kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Gut erhalten..... Ich weiss nicht????

Two more issues to consider:

Another question for you, Ray, Evan, Cees or anyone else who may know. What kind of wing should go with this fuselage?

1) I was originally going to build a traditional T1 Taurus wing for this fuselage since, on the surface it looks so much like the VR/CS MAN Taurus. I then began to wonder about it because this fuselage is definitely of later vintage than the T1. I am now moving away from the idea of a T1 wing; because the stabs are identical, my feeling is that Ed was moving away from the original straight wing in favor of experimenting with the taper wing/straight trailing edge wing. Does this seem logical?

2) Relative age of the fuselages continued:
Since there ARE no FACTS, eye-witness accounts, or magazine articles, (we know of so far) to get information from, I have no choice but to resort to some form of speculation and INDUCTIVE REASONING, (sometimes described as "MacGiver Stories"), when discussing the Taurus 2 and Taurus 3 models. Sometimes a "gut feeling", (for our overseas readers...this is a good American term. Gut has to do with a feeling in the pit of your stomach, not gut, (meaning good). It means a strong hunch), is better than nothing at all. I believe the Taurus 2 and Taurus 3 fuselages were constructed/or modified, (to suit Cees) about the same time...as UStik already implied. Which one to finish and fly? It may be that he just didn't like the thick vertical fin, or he decided to stick with the traditional fin first in a step-by-step process which might lead to a thick fin later. Still, I am amazed that Ed would put so much work into the "Unfinished" T3 fuselage, (essentially ready for paint), then stop work entirely. He kept that fuselage for the same 45 years he kept his finished planes.

One other small issue, or clue that was not discussed earlier, that I left out of my list of the pros and cons of "which fuslage was first", has to do with the wing cut-out in each fuselage. You will notice the Taurus 2, (Ed's back up plane at Genk at the 1963 worlds), originally had the thick "Carrier" wing, (or it had a regular airfoil that was convered prior to Genk to the thick wing), and was later converted to a standard airfoil wing again after a short period, (just a few months around the time of the worlds). Once converted, Ed stayed with that standard airfoil and flew the Taurus 2 for at least a couple years afterward. The airfoil cut-out on the Taurus 3 fuselage has the same traditional wing cut-out. It is the original cut-out for that fuselage....there is no evidence of any kind of modification. The current standard-airfoil Taurus 2 wing seems to fit it perfectly. Does that mean that Ed knew by the time that fuselage was built, that he didn't want to pursue the thick wing for the T3 fuse?? I don't know.

One point that Cees made is certainly true...the inside of the Taurus 2 fuselage is much older looking, dark and "weathered" than the Taurus 3. Another point is that both the T1 and T2 fuselages have very similar round cut outs in the bulkhead for the fuel tank. The T3 fuse as only an open area where the tank should go...there is no specific cutout to hold the tank in place. This implies a later date of build than either the T1 or T2. In other words, the T1 and T2 are much more similar on the inside. I have supporting pictures of this in different parts of this thread, (can't remember where), as each fuselage was pictured.

Ideas??

Duane

UStik

From my gut feeling (Bauchgefühl) I'd support that. I vote swept wing just due to that feeling. But a few facts could even fit.

The carrier wing was obviously the first wing for the T2, at least the oldest pictures show it and its construction and paint scheme are "conventional". The later swept wing is of better construction and has a more modern paint scheme. Maybe the T2 fuse really is the second fuse and T3 the third, so Ed built the newer swept wing as the T3 wing but used it with the T2 fuse only, for whatever reason (see above).

The internal fuse structure seems to be more modern in this sequence, too. T1 has real formers with round or nearly square cutouts. On T2, the formers are more cutout than former, more a frame than a solid former. T3 has such a frame as F3 but no F2 at all, only stringers and stiffeners. Interesting how they are displaced from the wing saddle (leading and trailing edge). BTW, both swept wings have two cutouts in the upper center, one front and one rear.

The sewn hinges could have been Ed's standard when he built these things and later he replaced them by the plastic hinges only on the T2. There should be some traces of this modification, though. In addition to what I wrote earlier, I remember a recommendation to secure these plastic hinges by piercing them with fixing pins and cutting the parts of the pins sticking out. There was no CA, IIRC, and I wouldn't trust any glue with that sort of plastic, either.

