rg1911

My Feedback: (1)

Kevin,

Thank you for the tip about airfieldmodels. I followed the link to his source of magnets (http://www.magnetsource.com/airfieldmodels/) and ordered 100 assemblies for $55.00 plus shipping. They said I should receive the magnets tomorrow. Turns out the company is only about 30 miles north of where I live in Colorado.

The 20-gauge steel plates (one 48" by 65" for the fuse and wings, and one 16" by 48" for the tail feather) will be ready tomorrow, and the O.S. 1.20AX also should be in tomorrow, so things are coming together. So far, it looks like TnT Landing Gear (http://www.tntlandinggear.com/) is the only source for a 1-inch wing tube. The wing tube number is WTC-100 ($48), and the sleeve for it is SOP-100-C ($13).

And as a part-time professional photographer (meaning I still have a day job to pay most of the bills), I have to say that your spectator is talented to get such a great shot. It definitely is not easy to get a clear, sharp shot of a (relatively) small, quick-moving model against a bright sky.

Cheers,
Richard

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

I think sometimes all the elements for a good photo just happen to come together to make a special photo...it has happened to me at least three times which resulted in two cover photos and a "month" in a calendar. This photo was one of these cases.

At times like these when everything is just right, the photographer is basically there just to realize all this and not mess it up when he takes the photo. A good photographer knows what to do when the right elements come together in nature, and knows how to create and control these elements as much as possible for "staged" pictures.

Before my first article in Model Aviation was published, I had one such photo, (below)..everything was just about perfect at that moment. I literally took that photo, (long before the article was submitted) with the intent this would be for the "cover". I even told the guy so at the time, (even left room at the top of the vertical shot version for the "Model Aviation" logo), and he became a bit irritated, thinking I was "selling him a load of poles...". Well, when the time came, the issue in question must not have had any stellar competition, and the photo was actually on the cover. I lobbied hard for it until the decision was made, on the verge of making a pest out of myself..but it was a good photo,a nd I was proud of it. The only change was that I "photoshopped out" the white line and the crack in the pavement for the cover submission.

The attachment below was a kind of "joke" I created for my SPA friends. Basically, I said "this is the cover they should have, but if they are foolish enough not to choose it, this is what the cover SHOULD HAVE looked like", and I sent it to my friends. Shortly thereafter, I got the call that SPA DID get the cover of the May 2006 issue. Scott is now known as "Mr May" by the SPA crowd...he even changed his e-mail address to MRmay@xxxx [8D] What a "star"

Remember, we now have the "Simla Build" thread for build-related posts.

Duane

billberry189

My Feedback: (1)

Would that be the forum on Jeff's site, or did I miss something here?

rg1911

My Feedback: (1)

I think it's this one:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10640660/tm.htm

Richard

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Yup, that's the one...I haven't been to Jeff's site yet to see what's there.

patternflyer76

I have received the rest of the pics that the spectator had taken. Attached below. He really deserves a lot more credit then spectator. His name is Dan Vejr. Great pictures. Thanks a bunch.

Kevin Clark

patternflyer76

More pics.

billberry189

My Feedback: (1)

Hey Patternflyer76, those pictures are looking good! Oh yes, and the Simla too.LOL. I'd be willing to bet that the guys on Duane's Simla build thread would love to see them too.(Just in case they have stopped following the Taurus thread since Jeff has started shipping the Simla kits). Once again, great shots of a great plane!!

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

No problem...anyone following the Simla build thread would have been following the Ed Kazmirski's Taurus thread first. If you're not, subscribe to both!!

Duane

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

This post is copied from the "SIMLA BUILD THREAD".

The reason I'm copying it is because recently, I talked with someone who said he knew Ed well, and flew with him. He was a spectator at the last SPA, (Senior Pattern Association), contest at my home field here in Asheville. We were talking about the Simla, Taurus, and Ed, and why Ed got out of RC pattern. I'll highlight the new information at the bottom.


ORIGINAL: kingaltair

I believe Ed was the manager of the 1965 team. We know he flew the Simla in the 1965 NATS and didn't place well.

This has been stated several times. I've been wondering if Ed didn't place well because the Simla wasn't a good design for the times, or if it was just one of those days.

