a crate just to support the idea, I'd get a couple of Voyagers.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Let's see: windscreen, bubble, chairs, instrument panels, intakes, rocket nozzles, stabilizer strut, (was there any landing gear?) could be made in a standard scale (1/48th? 1/32nd? 1/24th?) so that available figures could be used. 

Otherwise it's sheet styrene cut to plans and glued together.


----------



## WEAPON X (Mar 5, 2006)

Carson Dyle said:


> About a year ago I happened upon my old Voyager kit. I built it back in the mid-70's, and the thing had been in storage for about twenty years. The glue was so brittle the model practically fell apart in my hands -- almost as if it was begging to be restored. Well...after much sanding, paint removing, puttying and re-painting, the model looks better than ever. The only changes I made were a pair of scratch-built intake fans (kit-bashed jet intakes), rear exhaust ports fashioned from brass sheeting, and custom decal-enhanced control panels. Oh, the "miniaturizer" display stand was scratch built as well (yes, I still have the original clear plastic stand, but I like this one better).
> 
> The most helpful discovery I made during this project was clear sanding resin. I wanted the windshield to be absolutely, positively flush against the hull -- no seams. My local Plastics Supply Company recommended their own brand of sanding resin, and it really did the trick; it dries super hard and really clear, and most importantly, it won't craze or melt the clear plastic. After sanding and polishing, the seam was completely sealed.
> 
> This model will make a nifty counterpart to my Lunar Models Proteus... once the latter is finally complete.


 Do have any idea where I may get this long out of production unbuilt model? Not the resin recast!


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

Yeah, he never did get back to us on that.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

You can get it by watching the auction site. If it's still boxed, be ready to pay several hundred to a thousand dollars. If builtup, anywhere from a hundred to 300 dollars. Good Hunting.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Oh, I miss that little kit. I remember it as being thick and sturdy, in almost luminous white styrene.

And the design -- simple, yet bold!

<sniff>


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

The Aurora Voyager kit shows up on ebay fairly often but, as others have pointed out, it tends to fetch a pretty hefty price. Unless you're willing to spring $700.00+ for an unbuilt kit your best bet would be to keep an eye out for one that's already been put together and restore it yourself.

Happy hunting.


----------



## fortress (Apr 1, 2006)

Ok! it's pretty safe to say the kit will sell! it's safe to say it appears on modeling posts like this often! so the big question is when? I have e-mailed and called Randy but so far no-answers, I guess the bottom line here is that if the kit not going to be re-issued for whatever reason please put us out of
our misery and say" it's not going to happen folks". 

Fortress


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Keep writing. This is one instance in which the proverbial squeaky wheel might actually get some grease.

Randy may not be big on responding to emails, but that doesn't mean he's not cranking out the models at a fairly brisk clip (he just posted pix, and is now taking orders for his new Jonny Quest SST kit, and his Ep. 1 Republic Crusier is nearing completion). If enough folks bug him about a _Voyager_ re-pop it just might motivate him to add it to his production list. It certainly wouldn't come cheap, but Randy is one of the best pattern makers out there and I suspect a lot of folks would jump at the chance to own a decent kit of this particular subject. 

I know I would -- and I already own one.


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

Is there a reason why the original kit can not be re-engineered.....is it still licensed?

I think that *Moebius Models * is the likely company to take this one on....man I hope so! 

All the Lunar versions I have seen were pretty bad.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Who's this "Randy" dude?


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Dave Hussey said:


> Who's this "Randy" dude?



Don't know about the Randy, but there is only one Dude (To Coen Brothers fans anyway!)


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

"Careful man, I've got a beverage here."

THIS... is Randy Cooper, model-maker extraordinaire.

http://randycooper.blogspot.com/2006/12/voyager-from-fantastic-voyage.html

Lunar's kit was based on his master, the latter of which can be seen via the above link.

I'm not saying you Voyager fans should launch an email campaign to get this model mass-produced... but I'm not saying you _shouldn't_ either.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I guess ther's always the Brisfx resin kit, but I think it may have a few problems. One guy here bought one and had to build his own wings for it for a reason that I don't recall.