As to the fuselage shape, I can't help thinking that T3 is similar to T2, not T1. Your picture of both seems to be distortion-free so the impression may be disturbed only by perspective, T3 being in the foreground and T2 in the background. I'd lay the fuses on transparent paper and draw outlines and thrust lines for an overlay comparison.

pimmnz

If I may, could it be that the 'T3' fuselage was to be the definitive 'T2'? I mean, one with all the latest mods and no 'repairs'? Just a thought. Obviously time caught up with Ed and with the big model in the frame perhaps this one was never finished, but was always intended to be completed 'later'?
Evan, WB #12.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Although I am trying to make the fewest changes possible, and reuse Ed's original parts when I can, one change I DID MAKE was to bridge the leading edge cutout in the T2 wing with balsa block and fiberglass for added strength and ease of handling. Now it's easy to pick up the wing by grabbing that center section on the L.E. in the first cutout. I'll take a picture of it later.

Hinges: On the T2 there is no trace of anything but the plastic hinges, (ie no evidence of filled sewing holes). Each side of the hinge has a metal pin holding it in place. On each side, one of the hinges had broken; the pin was in place where the hinge had been glued, but the plastic, (mylar) material itself had broken. These hinges were repaired. Ed continued to use thick sewn cord to hold the aileron horns in place. This is easy to see in the wing center section picture. The hinges on the unfinished fuse's stab were the old fashioned sewn type.

Fuselage shape: I agree in the picture they look similar, but in reality except for the stabs, (which are identical), the "unfinished" looks and has the same approximate dimensions as the T1. The T2 has a thinner, sleeker fuselage than either of the others.

The inner structure of the T3 fuselage is mostly different than the other two, though there are some similarities as you'd expect when the same plane is built. One feature that does not show up in the pictures is just how incredibly LIGHT Ed's models are. That was the first thing I noticed when I first held the planes.

Evan, would do you agree the modernized wing is the way to go with this fuselage?

Duane

UStik

Argh! [X(] (Recently I saw an old Monthy Python movie. )
So I may be completely wrong! (And Evan as well.) []

Kidding aside, that could mean the other theory might be right. (We always have another theory up our sleeves. [8D] ) The T3 fuse could be an intermediate step given up before completion. Maybe Ed wanted to change to the high-drag wing and tail and didn't want to modify the fuselage in the first place. That's why it's thick and why even the fin is thick. Maybe Ed didn't think of a swept wing in the first place, either. But soon he did and built a new fuse with the wing saddle 1" more forward to have the same effective tail moment arm. That would explain the fuse thickness, the short tail arm, and the sewn hinges.

It would not explain the "modern" structure of the fuse, the thin fin of T2, and the ST engine hole pattern. Or are there other engines with this pattern? Or Ed was really waiting for the ST but it didn't come out in time, so he built the new fuse sleeker and with a thin fin and the Veco hole pattern.

I could also revive an old idea regarding the first swept wing (carrier wing?). What if Ed built it as a straight wing in the first place and only later made it swept? I remember believing to see some traces of such a surgery. And I remembered you mentioning that you work in a hospital and I thought there are some machines looking into the inside of things...

Again kidding aside, I love this exchange of ideas.

UStik

These sewn hinges! Could it be that they are not visible if sunk into the wood and painted? So the stab could have had sewn hinges, later replaced by plastic hinges?

BTW, I don't remember for what engine the hole pattern was only drawn on the T3 fuse (more forward than the drilled holes, so for a smaller, shorter engine).

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

What was the "Monty Python movie".....In Search of the Hold Grail?

Calm down UStik, your brain is overheating with theories. There IS at least ONE OTHER scenario to consider. You left out the possibility that Cees is correct. If that's the case the event timeline would go something like this:

The original "contest Taurus" Ed designed was thinner and sleeker, (we will know this for sure when I get access to the original plan drawn in 1961). After the "contest Taurus", Ed designed the 1963 MAN Taurus and won the 1962 NATS with it.