Richard

We don't know, and we'll probably never know for sure unless we can find a contestant, or maybe a write-up of the 1965 NATS in one of the mags that could provide a clue, (hint Ray); maybe he had mechanical problems, or something else.

I think we have to guess based on what is most logical. I have a few points to make that may or may not mean anything, but sound logical to me:

1) Ed's competitors were flying smaller, lighter planes with the same engine, so vertical performance would be better on loops, or any other vertical maneuvers.
2) The competition by 1965 was becoming MUCH keener, and as more and more pilots switched over to the new medium of PROPORTIONAL, Ed lost his advantage...he was a master of the much harder to fly, (and less intuitive) REED system. When proportional came along, he was just one of many very good proportional pilots.
3) There is one more possible factor that I heard of for the first time at the SPA contest in Asheville, just a couple weeks ago that had to do with a physical problem Ed may have had. This report came from a spectator, who knew and competed with Ed back at the time, (named Garner I believe). He said that Ed had a problem with chronic tremor or "shakes" that didn't affect his flying ability with reeds, (he called it "the shakes"), but DID affect his fine motor functions with proportional radios. I know positively that Ed flew "Mode 1".

IF this is true, it might explain a lot. Can anyone else who knew Ed well either confirm or deny this statement?
Duane

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

REFERS TO POST ABOVE, AND THE BELGIUM 1963 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP (PAGE 2 POST #43)

We have learned of another individual who can give us a first-hand account of Ed and his experiences. It is always great to get a little bit of the inside story when we have the chance. Jeff notified me about one of his customers...a man who knew and "crew-chiefed" for Ed back in Belgium. Thanks you Dave Eby for your account There is another, briefer account of the Simla in 1965 at the NATS to come.

It was 48 years ago when my wife & I went on a trip from England to Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, & France. We timed the trip so we could attend the Internats at Genk. Little did we know how involved we would get. Arrived at the contest site a day before it started. Introduced our selves to the American team. They were fussing about the poor quarters. So we went to Maastrict, Holland, & made hotel reservations for them. Since we had a 4 pax car, Bob Dunham rented a car. There were 6 counting the American judge.

There was another GI there from England. He & I alternated the jobs of writing down the scores of the American judge and helping Ed with his a/c. Brooke had his wife, & Nelson had Dunham. So I was "crew chief" on Ed's Taurus for only a day and a half.

Ed was calm, collected, competent, under pressure. He was just plain nice to everyone. Dunham offered him an Orbit proportional but Ed flew his reed set up.

Ed wrote an article on how & why he designed the Taurus in the Jan. '63 issue of Model Airplane News. Jerry Nelson wrote up the Internats in the Nov. '63 RCM. I have both. Send me your snail mail address if you want 'em.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Hi there...it's been a while since we've had anything new to post NOT having to do with the Simla, (which now has its own build thread). Now we have some new Taurus news![8D]

I hope Jeff won't mind since it's premature, but everything has to have a first announcement, even if it takes a while to make it happen. For some time now, we've had a new project in our minds we wanted to tackle, and finally it looks like it's getting a little closer. I've been anticipating this plane for a long time...Next week, Jeff will pick up Ed's original Taurus II to reference when designing his new Taurus II kit. It will be great to have this new plane, "on paper" so we can build our own. For SPA "Antique" contests, it should be right up there with the best designs available. Once the plane is done, the original can be either "retired", or or at least flown less, (though it has only had 11 flights).

Well over a year ago, Jeff took careful measurements of the Taurus II, just before it was flown for the crowd at the 2010 Asheville SPA contest. He did this "just in case" something terrible happened to the nearly 50 year-old second generation Taurus that Ed himself flew during the 1964 season.

Just as a reminder, the Taurus II, (see pics below), was Ed's final version of the traditionally-sized Taurus, and incorporated all of what Ed learned since first working on the Taurus design concept sometime around 1961. It is sleek, has a symmetrical airfoil, (Bosch), is a near mid-wing because when he fitted the thinner Bosch wing into the Taurus II fuselage, it was raised up higher into the fuselage; this helped its roll characteristics. As we have learned from watching the original actually fly, it flies very well.

