Thanks UStik-missed you

I have appreciated your contributions to this thread.

I have three of Ed's old props. I also have the pilot Chuck pictured later from the plane on the right side of the crate, (post 616 page 25, see below). I haven't looked at them closely yet, but they seem to be mostly 11X6, 11X7, and 12X6. One of them has been on a plane as shown by the pressure indentation markings. Don't be surprised if a prop comes your way someday[X(]

For me the story is not yet finished. I want to know what happened to Ed in 1966, 1967 etc. When was his last US NAtionals, his last involvement in the US team etc. When did Ed drop off the R/C "radar"? I'd be interested in input from those still with us that might know. When I had my talk with Ed, we talked in generalities, without specific dates mentioned. He cited "business concerns", and expansion of his business as the reason for dropping out of R/C, but there must have been more to it than that. From being the single most famous individual of the early pattern movement, to almost totally uninvolved in the space of 5 or 6 years seems truly hard to imagine.

Any information on Ed's R/C (and outside of R/C) activities from 1966 on would be greatly appreciated.

Duane

It could be that, once you've made it to the top, you've got nothing left to prove.

Tom

It could be that, once you've made it to the top, you've got nothing left to prove.

Tom

[/quote]

Maybe so. Also as R/C left the "pioneer days", the competition gets tougher. To stay "on top" is hard to do, and requires continued ambition,drive, and commitment. It could be that pattern might have passed him by over time, and he moved on to new challenges, but he will always be the best known of the early trend setters and pioneers. His Taurus is still a fine flying plane, and with a couple minor modifications, can still be competitive in SPA.

Duane

Hi all, there's just another picture with Ed in it:

It's in the new Oct. 2008 issue of Reg Heath's nice "Modelflight" web magazine. Nearly half down the [link=http://www.modelflight.regheath.com/airspaceset.htm]"air space" page[/link], there's a picture taken 1960 in Switzerland. It's an illustrious group of persons shown there, see the list next to the picture...

WAY TO GO UStik

Please stay "on the job" coming up with these rare photos. To me it is all part of the "investigation" of the Taurus, and the man behind it. Studying the designer as well as the plane puts a human facet or "human interest" story behind the plane itself.

Duane

Hello all.
For the well healed there is a brand new in box Taurus on E bay (British site) ending soon. it's already past my price range, and I suspect is is being sold by a trader which cheeses me off as they get these planes cheap and prevent the likes of me getting hold of them.
But bid away if you want it, good luck.
Rodders

It would be nice to have an original Taurus kit, but unfortunately, chances are the eventual buyer will just place it on a shelf in the hope he can make money on it later on.....what a shame.

The wood is probably "mushy" by now anyway. If they want a Taurus, build one of Jeff's laser-cut kits, (from Home and Hobby Solutions).

What I would like most from an original Taurus kit would be the BOX and the PLANS

Duane

My original Taurus kit that took from 1981 to 2005 to finish, (obviously I was not working on it o a regular basis)

WOW, what a thread. I have spent the last few days reading this thread and find that I am the luckiest person in the world to have so many Taurus (5 and parts) and have access to many more of my Fathers ( maybe another 7 or 8). The question is, should I fly these planes or preserve them forever. I had no idea that the Taurus was still of interest. I will drive to talk to my Dad tomorrow and let him know the Taurus is still alive...he will be so excited as this was his favorite plane. He is 82 now and getting forgetfull now but I will try to get the story from him as to how him and his friend Carl Beuhler from Chicago, got plans from Ed Kazmurski and set off on a mission to build so many Tauruses. I had Polio as a child my Father would take me to Chicago every 6 months for operations and checkups, and on these trips he would stop at Al's Hobby Shop in Chicago while I was in the hospitol and there he met some of his modeling friends. It was on one of these trips that Ed and my Father met.
I am sorry if this is a little off topic but I suspect that there may be some interesting information about Ed and the Taurus following my visit with my father.

John

I don't think it's off topic, wizzinbya, I enjoyed your story. It's nice that you were able to meed Ed. Did you realize who he was at the time or did you think he was just another of your dad's flying buddies?

