ORIGINAL: pimmnz

Because, as Ed explained in the 'Champ Chats' transcription, (October 1962 RCM&E) his 'Taurus' is modified from that original drawing. There was no drawing available of Eds mods, and the kit/MAN plan wasn't done, so the only way he could help Dennis with the build was to send him the sketches of the bits, and a tape to describe what was to be done.
Evan, WB #12.

ORIGINAL: pimmnz

Because, as Ed explained in the 'Champ Chats' transcription, (October 1962 RCM&E) his 'Taurus' is modified from that original drawing. There was no drawing available of Eds mods, and the kit/MAN plan wasn't done, so the only way he could help Dennis with the build was to send him the sketches of the bits, and a tape to describe what was to be done.
Evan, WB #12.

ORIGINAL: pimmnz

My guess is, as I have said before, 'We' were building lots of prototypes, and the plan referred to has to be the 1961 blueprint, the 'short tail, short wing' Taurus that came after the long nose failure. Ed must have modified the original plan with a longer tail, as described.

ORIGINAL: pimmnz

Duane, Ed quotes the Navy judges in his Champ Chats tape, so it must have been done after the Nats. Given that there were so many Taurus at the Nats, and a quick glimpse of the Ad in the Jan 1963 MAN listing all the model wins, from June 1962, and the people using it, Maxy Hester, Les Fruh, etc, then I think the model was already prolific, especially in the Chicago area. I am not surprised that there are so many variations, rather that we tend to think that there is only one valid version. I agree that we really need to see that 1961 blueprint, as that could be the first 'satisfactory' Taurus, and the likely starting point for the next wave of modifications (improvements).
Evan.

In the January - February 1964 issue of American Modeler there is a report on the 1963 World Champ

ORIGINAL: Insomnia88

Duane,
All of the new evidence shows that the original Taurus existed before the 1961 Nats.

NOT NECESSARILY. THERE ARE MANY PIECES OF EVIDENCE, SOME OF IT CONTRADICTORY. A LOT DEPENDS ON WHAT WE BELIEVE AND WHAT WE REJECT. WE MUST TAKE ALL THE EVIDENCE TOGETHER AND MAKE OUR BEST GUESS. EVEN THEN WE WILL PROBABLY NOT ALL AGREE. I WISH THE EVIDENCE WERE COMPELLING ENOUGH SO THAT IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ALL.

Back in 1963 there was a builder of the model rule in F.A.I. Ed Kazmirski had to build his own airplanes.

THANKS FOR THIS INFO. I GUESS THIS MEANS HE DID INDEED BUILD THE WHOLE PLANE.

In the RCM & E article Ed Kazmurski says that he flew a modified Taurus at the 1961 Nats. In order to modify a Taurus the original had to already exist.

THE CHAMP CHATS ARTICLE SAYS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TAURUS WAS OVER "SEVERAL YEARS". I THINK THIS GOES BACK TO THE EARLIER MODS OF THE ORION, AND MAYBE FURTHER. WHO KNOWS ALL THE "BULL SESSIONS" SKETCHES AND DRAWINGS THAT TOOK PLACE EARLIER. WHEN HE SAYS "MODIFIED TAURUS" HE COULD MEAN MODIFIED IN RELATION TO THE ESTABLISHED TAURUS THAT EVERYONE KNEW IN 1962. IF HE DID INDEED MEAN THE 1961 PLANE WAS MODIFIED FROM AN EARLIER PLANE THAT LOOKED LIKE A MODEL WE WOULD RECOGNIZE AS A TAURUS, THEN YOU HAVE TO SHOW WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS TO SUPPORT THAT STATEMENT. AS I SAID ON AN EARLIER POST, THE VERY FIRST EVIDENCE WE ACTUALLY HAVE IN OUR POSSESSION FOR A PLANE THAT LOOKS LIKE A TAURUS, IS THE DEC 1961 PLAN, WHICH OF COURSE PRE-DATES THE AFRICA TRIP BY SEVERAL MONTHS. REMEMBER THE PLANE WAS BUILT FIRST, THEN THE PLAN DRAWN, SO IT IS LIKELY TO ME AT LEAST, THAT ED STARTED HIS DRAWINGS AND BUILDING DURING THE SUMMER OF 1961, (ABOUT 2 YEARS EARLIER).

