kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Rusty
I'll bet that GeeBee ride was the highlight of their trip. I got into R/C through my own father as I bet many of us did.

Speaking of donations, the Taurus currently displayed at the AMA museum will be replaced by the REAL THING at a ceremony in Muncie...I believe this coming September. I assume the currently displayed Taurus will be returned to its owner. Muncie is a good length trip for me, but I'll probably make it anyway. It will be the only chance I will probably get to get some pictures of Ed's two personal airplanes together before the '62 NATS Taurus, (and 3rd place at the 1963 worlds) is donated to the museum. The plane was purchased at auction by VR/CS last July, and is currently making the rounds at various VR/CS activities as a non-flying display. As the picture shows, it is in remarkable condition, and is a testimony to just how good a pilot he was during the early years of pattern. Though it's not a 2-meter bird, like all true pattern planes the Taurus flys smooth as silk, and is beautiful to watch in the hands of a good pilot.

Taurus Flyer

Jim today is Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday celebration!



Do not worry Jim, I am looking just like Darwin to all the planes, facts, pictures and details and my Beagle was during my long historical journey already all over the world, so also in Rhodesia, Africa.

For that reason I do not have any problem with my Taurus evolution theory and every fact can have his place in it, except the “Hunt Taurus�. No place for that.

I wait for the moment we are “synchronized� with that fact and I am happy I am not forgotten.

Cees

Insomnia88

Duane,
Are you telling us you believe the airplane Ed Kazmirski crashed at the 1961 Nationals is the airplane pictured in post 897? According to American Modeler Annual 1962 Ed Kazmirski flew a Taurus with a 68 inch wing span, 690 area, and 17.9 loading. The plane had a 17% thick wing. According to American Modeler Annual 1963 Ed Kazmirski flew in the 1962 Nationals a Taurus with a 68 inch wing span, 690 area, and 17 loading. Sounds like same airplane to me. There were 12 other modelers that flew a Taurus in the 1962 Nationals. Most listed the wing span to be 68 inches and the wing area to be 690. The kit Taurus has a 70 inch wing span and 720 sq inches of wing area. Apparently, these 12 Taurus flown at the 62 Nats were all scratch built and not from a kit. If Ed Kazmirski test flew the Taurus in late November 1961 how would 12 individuals have seen that airplane fly and been impressed with it enough to have one ready to fly and fly it in the 1962 Nationals in August of 1962? Cees claims that Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus won the concours’ de elegance at the 1963 World Championships with the original that was 2 ½ years old. The 1963 World Championships were in September 1963. If the Taurus was 2 ½ years old it would have had to been test flown in March or April 1961. I doubt highly seriously that Ed Kazmirski would have left that airplane at home and flown the airplane pictured in post 897 at the 1961 Nationals. If you look at the modified Astro Hog the Orion and the Taurus you can see the natural progression in the development of the Taurus. The airplane that you have Ed Kazmirski flew at the 1964 Nationals. In the American Modeler Annual 1965 Ed Kazmirski list it as a modified Taurus with a 70 inch wing span. His remarks on the airplane are as follows: Plane similar to Taurus but with straight wing T.E. and longer fuselage.

I am not a casual observer of the evolution of the pattern airplane!

Jim Kimbro

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Jim;

There is a lot to talk about here. It is very important to CAREFULLY read everything that is said. I also assume as factual all documented pieces of information, (from articles, drawings etc) provided by people who post.

First, and most importantly, I never said you were a "casual observer of the evolution of the pattern airplane". The closest thing in my comments that corresponds to that sentence is from the quote I borrowed from BERUSTY:

"...As a casual follower of this thread, Mr. Kimbro has apparently provided a most interesting detail to drive Cees crazy...? This quote came from him on p36, and it was intended as part of a well-intended complement to you. I have the utmost respect for you, your credentials, and your contribution to pattern flying.

PIMMNZ on page 6, (post 131) described and showed a picture of the plane Ed flew at the 1961 NATS. In your post (#892) you described the plane Ed flew at the 1961 NATS. Assuming both posts are factual and are talking about the 1961 NATS, I put your description with his picture.

There was an earlier post that showed the original plan of the Taurus prototype, (see below). On the plan it says the first flight of that prototype was "Thanksgiving 1961", which of course meant that it couldn't have been flown at the 1961 NATS.