This plane became the basis for a new, improved Taurus, and the start of building the T3 fuselage. By this time the S.T. .56 engine had arrived on the scene, (ther ONLY engine with those mounting hole dimensions). Under this theory, the T3 is newer than the MAN Taurus but OLDER than the "contest Taurus" mods. It was the first fuselage to contain the new, thicker stab, and it retained the outline of the "newer" T1, (MAN Taurus). Ed also built it with the thick vertical fin in an effort to further increase drag, (which we all know he wanted to do).

About that time, perhaps because of some design problem Ed realized with the T3 fuselage, (maybe the thick fin), rather than building another from scratch, Ed instead modified the original Taurus (prototype..thinner/sleeker), fuselage with the new stab, fin, top block and pilot. By this time sewn hinges were obsolete. He used plastic hinges on the mods of the prototype. As I mentioned, he also had grown unhappy with the idea of a thick vertical fin, and decided NOT to change both fin and stab, but instead use a regular fin and experiment instead with a thick wing. He thought this combination of mods made the most sense, so he "put up" the T3 fuselage, (with thick fin), and proceeded with the T2 with mods.

Later after flying the T2 for a few months, and discovering he didn't get the performance he wanted with the thick wing, (maybe TOO much drag), he decided to build a new wing for the T2 with the traditional, thinner airfoil while retaining the straight trailing edge, and tapered leading edge. He had to build up the wing saddle with balsa strips to accomodate the thinner wing. He could have just put the new wing on the T3 fuse, but for some reason, (he didn't want the thick fin...he already had equipment in the T2, and had trimmed it out and flown it etc), so he made the mods to the T2. The end result was that the T3 fuselage was never finished because, as Evan said, he was ready to move on to the concept of a large pattern plane, (Simla), and after flying the Simla for a season, he essentially got out of active participation in AMA pattern, then R/C altogether. Still he put so much work into the T3 fuse that he saw no reason to get rid of it, so we still have it with us now.

That explains much of what happened, but still sounds a little far-fetched. It DOES explain why there are sewn hinges on the T3, and why the T3 looks like the T1 instead of the T2 because the thinner/sleeker fuse was actually the FIRST fuse designed. It also explains the old look of the T2 fuselage, and why the T1 and T2 look so much alike inside, (they were built in sequence, and retain the same building techniques). Both would have been built withing a year of each other. The NATS Taurus could have been the other plane in the crate in Africa, or could have been built/finished soon after Ed's return). Does any of this make sense??

My guess is that the T3 Taurus will fly similar to the Taurus 2, (perhaps a little slower due to increased drag caused by the thick fin, and slightly "fatter" fuselage.



How do we try to sort through them?

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

UStik

The stitches are fully visible...there are lots of holes drilled in the wood, and sometimes there are grooves formed by the thread in the balsa. There is no way to sink them into the wood. Even if the hinges were removed and filled, there still would be some evidence of the work done. Remember the plane was silked/doped. It's hard to make silk/dope repairs that are totally invisible. As I said to Cees earlier, when Ed made mods or repairs, he didn't seem to take a great deal of care to make them look perfect. The balsa strips to build up the wing saddle is a perfect example. They look very rough up close...it would have been easy to fill the cracks and irregularities with filler and sand smooth...but Ed didn't do it.

The T3 engine was drilled and blind nuts were used to accept a ST .56 engine. There is absolutely no doubt about it. The ST fits the area like a hand in a glove, as you can see on the previous page with the installed S.T. engine. It's a perfect fit.

There is an answer out there somewhere, and you're right...it's fun to speculate. I try to make my speculations as logical as possible so they will fit the facts as much as possble. The last example I gave above IS POSSIBLE, (but is it PROBABLE). I don't know.

With the information we have, we just don't have enough concrete facts to come to a definite conclusion, (not yet). It doesn't keep us from trying however.

Duane

UStik

Of course! What do you think we are doing here? Difference is we have no Frenchmen but a Dutchman.

Just kidding. Indeed my brain is overheating, but with work and not with theories. These are for stress relaxation.

But still I can't buy his theory because it is based on assumptions similar to those you just excluded. There is the formerly sunk pilot figure, and I just can't believe that Ed stripped the fuse top and built a new one and there's no trace of it. That's all about it.

I showed the pictures of the sewn T3 hinge and of the carrier wing because it looks as if the threads are covered by the silk and dope and because I can't see if the carrier wing has sewn or plastic hinges. BTW, are you sure it was Mylar?

