Have to agree with Cees on this one. The Taurus 2 fuselage doesn't just LOOK more thin and streamlined, it IS. The black section on the paint scheme actually has to curve some toward the back to work. The red and while stripes are both thinner to be able to retain the Taurus paint scheme. When you don't compare them side-by-side, the difference is not so striking. That's one of the reasons I feel the T2 fuse was designed and built later in an attempt to improve flight characteristics of the previous Taurus.

The pattern goes like this...you design, build, fly, TAKE NOTES as my picture shows Ed did, then build the next plane to see if the changes help. Ed TOLD me he did that on the Simla; he took notes on possible improvements, but in the case of the Simla, the next plane never came. The Simla was literally lost, (it disappeared from the crawlspace under his former house), and he lost interest in R/C in favor of his business and photography.

I haven't seen anything in print that says Ed felt the Taurus 2 was a definite improvement over the original, or that describes the Taurus 2's flight characteristics. I didn't see him WRITE about the Taurus 2. Maybe it could be implied that the plane MUST have been an improvement, but I don't see any proof. Sometimes changes are made that don't work out as well. I know that Ed wrote a small article saying what changes should be made to the original Taurus to fly better on proportional. I don't know if that article was written AFTERWARD, (when he had a change to see the results), or if it was written beforehand, such as "I'm going to do thisthatand the other...because I think it will help". If anyone can get his hands on that small one-page article and can find a date, I like to know what it is.

Any comments??

Duane