Because of all this, I believe the plane pictured in post #897 was part of that evolution you describe...the link between the Orion and the MAN Taurus of 1962. In the Jan 1963 Taurus article Ed describes a plane with a long nose moment and a short tail moment. He later says he wanted to do the OPPOSITE when designing the Taurus that won the '62 NATS and was featured in that article, so they are definitely not the same plane. From your earlier post, I assume the 68" wingspan was the wingspan of the 1961 NATS Taurus. I don't have the wingspan measurement from the VR/CS Taurus, (62 NATS/MAN Taurus), and I don't have the MAN Taurus article here at work to look at, but it may or may not be greater than 68". It all depends what the prototype plans call for, (see below), and whether or not Ed built a greater span wing for the 62 NATS. I can say for certain however that the Taurus-2 wings, (both of them) actually measure 71" tip to tip. When you quote Ed saying my plane's wingspan is 70", it is obviously a rounded-off number.

About the twelve other modelers that flew at the 1962 NATS. If we assume the prototype plan was drawn on 12-6-61 as the plan says, then there would have been plenty of time for other modeling friends of Ed to get a copy of those prototype plans to build their own models. Remember that Ed was possibly the most famous pilot in R/C pattern circles back in the very early 60s. I don't think others would have to personally see the Taurus fly to be interested in building their own ship from the prototype plans. It may very well be that the 68" wingspan was the original span of the prototype....perhaps the 12-6-61 prototype plans call for a 68" wingspan which Ed later increased to 70 or 71" for the KIT Taurus. I may soon get a set of the 12-6-61 prototype plans, and will certainly let everyone know the wingspan from those plans.

Finally the Concours de elegance comment about 2 1/2 years could be a "rounded off" date, or it could simply be wrong as journalists sometimes are. We have to look at ALL the evidence, which may or may not all agree 100%. When the prototype plans give a date of 12-6-61, and the first flight was in November 1961, it is safe to assume that sketches and the building of the plane could go back to at least the early summer of 1961, (my own opinion is that Ed started working on the prototype drawings after the 1961 NATS, but it easily could have been earlier). After that experience, he would certainly have lots of ideas of what he wanted to do with his next plane.

Again, I regret misunderstandings over the earlier posts, and hope I have clarified things some. I don't have all the answers, but I'm trying to piece it all together, as are the others on this thread. I would truly welcome your posting of scans of the data from the modeling magazines you quoted. This will provide additional evidence for everone to look at.

Duane

UStik

Only a detail, but may I remind of our former findings regarding this picture. Evan posted it (#131 p6) and said it was shot at the 1961 US Nats (without specifying the source). We noticed that the model has the new Taurus paint scheme and an Orion wing. Later we found out that Ed had different wings (thickness) already on the Orion. Seems the Taurus wing has the new nose and the strip ailerons, that's all. One source said Ed flew a modified Orion at the 1961 Nats. The development Astro Hog - Orion - Taurus is obvious. And the Orion had 68" wingspan and 690 sqin wing area. So this plane might be the 1961 Nats model.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

This was definitely a hybrid, or transitional plane between the Orion and the prototype version of the Taurus. The Taurus kit came later and had some additional subtle differences. To me this is an interesting story to watch this evolutionary process, and to hear Ed's explation of why he made the changes, (in the Jan 1963 MAN Taurus article).

In the post mentioned, (p6 #131), I take the information from the source as factual, especially when posted with a quote or picture from a publication mentioned in the post which I assume he has in front of him. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of old magazine articles, but occasionally mistakes can be, and are made in the original articles themselves. In my own articles, some of the picture captions were not quite right, and some facts were unintentionally twisted.

Opinions or INTERPRETATIONS of the data are a whole different matter. As anyone who has read this thread should know, it's hard to get everyone on the same page. Usually though the true picture eventually becomes more clear.

Duane

UStik

Two very small details, or better speculation, just noticed:

I think it was by design to give room to the nose landing gear linkage. Clips seem to be finished on a rough grinding wheel or even made with a file. Must be quite soft metal, there's an indentation of the engine mount flange.

Why the model names from stars or constellations? Could be simple: Astro Hog - Orion - Taurus. Still not understanding the meaning of Smog Hog, Astro Hog... But found some "mythological background": "The big hunter Orion is eternally antagonizing the bull (Taurus)." And Altair is said to be Arabic short form for "the flying eagle". Ed was amazing! It's fun to get him figured out.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

I had to look carefully at the pictures to remember which clip went on which side. Their grainy appearance may be due to the wire wheel on my Dremel tool I used to clean and shine them up. There were originally covered with "crud", but cleaned up very nicely.

