RE: Ed Kazmurski's Taurus
Just to add to the confusion again, I'd recommend re-reading also the Jan. 1963 MAN article (the first few paragraphs). Ed mentiones a lot of building, and I think even if others helped building in his basement he was always there. And we have seen so many Tauruses so far, why shouldn't it be possible that there were several models. Ed was quite adept and should have been a fast builder.
Now that a promising new theory (history) seems to emerge, much seems possible: Why not a conventional approach (prototype Taurus) and an unconventional (Flop) at the same time (spring 1961)? Two years later, there were the carrier-wing T2 and the pusher. I think the carrier-wing T2 was Ed's experiment with thick and swept wings at the same time. Maybe he saw a connection between both features. And he had to modify the moment arms (vertically as well as horizontally) so he nedded a completely new fuse. Its outline is very similar, just the wing saddle one inch more forward (due to wing sweep) and the tail cone a bit slimmer (bottom edge just where the trailing edge is now).
So why not the T2 fuse built as it is now, with a new (fresh) pilot? The prototype Taurus was in the crate, we all agree, but is it the core of the T2 fuse? If we think the existing pilot could be the same sitting in the fuse on the right of the crate, why not assume (and search for indications) that the original fuse was lost and only the pilot kept? After all it was worth a mention that there were no problems or damages during the Africa tour. Crashs did happen, even to such an attentive man like Ed, and even on a championship (Flop?).
Cees' theroy seems to be that the prototype fuse was modified to the T2 fuse. He points to the groove in the fuselage where a former could have been. I don't think so, and I still got no satisfying answer on my question what this groove could be, as well as the question what the groove in the T1 fuselage could mean. If Ed built the T2 fuse winter/spring 1963 he built it for the superhet relayless receiver, soon modified to analog proportional (carrier, Genk) and later to digital proportional, so three kinds of servos were in this fuse, even if it was built late (at least not 1961/1962). It was planned for the Veco .45 and later sawthe ST 58.
Why not? (not a rhetorical question)