Bob

I had no idea who Ed was, as I was just around 10 years old, but I did know my dad was hangin around with the big guys in modeling. I was always going to the flying field with him and he would get a plane in the air and hand me the old Orbit radio and tell me not to crash. I would blip the switches and do cuban eights mostly so I would not have to do much moving around with the brace on my leg...and once in a while I would yell out "Heads Up" and do a loop or something that I was told not to do. Blip Blip, the old Bonner servos actually worked pretty good and the radios were fairly reliable except when they weren't which was a lot of the time. I recall one time I was flying my dads favoite Taurus which was a yellow red and black paint scheme, anyway I was was just doing large figure eights in front of me when I blipped and nothing happened...my dad grabbed me and threw me in the car and told me never to take my eyes off the plane and tell him which way to go to follow it...we sped down roads for at least five minutes following the plane when finally it ran out of gas and wound up in a tree miles away from the field...bad battery. I still have that plane and it suffered only minor scratches from that incident but now it has a 2.4 ghz reciever in it and a newer engine and the old timer sewn hinges that all our planes have except 1.

More to come, John

John,

Enjoy the club but first, learn his name :Ed Kazmirski. (LOL)
We are interested in your fathers experiences and stories, hope he still remembers, but what also is important, maybe he still have pictures of that period.
We like them all.
BTW You are the pilot wth us with the longest ecxperience I think and the most spare parts so the luckiest. you'r right.


Cees

kingaltair,
I have the original box and the original plans. I purchased the kit in 1963. Why would you want an original box and plans?

ZHS-I sent you a PM

WIZZINBYA-As far as I'm concerned, anything about Kazmirski himself, or the early Taurus aircraft we have been discussing are exactly "on topic".

I would definitely restore your "fleet", reinforce those old ambroid glue joints, and go out to the field and fly them once more. The VR/CS, (Vintage R/C Society), and SPA (Senior Pattern Association), are very interested in vintage aircraft, and SPA still holds the old-style contests with vintage birds. Admittedly, these have sometimes been changed a bit to fly better, (as was the case back in the '60s). The early Taurus and Kwik Fly models are not considered highly competitive for general competition since our cut-off date extends all the way to 1-1-1976, but there is great interest in early pattern planes and simple, inexpensive competition.

Talking about the Taurus not being highly competitive, we have two classes of competition...GENERAL and ANTIQUE. The Antique planes ONLY go up to 1-1-67. We just happen to be having an Antique contest this coming weekend in Atlanta..the first Antique contest since I joined SPA back in 2005. No doubt, there will be a lot of Kwik Flys, Daddy Rabbit 1s, and a I'm sure a few Taurus(es) there. My own Taurus above is getting repaired...I let too much time get away...it may not be ready by the weekend.

The point is, pattern competition with these old planes is alive and well, and there is still a lot of interest in these "classics".

Duane

BTW-The Taurus 2 discussed throughout the thread is going to be re-outfitted and the STAB restored to its original condition, with the intention being to fly it once more. Ed took excellent care of his planes; for the past 40 years, they had been preserved in that crate. Since he was such an expert pilot, there is very little to NO damage to the finish etc.....it looks better than 80% of the planes you see at the field. The airframe is quite airworthy. There was minor damage to the "Carrier Wing" which has JUST been repaired, and repainted with the original Aerogloss Dope (attn Cees).

I plan to restore it to original condition, with the same ST .56 , chrome wheets etc. I hope to have it ready to fly by Feb or March for a VR/CS event in Florida. I also intend to paint the unfinished fuselage, and build a traditional Taurus wing...the airfoil of the wing saddle was designed for the traditional wing. I'll keep you posted.

Duane

Please do.... I'm sure that we would all like to follow the progress.

Bob

Another one of these kits just appeared on Ebay if any of you are interested.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=170282686479

Taurus-II restoration 1

After getting some minor projects out of the way, work began last evening on the Taurus II restoration. It is my intention to post the progress, (such as it is), on this thread. It may take some time as I'm not the fastest worker in the world, and I am a little awed working on a plane like this, built and flown by "the Great One" himself....it is kind-of like I'm "not worthy" or something. Now I know a little bit how the "restorers" felt working on Michelangelo's masterpiece in the Sistine Chapel....not quite, but you know what I mean. When you work on the original 45 year old wood, the shavings and dust has that "musty crate" smell; I am constantly reminded I'm working on an original Kazmirski "classic". On the other hand, I'm here and he isn't, so if the plane is going to fly again, I'm going to have to do the best I can, and "pray" for his guidance. I'm trying to be very deliberate and careful.