Although I know Ed flew, and modified Smog or Astro Hogs in the late 50's, did he DESIGN those planes? Please tell me he didn't

Duane

UStik

That's fine with me: He didn't.

I was puzzling about what the meaning of the name Astro Hog is (ich weiß nicht, your German is better than my English) so Ed came to the name Orion from it. Taurus from Orion is clear. And your Altair is obvious.

RFJ

Smog Hog designed by Howard Bonner. The smog was the Los Angeles smog (air pollution) of the 1950s where the model was first flown. Astro Hog designed by Fred Dunn. Why Astro? - don't know [] perhaps "astronomical"

Ray

cygnet

My Feedback: (33)

Just to chim in here did ED not own a machine shop? I think he did and he could make a clip out of any metal he wanted to, I bet those clips are made out of good stuff and not filed, any way guys I have been following this thred closely and I'm very much enjoying it, I'm in the process of building a Taurus as I have a orginial kit. Keep the posts coming.

nero1156

My Feedback: (275)

I have a pair of very old fiberglass Taurus fuselages. I got these around 1990 and have flown both with rubber band hold down for the wings, they also had huge radio trays for the early monster servos. The engine mounts are hardwood bearers. Does anyone know any history of fiberglass fuses? I also have a Top Flite kit of the Taurus from the 60's and was wondering what it might be worth, no plans on selling it, just curious. I have always loved the way a Taurus flies and plan to have one flyable forever. Thanks in advance for the wealth of knowledge out there.

Michaelj2k

Nero,
They are most likely the Dwight Hartman Zeus fuselages of which many builders used the Taurus wing and tail. Please post a picture if possible.

UStik

Again a few small pieces, dug up from the stuff we already have here. (I just don't like crossword puzzles, so this is my relaxing puzzle.)

Collected data of the engines in question here:
As to the SuperTigre mystery: SAM says ST 56 Stunt appeared 1960.
Ray posted two different sets of facts. In post #585 p24

"The Super Tigre 56 R/C and the Enya 60 R/C were available as early as 1961.
(Ref. America's Hobby Center ad page 6 April 1961 MAN)"

and in post #694 p28 about the

"1963 Super Tigre 56 R/C-BB".

Fritz Bosch used a "Super Tigre .56BB" 1963 in Genk.

In the end, that means the unfinished fuselage (called T3 for now) might be an early build if it was meant for a plain bearing ST 56 and if such an engine really existed since 1961. Would match the "old-fashioned" sewn hinges, but still not the "modern" construction.


The ST 56 shown in the old drawings and pictures we have has an exhaust baffle linked to a throttle arm on the left side of the engine. The old T2 pictures are too small and blurry to discern the position of the throttle linkage or even an exhaust baffle. The new engine now installed has no exhaust baffle and the linkage on the right side (pun?).


On CAsniffer's Classic Pattern Plane Pages is a [link=http://www.trentonrcflyers.com/pattern/articles/smoghog.pdf]Smog Hog article[/link] with a really nice illustration of the clunk tank. Just for interest. And some pages below is an Astro Hog article, though no hint regarding the name. But an engine mounting plate is described as new invention, see also the plan. And the K&B Torpedo is described as the only available pattern engine back then. Again, just for interest.

BERUSTY

My Feedback: (3)

Kazmirski... the man 2006 with fuselage...

Jack Hiner, (host of the Vintage Event at Muncie in September 2009) sent this photo he took of Ed Kazmirski, his AMA Hall of Fame plaque and a fuselage some of you may recognize!

Jim- You know I was refering to me and my "...casual reader of the Taurus thread..." not you!

Cees, You just have to come to the USA in September. Fly to Chicago where I live, be my guest for the entire weekend...

Rusty Dose
Team Futaba
Team YS Parts and Service
Becoming interested in building a Taurus, Westerversion....

Taurus Flyer

Rusty I will not be there in the USA in September.

A question.
Is that a Hall of Fame plaque Ed is holding on the picture? I did not thought it was.
We did see this picture long ago in this thread , see post 339 page 14.

Read this thread post 1 and 6 of GOATNICK!
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_68...tm.htm#6848322

And think about post 7!


