It's funny Kevin, I had also thought it would be "cool" to get as many of the 50+Simlas as possible for some sort of fun-fly. I think your NATS contest sounds great, but how could you get the power the same between them...(only 60-sized engines...just like Ed had)??? Right now I'm nervous about putting a .60 in mine for fear it won't lift off, much less do maneuvers. Nothing vertical...we can do a "Figure 8" contest. Straight Flight Out...Procedure Turn...Straight Flight Back, 3 Rolls etc etc.

It's interesting, you were also the ONE who proposed going to Chicago for the photos taken at Ed's old field...that was a great trip...too bad you couldn't make it when it came time to do it

The tube is 1 inch, and the sleeve is also CF, and has a 1" inside diameter, (or slightly more...just enough to allow it to slide inside). Ask wherever you buy your tube for ANOTHER CF tube [that can be used as a sleeve], that exactly fits the 1" tube...remember this is an exact fit, and there is no "slop" between the tube and the sleeve. The outside sleeve is no more than 1/16" thick, so your holes would need to be around 1-1/16".

Maybe I can find some close-up photos of the tube/sleeve arrangement, (though we aren't building the fuselage now).

Duane

Ditto Kevin's comment about the 24oz tank. This plane wasn't designed for a 24oz tank, so if you choose to use it, good luck. [8D]
I'm no expert, but it would see a full fuel load would make a couple of trim adjustments during the flight essential. 24oz is a lot of weight toward the nose. Would there be a way to put the tank on the CG and use some kind of pump?

BTW...In post #48 is a nice picture of the tube sleeve. Looks like with bilberry's progress, I AM having trouble keeping up...go away for a weekend and look what happens. I'll finish up on the fin later today, then post some, (belated) fuselage photos.

This build thread will be finished in two weeks. [8D]

Duane

At the suggestion of "billberry", I have moved a couple of the "best of" photos from Kevin's recent collection of the SIMLA #3, (his Simla which is the third ever built after Ed's original, and my prototype). They were moved from the Kazmirski thread over here for the rest of you excited builders to see. I have also taken the liberty to include a two photos of my Simla, (#2) from its first flight last October.

The purpose of the photos, (other than billberry wants them here), is to inspire you (almost 50), first-run Simla builders out there to keep up the good work, and that the prize is out there just waiting to be finished and flown. One other (secondary) purpose is to prove once again to you skeptics out there, that such a beautiful plane DOES INDEED FLY, (it doesn't just look good sitting there on the ground).

Keep up the good work.

HiDuane, I thought that you were out of town this weekend due to the sudden silence on the thread. Nice to have you back! I am currently awaiting the arrival of part F7 from Jeff so I switched my attention to the tail feathers. Built the fin frame this morning. Pretty straight forward stuff, but it did help me to mark center lines on the inside and outside of the fin leading and trailing edges as well as the ribs. Line up the center lines and fast CA gave me a frame in justtwenty minutes. Then it was on to the stab/elevator build. I originally set it up with a1/4 inch steel rod to align the ribs and then switched to a .254 inch carbon fibertube which I CA'd in. Cool stuff this carbon fiber.This is the first time that I have used any. Very impressive stuff; super light and super strong. Also, a suggestion on the Simla meet with different size power plants might be different classes with different manuvers depending on egine size?

The fin you see in these pictures is the original fin from the original plan. After fully building this fin, as a group we could see it needed to be changed, and the fin was literally cut up, and re-glued as shown in one of the photos in the article, (didn't think the editor would use that one). The revised fin on your plan is the one on the finished prototype modified a bit...not this one. The original fin in these pictures had a 45-degree rudder hinge line; the new fin has a 53-degree rudder hinge line. This is less than the Taurus, and better represents the look of the Simla, (keep in mind that the fin is very poorly shown in all the pictures we have...there were NO direct side views, so we had to do the best we could to "guess" how the fin should look. We believe the final fin is very close....the best test for that comes from looking at how Ed's paint scheme looks on the final model.

To me, the fin, (and especially the rudder), is a little tricky becase at the base the finished, sheeted fin is 3/4" wide, and at the top, (tip), it is 1/2" or less depending on taste. You have to shape the fin from bottom to top, and curve it from front to back to give it a Kaz-like airfoil shape. Ed didn't build it as a 3/4" simple slab. You can see Ed's looks relatively slender at the top, and rounded/tapered at the leading edge.

