Modified Taurus restoration.
11-29-2011 | 12:53 PM
#26
Thread Starter
RE: Modified Taurus restoration.
ORIGINAL: kingaltair
chino_2005
You might as well at least "claim" that it is.
Regardless, it's a cute little plane that flies great. The tank window is interesting...at least you can always be sure the fuel line is attached, (on the outside at least). Taurus or Orion, it is highly modified from whatever it was as a kit, but it is a pretty plane. A lot of thought and work went into modifying it from the original. It would have been quicker to build in its original form. You know, (just a thought), it possibly could have been REPAIRED, or REBUILT to look like that after a major crash...who knows.
I would probably have removed the "Cool Power" decal before painting, but maybe you liked it that way.
My favorite picture was the one of the landing...looked like a nice touch-down.
Duane
ORIGINAL: chino_2005
Right now I don´t know if it is the oldest mod Taurus or Orion on earth.
Right now I don´t know if it is the oldest mod Taurus or Orion on earth.
You might as well at least "claim" that it is.
Regardless, it's a cute little plane that flies great. The tank window is interesting...at least you can always be sure the fuel line is attached, (on the outside at least). Taurus or Orion, it is highly modified from whatever it was as a kit, but it is a pretty plane. A lot of thought and work went into modifying it from the original. It would have been quicker to build in its original form. You know, (just a thought), it possibly could have been REPAIRED, or REBUILT to look like that after a major crash...who knows.
I would probably have removed the "Cool Power" decal before painting, but maybe you liked it that way.
My favorite picture was the one of the landing...looked like a nice touch-down.
Duane
I only fix the zones without paint or deteriorated.
<br type="_moz" />
11-29-2011 | 01:52 PM
#27
RE: Modified Taurus restoration.
ORIGINAL: chino_2005
Yes, it´s like it´s. I´m trying to search for some information about the builder in Argentina. Look at the picture I´ve attached.
I only fix the zones without paint or deteriorated.
<br type=''_moz'' />
Yes, it´s like it´s. I´m trying to search for some information about the builder in Argentina. Look at the picture I´ve attached.
I only fix the zones without paint or deteriorated.
<br type=''_moz'' />
Chino,
Do you believe me when I tell you that little picture does show me more than it shows you, even Spanish isn't my mother tongue?
Cees
11-30-2011 | 01:28 AM
#28
Thread Starter
RE: Modified Taurus restoration.
ORIGINAL: Taurus Flyer
Chino,
The video is nice shot of the plane and of very good quality! Can you tell me amount of MB?
Orion? Taurus?
Of course it is no point at all only for our historical way of looking at the plane it iis interesting to have attention for it in this period.
If you want we can make a more detailed comparison trying to reconstruct the builders way of building in the past. The know-how is here, the tools we have to make.
If you want first of all is, make a new picture on certain distance of the plane.
I already did make mine.
Keep an eye on the plane or hold it in position wih your hands!!
Location of the camera:
Camere in top axle from "about" the CG.
Distance 254 cm is 100 inch measured from bottom of the plane near that CG.
By making these pictures and compare we eliminate most of cushion effect.
My way of thinking about, is it a Taurus or is it a Orion?
Look a the movie Tora Tora Tora, we can make a Harvard look like a Zero if we want.
So we first look at basic proportions of the fuselage because these are the key for the flight characteristics of the "We all know Taurus".
after that we keep in mind there are other possibilities:
Taurus with short tailcone, modification for proportional or Orion
Let me know what you think about this.
Cees
ORIGINAL: chino_2005
Right now I don´t know if it is the oldest mod Taurus or Orion on earth.
Right now I don´t know if it is the oldest mod Taurus or Orion on earth.
Chino,
The video is nice shot of the plane and of very good quality! Can you tell me amount of MB?
Orion? Taurus?
Of course it is no point at all only for our historical way of looking at the plane it iis interesting to have attention for it in this period.
If you want we can make a more detailed comparison trying to reconstruct the builders way of building in the past. The know-how is here, the tools we have to make.
If you want first of all is, make a new picture on certain distance of the plane.
I already did make mine.
Keep an eye on the plane or hold it in position wih your hands!!
