UStik

Hope not too much. I just only compare vertical to vertical dimensions. If you measure the stab span and assume it to be 34" then measure the wing span and extrapolate. In the ad picture this is uncertain due to the tilt, but you can extrapolate a known wing dimension, e.g. the aileron width, to the wing span because they are at same distance to camera. That's just unprecise because aileron width (1.75") is so small compared to wing span.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Measure the left side of the black line that outlines the aileron, see what it says, and "cross you fingers", (another Americanism I think...don't know where that expression came from). You have the software to do it..right?? Please !![]

Duane

UStik

Sorry, do you mean the aileron "span" (it's 44.5" and 46.5" ). Width is 1.65" and 1.15". Still I don't have the software, missed my colleage due to my flu. Do you have a dimension of the control horn?

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

I got the "brilliant" idea the other day that maybe...just maybe the King Altair airfoil might be a Bosch airfoil. After all, Vic Husak was one of "the gang" that Ed hung out with there in Chicago. Since Ed adopted that airfoil in all his later planes from the Taurus-2 on, maybe Vic adopted the same airfoil. Since I have King Altair kits to build, I might me able to scale that airfoil to the right size and "build away" on the wing I need tor Ed's "unfinished" fuselage.

A couple days went by then I remember to check this theory out. NOPE. Even though the King has a thick airfoil, Vic used a thinner airfoil that the Bosch....NUTS

I bet you thought there was going to be a "happy ending" to this story didn't you?

Burkhard, we still to work on that airfoil

Duane

pimmnz

Gone kinda quiet, hasn't it?
Evan.

UStik

Yes, nice weather.

Not much progress, either. Whatever I do to the big ad photo, it seems the 96" span is due to perspective and 102" is correct. Very few clues to reconstruct perspective, so only experimenting. But using 1.75" aileron width as scale, span always comes out as 102", too. Anyway, 1.25" aileron width is out of question in this picture. Maybe 8.5 ft / 102" is correct and Ed later replaced the too small ailerons by wider ones. (Leaves the question why 95" or 96" wing span is specified so often.) Wing tip and aileron bevel look like it.

More is not possible with this picture. Andy, you were right with your measurement, could you trace also this picture for comparison? The "good" picture is attached again, rectified a bit better. In both pictures I tried the tree tops as horizon. Worked out pretty well and made the vertical lines vertical, in the ad picture only the antenna. But both pictures needed a higher horizon for equal length of ailerons and parallel lines. (BTW, used the panorama program "hugin".)

The fuselage and tail dimensions should come out better if I get the unclipped photos/scans. The demo version of the photogrammetry program already managed to make a shape out of two pictures, but not at all accurate. With the unclipped pictures (including edges/margins, the more pics the better) it's possible to calibrate the camera/perspective and get better (sufficient?) accuracy. The crate picture could be measured as well (the hi-res scan from Chuck, what we have so far is too small).

AndyKunz

I traced that picture. It's not as useful as the other picture, and comes up with different measurements.

This time I traced the edges ,then I rotated the left wing until the ailerons were vertical lines. I then scaled the image, using 34" as the tail span for a reference. This gave the following measurements:

Span: 95" (but the left wingtip is incomplete, so 96" is very reasonable)
Chord at root: 13.75" (included aileron)
Aileron chord: 1.7"
Chord at tip: 9.6"

Stab chord (no elev): 9.14"
Stab span: 34.5"

Because of the angle, the fuse length wasn't measured.

Comparing the two views, I'm convinced that Ed had two wings. Which came first and which worked better would be up to UStik to model. The long span set had narrow ailerons.

Andy

UStik

Thanks Andy, but if that's true we're stuck. I reworked the pictures a bit since you measured, but still I measure about 102" in both pictures, taking the 34" stab as a scale. Considering how deep Ed's knee is in the grass and that the aileron bevel isn't even visible, I would measure virtually to the bottom edge of the ad picture.

I think it's the same wing set in the pictures, but the "new" picture shows ailerons 1.25" wide and beveled by 0.25" to the tips, while the ad picture shows new ailerons 1.75" wide and beveled by 0.75" to the tips. In the ad picture, there seems to be a kink in the wing outline where the aileron tip ends and the wing tip begins.

AndyKunz

I used the LE bend at the tip as a reference and copied the distance from the right wing.

And the ailerons are WAAAAY different as a percentage of chord.

