RFJ

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!................................. ...


Duane,

Here is the text which accompanied the Japan shot in the September 1964 RCM&E. I think Evan posted this somewhere before but I couldn't be bothered searching

Ray

pimmnz

Duane, the text on the two pages is all there is. I believe that it is Ed telling kit builders how to get something approaching a T2. There were advertisements back then for built up Taurus and T2 fuselages, so someone knew what the differences were, and the photos show the standard wing cut-out. As for the 'rake' it is apparent from the article that the intention was to show that the leading edge sweep increases when you build with a straight trailing edge, ie 'more rake'. I know that T/F were producing Taurus 'wing kits' as a separate item from the normal kit, so maybe there was a sort of 'after market' supply of the bits you needed to have your own T2, as described. I can offer no other explanation, again it is important to not make things more complex than they appear. As with the beginning, the PCM to the Nats model, it is the simplest answer that usually tells the most accurate story.
With regard to Eds African trip, the precedent was set by Palmer and Bonner in the late '50's, with Thunderbird and Smog Hog, so Eds trip was a natural follow up, with the added bonus that Ed was the World Champ at the time. Just so no-one is under the impression that this was a unique thing.
Evan.

UStik

Well said!

The Japan T2 is a real mystery. The tail paint scheme looks unfamiliar to us, though we should keep in mind that it is not completely visible in the bad picture. I would not completely exclude that Ed used not his own Taurus for a mere demonstration tour. Who knows what the transportation fees to Japan were. The word rake meant for me the same as sweep of the leading edge, anyway I didn't think of a sharper leading edge. At one point I even thought there is a diagonal rib structure like on the carrier wing (look where Ed casts a shadow on the wing). So it could be a non-standard wing, I just don't know and took the text literally.

By all means, I tried to avoid the mysterious questions and asked what this "case" could mean to us or could show us. Ed himself had pointed out that spinning was hard with the standard Taurus. It seems that was at least one reason to try a swept wing and the Bosch airfoil, maybe even more dihedral and shorter tail as well. So I simulated the Japan T2 with these modifications but still with a "hardly stalling" 2419 airfoil. It turned out that better spins and snaps are nevertheless achieved. The real reason for better spin behavior is the somewhat less stable setup. Setting the c/g back by 2" is "too much" to compensate the wing sweep and lessens the static margin. That's obviously the whole secret.

What you measured on the carrier and pusher wings is great news. It shows that the thicknesses declared somewhere (don't remember right now) are indeed 22% and 20%. It also shows that the ailerons protrude out of the airfoil outline and we need the airfoil template to really know the airfoil.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Even;

I have no desire to make things any more complicated than they have to be, however over-simplification is not the best thing either. I am trying to be accurate, and find the truth, (regarding Ed and that particular picture), if possible. Just to be certain I really understood what was meant by the word "rake", I looked it up in the dictionary:

3rd definition; ..to slant or incline

I don't believe the author is talking about the natural taper of the wing that results from building it with a straight trailing edge; I am very certain he means the SLOPE OF THE AIRFOIL ITSELF. If you will remember earlier descriptions of the Bosch airfoil, the same term "rake" is used to describe the fact that the leading edge is sharper, (ie more raked...with the maximum thickness further back in the airfoil, thus resulting in more slope) than the traditional airfoil L.E.

I may be the only one who believes this, (and I don't think we need to belabor the point further), but the Japanese Taurus-2 in the picture there with Ed appears to me to have a sharper L.E. than the standard Taurus. I may be alone in this belief.

Just for the record, I understand the idea here was for builders back then to approximate what Ed had and to build their own Taurus-2, however in this thread, we are looking at ED'S PERSONAL PLANES, (the plane in that picture only), not what was available for purchase at the time.

Duane

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

To change the subject some, a while back I received seven personal snapshots of the Simla dated May 1965. Unfortunately these pictures were quite small, though sharp. Out of the seven, 2 or 3 are views from angles that we haven't seen before...the rest are the familiar 3/4 view that doesn't yield any new information. A few of the pictures we have are displayed below.

I'll see if I can get hi resolution scans of those photos made to share with you. I know that some of you out there are very interested in the Simla; it is a plane that has generated a lot of interest over the past couple years, and for good reason. There is only a relative handful of photographs of it that I know of, and NO drawings. I asked Ed about that a couple times. Any accurate drawing, (even on brown paper), would be welcome, but nothing so far.

I know there are people out there who have some knowledge of the Simla, or the variants made by Ed's friends during this time. Any additional information would be most welcome.

