ORIGINAL: Taurus Flyer
Duane,
I did read your posts and I think you still do not understand, so read, one of your own posts about your own Taurus.
What Classic are you flying? Post 30 page 2.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_30...tm.htm#3056917
ORIGINAL: kingaltair
The wing is 100% to plansexcept there 1/2 the dihedral). As the picture shows, the engine was side-mounted, and cowled, (not really a structural deviation, but it DOES change the original's looks a lot). The major changes were the use of a Bootlegger stab, (from an unfortunate occurance in 25 mph winds during a contest-I decided to take out the anhedral), and a different shaped vertical fin, with vertical hinge line for better rudder response, and a more modern look. I didn't really like the open, unsheeted stab, (and it was already built, with the same basic shape, control surface size etc).
I think the overal look is a lot sleeker than the original.
What I'm telling people is this is more what the Taurus would look like if designed 5 years laterafter proportional radio.
I have since found a Taurus canopy replica, (I believe it is an 8" Sig canopy) that I got from Jeff Petroski, (see his threads on the Taurus under Vintage & Antique).
Some people like the look, and others feel if shouldn't be tampered with. The decision to make the mods was made long ago-and I stayed with it, however I've promised Jeff I will build the kit I bought from him stockI might side-mount the engine though.
It are these posts, that I only accept facts from you when they are proved, whatever you tell me and whatever you show me.
You do not believe my theory, see also post 146 of this thread, we know now, so please stop posting.
Cees
Cees-
The post you quote from is nearly four years old and refers to my Top Flite kit that I made modifications to. The wing was built stock, but at the time I wanted a more "modern look", so I changed the fin, used a stab from another plane, and side-mounted the engine. I still have the plane, and it flys well, (see attached). I said that the Taurus as I built it has a more modern look, and if it had been designed at a later date, it might look more like mine. I have since learned a lot more about the Taurus than I knew at the time, ( 2005), largely because of this thread.
I don't see what my earlier post has to do with your accusations contained in your little "metaphor" earlier, other than it has nothing to do with the thread.
Cees....this is the bottom line whether you believe me or not. Everything I said that Dennis told me is exactly the way Dennis reported it to me. I didn't make anything at all up, (translated: lied about it). Dennis actually told me about the tapes and sketches on brown paper. You may not accept it, but that is what he said. If he is somehow wrong, that is another issue...I reported what he said; I have no desire or plot to make up things to ruin your theory. I want to learn the true history of the Taurus, I just don't happen to accept PARTS of your explanation. You made a lot of good points that I HAVE accepted so it's not that I reject everything you say. I try to follow you, evaluate what you say, then accept or reject it based on all the evidence available to all of us. This is NOT personal against you, and I honestly think your Wester Taurus is a beautiful model, that should be light, and should fly great.
What I resent and will continue to respond to, is not that you have a different theory; it is that you are saying I am deliberately making up a story just to try to ruin your thread...that is not true, and I don't appreciate being "painted" as a liar who "wants to be famous". I may be wrong, but I am not a liar. You have no idea how wrong you really are, and you are beginning to look foolish by making these charges. I will wait for an apology from you about your charges. I don't expect it though, as you will never admit you misjudged me.
Just for the record, my position NOW is that I DO NOT believe the VR/CS Taurus is the oldest. I don't ever remember saying that it was, but if I did, I don't believe that now.
If you continue to imply that I am making up statements and putting them on the thread to suit my own purposes, then I will continue to post when needed, and will tell you exactly how I feel about it. I would advise you to apologize saying you thought I was lying, but now you know better, and we can move on), or to at least stop making accusations against me for the whole world to view. Whether I post anymore is totally dependant on you, and what you say about me. I will not stand for someone accusing me like you are without a suitable reply.
I'd like to get back to the way things were at the beginning of the thread. I really have no ill feeling toward you other than those that were caused by your sarcasm and accusatons. I wanted to include you in sharing the Kazmirski props because you have earned them with your earlier posts, but you would not respond.
It's up to you.
Duane