Andy

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Gentlemen-

If you look at the small picture in the ad with the camera far above the plane, you can see the degree of dihedral is much more than the "nephew" picture, (which has very little dihedral). Because of the fact this wing has GREATER DIHEDRAL, plus the tail end is twisted what looks to be about 15 degrees toward the camera, couldn't that account for the fact the ad wing seems to have a double taper, (or the T.E. doesn't seem perfectly straight).

Secondly, what about measuring the distance from the rear tip the wing to the front tip of the stab to see how those distances compare? Just from the way the ad wing looks compared to the new, or "nephew" wing, it certainly appears the ailerons are wider (compared to the width of the wing as a whole), in the ad wing...I don't think that is just perspective. The ad wing also seems to have less wingspan.

One good thing is you can see for sure that the T.E. is straight in the "nephew" wing. It seems inconceivable to me that Ed would alter the T.E. and go back to an earlier wing shape, so I have to assume that perspective is the source of the non-straight T.E. on the ad wing.

Does these conclusions seem possible?

Duane

UStik

Yes, Andy verified the different aileron width. The wing span in these two pictures seems to be different, but now I think it's the same and only the ailerons were changed.

The dihedral seems to be the same in all pictures. The "new" picture with Ed behind the Simla clearly shows the specified 4 degrees (measured on the trailing edge). That's why, undoubtedly, the "double taper" (swept trailing edge) is a visual illusion due to seeing the wing not exactly from top (plan form). Even the "nephew picture" has this illusion, even if only a small amount (hold a ruler to the trailing edge).

Here's the picture (rectified, technical term for straightened) with some measurements in span direction and in lenght direction. Judge yourself.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Thanks for the measurements. Yours is an interesting explanation for the difference in aileron width when you say the wingspan is the same, only the ailerons are different, and they were modified.

Andy...Do your measurements agree closely with UStik otherwise. In other words, if the ailerons were altered to 1-3/4", would you agree that everything else points to there being only one wing with a span of 102"? Due to the 15-degree(or whatever) twist, and not looking at the ad photo from directly above, the stab spans appear quite different in the two pictures, so you can't use the stab as a reliable measurement between the two pictures. I think you COULD POSSIBLY compare the aileron span of 1.75" to the stab span IN THE SAME PICTURE.

One other "given" has been furnished by Ray in the attachment. The ST .60 cylinder head width from side to side, (across the top), is 1-3/4". Though the engine is pointed away in the ad photo, it may still prove useful.

Duane

UStik

Yes, the cylinder head can be measured, and I already measured the distance from crankshaft centerline to cylinder head top, it fits.

In the ad picture, you can't even compare vertical distances if they are not close to each other. The wingspan seems smaller because it's farther away from the camera. In the rectified picture, vertical distances should be comparable. Maybe even horizontal distances are comparable (measurable). Seems so, but I'm not sure yet. There's no way to verify the rectification.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

References to "rectification" aside, that sounds like something George Bush might have said, ( example: strat..tee..gery instead of strategy)

.....(unless I hear otherwise from Andy about why this isn't so), I think we are getting closer to the idea of ONE WING again...and that wing with a span of a "whopping" 102", (8-1/2 feet). If you look closely at the pictures of the "nephew wing" and the "ad wing", you discover the "nephew wing" apparently has been modified by enlarging the ailerons, and trimming the ends. You can see just how narrow those "nephew" ailerons are before the mod was made. By greatly enlarging the "ad wing" picture, and looking just at the wingtip, you can see what Ed did, (I think)

Ed simply added a larger aileron to the existing wing you see in the "nephew" picture. Comparing the two pictures together, it's easy to see what was done. I'll add a picture to the post later, but you can see if you enlarge the ad photo enough.

This is cool to be able to see the progression of what was done. He started with the wing with the "nephew ailerons", (May 1965), then removed them and added larger ailerons at a later time. The ad photo must have been taken later, as Ed's AMA number is there, and the aileron modifications have already been done.

Unfortunately this creates another problem, a contradiction to what Ed told me personally. He said that a floodlight came "crashing down" on the Simla just a few minutes after the World Engines photos were taken…the same day as that photoshoot. He said the light fell "…right on the C/G…".

Now here is the problem; 1) if the plane was damaged BEFORE it flew, then how did Ed know to increase the size of the ailerons, which had already been modified by the time of the photoshoot? 2) Also, what happened the day these candid pictures were taken in the parking lot with the "nephew"? Was that just a photo session, or did Ed fly the plane that day?

The W.E. ad photo already shows the wing with mods, and this was supposedly BEFORE the plane had ever flown. I guess it's possible he looked at the ailerons and said to himself, "…well I guess these need to be bigger…", (they DO look pretty skinny). But that's not the way things usually happen. Usually a plane is tested, the need for mods becomes apparent, the mods are made, and the plane is tested again.

