Here is what I said in post #859 of the other thread regarding the flying of the Taurus-2:

I have divided feelings about it myself as I'd like to just display and enjoy it for a while, but my partner in purchasing the plane, (who lives in Florida) would like to see it fly, (at least ocasionally), and so would I. The plane in spite of its age is very flight-worthy.

More importantly, this is not THE FAMOUS Taurus of the kit; this is Ed's attempt at improving the original, (the Taurus 2) with a straight trailing edge on the wing resulting in a tapered leading edge. As you can see from the pictures, the planes are similar but definitely different. The most famous Taurus, (which I had a part in purchasing as well as part of VR/CS), will be donated to the AMA museum in Muncie in September. We were lobbying for a floor-level display, but it looks like they want to hang it from the rafters in spite of our efforts.

The point about Ed's second Taurus, (and 3rd since I have the "unfinished" fuselage), is that there is no market for them in a "museum" environment.....they are not the planes that everyone wants to see. In spite of Cee's theory that my plane is part of the "Oldest Taurus on Earth", they are not the original as most people would understand it. The Taurus 2 is a bit of a "stepchild" compared to the original

Our intention in flying the Taurus-2 is that at least ONE of Ed's planes live on, (being fully restored to flying condition), and fly occasionally. It is my intention to fly only under good weather conditions. Most of my aircraft losses have been due to "pushing" the airplane to fly when it shouldn't, and "push the envelope". I will have to discipline myself NOT to do that with this plane. We will take the utmost care of it, and in a worst case scenario, my partner is a really skilled builder and makes excellent repairs.

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

This thread is about YOUR PLANE, not about the other thread. Unlike you, I am still open to new information, (the jury is still out as we say here), and what I believe about the Taurus history can still be changed, but it will take something more than the small quote in post #287.

I DO have a question I'd like answered. If my Taurus fuselage is part of the oldest Taurus, and you are trying to faithfully re-create it exactly as it was, why is the shape of your fuselage nose different where the wing's leading edge meets the fuse? As the pictures show, the fuselage extends down about an inch below the leading edge; it almost looks like it could use a fairing or "belly pan" so the wing will meet the fuselage smoothly. The 1963 B&W picture shows the THICK wing, and you can see about 1/2-3/4" to the fuse bottom, but the distance from the leading edge to the bottom of fuse is more noticable when the thinner "regular" airfoil wing in the recent color picture is used. Your fuselage nose extends just slightly below the wing...it looks good, but it isn't the same shape as mine...it is more rounded, and has a more traditional Taurus look? The nose of the fuselage on the Taurus2 is a little more "pointed" and sleeker than the VR/CS fuselage.

My original airfoil tapered wing LOOKS like it is higher up in the fuselage. Did Ed raise the wing saddle higher up in this fuselage? I doubt he would add additional wood on the nose bottom to give that effect; the fuse nose is still sleeker and "less high", (as your colored boxes point out), than the VR/CS fuselage.