No doubt the ST fits. I was puzzled by the small circles in front of each hole, not because they are there but because the front circles seem to be smaller and more to the center.

And I forgot: The theories keep our brain going and may spark new ideas, the only stuff we have. I think we're nearly out of facts now.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Of course! What do you think we are doing here? Difference is we have no Frenchmen but a Dutchman.

Just kidding. Indeed my brain is overheating, but with work and not with theories. These are for stress relaxation.

But still I can't buy his theory because it is based on assumptions similar to those you just excluded. There is the formerly sunk pilot figure, and I just can't believe that Ed stripped the fuse top and built a new one and there's no trace of it. That's all about it.

I showed the pictures of the sewn T3 hinge and of the carrier wing because it looks as if the threads are covered by the silk and dope and because I can't see if the carrier wing has sewn or plastic hinges. BTW, are you sure it was Mylar?

No doubt the ST fits. I was puzzled by the small circles in front of each hole, not because they are there but because the front circles seem to be smaller and more to the center.

And I forgot: The theories keep our brain going and may spark new ideas, the only stuff we have. I think we're nearly out of facts now.

************************************************** *************************************

UStik

I don't think the Carrier Wing has sewn hinges, Ill look

I thought I'd take a stab at trying to prove Cee's theory the best I could without colored lines. I was hoping maybe I could convince you that he REALLY IS right.

His theory DOES explain some things not explained elsewhere, but it leaves some questions as you have mentioned. One problem is that when I look at the Taurus(s) in the crate, they look identical, (and Dennis said they were identical). According to Cees, they were the same two planes we have now, and these two fuselage shapes look noticably different when laid next to each other, (I'm not talking about the stab either...just the dimensions/thickness etc). The main problem with modifying an existing fuselage is that it is sometimes harder to alter something already built than it is to build brand new from scratch. You have to break all those old glue joints, and more importantly, you have to make sure the new pieces are in proper alignment. I think this is harder to do with an old, existing structure. I have my first King Altair that could probably be repaired, but just having to cut away all the old, rebuild etc and make it true and look good is quite a job. There is no real evidence as you look at the T2 that it was ever modified in a major way. Still it COULD be done, but is that the most LIKELY thing??

I'm going to use that pilot figure from the "right hand side of the crate" Taurus when the "Unfinished" Taurus is completed. At least I know it's genuine...definitely from the Africa crate picture.

I don't think the hinge material is mylar...it looks like "sheet plastic" approximately the width of traditional hinges like Du-Bro, (maybe a little thinner). There is no "hinge" as such with a pivot point...just a piece of plastic that flexes.

The other mounting hole marks are there from Ed, and just not erased. I guess they were too far forward.

On the picture that you posted, I believe the lines on the firewall are the locations of the future holes for the fuel tubing from the tank; do you agree?

More facts may come. I'm amazed at things like the "Carrier photo" and the Original plans from 1961 that I never knew existed. Come on folks out there...don't be shy. Any real clues about this mystery are welcomed.[8D]

Duane

UStik

The three lines are likely to be the markings for the fuel lines, I agree, but I wonder where the throttle linkage would run. There's no sign of a R/C installation at all.

The sheet plastic could be plain PE, but I don't really know. In the 1960s I always thought it's the same material the tanks are made from.

The T2 fuse was modified in a major way! I mean the R/C equipment was replaced completely, maybe even twice (reeds to analog propo to digital propo). There are many traces in the fuselage and in the wing center. And remember the different engines. So the T2 fuse should be rather old, the question being how old exactly.

All our theories explain something and leave some questions. It's still like a puzzle and we're puzzling the pieces around to find a better overall fit and maybe the whole picture. I think that's better than ignoring some aspects and trying to prove the rest. I admit it's not that stringent and may seem - puzzling. But we enjoy it, at least I.