First thing, I am trying to restore the plane to the way it LOOKED, (on the outside) back in 1963, and am not particularly interested in using the exact methods Ed would have used with the technology available back then...the final goal of mine is that it looks the same. With that in mind, I considered several methods to try to lengthen the stab some 7-3/4 inches, (Ed shaved that much off in his effort to experiment with the Taurus II by adding "side thrust generators" to the stab, presumably in an effort to increase drag..see picture). Ed also shaved down the elevators, so they will also need to be built-up. Strength not being a major factor, I eventually decided to add an approximate 3" long by 1" thick foam extender to each side of the stab since the stab was 1-1/8" thick at the point Ed shaved it off. Stab-tips will make up the difference as it was in the original. I used my "unfinished fuse" as a model, since it appears both the Taurus II and the unfinished fuse have identical thick stabs, (which are about 3" longer than the original Taurus). I felt a built-up balsa extension would be more difficult and would add too much weight. I believe this method will work, and I'll let you know soon, and include some pictures.

Going back to Eds stab mods, I don't have any idea if Ed's experiments were successful, or even if he actually flew the plane after making the mods to test the results of the changes he made. The S.F.G. while carefully applied, were not even painted, and frankly looked a little strange. I made up my mind I had to restore the T-2 to its original configuration as he first flew it back in 1963-1966 or so....and as it appeared in all the vintage pictures contained in this thread. This will be the biggest part of the restoration.

More later
Duane

Duane,

Reading your post, I can only say, good luck with this important job and I am very interested to see the pictures of the progression and the results in the future.

“Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus” thread is again in the picture!

Cees

Hi Duayne,

very interesting. What you call SFGs may actually be an attempt to reduce tail weight. Tip plates have the effect of increasing the effective Aspect ratio by reducing tip vorticies. So weight saved by cutting 3 inches of stab, but tip plates keep the effective tail area adequate.

Any Aero-engineers care to comment?

Is there a difference between reduced "tail weight", and just moving the C/G? I'm sure there is, but I don't know what practical effect it would have.

What you say is interesting since Ed DID make the stab-span in the Taurus II 3" longer than the original Taurus, (30 vs 27"). He may have been trying to get back to the original tail...but he could have more easily done that by making the new tail 27" again.

Before I made the decision to remove the "winglets" a friend and I closely looked at what Ed had done from all angles. The "tip plates" seemed to be canted in slightly, (slightly wider at the front than at the back). As Cees mentioned way back, we know Ed sought to have a CONSTANT SPEED throughout all the maneuvers...my friend took the winglet's angles to be a means to further increase drag for more constant speed on the downlines, but it is just speculation. Ed also originally wanted to do the same thing by designing the Taurus II with a very thick wing, (which we called the "Carrier Wing"..see above). That was the original wing he used on the Taurus II, and the wing he had with him as a backup to the 1963 "worlds", (there are FAI stickers on both the thick wing and fuse). Later on, for whatever reason, he decided to abandon that thick wing, and the Taurus II was converted to accept a standard airfoil Taurus wing. You can see the strips of balsa he used to fill the "thickness gap" on the fuselage. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that both the thick wing and thick stab were attempts to increase drag...he abondoned one early, and perhaps the other later on.

I DO know that he successfully flew the Taurus II (after a brief period with the Carrier Wing), with the standard Taurus wing, (with straight trailing edge), and its original stab, (without winglets) for several years because all the pictures we have show the standard enlarged stab. There are no pictures of the plane with the winglets. Other than it looking bad, that was the primary reason I chose to remove them.

The stab is coming along, and I should have some pictures to include in a few days. It's going to be difficult to make a perfect, seemless extension to the existing stab, but I couldn't leave it the way it was. Perhaps the smartest thing to do would have been to fly the plane with the winglets THEN make the change so I could compare flight characteristics, but I made the "executive decision" to do otherwise because I KNEW the Taurus II would fly well as it was originally flown.