Location of the camera:
Camere in top axle from "about" the CG.
Distance 254 cm is 100 inch measured from bottom of the plane near that CG.
By making these pictures and compare we eliminate most of cushion effect.
My way of thinking about, is it a Taurus or is it a Orion?
Look a the movie Tora Tora Tora, we can make a Harvard look like a Zero if we want.
So we first look at basic proportions of the fuselage because these are the key for the flight characteristics of the "We all know Taurus".
after that we keep in mind there are other possibilities:
Taurus with short tailcone, modification for proportional or Orion
Let me know what you think about this.
Cees
<span style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; "><span style="float: none; ">I´ll ask my son to do the photos you need.</span></span>
<span style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; "><span style="float: none; ">Very interesting all the data and the use of photographs to make proportions.</span></span></span></span>
<br type="_moz" />
11-30-2011 | 10:35 PM
#29
RE: Modified Taurus restoration.
Chino, you write,
Very interesting all the data and the use of photographs to make proportions.
I am glad you enjoy it, we'l see your photograph, take your time.
Cees
Very interesting all the data and the use of photographs to make proportions.
I am glad you enjoy it, we'l see your photograph, take your time.
Cees
</div><div></div><div>
</div>
12-08-2011 | 07:51 AM
#32
RE: Modified Taurus restoration.
Chino,
My post takes some time, and is no problem, we have.
I will have some more data in the future.
There still was a post 10 of page 1 of the past wihch asks some response I think.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10829993
Of course Chino did do a nice job did I write something else? But Orion or Taurus was his question!
I always observe objects related to most original data. So also of the Orion.
There is a good reference for that and that is the MAN article of Ed Kazmirski.
When we look at the drawing of that we see the hatch and two dowels on the back side to lock with the fuselage top. In front we see the blind nut and screw.
Just as the Taurus also the Orion does have the diagonal doublers of course, only the direction is different. The doublers of the Tauri do also have the direction of the Orion.
.
The grain that is visible of the doublers of Chino's do have the same direction as the Orion and Tauri.
In all pictures doublers are accentuated by green dashes and an oval for the Tauri.
Only to refute already the facts that were brought in post 10 of page 1.
More to conclude in the near future.
Cees
My post takes some time, and is no problem, we have.
I will have some more data in the future.
There still was a post 10 of page 1 of the past wihch asks some response I think.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10829993
ORIGINAL: pimmnz
Unlike Cees, I too think that you have done a nice job of a modified, stock Taurus. The fin/rudder outline has only been slightly tweaked, but it is Taurus, the internal structure, what can be seen, is certainly Taurus, diagonal doubler sheet and thick triplers. The removeable tank cover is a personal mod, certainly no standard Orion or Taurus shows it. A good idea, but it might lead to a slightly less stiff front end. Bolt on wing was a common mod, even back in the day. I like the wing fairings too, again you could only fit them with a bolt on wing. Should be a nice, fun model. Could you update later on weights and flight report?
Evan, WB #12.
Unlike Cees, I too think that you have done a nice job of a modified, stock Taurus. The fin/rudder outline has only been slightly tweaked, but it is Taurus, the internal structure, what can be seen, is certainly Taurus, diagonal doubler sheet and thick triplers. The removeable tank cover is a personal mod, certainly no standard Orion or Taurus shows it. A good idea, but it might lead to a slightly less stiff front end. Bolt on wing was a common mod, even back in the day. I like the wing fairings too, again you could only fit them with a bolt on wing. Should be a nice, fun model. Could you update later on weights and flight report?
Evan, WB #12.
I always observe objects related to most original data. So also of the Orion.
There is a good reference for that and that is the MAN article of Ed Kazmirski.
When we look at the drawing of that we see the hatch and two dowels on the back side to lock with the fuselage top. In front we see the blind nut and screw.
Just as the Taurus also the Orion does have the diagonal doublers of course, only the direction is different. The doublers of the Tauri do also have the direction of the Orion.
.
The grain that is visible of the doublers of Chino's do have the same direction as the Orion and Tauri.
In all pictures doublers are accentuated by green dashes and an oval for the Tauri.
Only to refute already the facts that were brought in post 10 of page 1.
More to conclude in the near future.