IN MY EARLIER POSTS I HAVE PLACED A LOT OF IMPORTANCE ON THE PROTOTYPE CONTEST TAURUS PLAN . THIS PLAN HAS AN ACTUAL DATE ON IT, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE DATE OF THE FIRST FLIGHT AS LATE NOVEMBER 1961. I ALSO SAID IN AN EARLIER POST, THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO SAY THE TAURUS WAS BUILT WHEN CEES SAID IT WAS IF THE PLAN HAD NOT BEEN SO SPECIFIC REGARDING WHEN THE FIRST FLIGHT WAS. CEES PLACES "ALL HIS EGGS IN ONE BASKET," MEANING EVERYTHING HANGS ON THAT ONE COMMENT IN THE MAGAZINE ABOUT BEING "OVER 2-1/2 YEARS OLD". THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION GIVEN BY ANYONE FOR WHAT THE PLAN CALLS THE "CONTEST TAURUS PROTOTYPE" HAVING ITS FIRST FLIGHT ON THANKSGIVING 1961.

He didn’t come home from the 1961 Nats and in 4 or 5 weeks scratch build a Taurus to fly at Detroit. In the January - February 1964 issue of American Modeler there is a report on the 1963 World Champ. In the report it says and I quote; Ed was flying his original Taurus with Orbit 10 Ch reed gear, Bonner Transmites and Veco 45 power unit. The familiar red, white and blue finish seemed to be still as good as the day the model was built more than two years ago. It later won the Concours d’ Elegance. The event started on August 21, 1963 which means the original Taurus existed prior to August 21, 1961.

IN LIGHT OF OTHER EVIDENCE AS MENTIONED ABOVE, I FEEL THIS IS A GENERAL REFERENCE TO WHEN THE TAURUS WAS BUILT, AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE AN EXACT DATE. I DO FEEL THE TAURUS CONCEPT AND HIS SKETCHES/DRAWING, AND MAYBE EVEN SOME CONSTRUCTION COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT ABOUT THIS TIME, SO THE START DATE IS CLOSE TO THE AMERICAN MODELER STATEMENT REGARDING AGE OF THE PLANE.

The report goes into great detail of the event. The reporter gives maneuver by maneuver descriptions of flights. I am sure his reporting of the details on the age of the plane is accurate.

I AM SURE THE DATES FOR THE ORIGINAL PLAN, (TAKEN FROM CONTEST TAURUS PROTOTYPE), AND FIRST FLIGHT ARE ACCURATE

In the same magazine there is a report on the 1963 Nats with Class III taking up 3 paragraphs. Just read your latest post on Cees page. In the October 1961 MAN on page 34 there is a report; Those of you who have thought about taking up the Chicago club on their “ten best R/C flyers”. Offer might gain some consolation in the fact that a weekend in May produced about $3,000.00 worth of balsa and resistor scrap. Dave Burt finished his Orion on Saturday and completely washed it out the next day. Quite a few more swept up pieces, including Ed Kazmirski.

IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU COULD SCAN, (OR MAYBE RAY OR EVAN COULD IF THEY HAVE THE MAG) AND POST THESE PIECES OF FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE AS OTHERS HAVE DONE. IT WOULD BE A HELP FOR EVERYONE.

This report coupled with the fact that the modified Taurus he flew at the 1961 Nats was destroyed when the radio failed leads me to believe he left the original Taurus at home for fear of radio failure in a plane that he had flown and felt superior to the modified Taurus.

THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED, BUT IS NOT LIKELY. I CAN'T IMAGINE ED WOULD KEEP HIS BEST PLANE AT HOME AND FLY AN INFERIOR PLANE AT THE US NATS...THAT DOESN'T SOUND ANYTHING LIKE WHAT I HAVE READ OF HIM. HE WAS AN EXPERT AT ADJUSTING AND MAINTAINING HIS EQUIPMENT, AND IF THE 1961 PLANE CRASHED DUE TO RADIO FAILURE, IT WAS COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED. BOB DUNHAM WAS A PERSONAL FRIEND, AND ED CONTINUALLY FLEW BOB'S NEWEST PROTOTYPES. BOB COULD EASILY HAVE BROUGHT A NEW RADIO WITH HIM.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF AN "ORIGINAL TAURUS" OLDER THAN THE 1961 NATS PLANE OTHER THAN THE SPECULATIVE CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM THAT ONE STATEMENT OF "OVER 2-1/2 YEARS OLD", WHICH AS I SAID EARLIER IS NOT EXTREMELY SPECIFIC. THAT STATEMENT COULD REFER TO THE TIME WHEN THE PLANE WAS BEING SKETCHED AND BUILDING WAS ABOUT TO START.

