Cees

I was kidding, but a face-to-face talk is probably what it would take for us to completely discuss all the different factors we've speculated about the last few days.

I don't know exactly how the taper-wing Taurus-2 came about, but it was an attempt to improve the flight characteristics of the original Taurus compared to the 1962 Nats winner. The fuselage was apparently shorter, the dihedral was increased, the wing and stab were thicker than the original, and the wing shape had a straight trailing edge. Those are significant differences, and I'm not even sure the changes were beneficial compared to the original. That second version of the Taurus was no where near as famous or popular as the original. The Taurus 2 had more modern building techniques compared to the original Taurus. It could very well be that Ed took his back-up plane in the '62 Nats, and modified it to become the Taurus-2, (I can't believe he wouldn't have had a back-up plane, but there is no trace of it). I don't understand why there could be differences in the widths of the fuselages if there were originally two identical Taurus models, one of which was modified to be the T-2. Once a fuselage is built, it wouldn't be widened or narrowed which tells me the two plane's fuselages were built at different times....but we may never know unless a former friend of Eds comes on this forum and answers the questions for sure.

Interestingly, I would have DECREASED the dihedral, and kept the length the same while perhaps adopting the new wing shape. All I know is that the King Altair (built by Kazmirski friend Vic Husak), was very much influenced by the Taurus, and seems to be a "perfected Taurus" to me. My "handle" isn't kingaltair for nothing...the plane is a wonderful, beautiful-flying aircraft. It was decades ahead of its time in many people's opinion, and I'm told handles much like an early 2-meter plane.

The Simla and King Altair were built and designed at the same time as part of an experiment with large pattern aircraft, (which he felt should fly better than the small 6 to 8 lb pattern planes of the time), among several friends from Chicago, (Kazmirski and Husak being the two principle designers). The King was a little smaller at 80" wingspan, while the Silma was anywhere between 96 to 102 inches, depending on which report you read. I have done a LOT of research on the Simla, and have read everything I could get my hands on. The Simla was my main focus of the interview I had with Ed Kazmirski in early August last year. There are no drawings, (I know of), and very few pictures. Evan from NZ, (pimmnz), helped me with a small article and pictures a few months back. If ANYONE knows anything about this plane, please get in touch with me. I have written what I know of the plane in the July, and I think October issues of Model aviation. Ed lamented that the original Simla was damaged by a professional flood light used to take the picture shown above when it crashed down right on the C/G. The repairs added 12 oz to the plane's weight, therefore making it less than a stellar performer in contests, although Ed DID fly it in several contests. After a short time, the Simla was stored away under his house. After he moved, (about six months later), he remembered the plane being stored there in the crawlspace, but when he contacted the new owner, and went to look for it, the Simla had disappeared.

About this time work concerns took most of his time as he moved away from R/C, so the Simla was never rebuilt. A friend of mine and I would like to get enough concrete information together to reconstruct the Simla, but it will be difficult.

ChuckIf you noted anything in the house referring to plane drawings, or anything else having to do with his other planes, I would be VERY INTERESTED in talking with you about them. Please contact me through RCU.

Thanks
Duane