One aside. My original King Altair had a 34" stab, (shortened by the builder to match the clipped wing). When I built my first "scratch built" King, I didn't "pick up" on that and built the stab full size at 36" while using the same clipped wing. I couldn't notice any difference, (but I'm probably not that good a pilot to be able to evaluate the difference; I'd probably attribute any difference to something else, the wind, or my own novice flying ability).

Duane

Duane, WEDJ

WEDJ is right, but there can be more.

I think "toe-in" Ed did use to generate also two opposite forces, compensating each other, with the SFG’s so more drag.
You also get a better balance just like a profiled fin to prevent waggling of the tail.

I use "toe-in" when using winglets on tailless and canard models in stead of the fin and rudder.
When there is a little rotation on the vertical axle the SFG that’s most out of direction generates the correcting force.
I think "toe-out" is dangerous to generate drag so it is safe to make toe-in. (Toe out I cannot use on tailless and Canards)

About the weight distribution, the more the weight is concentrated in the centre of the plane the better it will be manouvrable with less forces of the “doors”, so less drag. Also the balances around the axles/axis are "faster".

My contribution, success
Cees

Duane, thank you for another inspiring post! Since I saw the end plates for the first time I'm wondering what Ed intended. I had the same idea as WEDJ and I like to comment even though I'm not an aero engineer (industrial instead).

First, I wondered why Ed used a thick horizontal tail but the old slab vertical tail. The only explanation I have is that it's a by-product of the thick wing. There's a simplified rule that the tail should not stall before the wing. A thick airfoil makes for big maximum lift at high angle-of-attack, though. Usually the horizontal tail has a rather small aspect ratio to accomplish a stall at higher aoa than the wing. Now the carrier wing is so thick that a thick tail airfoil may be required in addition.

Following this simplified "theory", one could assume that Ed still felt that the horizontal tail stalled or was not effective enough. So he replaced the small stab tips by end plates, effectively getting more tail effect at even higher aoa. Maybe he fitted them toe-out (wider at the front) to avoid the nasty flow separations that would otherwise develop in the corners between stab and end plates. I don't think a small toe-in would have a noticeable effect on directional stability, either.

That's the only "theory" I had so far, and it has a major drawback since Ed fitted the end plates only after flying the T2 with the new thinner wing for a long time. So the reason for the end plates could be directional stability as well. After all such things are used on floatplanes for that reason, and maybe Ed was satisfied with the thick horizontal stab but not with the slab vertical.

As an afterthought, he might have complemented the small and ineffective vertical tail by the side force generators, as they are now called, or simply fins, like those used on many floatplanes to augment vertical area and directional stability. The small horizontal tail tips were not really needed (and the end plates gave more horizontal effect), anyway. And it would have been much harder to replace the whole vertical tail by a new one since it's tightly integrated with the fuselage. Ed did replace the slab tail by a big and thick-airfoiled tail (later?) on the unfinished fuselage.

It's all theory, I know, but seems consistent and is more than nothing. Any more bids?

Gents,

I am "OUT" with my toe-in, did understand "canted in slightly" wrong.
I still have a change when the SFG's are asymetrical as on my drawing. So flat on the outside and curved inside.

From reading from papers I still know that Ed did not want drag behind the propeller, in the slibstream, maybe that can still a point to think about.
Cees

Cees, I know what you mean, but things seem to be rather complex. I found Martin Hepperle's [link=http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/winglets.htm]winglets explanation[/link] very helpful.

Yes, the end plates are not in the slipstream and the vertical tail is. But the thick vertical might be intended to remedy a mushy rudder around neutral. And the rudder has to be in the slipstream to have rudder effect also without airspeed, only by exploiting the propwash. By the way, I think a more articulate rudder could be achieved as well by simply not sharpening it (a slab rudder with square trailing edge).

Gents,
Next suggestion.
Ed could not do much to adjust the sidethrust of the engine we did see. The ST.
Could it be possible that he did want more fin surfuce outside the slibstream !

Cees