I already have asked the people of AMA why I do not read Ed Kazmirski in the Hall of Fame but when you ask it, it is also good to know I think.

I ad a part of the AMA Hall of Fame, am I correct?

Cees

UStik

Digging through the things I missed in the last few weeks, I found Ray's post [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=8348487]#836 p34[/link] on the pusher airplane. (Thanks for all these great findings!) There was no discussion about it, but after Ray posted a Veco .61 ad from May 1966 in #839, you keenly discussed if Ed might have used a Veco .61 on the Simla. (My comment: In 1966, why not?) Now I think I still missed something in the thread.

Didn't you look at the pusher? Obviously, it was new in this thread, but I have another picture (essentially the same) dated July 26 2008. Don't know where it was posted, but seems it wasn't discussed back then, either. At least I can't remember (easy), so did I miss something?

Looking at the pictures, I think that could be the T2 wing. Wingspan 70" fits, paint scheme fits. It's logical that the typical Taurus paint scheme wouldn't go with that pusher configuration, so the different paint scheme was designed. On the other hand, why use that wing on the T2? After all, the carrier wing has the matching paint scheme and the same planform, even (at least nearly) the same thickness and dihedral. But the new wing has the Fritz Bosch airfoil which stalls/spins better!

Later on the Simla, Ed used the true Taurus paint scheme again. Obviously, we should at least take the pushers into our considerations. They are mentioned as early as 1964 in a Brit magazine (Ray's post #514 p21) so could have existed a while before.

How about that? (Or did you discuss it already?)

RFJ

UStik,

I would guess that the pusher Taurus shown in your post is Ed's model, whereas that shown on page 6 post #149 is Len Fruhs. It has his characteristic "millions of stars" color scheme as used on his Taurus ( post #73 page3 & post #77 page 4)

Ray

UStik

That makes sense, thank you! The pictures are essentially the same as those you posted, except that someone put them on top of each other and the caption below. But it's only layout, pictures and caption are exactly the same. Unfortunately, I don't know where I have it from.

BTW, seems in the picture in #73 p3 there's a ST 56 with the boxy exhaust baffle on Les Fruh's model. Never saw that baffle on Ed's models. The model in #77 p4 seems to be a major deviation from Ed's line of development with the vertical fin/rudder and the clipped wing. The pusher model is rather similar to Ed's, though, and I hadn't thought that Les Fruh joined in Ed's developments to such an extent. There is one important difference, though: It has no sub fin (and even no protective skid)!

Leaves the question regarding the wing (if you don't remember a previous discussion of this issue).

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Very interesting UStik. Yes the picture of the wing is a "dead ringer" for the current Taurus-2 wing. I even see the small red accents on the white. The only thing missing is Ed's AMA number. I assume you think he took this wing and reused it in the Taurus 2...correct?

I do not quite understand what you mean when you say, "...But the new wing has the Fritz Bosch airfoil which stalls/spins better!...

Do you mean the striped wing pictured here has a different airfoil from the standard Taurus? I need to double-check, but I believe, (or maybe assumed all along), that this was the same airfoil as the standard Taurus. If it isn't, then I have a problem []with regard to building a new wing for the "Unfinished or T3) fuselage. I thought I had already done this at one point, but I will check again and see if the center wing rib from a "Primus" kit fits the opening. The wing saddle shape of both the T-2 and T-3 are identical, so I hope for my sake that it is the same.

As for Ed's induction in the AMA, this was a particular source of irritation for the individual who originally gave me Ed's address, yet when I asked Ed about it during our phone call, he told me he thought he had already been accepted. He was in his mid-80's with halting speech. I didn't feel comfortable pressing the point with the fact his name doesn't appear to be there...but he felt he was, supporting what was said in the thread Cees names above. It may be a clerical error, and nothing more.

Duane

UStik

Yes Duane, that's what alarmed me. The picture you repeated here is the same Ray posted together with the short note and the Bosch airfoil drawing. This airfoil seems the only logical reason to use the wing on the Taurus, at least to me. I know it's very hard to measure an airfoil on an existing wing, but it may be a bit easier to check if it's symmetrical.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

FROM POST #904 ABOVE:

...From your earlier post, I assume the 68" wingspan was the wingspan of the 1961 NATS Taurus. I don't have the wingspan measurement from the VR/CS Taurus, (62 NATS/MAN Taurus), and I don't have the MAN Taurus article here at work to look at, but it may or may not be greater than 68". It all depends what the prototype plans call for, (see below), and whether or not Ed built a greater span wing for the 62 NATS...