Does anyone else have a Brisfx Voyager? How did you find it?

Huzz


----------



## Sonett (Jul 21, 2003)

I bought a BrisFX resin Voyager about 2 years ago and finally completed it last year. The casting wasn't too bad and the whole kit only took the usual prep work typical of all resin kits. 

Here are a couple of pics (before & after) All in all, it turned out very nice with minimal work!

Oh, I might add, their service was very quick & courteous!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Thanks for the pics!!

I agree, the casting actually looks pretty decent based on what I can see. What is your opinion of the two clear plastic pieces, the windshield and the navigator's dome?

Huzz


----------



## Sonett (Jul 21, 2003)

Hi Dave,

BrisFX supplied me with 2 front windshields (good idea considering my ability to really screw things up!) which were vacuformed from thin clear plastic. After securing it with white glue, it looks pretty good and clear enough to look inside.

The top dome was a common Plastruct hemisphere which fit like a glove.

The only provided parts I did not use were the chairs (thin resin parts too brittle to clean up). So I scrath built my own.

Like I said before, for $70.00 the service was very fast and the quality was good. Here are some more pics to enjoy!

Phil


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Sweet job on that, Sonett! I just watched this movie a couple months back and forgot just how much I enjoyed it, as well as the simplicity of _Voyager_ herself. 

Anyhow, awesome model! You definitely oughta be proud.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Yes! Excellent work, Sonett! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Beautful job! I really like the cartoon series, and wished I had the model. I do now, but not as good as the one, you worked on.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Thanks for posting those extra pictures!! Lovely work!! Y'know, I'm still surprised that we haven't seen a styrene repop of this kit. Perhaps one of the new start-ups we're hearing about (Moebius?) will step up to that.

I really gottta get one of those - the Voyager rocks!!

Huzz


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

If you want a resin model of the Voyager, check here.
Voyager Scroll to the bottom of page.


----------



## Sonett (Jul 21, 2003)

Thank You for all the kind comments.
I agree, a nice re-pop of this classic is way overdue! I'll never forget my first Aurora Voyager. We were vacationing at Disneyland in 1971 and just completed the ride "Adventure Thu Inner Space, when, inside what used to be the Character Shop, stood a huge stack of at least 20 or 30 kits all neatly arranged in one corner! Having seen the cartoon series, I just had to get one. The rest is history.

While I have not personally seen the C&S Hobbies kit, I can tell you that their service is second to none. I bought one of the last MIM Seaview kits from Steve this past Christmas and he delivered promptly. Their Voyager offering could'nt be any different.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Sonett said:


> I'll never forget my first Aurora Voyager. We were vacationing at Disneyland in 1971 and just completed the ride "Adventure Thu Inner Space, when, inside what used to be the Character Shop, stood a huge stack of at least 20 or 30 kits all neatly arranged in one corner!


Wow, what an ideal place to have purchased a Voyager model! 

For those who don't know, Star Tours now occupies the space which once housed Monsanto's "Mighty Microscope." The original Character Shop is gone, but I'm pleased to announce you can still purchase model kits (i.e. X-Wings and TIE fighters) from the S.T. gift shop.

If anyone out there can attest to the casting quality of the C&S re-pop please feel free to chime in.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Based on your comments, am I right in thinking that the C&S Hobbies kit is not the Brisfx kit?

Are there any differences between the two kits?

HUzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I was under the mistaken impression they were different kits, but having re-read the above I now believe they're one in the same.

I'll try to post unassembled pix of my Randy Cooper/ Lunar Models Voyager later this PM, just so we can compare the two.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

They are different kits. I have the C & S kit, and the main body is one piece. Only the forward cockpit is detailed, you get two crew members, and the clear dome is vacuformed. By the looks, I perfer the BrisFX kit.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Okay, but they're both Aurora re-pops, correct?