Cees
12-08-2011 | 03:34 PM
#33
RE: Modified Taurus restoration.
I only intended to point out that the removeable tank cover is much bigger than the Orion version shown on the original TF plan, that the Taurus has not got one, and that the side view is much closer to a Taurus than an Orion, the Orion fuselage being deeper at the trailing edge of the wing than at the leading edge, the Taurus and this model is the other way round. The tail (fin) profile is much closer to Taurus than Orion, and the fuselage, minus the turtle deck, is then much closer to a Taurus. I still think that it is , if not modified from a kit, then at least uses the Taurus as its design inspiration, rather than an Orion. I doubt which way the angle the fuselage doubler is has much bearing. I am pleased that Chino enjoys the thing, given that it has lasted this long it will likely last much longer in his good care. I do agree with Cees though, in that these models are made to be flown, and enjoyed. I do not have any model in my stable that is as much fun as these two (Orion and Taurus), though Nimbus comes close. Enjoy.
Evan, WB #12.
Evan, WB #12.
12-12-2011 | 05:23 AM
#34
Thread Starter
RE: Modified Taurus restoration.
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-US">Very interesting Cees, I´ll give you the measureyou ask me in a few days and let´s see what can you get.<o
></o></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-US">Like pmminz I think that this model is a modifiedTaurus than an Orion too, but only observing the general shape.<o></o></span></p>
></o></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-US">Like pmminz I think that this model is a modifiedTaurus than an Orion too, but only observing the general shape.<o></o></span></p>
12-19-2011 | 01:03 PM
#35
RE: Modified Taurus restoration.
Orion or Taurus, my opinion.
I did ask for and receive some additional information of Chino and my conclusion is, the designer did use the Orion basically to built this variant.
First there are some general observations related to the past.
It was often done to modify a Orion direction to the Taurus, but there always where the shortcomings and the characteristics that did show the basic design of the plane looking at the fuselage.
With that we see Orion as a tricycle plane never called a Taurus, see picture 1 for example and even still if there were Taurus wings used.
I some way I see limited possibilities of the past and the country of designer, materials and information as I do expect the designer had to work with in Argentina.
Of course I see he did a good job by designing a plane and trying to combine all the goods as read of the Taurus in the plane as known the Orion, but for me still visible, too much of the Orion
My observations.
The width of the fuselage is about 6 mm more than the Orion, while the Taurus is much sleeker than the Orion. See my picture 2, dark blue the outlines of our plane shown on the plans of the Taurus.
Remember the Orion was designed to have three Bonners side by side, the Taurus 2 Bonners. The Orion for older (relais) receivers the Taurus for smaller receivers . So why the width? It is what the designer did want, so no Taurus but the Orion was in mind of the designer I think.
When we look at the nose it has a lot of drag. The material isn’t there to sand the nose like a Taurus, outside is about 20 mm too wide and an open bottom. Also the inside dimensions of the engine compartment is much too wide and more than the outside of the Taurus! The designer did want easy mounting of a big engine and these where all not Taurus related choices. I think the designer did not know the original dimensions of the Taurus, because he could have saved material and drag if he wanted to.
Length of the nose. The Taurus has a very short nose. Why? The engine is close to the CG and can be balanced with the tail, all weight close to the CG is needed for maneuverability. Second point is the tank is close to the CG and the differences in location as result of changes in fuel level are less. The plane of Chino does have a much longer nose designed that way, so no Taurus but more related to Orion. Also the hatch is related to the Orion and “having not a hatch” was a pro for the Taurus told by Ed. When the choice of material is limited you better can use the Orion to design a “own”plane than the Taurus to prevent it will become too tail heavy.
While the tail feathers look like a Taurus, the stab is mounted in backwards location related to the original, possible because there was no internal lever used. Indication of scratch build fuselage. Choice of the designer and an indication of “no stock” fuselage either. Mounting the stab in another location as original can give a less good recovery of the spin but that’s the choice of the designer too. There was a Taurus MK2 (shorter tail cone and original position of the stab in the cone end) but the designer did not know this I think.
Other details, as sheeting and construction details of fuselage not Taurus related but some details Orion.