pimmnz

Yes Duane, I think the straight T/E wing would be correct for the T3 fuselage. If we go with the engine mounting clues, we have T1 with Veco holes, T2 with Veco/ST holes and T3 with ST holes, do we see a pattern? T3 was obviously never intended for Veco power. I would think that it was a later design experiment than either T1 or T2. As for drag control the variations in fuselage profile would have had very little practical effect on the total airplane drag, thicker wings and tail sections are much more effective. Seems T2's original wing had too much, and for Ed T1 not quite enough aerodynamic drag. Perhaps T3 would be somewhere between the two? I think you need to finish the concept and fly it against T2 and a standard T1 to really know what the difference is, and perhaps an idea where Ed was trying to go. Mind you I'm still looking for more Simla stuff, but I don't hold much hope. I too harbour hopes that that original 1961 Taurus blueprint will be published, I have a sneaky feeling it will look quite a bit like the RCM&E drawing.
Evan.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Evan;
Agree 100% with everything you say here...that's INDUCTIVE REASONING of the finest caliber. I'm always the most comfortable when the theory is based on as many facts and as little speculation as possible, (but facts are "scarce as hen's teeth" here.

Based on building methods, the lack of a round opening in the bulkhead for the fuel tank, the engine mounting holes etc etc, it seems certain the T3 fuselage was constructed last, (except why did he use sewn hinges when the T2 didn't have them?). Both of these facts actually support Cee's theory for the age of the T2 fuselage and his modifications, (just can't get past the idea of the top block being replaced along with moving the wing forward and everything else that would have been necessary). BTW-UStik, I looked at the "carrier wing" again last night, (yesterday for some of you), and it also shows no trace of stitching on the ailerons...both T2 wings have the sheet plastic flexing hinges.

I found out last night that the VR/CS president will send me a copy of the 1961 plans. He describes them as "poor quality", but if it contains an outline and dimensions, (particularly tail moment), that's most of what I want to see. I'll share the results when I get them. My own suspicion if I'm right about the "brown paper drawings and tapes" being factual, (instead of "MacGiver stories"), is that the outcome will look just like Dennis's Taurus. If the prototype first flew in late November of 1961, and the Africa trip was only four months later in April of 1962...then this is the plane, (plus another one that may or may not have been built the same), that made the trip to Africa.

I just saw a picture of the VR/CS Taurus that was taken after the auction as it was displayed along with an old Orbit radio at a VR/CS fly-in. It looked great. I'll try to get that picture to post.

Thanks everyone
Duane

Thanks everyone

UStik

Duane, all depends on how you weight the facts (the gut feeling) and none of our theories prevails so far. When you ask for ideas there are still only pros and cons. While I think there are not much more unknown facts out there, maybe we still didn't recognize all details and their meaning as an indication. So trying the different scenarios might make for a new perception of details and even new scenarios.

For instance, we could compare the present T2 fuse with the crate fuse (the replica Cees is currently building) in even more detail. Part of Cees' theory is that the F2 former was moved forward. Indication is the deep, round, brown groove in the right fuselage side (left on the picture). There's no picture showing the other fuselage side, but the second picture doesn't show a sign of such a groove there, either. While I anyway don't think a torn out former would leave such a groove, I would like to know where the groove comes from.

That's one detail we didn't mention in the last few posts, and there are a few more I would like to know the meaning of (the circle pattern on the T3 engine mount, the "modern" T3 construction, the carrier wing construction, the hinges, the wing areas, ...). May be of no importance in the end, but so far the inconsistencies remain.

So why not assume that a fourth fuse existed? After all there were at least four wings. Why didn't Ed put the same pilot on the modified fuse again? Maybe because he didn't modify it but had another, even sleeker one with an own pilot and later abandoned the first fuse but kept the pilot.

What if Ed still modified the fuse and doubled the inner top so it seems to be untouched? Doesn't seem so when looking at the pictures, but you could re-view it with such an idea in mind.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

ORIGINAL: UStik

Duane, all depends on how you weight the facts (the gut feeling) and none of our theories prevails so far. When you ask for ideas there are still only pros and cons. While I think there are not much more unknown facts out there, maybe we still didn't recognize all details and their meaning as an indication. So trying the different scenarios might make for a new perception of details and even new scenarios.

ABSOLUTELY, I'M TRYING EVERYTHING I CAN THINK OF. SOME IDEAS SEEMS TO "FIT" BETTER THAN OTHERS, BUT ANYTHING IS WORTH CONSIDERING.