Is it possible I misunderstood what Ed told me, or that Ed got the dates turned around. He definitely told me, the plane was damaged BEFORE its first flight, and that it weighed 12 oz more after repairs.

Any ideas??

Duane

UStik

Only ideas, or speculations.

Why made Ed the skinny ailerons in the first place? Maybe he simply copied the Bosch airfoil including the aileron cross section. Bosch had such slender ailerons on his w/c model (10% of mean chord), but it had a lower aspect ratio and less taper than the Simla, which has a rather big 8.2 aspect ratio. When designing or more building models without plans, like Ed did, you may plan and build the wing cross section independent from the wing plan form. Once you have the model completed and go out with your nephew for a photo shooting and see the whole model for the first time, you may think that the ailerons got just too skinny. Maybe they even feel soft and lack some torsional stiffness, so you decide to insert 1/2" harder and stiffer balsa spar making them bigger and more effective as well. That's my idea for an explanation.

Seems also Ed had a new Orbit system, that with the striped center load (digital?). They show the transmitter in the pictures. Maybe Ed made the skinny ailerons because he was afraid the servo wouldn't cope with bigger ones, and once he saw the new servos were strong he rather had bigger ailerons. Anyway, I think this photo shooting was on the occasion of the first mounting and testing of the complete model. After all he had a "special nose wheel for a nose-high take-off" and needed the parking lot to test and adjust it.

Measuring pictures in #1311 (hopefully) complete.

cygnet

My Feedback: (33)

Does anyone know what happened to the simla? I mean where did it end up?

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

This was reported in the Oct 2007 issue of Model Aviation (if you happen to have it), in the In the Air section up front. Preparing for this short story was the reason I contacted Ed, (other than to just have the opportunity to talk with him of course).

The plane disappered under mysterious circumstances. The short story is that Ed stored the Simla under his house in a crawlspace at the end of the season. He sold his house later, and a few months after the move he realized he had forgotten to get the Simla. He called the new owner, and told him about the plane. They went looking for it, but it had vanished from the spot Ed had left it. The owner said he had no idea where it was, and Ed believed him, (what else could he do). My own theory is that kids love to play in crawlspaces under houses.

I believe the loss of the Simla was another factor leading to Ed leaving the hobby, but I have no way to be sure, but losing your primary plane certainly didn't help; he would have had to build again, and it takes time and determination to scratch build. He just never built another.

Duane

UStik

Some vertical dimensions. I know the figures are hard to see, but enlarging the picture might help. I don't know how all these nice round numbers sneak in.

AndyKunz

UStik,

Are you using the dimensions measured from the top view (nephew) to correct for foreshortening in that photo?

I think you should model this and tell us how it flies!

Andy

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

I can't believe the age we're living in. Here we are talking about the idea of test flying a ONE OF A KIND CLASSIC that hasn't flown in over 43 years, and where PLANS WERE NEVER PRODUCED. [X(]

Changing the subject some, for days we've discussing "one wing or two", and why the measurements just didn't add up. Then we asked each other "why would Ed design such thin ailerons...and speculation about what was going on in his mind.

Just a few minutes ago, I happened to re-read the World Engines ad from August 1965, and what do you think I saw??[X(][X(] Take a look at the attachment and read the left column. We need to read the evidence more carefully!!!

RonMcCormick

My Feedback: (4)

Very good king, I read that page three times and did not notice that, eyes wide open and see nothing.

Michaelj2k

DOH!
-Homer Simpson

It happens to me too. If you want to lose it, hide it in plain sight.

Check our favorite auction site for a new Kazmirski item.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Can you provide the link?

UStik

Yes Andy, I'll do that. It will need only days to make a simulator model (only flight behavior) and it's easy to correct it later. Better measurement will take weeks.

The measurings seem quite plausible so far, but maybe they are just too good to be true. The two pictures are independent from each other. In the "nephew" picture, the horizontal plane of the model is made parallel to the picture plane, in the other picture it's the vertical symmetry plane. Only dimensions in the respective plane can be measured, and there's no way to check accuracy.

With the measuring program, 3D measurements from several pictures are possible. They will be more accurate and there will even be an error estimation, so we know how accurate and how sure the measurements are. But it will take some time to do it.

That's funny, at least I can laugh at it. But you have to admit that we were not bad at all with speculations. I read this stuff thoroughly, but several months ago. Maybe that's why I (subconsciously) had the servo problem in mind.