IT SEEMS MORE LIKELY TO ME THAT THE 1961 NATS "TAURUS" WAS AN EARLIER, MORE CRUDE SHIP BASED MORE ON THE ORION, THAT PRE-DATES (WHAT HE SAYS IN "CHAMP CHATS"), HIS FINAL VERSION, (NOT COUNTING THE KIT). NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE EXACTLY WHAT ED FLEW AT DETROIT IN SEPTEMBER OF 1961

Some of Cees theories I buy but not all. I believe the plane on the right side of the crate is the original Taurus and the wing is on the left side.

CEES BELIEVES THE TAURUS ON THE RIGHT CONTAINS THE BASIC FUSELAGE OF MY TAURUS-2

If you read his report he says that when he got to Africa he wrote “the first of the flight demonstrations was most apprehensive of this flight since I did not get an opportunity to check the equipment or have a practice flight because the weather in Chicago was far from ideal before his departure. I believe this Taurus is the one he test flew on Thanksgiving of 1961. I doubt there would be many days between Thanksgiving and the first of April suitable for flying.

TRUE ENOUGH

I believe the plan flown in Africa is the prototype contest model.

The ad for the Taurus on the page opposite the report page 35 shows a wing span 70”, length 53 ¼” and weight 5 ¾ lbs. Same as the plane flown in Africa.

YOU POINTED OUT ON YOUR EARLIER THREAD THAT ALL THE SCRATCH-BUILT TAURUS MODELS HAD A WINGSPAN OF 68". I EVEN CONFIRMED THIS WITH BOB NOLL OF VR/CS, THAT EVEN THE NATS TAURUS HAD THIS WINGSPAN. I WOULD VERY MUCH DOUBT THERE WERE ANY 70" WINGSPAN TAURUS(S) UNTIL THE KIT PLAN WAS DRAWN.

NOBODY HAS REALLY OFFERED A GOOD ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR THE "THANKSGIVING 1961 FIRST FLIGHT" DATE FOR THE "CONTEST TAURUS PROTOTYPE" OTHER THAN WHAT I HAVE SAID. I BELIEVE BOTH OF THE PLANES IN THE CRATE ARE VERY SIMILAR WITH LIKELY SMALL DIFFERENCES, AND UNMISTAKABLY BOTH LOOK LIKE THE "CONTEST PROTOTYPE" IE FINAL TAURUS.

PEOPLE CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE, BUT I AM TRYING TO BASE THESE CONCLUSIONS ON ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, (WHILE WAITING FOR SOMETHING ELSE TO COME ALONG). IF PEOPLE START READING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD, THEY WILL NOTICE THAT MANY SPECULATIONS WE HAD EARLY IN THE THREAD HAVE BEEN EITHER CONFIRMED OR REFUTED, AND THAT WE KNOW A LOT MORE, (FOR SURE), NOW THAN WE DID WHEN WE STARTED. IT IS MY HOPE THAT THERE WILL EVENTUALLY BE ENOUGH CONCRETE EVIDENCE SO THAT ALMOST EVERYBODY WILL BE ABLE TO AGREE ON THE "TRUE HISTORY". IF NOT WE CAN AT LEAST CONTINUE TO REASON BACK AND FORTH.

DUANE

Jim Kimbro

ORIGINAL: pimmnz

It is quite possible Duane, that Ed never built an 'original' Taurus, per the blueprint.

I HOPE NOBODY HERE HAS THE OPINION THAT I THINK ED BUILT ANY OF HIS PLANES FROM A BLUEPRINT. AS I'VE SAID REPEATEDLY, EACH OF ED'S MODELS ARE DIFFERENT. AS I MENTIONED ABOVE, THE DEC 1961 PLAN WAS DRAWN AFTER THE FACT...AFTER ED HAD ALREADY BUILT HIS "CONTEST TAURUS PROTOTYPE". THE PLAN WAS MORE FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE ALL THE OTHER, (SCRATCH-BUILT) TAURUS MODELS FROM THE SUMMER OF 1962 CAME FROM.

It seems much more likely that after the demise of the unsatisfactory Taurus, and the first flight of the 'new and improved' version, Ed spent the winter of '61/'62 (long cold winters in Chicago, I'm led to believe) building his own long version of the Taurus, the familiar 'cover girl'. This seems, to me anyway, a much more likely scenario. How much different it was to the other one he took to S.Rhodesia we don't know, we only have Dennis account that they were 'identical'. This would seem to rule out the slimmer T2 having been finished any time before that trip.