For instance, we could compare the present T2 fuse with the crate fuse (the replica Cees is currently building) in even more detail. Part of Cees' theory is that the F2 former was moved forward. Indication is the deep, round, brown groove in the right fuselage side (left on the picture). There's no picture showing the other fuselage side, but the second picture doesn't show a sign of such a groove there, either. While I anyway don't think a torn out former would leave such a groove, I would like to know where the groove comes from.

I'LL TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT THE "GROOVE" TONIGHT. IT IS CORRECT THE WING SADDLE IS 1" FORWARD ON THIS PLANE COMPARED TO EVERY OTHER TAURUS I'VE SEEN. I CAN SEE THE BROWN GROOVE OR MARK, BUT NO EVIDENCE OF GLUE RESIDUE THAT WOULD INDICATE A BULKHEAD WAS THERE. THERE IS A LOT OF OILY RESIDUE INSIDE THE T-2 FUSELAGE. ALSO, FOR CERTAIN, AT ONE POINT IN TIME, ED HAD A MAJOR FUEL LEAK THAT WENT UNDISCOVERED. THE WOOD IN THE AREA OF THE FUEL COMPARTMENT IS SOFTER. I HAD TO REPLACE ONE PIECE OF MUSHY WOOD, (VISIBLE IN YOUR SECOND PICTURE AT THE FRONT OF THE WING SADDLE). I SPRAYED SOMETHING CALLED K-2R, (WHICH ABSORBS GREASE AND STAINS), FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRYING UP THE INSIDE OF THE FUSE. IT LEAVES A WHITE POWDERY RESIDUE. BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE QUARTERS INSIDE THE NOSE SECTION, SOME OF THAT WHITE POWDER IS STILL THERE, BUT IT HAS HELPED DRY THE AREA.

That's one detail we didn't mention in the last few posts, and there are a few more I would like to know the meaning of (the circle pattern on the T3 engine mount, the "modern" T3 construction, the carrier wing construction, the hinges, the wing areas, ...). May be of no importance in the end, but so far the inconsistencies remain.

I TALKED ABOUT THE CIRCLES EARLIER. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE, BUT THEY APPEAR TO BE PENCIL MARKES ED PUT THERE FOR MOUNTING HOLES THAT HE NEVER USED. THERE ARE THE SAME DISTANCE APART AS THE HOLES THAT WERE ACTUALLY DRILLED, SO I TOOK THAT TO MEAN THAT IN THE END, HE DECIDED TO PLACE THE ENGINE FURTHER BACK, AND DIDN'T ERASE THE ORIGINAL MARKS. THOSE MARKS SEEM TOO FAR FORWARD TO ME, SO I HAVEN'T GIVEN THAT MUCH THOUGHT. THERE ARE NO ACTUAL DRILL HOLES THERE.

So why not assume that a fourth fuse existed? After all there were at least four wings. Why didn't Ed put the same pilot on the modified fuse again? Maybe because he didn't modify it but had another, even sleeker one with an own pilot and later abandoned the first fuse but kept the pilot.

EARLIER IN THE THREAD, MY FIRST ASSUMPTION WAS THAT THE FUSE THE FIRST PILOT CAME FROM WAS FROM A PLANE THAT CRASHED OR NO LONGER WAS IN EXISTANCE. I SEE NO REASON TO REPLACE THE TOP BLOCK AND PILOT UNLESS CEES IS RIGHT WHEN HE MADE THE COMMENT THAT ED NEEDED MORE ROOM FOR THE PROPORTIONAL RADIO, SO HE REPLACED THE PILOT THAT "ORIGINALLY" STUCK THROUGH THE HOLE IN THE "FIRST TOP BLOCK". I DON'T KNOW.