No timetable for completion is abvailable, but if I have any influence on Jeff's priorities, it will be ASAP. Jeff's Orion replica needs to be released first.

As a sidelight, I am about to start finishing Ed's other Taurus II, which has been referred to previously as as "the unfinished fuselage". More to come on that.

Till later
Duane

billberry189

My Feedback: (1)

Duane,

The new Taurus II looks exactly like what I am building for the Simla get together. I am curious as to the length of the fuselage, especially aft of the wing TE. Is it the long or short version of ED's Taurus?

Bill

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

There certainly is a "family resemblance"the Simla ws the next major project after the Taurus II, and it has the same airfoil, (if you believe the caption in the World Engines ad). I like to think of the Simla as "similar to" the Taurus II, with some refinements like true mid-wing design, side-mounted engine, and more refined looking tail fin.

Compared to the standard Taurus, the plane is more sleek, narrower, and not as "tall" or with as much of a rounded look, (see photos of the two together). Of course the wing is tapered with a straight trailing edge, and Ed was experimenting with a thicker horizontal stab, (the "unfinished" fuselage Taurus IIA has a thicker fin as well). As for dimensions and "moments", the wing was moved forward 1", giving a 1" longer tail moment. As I said, the wing sits higher up in the fuselage because the thinner, symmetrical Bosch wing was fit ito the space of the much thicker original 22% semi-symmetrical airfoil. Ed could have chosen to position the wing normally and used more balsa scrap "fill", but instead chose to experiment with the higher position and use less fill. I think the more mid-wing result probably was a plus. To me the wing looks like it could use some cowling underneath to help it blend with the fuselage.

Duane

billberry189

My Feedback: (1)

Duane,

I am building my Taurus from a set of left over Top Flite plans circa 1975. I was wondering which of Ed's versions this might represent. Maybe I should wait until Jeff releases his Taurus II kit. What do you think?

Bill

PS- I already have cut the fuselage sides from the afore mentioned plans, but I could just cut a new set of fuselage sides given the right dimensions.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

There was only one Taurus version in wide circulation, and that was the standard Taurus kit plan. There is a plan for the "Myers" version Taurus, (the Taurus prototype), and another published in an overseas magazine...not likely you'd have that.

To the best of my knowledge, the Taurus II was never published...it was Ed's person second-generation plane for the 1964 contest circuit.

I'm nearly certain the Taurus II will perform better, as it is Ed's improvement plan revision of the original, but the regular Taurus flies great. The Taurus II will be some time in the future.

Duane

pimmnz

The 'overseas mag' and Myers plan are dimensionally identical. The magazine one was developed from the Myers plan. All in the Taurus thread. Ed's 1962 Nats/'63 WC Taurus is not the same as the kit plan, as we know...68" wing, fuselage 1/4" lower than the kit...If you want to build one 'just like Eds''.
Evan, WB #12.

billberry189

My Feedback: (1)

Would I be wrong in assuming that the plans for these differing versions of the Taurus are not readily available, or has someone gone to thetrouble of reproducing them?

Falcon6667

http://myunclewilliestoo.com/index.html
He has done a good job cleaning up the planes
I just got a Torus (lazor cut) kit from
http://www.classicrchobby.com/online...hobby?vmcchk=1
Good luck
Falcon

Falcon6667

http://*****************.com/about29.html
Falcon
Found the page.page #22 on his part # 1 sight
http://*****************.com/about29.html

pimmnz

billberry, the Myers plan may still be available from Duane, if you ask nicely, I have a copy here but it's along way twixt here and there...the magazine in question is RCM&E, October 1962. Eds '62 Taurus was in Duanes hands for a short time, measurements were taken, and the only real differences between his and the Topflight/MAN Taurus was the span and fuselage height. From memory Eds Taurus was 1/4" lower than the TF/MAN version. Which is why it looks just a bit 'sleeker' in all the photos of the thing...All the info is in this thread, but don't ask me where...
Evan, WB #12.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

This past weekend I met Jeff half-way at an exit off I-26 to hand over Ed's Taurus II. I just thought to myself, "...why do we never have a camera available to document these monumental steps in history...?" I don't know, but at least the event was also witnessed by numerous people going through the McDonald's "drive through" watching two grown men discussing the finer points of a brightly-colored model plane in the parking lot. The looks on people's faces are interesting.

