Duane, Ed's statement that he built only three Taurus models is completely coherent for me. Obviously, I understand it a bit different (again ). When Ed denotes the Simla as a Taurus that means he saw Taurus as a "concept" with three major development steps. I still can't help thinking that Simla actually means "similar" (I even think you once wrote that) because it's not really a Taurus, at least not like the T2. Any swept wing Taurus is consistently called Taurus 2.

For me, it seems obvious now that each step "consisted" of several models, or better several wings and fuselages. Remember the extreme pusher experiment, built as well 1963/1964, that was not called Taurus but provided the second swept (Bosch airfoiled) wing. I hope I understood you correctly assuming the wing in the Japan picture is the carrier wing (at least it's the paint scheme).

I can't make out the dihedral, though, neither the thickness. Actually, it looks like a standard-thickness (19%) wing, just swept. Also the paint scheme is not quite the carrier wing scheme because the edges of the black and red parts are not parallel to each other and to the trailing edge. In the shadow cast by Ed on the left wing there seems to be the same diagonal rib structure as in the carrier wing.

The fuselage, on the other hand, looks (and is) quite similar to the Nats/MAN cover fuselage. I'm rather confused by the pilot because I find it looks like the Top Flite pilot, but I should ignore that for now. The dimensions fit by all means: 27" from wing saddle to fuse tip (rear), 9" from canopy tip to fuse tip (front).

If I ignore the pilot, it could be the right crate fuselage about which we don't know anything except that the pilot still exists (hence ignore it for now). The paint scheme is standard as well as the fuse proportions, but the tail could have been modified and painted provisorily.

This not to poke holes but to add to the indications (not confusion).