Rather than just sheeting the structure, you may wish to shape the fin as described above, and taper the truss in the building process, because the sheeted structure can be sanded only so much. I am just describing what I did, (for better or worse). I wanted my fin truss pieces to support the sheeting...that's why I tapered each piece. Notice the oblique view...you can see the tapering. Once one side is shaped and sheeted, you can flip it over and shape the other side some before sheeting.

The built-up rudder in particular, (which is much thinner than the fin except at the L.E., and tapers to a point), requires that you block-up the T.E. 1/4" when building. At least that's the way I did it. I actually cut little notches in the rudder truss, (also tapered), for a little more strength, and added some wood at the bottom to handle the eventual rudder control horn.
Duane

Hi

Mine arrived today, just had a quick look but it is very nicely done. I have a new OS 120Ax that I was going to use, What seems to be the engine of choice so far.

Anyone decided on servo's yet, planning on using my new DX8.

Ron

I believe standard servos that come with the DX8 will work fine for this plane. I used standard quality DIGITAL "sport" servos.

Looking at the stab and fin, you can get a feel for how I shaped it. Remember, this is the ORIGINAL FIN. Once I had it done, and it was sitting in its "cradle" while I was looking at the Kaz model from the same angle, I could see it needed some major revision...it was obvious. A day later it was done, (see picture)...at least you can build it right the first time.

Notice the little "thing" I made to sand the L.E. of the fin...worked like a charm, and I recommend you try it.

Here are some pictures of the stab. Note I built the elevators separately, cut off the stab T.E. and elevator L.E. at the start of the tip...then made one-piece tips. Finally, I made a little wedge and added it to the cradle, (remember the cradle originally was designed to hold the entire stab/elevator structure, and the elevators were to be cut away...since I didn't do that, I had to fill in this area.

Duane

If I am not mistaken, wouldn't the hole have to be 1-1/8" in diameter if the sleeve has a wall thickness of 1/16"?

One more thing I'd like to share with you today. This is something that hasn't been discussed ANYWHERE in connection with the Simla, but is common to ALL of Ed's planes that we know of. We never even thought of discussing it during development of the plans and building the prototypes. It has to do with Ed's method of handling the elevator pushrod WITHIN THE PLANE, and not using an external elevator pushrod. I carefully looked at every picture of the Simla, and to the best of my knowledge, I have NEVER seen any evidence of an external elevator pushrod.

If you look at Ed's Taurus, the Taurus II, and the "Unfinished Fuselage", they are all done the same way...with a small, uncovered HOLE at the tail that accesses a home-made dual-pronged elevator "horn", (see photos). The elevator horn is similar to the tradional way of doing aileron horns for strip ailerons back in the day.

We used the, (to us), "traditional" external elevator horns and split pushrods...but in fact, it is much more likely Ed used an INTERNAL pushrod accessed with a screwdriver from below. This method is actually very "cool" looking, because all you see are the elevators going up and down "like a real plane". Somebody should try it if they are handy with piano wire with a small plate soldered to it, (WELL).

In the pictures of Ed's original Taurus II, and the Unfinished fuselage all primed for painting, notice the ORIGINAL Kaz linkage and soldering. In both the Taurus II and the "Unfinished", the wire elevator linkage is sewn in place in the traditional way back in the early 60s. The white "Unfinished" fuselage looks pristeen in comparison...already to go, but never finished. As I said, ALL of these planes were finished the same way, and I have every reason to believe the original Simla had the "hidden" elevator linkages as well.

Duane

Cool stuff! I found it interesting how much thicker the fuse is than the rudder.

I would like to offer a thought about building the stab and elevator as one piece and then cutting off the elevator.

I was concerned about how I was going to make two perfectly straight and vertical cuts, as described in the instructions. This is what I did:

- Sheeted the elevator area up to the cut mark on the TE of the rib.
- Sheeted the stab area starting from the forward cut mark on the rib.

This has left the correct width unsheeted area, which will be easy to cut and sand before applying the stab TE and the elevator LE.

I'd like to add a few "lessons learned" about building the stab. (Images coming.)

1. To conform to the 3/32 sheeting, I believe there is supposed to be at least 3/32-inch available from the top and bottom of each rib LE to the top/bottom of the LE strip. This doesn't happen with rib 2 from the kit. It will need to have its contour sanded to shape *before* gluing on the LE strip. (I didn't notice this until after I had glued the strip.)