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

Lunar Models had cast Randy's Voyager pattern and botched it pretty badly. Mucked up the pattern in the process too. A shame really. I've never seen it, but I've heard the pattern was super nice.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

See post #123 above for a link to Randy's site.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

Thanks for the link. I traded emails with Randy about a month ago asking about this, and a few other things. He said LM mucked up the master when they made their few casts (apparently very few were actually produced) and it would need to be fixed up. Maybe if he thinks there's enough interest in it he would restore the pattern. I would be interested in a model, but it would have to be better than LM quality.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Ignatz said:


> ... if he thinks there's enough interest in it he would restore the pattern.


Someone needs to direct Randy's attention to this thread. CLEARLY there is a significant amount of interest in obtaining a quality model of this particular subject.

Just sent him an email, just for the heck of it.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Okay, but they're both Aurora re-pops, correct?


Yes, I think they are. The one at C & S is less parts. Since I bought the series of fair to good quality DVDs, on e-bay, I was hoping to do the inside, like the series. No luck. Te model's interor is not possible to work on. The BrisFX one is the one to get, if you want resin.


----------



## Gilusions (Apr 25, 2006)

Hi Guys,
I pulled out the two Voyagers that I have and the little one does not have the side window like the big brother but other than that they are pretty close.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l143/Gilusion/Voyagers.jpg


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Yup, those are the same two versions I have. 

In addition to the side windows and scribed elevator panels, the Lunar (i.e. Randy Cooper) kit is notable for having a fuselage that's wider at the bow than at the stern -- the exact opposite of the Aurora configuration.

One of the many problems with the Lunar/ Cooper kit is the solid resin wings, which are far to heavy to be supported by the relatively narrow walls of the fuselage. The obvious solution is to scratch-build replacement wings out of sheet styrene. Unfortunately, that's only one of the many problems plaguing this kit.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I've generally avoided Lunar kits because of the relatively steep price and because in general, people talk about how incredibly difficult they are to build. I'm sure there are exceptions, too bad their Voyager isn't one of them.

Huzz


----------



## john guard (Dec 31, 2001)

i have the BrisFX Model. i only bought it because the Lunar Models version was unavailable. i would still by it today if they sell it. the BrisFx kit, all resin was ok, the wings were not made well on my kit. i had to build them from scratch out of sheet plastic. to my suprise they came out well. but overall it was a nice kit to have and build.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The bad thing about a model, from a cartoon series, is the cartoon is not consistant. So the model, will usually have missing features. But at least us modelers can handle it. 
When I do mine, I have three choices.
Build it as is.

Cut the body, and Dremel it to put an interior.

Or, Dremel it from the front, as far as I can go. Then add to interior.


I have time to decide, but it is not choices, I will be happy with.


----------



## A Taylor (Jan 1, 1970)

I wouldn't be buying a resin Aurora repop of this kit right now, guys.
I ain't *sayin'*, I'm just sayin'...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

A Taylor said:


> I wouldn't be buying a resin Aurora repop of this kit right now, guys.
> I ain't *sayin'*, I'm just sayin'...


I could get really excited about, for example, a "Fantastic Plastic" version of this ship. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Hey there A Taylor:

"*Say No More!!!"*

*"Nudge, nudge, wink wink!!!" :thumbsup: *

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nobody likes a slyboots, Anthony.  

DISH!


----------



## =bg= (Apr 2, 2007)

*Voyager fan here*











Won this from an online auction.
But boy do I want a plastic Voyager kit.

I found this one, too- someone else won it. But..it's on the list.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Anthony, If I was there right now, I'd give ya a big hug!!!!



A Taylor said:


> I wouldn't be buying a resin Aurora repop of this kit right now, guys.
> I ain't *sayin'*, I'm just sayin'...


----------



## A Taylor (Jan 1, 1970)

Duuuuuuude....
*ack*
Heh.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Not in that kinda way AT!!!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Not that there's anything wrong with that.:lol:


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

Huzz, I'll give you a hug, as long as you are NOT in costume!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Sure. Let me slip into something more comfy!!  











Huzz:wave: :jest:


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

You don't do the dishes dressed like that do you?

Taking out the trash, yes, I can see that.


----------

