Gents,
I did quote the complete post 1876 of the Ed Kazmirski's Taurus.
ORIGINAL: kingaltair
ORIGINAL: UStik
ORIGINAL: kingaltair
....The newest difference we just noticed on closer examination was the wing position relative to the thrustline. On T-2, the wing is much higher up on the fuselage, creating in effect a near mid-wing position, which is seen much more in later pattern ships.
Hi Duane, is it 1.5 inches? You might have experienced this difference already if you had flown both versions in the simulator.
Actually, my question is if and when you will post the measurements. I know we have waited for month's now so a few days or even weeks don't matter, but now it's getting ''interesting'' again...
...is it 1.5 inches?
IS WHAT 1.5 inches?
Actually, my question is if and when you will post the measurements. I know we have waited for month's now so a few days or even weeks don't matter, but now it's getting ''interesting'' again...
Let me remove the suspense...it was surprising based on everything were were led to believe earlier.
The wingspan on the VR/CS Taurus is about 68+ inches. This leads me to believe that this wing, (remember we proved earlier...with Cee's help...that the NATS wing was not the same as the FAI wing in Belgium), was shortened from the original length of 70 inches. You can almost see the difference if you look at pictures of the MAN cover vs the VR/CS Taurus pictures.
The main surprise was in the fuselage. We were led to believe the VR/CS fuselage was 2-3 inches longer, (tail moment) than the Top Flite kit. It turns out those measurements were not accurate...Bob Noll must have been measuring from a different set of reference points. The fuselage is exactly the same size as the Top Flite kit, with ONE small exception. The HEIGHT of the fuselage top to bottom is 1/4 inch taller on Ed's model...why we have no idea. When he got home, Jeff remeasured the Top Flite plans and they are indeed correct, so Jeff's Taurus is exactly the same as the kit, and 1/4 inch less that Ed's personal model.
It could have been a situation where the fuselage side fit better on a standard width of balsa if the fuse was made to be 1/4'' less tall.
More ''measurement pictures'' to come, along with some ''non-invasive'' tests we performed.
Duane
The story of the wings of course was known, only different, the 68 inch is the original, old known span. (American Modeler Annual 1962)
But, there were a lot of posts in my thread about the fuselage length of Ed Kazmirski’s Top Flite (preproduction / VR/CS) Taurus: 237, 243, 244, 292, 313, 399, 433, etc
See also the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus thread, I did not count them.
For that I want to archive this post in my thread:
For me, there was no doubt, I already did find eleven remarkable details in the pictures of the VR/CS Taurus to prove myself it was a “preproduction” Top Flite Taurus, we only have one important detail more on this moment. It is officially known now that also the fuselage length seems to be the same.
More to come?
Cees
BTW postnumber / 4 is near the page number.