2. Make a template for the sheeting. I free-handed the top sheeting and it was a pain.

3. If you use Jeff's revised method that has the grain of the sheeting at the LE parallel to the LE, fit and glue that first. On the top sheeting, I started with the straight sheet across the TE area. This meant a lot of fiddling to fit the front sheeting between the LE and the sheet already at the back.

4. The curve of the ribs at the LE is quite pronounced and makes it awkward to fit and glue the sheeting. I *think* that *lightly* spraying the top with Windex will permit an easier bend. I also *think* that it might be easier to fit and glue the leading edge of the sheet to the leading edge strip and the very front portions of the ribs, let the adhesive dry/cure, and *then* bend and glue the remainder of the sheet into position. I'm going to see how this works on the bottom sheeting.

5. I like Bill's method of replacing the temporary aligning steel rod with a carbon fiber rod glued into place. That should add lots of rigidity with minimal weight.

Actually, if I were to build the stab again, I would be very tempted to fit and glue the LE sheeting *before* attaching the LE strip. Not sure it would work, but I think it would be worth trying.

Cheers,
Richard

Richard, the CF rod helped alot to hold everything in place while sheeting the stabilizer, made it very rigid, and added next to no weight. I used the one piece method to build the stab/elevator and found it to bepretty much straight forward. But then it was not too long ago that I built the tail feathers on my Top Flite Giant P-47 Thunderbolt and ituses the same technique. A little practice does help quite a bit.

Bill,

Yup. Practice may not make perfect, but it certainly cuts down on the errors. This, unfortunately, is my first build that uses sheeted components. As they say, the problem with getting experience is getting it.

Richard

Duane:

I would not be too worried about power. The pattern would be the equalizer. The pattern at that time as far as I know does not require a lot of vertical power. There is no way it could have with the power plants that were available at the time period. I think if someone can get a DA 200 gasser on it, go for it. I am willing to bet that the power will not give anyone a competitive edge in the pattern above the rest.

Again the big idea would be that all the Simla could come together in one place. The contest would be secondary to the mission/purpose of the event.

Again the big idea would be that all the Simla could come together in one place. The contest would be secondary to the mission/purpose of the event.
************************************************** ************************************************

I like the idea, (or it's nice to think) of the Simla Development Project , and the resulting get-together (probably next flying season), having a "mission statement" or "higher" purpose.

We DEFINITELY have to plan a first get-together. We could exchange ideas, finishing methods, who knows what else. The only thing I'd ask is that each person build their Simla to the plans, (ie NO MODS). [:@]

As for location we could do a couple things 1) figure out where the geographic center among all the owners is and get a place in the middle, or 2) have the Simla "reunion" at Triple Tree, (site of Joe Nall), and the place the first Simla prototype flights were from...THAT WOULD BE GREAT..IT'S A BEAUTIFUL SITE WITH A SUPERB RUNWAY. That site would guarantee that all three of us will be there. Who knows, we might even make a second pilgrimage to Chicago to the same field Ed flew from. If/when we have an event, I will write it up for Model Aviation as a follow-up to the original March construction article. Kevin, I know you could put on quite a show with what your Simla can do.

I would like to get contact information from the various Simla builders who might see this thread, (or maybe Jeff might share that info), so we can remain in contact with each other. Jeff's Simla forum on his website might also be a good place to do that.

Duane, could you be a little more specific on "no mods"? Would that bein relation tothe shape of the air frame, mechanical changes such as rotating the engine 30 degrees as I did, and/or other changes? So far the only things I have modifiedare the engine placement and the addition of the .254"CF tube to the stabilizer. The 16/24 oz. fuel tank issue is flexible. I' m even thinking about setting up a 20 oz. tank aswell and then experimenting to find the one that suits the Simla thebest. After all, experimentation is part of the research and development process is it not?At this point I am way behind the curve when it comes to flight time( since I have not flown anything since 1975), but hopefully I can get some quality stick time before any such Simla meet takes place. If not, I would still be willing to show up with Simla in hand and maybe have one of you guys fly her.

I assume that Ed designed the Simla with the intention of flying at the FAI World Aerobatic Championships in 1965 in Sweden. If so then, as far as I know, this was the schedule he would have flown with the Simla had he made the team.