Duane

pimmnz

Kingaltair, we will have to 'agree to disagree' about the leading edge 'rake', to me it simply says that the leading edge sweep increases when you build with a straight trailing edge. However, I am with you with the apparent change in wing section, it does indeed seem to be a sharper wing, given the resolution of the reproduction. So that makes two.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Fair enough. I believe you'll "come around" sooner or later.

I was looking through earlier posts and found the discussion on the Bosch airfoil. It is contained on page 37 post#923 and those immediately after.

Duane

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

I hope this doesn't sound too strange, but tonight I stopped for a while to look back

I was re-reading some of the earlier posts, and realized just how much some of my ideas have changed over time. Sometimes I read them and say to myself, "why did you think that?" I have edited a few of them, (but not enough... not taking away, but adding to the earlier posts), to show a change in opinion as new information comes to the surface.

Anyone who says that we are not coming closer to the truth as we move along on this thread is just plain wrong. The changes in our opinions are not total, but I see them, (at least my own outlook), as time goes by. Maybe everyone else knew all this "stuff" from the beginning, but I doubt it...I think each person that reads this thread learns different facts about Ed and the Taurus. For example, Evan said "he thought everyone knew, (about the booklet "how to Fly Your Taurus" ). Well everyone didn't know...I know that I didn't know about it because one of those booklets was not in MY kit. I bet Evan, and UStik have picked up a few things along the way as well, and even Cees, [X(] somewhere said his opinion had changed about something early on in the thread.

No doubt there are folks that reularly read the thread without commenting much; I assume they are benefiting from everything that has been presented here. I know that just the five primary participants haven't visited the thread over 44,000 times.. there are lots of others who hopefully are enjoying this. Even the arguements and back-and-forth "discussions" and debates, (between a sort-of Taurus family), is entertaining. There have to be folks out there saying to themselves, "I wonder what old so-and-so is going to say next?...let's see"

Another thing I've noticed is the differing areas of expertise of the participants. Each brings their own special knowledge to the thread, and can contribute to the Taurus education of the others in that area...there was one guy who knew Ed when he was younger, and another that brought to light the Myer plan, (one of the most valuable pieces of evidence in this whole thread in my opinion).

Ray and Evan have provided more rare photos and technical information that I dreamed was out there. Who knew that Ed had developed a "Pusher" model, and I had never seen a picture of the 1961 "FLOP" before...these were new revelations to me.

UStik in a "by the way" kind of comment opened the door to explaining the Bosch airfoil, (really cool), and also provided valuable documentation and photos of the radios of the time, then later discussed his hobby of working with simulators, and how varying different elements changes the flight characteristics. Of course I knew that was true, but he has been demonstrating it for us lately.

Cees was the first to point out the differences in the MAN and NATS wings. I didn't know a video of the 1963 W/C existed until Cees pointed that out. All these have really increased my appreciation of Ed and the evolution of the Taurus.

Each person who contributes adds to the knowledge of the others and the end result is that we all, (at least most) get a more complete picture of the evolution of the Taurus over time. For another example, in a post responding to Jim Kimbro, I see where I said there "was no evidence for a 70" wing prior to the kit..." Well that was prior to the Myer plan being measured. This "prototype" plan is for a 70" wing, so Jim was right on. Our opinions have to change as more pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

The bottom line is that if we continue to have an open mind and look for the "true history" the best we are able, we will come away with a more full appreciation of the time period, and a better knowledge of Ed and what he accomplished in a very short span of time.

Personally, I know I have a lot fuller knowledge than I had at the beginning, and there is still more that can be brought to light before we're done.

pimmnz

Hear, hear, Duane! I for one thought that there was only one Taurus, the T/F, MAN plan version, and now I find that the designer never owned one that matched it! The truth is only what we know of the thing. I feel that any more info will now come from those with personal knowledge of the times, and they might not even know they hold part of the story. My only other bother is that anyone who stumbles on this thread, and actually reads it, will probably go away shaking their heads and wondering why the anoraks even bothered...
Evan.