I CAN FULLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING SAID HERE. I THINK ED HAS HIS "PROTOTYPE CONTEST TAURUS", AND PROBABLY BUILT THE OTHER ONE, (DIFFERENTLY OF COURSE), DURING THAT WINTER, BUT NOT SO DIFFERENTLY THAT IT DIDN'T LOOK VERY SIMILAR TO THE OTHER. I BELIEVE BOTH TAURUS MODELS IN THE CRATE ARE INSTANTLY RECOGNIZABLE BY US AS THE "FINAL" TAURUS. THERE WAS A "LIGHT" AND A "HEAVIER" MODEL; THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME SMALL DIFFERENCE IN TAIL MOMENT, BUT THEY WERE SIMILAR. BTW....THE PILOT INSIDE THE ONE ON THE RIGHT WAS LATER TAKEN OUT FOR SOME REASON, I HAVE IT NOW.

Where the second 'African' Taurus is we don't know, it is possible Ed had it made by someone else, (given his time restraints, and the fact that 'we' were still busy back home) and gave it back after the trip. This would leave room for the T2 development by Ed himself. Interestingly, the English mags were advertising ready built 'T1 and T2' fuselages, using that nomenclature, so back then ('64, '65) the differences were well known, we have forgotten much. A fruitful area of research could be the archives of the Chicago club, someone must have club newsletters going back that far, and that may turn up much peripheral information.

MAYBE I COULD WRITE THEM, ALONG WITH THE RCCD FOR MORE DETAILS AND POSSIBLE PHOTOS FROM THEIR INVITATIONALS.

On another tack, you have measured the length of the various fuselages, but not to a reference I can grasp, any possibility of a measurement from the rear of the wing cut-out to the elevator hinge line? This will give me a good reference dimension for the moments and lengths of the various versions around.

WELL EVAN, IT SEEMED TO ME AT THE TIME THAT THE DISTANCE FROM THE REAR OF THE WING CUT-OUT TO THE BOTTOM FUSE TIP WHERE IT MEETS THE RUDDER WAS A GOOD MEASUREMENT TO MAKE TO INDICATE TAIL MOMENT. THAT'S WHAT I ASKED BOB NOLL TO MEASURE, AND I STILL THINK IT GIVES A GOOD "HANDLE" ON THE RELATIVE LENGTHS OF THE TAIL MOMENTS OF THE DIFFERENT MODELS.

Thanks,
Evan.

ORIGINAL: UStik

By the way, who was Frank Myers?

He drew the plans, not Ed. But Ed should have had a copy to send to Africa (my biggest puzzle).

And by the way, also the Oct 1962 RCM&E plan shows 70" wingspan, but a different fuse length (another con-fus-ion).

And by the way, Cees' model doesn't look like the T2 at all (he doesn't claim so, I know).

Cees, there's no hurry, take your time building, this year's Easter date is April 12. Might even match your maiden-flight assumptions, and we could call your model the Easter Taurus.

ORIGINAL: pimmnz

As regards to the origon of the RCM&E drawing, well, Ed gave it to them. Extract from July 1962 RCM&E. There is good argument that T2 could not have gone to Africa too, consider...as far as we can tell the fuselage had only two wings fitted to it, the really thick 'Carrier' wing and the later 'Bosch' sectioned wing. It is obvious that neither of these wings is in the African box photo, the straight trailing edge is not apparent on either of the wings in the box. It is not likely that Ed would have taken a spare fuselage along that wouldn't fit either of the wings he took...
Evan.

ORIGINAL: UStik

... and that plan says the plane should have a Veco 45 while showing a K&B 45. And it shows a different fuse length. And the plan in the Jan 1963 MAN article is very similar, just much more detailed. That's why I asked "who was Frank Myers?". I even remember reading that Top Flite's Sid Axelrod helped with drawing plans (the updated Orion). So that might even explain why the plans show some details not found on Ed's real models, and why Ed had to send brown paper sheets to Dennis Hunt.

Don't be annoyed when I'm throwing stones into the water to see what waves they make. That's just me. And that's what sometimes provoked discussion and new information here.

ORIGINAL: UStik

Cees, there's no hurry, take your time building, this year's Easter date is April 12. Might even match your maiden-flight assumptions, and we could call your model the Easter Taurus.

ORIGINAL: UStik


Just a scenario (fairy tale). But the plan is surprisingly detailed, (bla bla bla Shortened by Taurus Flyer