1)Take Off
2)Procedure Turn
3)Stall Turn
4)Immelman
5)Three Inside Loops
6)Three Outside Loops
7)Reversal( Split-S)
8)Two Opposite Rolls
9)Tail Slide
10)Horizontal Eight
11)Cuban Eight
12)Vertical Eight
13)Straight Inverted
14)Inverted Eight
15)Vertical Roll
16)Three Turn Spin
17)Landing Approach
18)Landing

Ray

NO Mods to me is building to "planform". The only differences should be in how much sanding is done. I suppose if somebody wants to bring a Simla "taildragger" or some such other abomination, they would be free to do so, (it's still a free country thank goodness), but I would hope they wouldn't want to build it that way. I would want anyone with a Simla to come regardless, but it would be so nice to have the planes all look like Ed's original Simla. Even Cees could bring his, and show us how it should have been done. Actually that WOULD be interesting, because at the end of the day, we all want the Simla to be true to the original.

The Simla is easy to fly, and appears to fly slower than most pattern planes of the period, so I don't believe you would have a problem once you have flown any low-wing sport plane. I remember when I received my first King Altair, (built RTF from another modeler). I saved the King until the end of the season, after I had experience with more "expendable" planes. When I finally flew the King, it was the most gorgeous flying plane I had ever owned...super easy to fly, (plus a bit slower), and easy to land. After flying it, I wondered why I had waited so long. The "King" is still one of my favorites, (as my RCU "handle" would indicate), and I still have one that's flyable. Here are pictures of the King Altair I've flown; the blue/green/white one was the first, followed by the orange/red/white, and finally the King Altair kit prototype, (#4) from Jeff, which I still have. I have one more King that looks like Altair #1, (but with a full 80" wingspan and a little on the heavy side), that needs a little Monokote trim and radio/engine installation.

Hi again Ray. I believe Ed was the manager of the 1965 team. We know he flew the Simla in the 1965 NATS and didn't place well. It would be interesting to get a list of the 1965 NATS maneuvers. Tom Brett also flew in the '65 NATS and didn't place high. He flew the TBX.

This has been stated several times. I've been wondering if Ed didn't place well because the Simla wasn't a good design for the times, or if it was just one of those days.

Richard

We don't know, and we'll probably never know for sure unless we can find a 65 NATS contestant, or maybe a write-up of the 1965 NATS in one of the mags that could provide a clue, (hint Ray); maybe he had mechanical problems, or something else.

I think we have to guess based on what is most logical. I have a few points to make that may or may not mean anything, but sound logical to me:

1) Ed's competitors were flying smaller, lighter planes with the same engine, so vertical performance would be better on loops, or any other vertical maneuvers.
2) The competition by 1965 was becoming MUCH keener, and as more and more pilots switched over to the new medium of PROPORTIONAL, Ed lost his advantage...he was a master of the much harder to fly, (and less intuitive) REED system. When proportional came along, he was just one of many very good proportional pilots.
3) There is one more possible factor that I heard of for the first time at the SPA contest in Asheville, just a couple weeks ago that had to do with a physical problem Ed may have had. This report came from a spectator, who knew and competed with Ed back at the time, (named Garner I believe). He said that Ed had a problem with chronic tremor or "shakes" that didn't affect his flying ability with reeds, (he called it "the shakes"), but DID affect his fine motor functions with proportional radios. I know positively that Ed flew "Mode 1".

IF this is true, it might explain a lot. Can anyone else who knew Ed well either confirm or deny this statement?

Duane

Last check on source for 1-inch O.D. carbon composite wing tube and a carbon composite sleeve.

I've checked all the sources that have been mentioned in this thread and in the original Taurus thread, and sources resulting from a search of the 'net. Although a couple places have the 1-inch diameter wing tube, none have a suitable carbon composite sleeve. And only TnT Landing gear even has a correct sleeve and it's a phenolic one that is, I assume, similar to the sleeve that comes in the kit.

If anyone knows of a source for both CF components, please post the information. Otherwise it looks like the TnT solution is the only one available for those of us who want to replace the kit's aluminum tube and who do not want to try to fabricate a sleeve from CF.

Thank you,
Richard

I've read the descriptions of "CF TUBE within CF SLEEVE", and I don't think that's exactly right. I am not saying the sleeve is made of CF...look at the detail picture of Kevin's sleeve above, or the PDF or the article which has a couple pictures of the sleeve. All I can say is that it's the same general color as the CF tube, (although it had a slightly different consistancy, (look/feel) to it. You could tell when cutting it that the material was not exactly the same. Based on what you are reporting, get the phenolic sleeve...that seems closest, (and may be exactly) what we have.

The tube is 1", and the sleeve is a very close fit.

Duane

I'm not sure what "phenolic" means