UStik

... don't forget Ed's pipe!

looppy

That plane does being back memories. My dad way back in the 60’s had built two of them. I was still pretty young back then. I had always thought that the Taurus was a kit plane, now I guess not.
His first plane was flown with (if my memory is right) an Orbit radio. At some point in time it did crashed because the radio failed.
His second one was flow for a few seasons using his new Kraft radio.
The only part that survived of the first plane was the tail end. It sat around in our basement for a few years until I took it. I removed the rudder, and turn it into a half /A Cox powered .049 combat control liner. I never flew it with any other persons at the same time as in combat, but it was just fun flying it around as it was.
I did get into a bit of trouble with my farther for doing so with out his permission to take it in the first place.
About a year ago at a local club r/c auction , a fellow showed up with two completely built and flown and in very good shape still , Taurus’s .Painted in the same way as Ed’s and my father’s . I was out bided on both of them.
I thought it would have been great to had bought home just one to show off to my mother.
My farter had passed away in 1974 from a plane crash that he had owned.
It just amazes me to see some of the old things that still survive to this day and when it comes to flying model air craft.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Continuing on post #1255

This thread is NOT about the Simla as such, but remember that the Simla was Ed's last creation...it was his BIG TAURUS, and he thought of it as "Taurus scaled up to 150%". In a general sense that is true, though apparent dimensions do not equal exactly 150%. The wingspan has been reported as 95" and 102" (8-1/2 feet) in different publications. I haven't done the measurements myself, but UStik has measured it out tentatively as 95 or 96", so that appears to be the most reliable figure.

There are only a handful of Simla photos that have surfaced, and none in color, (though we certainly know the color scheme). Four of the pictures were printed above, (the World Engines ad with 2 poses). In addition, I receintly received from Chuck Noble from the auction house, (7) more photos, (snapshots) from Ed Kazmirski's estate. These were small, (3"X3" ), but sharp "black & white" candid shots, and I was able to scan and enlarge them somewhat without losing resolution. The four best photos are included below, one showing Ed himself, and another including a "helper". The photos are dated May 1965, which is the correct time period as 1965 was the year Ed competed at the NATS and other events with the Simla.

The top view is almost directly dead-on, (as opposed to the W/E ad where the plane is slightly turned, and the photo is taken from a lower angle). While there is still not a straight-on side view, the closest thing to it is shown in another of the pictures. I believe much more acurate measurements can be taken from these pictures.

If there is anyone out there who has additional photos of the Simla, they would be greatly appreciated to add to the skanty information we already have.

Duane

RFJ

Great shots of the Simla Duane, many thanks for posting them

I wonder if the "helper" in the last one is Ed's son - looks a bit like him.

Now someone just has to build a new version of the Simla as close as possible to the original given the constraints imposed by the information available (lets say Sumthin' Simla)

Given todays modern building materials and techniques, plus a big four stroke, that would be one impressive model.

Ray

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Ed only had a daughter...Chuck doesn't know who the kid is, maybe is a nephew. At any rate, we would be about the same age now.

If the model weighs about 9-10 lbs it would fly great on a .90 2-stroke, (maybe even a modern .61). They had 9lb models back then, and Ed flew the Simla in competition with a ST (as indicated in the ad), and later a Veco). And this was a plane that weighed 12 oz more than it originally did before the light landed on it, (as related by Ed).

It is absolutely incredible how Ed thought out of the box. The ad says the plane had plug-in, and mid-placement wings, (both of which became popular much later). I can never say that someone else hadn't thought of the same thing back then, but nobody I'm aware of did it. It also reportedly had variable dihedral. He side-mounted the engine, and the engine compartment appears to be open on the right side.

We know more about it now than we did about a year back, and there is a chance more information will come out someday.

Duane

UStik

Yes, great shots and great scans as well. Resoulution is good now even though the forum software cheated again and, as always, shrinked pictures to 800 pixels width. The top view shot is unshrinked, anyway, and even though the horizon is again only knee-high (literally) it's very suitable for measurements.

Already now I have to correct myself, the picture is just too good (perspective distortion grossly removed). I would not exclude 8.5 ft (102" ) span, but 95" or 96" would be not distinguishable even using the 34" stab span specification. Maybe we will never achieve that precision, but 1" more or less doesn't really matter. The 3/4 shots contain even new views of engine and landing gear. We'll nail it!

To another point, maybe Ray or Evan can give me a clue why they thought back then that a shorter tail moment arm is better for proportional and especially why more dihedral? I just can't get what is meant by a rock-back tendency to hold stick against. (Lower left paragraph.)

RFJ

Ah yes, that would be Gaye. I should have read his obituary more carefully.

Evan might know but I'm darned if I do. Back then there were lots of theories about design differences between models using reeds or proportional. Turned out that if a model flew good on reeds it flew just as well on proportional. About the only change you could make to improve flying was to use bigger control surfaces with less throw. In fact the really skillful reed fliers could manually pulse the TX switches to obtain a sort of proportional control depending on the "mark/space" ratio of their thumbs Reed servos, unlike escapements, did not have to travel to full throw before returning to neutral. Using a ground based monitor to detect the reed audio tones you could watch the flight and listen to the commands being given at the same time. There were very few seconds of silence during a good pilots flight.