Jeff has a "small amount of work to do" on his Orion replica, (that has been in the works forever...Jeff stopped work on it back in 2009 in order to join the Simla team, and work on that project). Even though the Orion is a project that has been lost in a sea of other activities, JEFF ASSURES ME it will completed soon to make room for the Taurus II. I can't wait!![8D]

John Castronover and I purchased Ed's Taurus II at auction back in 2008 as one of only two airplanes built and flown by Ed to survive all this time. The reason it was in such tremendous shape was that it was obviously near and dear to Ed, and was carefully stored in the original crate Ed had built for his Taurus models back in 1962 rather than hanging it up or displaying the model in a dusty basement. Tom Brett did exactly the same thing with his Perigee, (now in the AMA Museum), and Apogee models.

Ed had so completely passed from the R/C scene that almost nobody knew these planes were preserved until the auction that started this thread was announced. Ed's other Taurus is now residing in the AMA Museum, (near the Perigee), but the Taurus II remains. It has been flown 11 times since we made it airworthy...we decided, (as the less famous Taurus), that it should be the model that flies once more. There are two videos on You Tube showing it in the air.

We have flown it enough to get a sense of what it can do in the air...it performs very well, is surprisingly, (at least to me) fast, and like all pattern planes, very smooth and graceful. Now the question arises...do we continue to periodically risk Ed's original, or do we take the next step and turn Ed's "ultimate" Taurus into a new construction project? This seems like a no-brainer to me, and the project is about to begin. The Taurus II may fly on a very limited basis in the future, but we are much closer to retiring this very special plane....Ed's final version of the .60-sized Taurus. More to come.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Woops...I had forgotten the earlier announcement covered much of the same material...oh well, this can be a reminder.

Just a couple more points...this model when it is completed, will finish out the ENTIRE ED KAZMIRSKI LINE OF DESIGNS, (other than the "Flop", and I think only Cees would be interested in building that plane). All of Ed's planes are worthy of being turned into a kit, and Jeff should be proud of this achievement, (actually I don't think Jeff intended to kit every model...it just worked out that way, and I'm glad it did).

After seeing these pictures with Kevin Clark as the test pilot, FREE BIRD IN POST #1780, P72 said how he love "to fly this piece of history"...A LITTLE WHILE DOWN THE ROAD, HE WILL BE ABLE TO.

Once this final, (ultimate) Taurus is completed, we can freely "fly the wings off" our own Taurus II, (or Mark II), knowing that we can always build another in case "accidental-you-know-what" should ever happen. The few minutes I had at the sticks flying Ed's personal model felt uncomfortable...it was like flying a Fabrege egg, or some other piece of history, or work of art...I just couldn't relax and put "her" through her paces...I'm sure all the pilots felt the same way, (at least I hope they did).

Now we can fly the final version of the Taurus and enjoy it.

BTW...When taking some last minute measurements the night before turning the T-II over to Jeff, I was a little surprised the wingspan was 71-1/4", three inches more than Ed's NATS Taurus, and 1-1/4" more than the Taurus kit. Each wing half has 1-1/2" dihedral for a total of 3" with one panel lying flat.

Duane

UStik

Hi Duane, there seems to be another piece for the Taurus timeline in [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10862690]Sid Gates' video[/link]. Look at 10:45 for Ed, assisted by Jerry Nelson, at the 1963 Nats. That should be your T2 with the older swept wing, seeing the paint scheme and the wavy sheeting.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Wie ghets Burkhard . Nice to hear from you.

I can't view it at work...will look at it later at home later.

It's interesting to note that this thread, Ed Kazmirski's Taurus is now the number ONE thread in total views, having accomplished that feat two years earlier that its closest "rival". While the views are about the same, the number of replies and pages is nearly twice the other thread. I guess what that means is that the other thread enjoys a larger viewing audience, but on this thread the participants are more active in replying, with the average reply being twice as long, (filled with more pictures, illustrations, and probably "garbage" [too many pictures of cats, artwork, and far-fetched theories]), than the Blue Angel thread.

Thanks to all those who have contributed in so many ways to RC Dent's thread.

Stay in touch UStik

Duane