ABOUT THE WINGS: I THINK ED DIDN'T LIKE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PLANE WITH THE ORIGINAL THICK "CARRIER WING". THE MOST LOGICAL ASSUMPTION TO MAKE WAS THAT HE CONSTRUCTED A NEW TRADITIONAL AIRFOIL "TAPER WING", AND STORED THE OTHER ONE. **THIS IS IMPORTANT IN MY REASONING** THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE THICK WING WAS EVER USED EXTENSIVELY. THE PAINT IS IN BETTER CONDITION, THE FAI STICKER FROM GENT IS EASILY READABLE, (WHILE THE CORRESPONDING STICKER ON THE TAIL IS FADED AND UNREADABLE), AND THE WHITE PAINT ON THE WING IS NOT YELLOWED AS IT IS ON THE STRIPED WING. THIS TELLS ME THE THICK WING WAS SIMPLY PUT ASIDE AND NEVER USED AGAIN ON ANY PLANE. IT IS OBVIOUS THE SUN CAUSED THE YELLOWING ON THE WHITE PAINT...THE THICK WING WAS NOT OUT IN THE SUN VERY MUCH WHILE THE STRIPED WING WAS THE ONE ED USED FOR OVER TWO YEARS. ONLY THE CENTER SECTION, (PROTECTED BY THE FUSELAGE) OF THE STRIPED WING WAS A "TRUE WHITE". THE THICK WING IS LIKE A MUSEUM PIECE, (PERFECTLY PRESERVED). THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO USE IT FOR...JUST THERE FOR DISPLAY.

What if Ed still modified the fuse and doubled the inner top so it seems to be untouched? Doesn't seem so when looking at the pictures, but you could re-view it with such an idea in mind.

WHEN YOU ARE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE INSIDE OF THE TOP BLOCK UP CLOSE, (WISH YOU COULD JUST "DROP BY THE HOUSE" AND LOOK AT IT), IT IS OBVIOUS THE TOP BLOCK HAS NOT BEEN TAMPERED WITH OR MODIFIED IN ANY WAY...AND IT HAS BEEN THERE A VERY LONG TIME. IT IS JUST AS COATED WITH THE OILY RESIDUE AS THE FUSELAGE SIDES. THE TOP BLOCK GLUES TO THE TRIANGULAR TOP FUSE STRINGERS WHICH SEEM TO BE ORIGINAL. EITHER THE "CRATE" FUSE TOP BLOCK WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED DURING A PRE-T2 MODIFICATION, OR THE TOP BLOCK IN PLACE NOW WAS ALWAYS THERE. TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS ALWAYS THERE, (ABER WAS WEISS ICH (ODER MICH??). I WOULD THINK THAT IF THE WHOLE TOP BLOCK HAD BEEN REMOVED AND REPLACED, I'D SEE SOME EVIDENCE OF THE FORMER TOP BLOCK OR OLD STRINGER. ALSO THE PAINT LOOKS LIKE THE ORIGINAL PAINT. IT IS POSIBLE ED COMPLETELY RESILKED AND DOPED THE PLANE AND REPAINTED DURING A MODIFICATION...BUT IS THAT THE MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION ??

THAT'S MY BEST GUESS RIGHT NOW ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS.

When/if I get the original 1961 plans I think that will either open or close the door on Cee's theory. If the outline has the same general dimensions, (IF THE ORIGINAL 1961 FUSELAGE IS THIN AND SLEEK) as the Taurus 2 then Cees may well be correct. However, if it looks like the T1 or NATS Taurus, then he probably isn't correct in my opinion. Ed might modify a fuselage, but he probably wouldn't change all the dimensions in the process of doing it. If he DID, then it makes more sense for him to start over fresh bulding a new plane.

Thanks UStik

Duane

UStik

Now that are two strong points:

Even if Ed had to put the pilot on top of the fuse, why should he take another one and not reuse the one formerly sunk? The crate pilot is sunk and still exists.

So neither the fuse top is modified nor the formers and wing saddle are moved on T2, but the crate fuse has a more rearward wing saddle according to the position of the wing dowels.

Both means two different fuselages, there must have been a T0 - in the crate. That's only reasoning, no proof.

Supporting points: The crate fuse has the antenna outlet on the aft canopy tip, T2 has it way behind and no sign of a modification. The paint is different.

These things were already known to us, but might get a new weight. I know Cees has other indications (the labels, different engines, measurements).

Insomnia88

Duane,
I found in this in the American Modeler Annual 1962 Edition a description of what Ed Kazmirski flew at the 1961 Willow Grove, Pa. NATS.

Edward J. Kazmirski (K9LFR), 40 (5), Calumet City, Ill., RCCC. Sixth, M<Oulti, 182 2/3. Own "Taurus," 68 span, 690 area, 17.9 Loading; K&B 45, 12-6, clank tank. REMAT, Bonner servos; Orbit 10 relayless Recvr. Ritchie pack. Orbit 10 Xmtr, 52.5 mc. Plane has 17% thick wing, more area than his "Orion," to slow flight speed. Destroyed when controls stuck during "Championship" flight.