Was the Taurus of light construction we see all surfaces sheeted, choice of the designer, but with that the weight is more and not characteristic for the Taurus. It can be the result of limited choice of materials.
So My choice is, Orion used as design background and all what was needed for easy handling. Easy mounting and rugged structure. So wider fuselage, local related materials, and own design of the look.
Will I personal call it an Orion? No.
Will I call the plane related to the Taurus? Only the plan form of surfaces but not the plane basically and construction. The fuselage is normally characteristic for the choice of name, so for sure no Taurus.
What would have the designer called the plane? I don’t know.
Cees
I did ask for and receive some additional information of Chino and my conclusion is, the designer did use the Orion basically to built this variant.
First there are some general observations related to the past.
It was often done to modify a Orion direction to the Taurus, but there always where the shortcomings and the characteristics that did show the basic design of the plane looking at the fuselage.
With that we see Orion as a tricycle plane never called a Taurus, see picture 1 for example and even still if there were Taurus wings used.
I some way I see limited possibilities of the past and the country of designer, materials and information as I do expect the designer had to work with in Argentina.
Of course I see he did a good job by designing a plane and trying to combine all the goods as read of the Taurus in the plane as known the Orion, but for me still visible, too much of the Orion
My observations.
The width of the fuselage is about 6 mm more than the Orion, while the Taurus is much sleeker than the Orion. See my picture 2, dark blue the outlines of our plane shown on the plans of the Taurus.
Remember the Orion was designed to have three Bonners side by side, the Taurus 2 Bonners. The Orion for older (relais) receivers the Taurus for smaller receivers . So why the width? It is what the designer did want, so no Taurus but the Orion was in mind of the designer I think.
When we look at the nose it has a lot of drag. The material isn’t there to sand the nose like a Taurus, outside is about 20 mm too wide and an open bottom. Also the inside dimensions of the engine compartment is much too wide and more than the outside of the Taurus! The designer did want easy mounting of a big engine and these where all not Taurus related choices. I think the designer did not know the original dimensions of the Taurus, because he could have saved material and drag if he wanted to.
Length of the nose. The Taurus has a very short nose. Why? The engine is close to the CG and can be balanced with the tail, all weight close to the CG is needed for maneuverability. Second point is the tank is close to the CG and the differences in location as result of changes in fuel level are less. The plane of Chino does have a much longer nose designed that way, so no Taurus but more related to Orion. Also the hatch is related to the Orion and “having not a hatch” was a pro for the Taurus told by Ed. When the choice of material is limited you better can use the Orion to design a “own”plane than the Taurus to prevent it will become too tail heavy.
While the tail feathers look like a Taurus, the stab is mounted in backwards location related to the original, possible because there was no internal lever used. Indication of scratch build fuselage. Choice of the designer and an indication of “no stock” fuselage either. Mounting the stab in another location as original can give a less good recovery of the spin but that’s the choice of the designer too. There was a Taurus MK2 (shorter tail cone and original position of the stab in the cone end) but the designer did not know this I think.
Other details, as sheeting and construction details of fuselage not Taurus related but some details Orion.
Was the Taurus of light construction we see all surfaces sheeted, choice of the designer, but with that the weight is more and not characteristic for the Taurus. It can be the result of limited choice of materials.
So My choice is, Orion used as design background and all what was needed for easy handling. Easy mounting and rugged structure. So wider fuselage, local related materials, and own design of the look.
Will I personal call it an Orion? No.
Will I call the plane related to the Taurus? Only the plan form of surfaces but not the plane basically and construction. The fuselage is normally characteristic for the choice of name, so for sure no Taurus.
What would have the designer called the plane? I don’t know.
Cees
12-22-2011 | 01:39 AM
#36
Thread Starter
RE: Modified Taurus restoration.
<p style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; " class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:" new="" lang="EN-US">Thank you Cees for your comments.<o></o></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; " class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:" new="" lang="EN-US">I think that I´d search here in Argentina for someone who knows the builder and ask for information about which was the base plane used for this development of Ed´s designs.<o></o></span></p>
></o></span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; " class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:" new="" lang="EN-US">I think that I´d search here in Argentina for someone who knows the builder and ask for information about which was the base plane used for this development of Ed´s designs.<o></o></span></p>