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

I just received word this morning from Bob Noll, president of VR/CS, and current keeper of the 1962 NATS/Jan 1963 MAN Taurus, that the wingspan of this plane is 68". Knowing this, I would expect the prototype plans to also have a 68" wingspan. This would be consistant with what Jim posted above, and means that for some reason Ed increased the wingspan of the kit version to 70", and 720 sq in.

Note from post #872 page 35, that the dimensions of the tail moment are also different from the contest-winning model.

I was working with the two Kazmirski Taurus fuselages I have, and I still am amazed at the variation in each Kazmirski plane. I was drawing the Taurus paint scheme outline on the primed model. I'm particularly interested in the tail moment from the rear of the wing saddle to the tip. Look at this:

Taurus kit .................................................. 24 3/4"

Kaz Taurus 1 (VR/CS) (MAN/Nats winner).........27"
Kaz Taurus 3 (Unfinished) .............................27 3/4"
Kaz Taurus 2 ..............................................28 3/4"

Duane

UStik

The second paragraph in the snippet reads "The airfoil of the wing comes from Fritz Bosch, co-winner of the 1963 Internats. It is a 20%, symmetrical section with a sharper leading edge than is now popular, providing better spinning tendencies."

The drawing seems to be a bit vague (obviously, the section is not drawn symmetrical), but it closely resembles a modified NACA 0020 (NACA 0020-33), the thickest point being at 37% chord (instead of 30%). See second airfoil picture.

Difference to the NACA 2419 mod (what modification?) is only symmetry and aft position of thickness. The latter makes for the sharper nose, not a smaller radius. Maybe Ed's 2419 mod even had a slightly more aft thickness, giving nearly the same upper curvature as the Bosch airfoil. At least that would explain why the wing saddle matches both wings. See third airfoil picture, incidence exactly -1.17 degrees.

Seems Ed simply took the upper part of the 2419 airfoil, mirrored it as lower part to get 20% thickness (or still 19%, see his drawing), and drew a correct leading edge shape (maybe getting a small kink at about 7% chord).

BTW, the airfoil in the last picture is a 2419 mod (2419-33), drawn with Martin Hepperle's Javafoil program ([link=http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/javafoil.htm]http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/javafoil.htm[/link]). There is no modification at all (done by me). Only selecting the "mod" series instead of the standard 4-digit NACA series gives a slightly more aft thickness and sharper leading edge.

The airfoil mystery unraveled?

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Could you explain the difference in the three pictures again, (auf English bitte)? Numbers 1 and 2 look the same to me, and what is number three supposed to be. Airfoils are not my "strong suit". Are these three separate airfoils, or the same airfoil at different distances from center, or what?

Even if the T-2 wing is different from the traditional Taurus wing, (I'll know tonight), I should be able to make a template of the wing saddle and reverse it for the other side...or is that too simplistic? I think I'm going to need help if I'm going to be able to build another wing the same, (assuming of course hey are different).

Help[X(][X(][X(][X(]

Duane

UStik

Sorry for the confusion, that's the engineer in me. [8D]

But actually it's simple, I compared the airfoil as "furnished by Ed Kazmirski" (pic 1) to a NACA 0020-33 mod (pic 2), to show that the airfoil as furnished by Ed is essentially a symmetrical NACA airfoil. The NACA outline is laid over Ed's drawing.

Then I generated a NACA 2419 mod airfoil because all our sources tell Ed used it for the Taurus. If the "NACA 2419 mod" outline is laid over the "Bosch airfoil" drawing and turned -1.17 degrees, both airfoils match in most of their top outline.

Therefore, reversing the wing saddle to use it as the bottom side is not too simplistic. In fact, I guess Ed could have done just that. But note the small difference near the leading edge. I think it could be even simpler to find a pantograph and copy the wing sections (where the ribs are) on paper. Then cut the ribs after that outline minus the sheeting thickness.

Now I can only hope that the wings are really different and all this was not only false alarm.


P.S.: The quick check would be putting the wings upside-down into the wing saddle. If the new wing approximately fits and the carrier wing doesn't, then the new wing's section is nearly symmetrical.