Jim Kimbro

8178

My Feedback: (17)

You guys are amazing! You all need to locate a Sprit Guide to hold a séance so you can talk to the man directly.

BERUSTY

My Feedback: (3)

Ohhh Mannnnn!

Does this completely change the various theories on who has...the first...second...actual...version 3 fuel tank mount...version of the infamous Taurus?

As a casual follower of this thread, Mr. Kimbro has apparently provided a most interesting detail to drive Cees crazy...?
Jim,

I am a HUUUGE fan, loved the Deception when I was a teen, finally have one in process to be flown this summer. Very respectful of Team Kimbro and look forward to finally meeting you in the future. Come to Rusty's place in Phoenix and I will meet you there?


Rusty Dose
Team Futaba
Team YS Parts and Service
Raving Fan of the "Masters...Bridi, Kimbro, Mueller, Koger, Hyde, Cunningham..."

pimmnz

Hmm, wonder if that crashed Taurus was the 'ugly' Taurus we have seen piccies of? Would have been a good reason to start building the 1962 Taurus, now wouldn't it? Our Ed must have been a mighty busy boy around that time. If you see the 1961 blueprint Duane, I think you might just find that it is 1" shorter than the TF/MAN/Kazmirski modified version. As Ed said on his 'The Champ Chats' tape, his only mod to the original Taurus was the 1" longer fuselage. This longer Taurus will be the same as the Hunt Taurus, and may well explain why the later T2 could revert to the shorter fuselage without comment, the drawings already existed and models had already been built, with Propo gear being used the longer moment wasn't considered necessary for smooth flight. Only guessing, of course, but there is lots of little hints around in the mags and descriptions, often quoting the man himself. "It is from these small snippets that so much has been written".
Evan.

Rendegade

Who would have thunk it?

Rc Archaelogy!

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

This must have been the very first Taurus attempt discussed by Pimmnz in post 131, (p6). It had a longer nose moment and short tail moment...both of which Ed considered negative qualities when he designed the "REAL" Taurus. If the prototype flew Thanksgiving of 1961, Ed must have gone to work on it right after the NATS. The thing I was not aware of here is that Ed used the Taurus name for this plane.

According to the description above, this plane had a 17% airfoil instead of 19%, a 68" span instead of 70", (BTW-both wings of the T2 measure 71" )

Duane

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Yes I can understand how the "casual follower" of this thread might think we are "way over the top" in the details department. You either understand the need, (desire?) for us to try to figure this out (like CSI detectives), to our own satisfaction, or you don't. I enjoy history in general, and over the past couple years, (really since I joined SPA and started doing research for my articles) I have had a much keener appreciation and interest for the history of R/C pattern. Having seen Ed fly the T2 in person when I was young, and having had the opportunity to speak to him over the phone a few months before he passed away just increases that interest.

There really isn't anything that will "drive Cees crazy" here. The description adds more information/specifications about the 1961 Taurus than we had before...which is always a good thing.

In all other respects, I am a semi-normal human being. I think...

Duane

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

I don't believe in that sort of thing, but if I did, we'd be trying it On more than one occasion, I have wished I had asked more TAURUS questions than Simla questions during the hour we talked. The Taurus was hardly mentioned.

Duane

BERUSTY

My Feedback: (3)

The saga of the Taurus...

Duane...my post didn't include the picture of my big smile. This thread is very interesting. I am the biggest model airplane geek in the world and have way too many obscure toy airplane facts in my tiny brain. (Insert face icon of your choice here.)

Regarding modeling history, I invested a significant amount of time and energy assisting the AMA Museum acquiring QuiQue Somenzini's Nat's winning Brio to the collection. The display at the museum features about a half a dozen "pattern" models including the Taurus. I will look for the web thread of the well attended donation ceremony held at the 2007 NATS.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/gallery...px?items=NATS4

Clearly, the popularity of the thread speaks to the interest in/for/on the subject.


Rusty Dose
Team Futaba
Team YS Parts and Service
Toy airplane Geek
Father of (2) up and coming airplane Geeks