I agree. I think what Ed was always striving for was constant (slow) speed aerobatics. This was the reason for the much later development of the so called "long stroke" two stroke engines. If four strokes had been around you bet Ed would have used them. The Simla is a natural for a 120 four stroke.

Ray

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

UStik

The photos are cropped down quite a bit. There was a lot of sky and parking lot in them. I doubt Ed took any of the pictures himself, as the picture size indicates they were not the main photograph, but the "bonus" photos you used to get when you developed the roll.

I may easily be wrong, but I believe the "rock-back" tendancy is the tendancy in a bank, for the plane to naturally want to return to level flight, so holding the stick to a certain degree essentially holds the plane in the same amount of bank throughout the turn, rather than it continuing to keep rolling over.

Duane

UStik

Yes Ray, thanks, now I remember my own trials with the Bellamatic II (never really learned to fly). I also remember Ed writing somewhere that he flew with minimum pulsing. Seems he set up / trimmed his planes so he merely needed to "command" them through the schedule. Maybe that's why he didn't really get used to proportional.

Duane, makes sense to me. Seems to me they were not used to top aileron back then (no wonder with reeds). That's how a rudder-only model is flown (a bit overstated).

Again I disagree, this time on the photos. I think Ed made them together with his nephew. I'd really like to know what camera he had. Maybe back then, with the 6x6 cm format, he had a Rolleiflex double lens reflex with top viewer. That would explain the low camera point of view. I think Ed wanted a good perspective for some Simla pictures so the camera had to be at some distance. Because he had no tele lens there's just all that sky and parking lot.

And to the flight characteristics, Simla has a very low wing loading and doesn't need an especially powerful engine. The modern, powerful long-strokes and four-strokes are often used with high-pitch props so the models fly quite fast. I think that was the direction of development already in the 1960s and maybe Ed didn't like this style.

RFJ

Remember those 12X4 props in Eds collection. That was the way to go for slower flight - large volume of air moving slower. The design philosophy is lots of drag and lots of torque to dive and climb at the same speed. I think that is what Ed was after. Much easier to acheive with a four stroke.


Many ex-reed fliers choose a mode 2 proportional outfit when they converted ( the "more like the real thing" argument) but being used to elevator left thumb, aileron right thumb they could never quite get used to both on the right stick. Hard to tell from the pictures but I think Ed was one of these. I'm glad I choose mode 1.

Ray

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

UStik...It figures . You are looking at the photos like an engineer, and I am looking at them like a photographer...and Ed was a protographer both before and after R/C. Who knows, we'll never know and you might be right, but just hear my reasons.

The originals look like snapshots with the person's head right in the middle, and with the plane sitting on an oil-spotted piece of concrete. I fixed the worst of the oil spots before saving the picture. They look better cropped like these are, (of course, Ed could have cropped the pictures while printing), but usually you try to compose the picture in the viewfinder to make the subject fill it as much as possible. Maybe Ed was just fooling around that day...we'll never know, still it would be "painful" for me to take a picture like that, [:@], but I'm glad somebody did it, and the pictures were preserved. I just wish SOMEBODY would have taken a "classic" side-view.....just one.

Regarding the format, the original pictures were square. I know they were not 35mm. Assuming you are right, a big medium format camera could have been used, but these look like ordinary snapshots to me.

Regardless, I'm thankful for them. They were so small, and all loose; they could have easily been discarded. It's funny, Chuck sent them in this BIG envelope, I was all excited about large pictures of the Simla. I opened the envelope, and there they were...way down there in the bottom of the envelope, with a foot of unused envelope above them.

Duane

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Ray;

I was thinking the same thing. When I went through the props, I wondered why there were so many 12" props. I wasn't even thinking about the Simla at the time.

About the radio. I have the only Orbit proportional he saved. What we call Mode 1 over here has aileron and throttle on the right stick and elevator and rudder on the left stick. That is the configuration Ed chose, which I understand was what many ex-reed pilots did. In the picture of Ed and the Simla, the throttle is about at half-throttle, but it looks to me like the right stik is little "lower" than the left.

Duane

pimmnz

Actually, if you look at the very early Orbit propo ads, all the very early propo transmitters were Mode 1. I believe the reason was so that the main controls were in the same relative position as a reed transmitter. The later aberration of Mode 2 was in response to newcomers, who had never been through the reed period, wanting something they perceived as 'more like the real thing' as RFJ points out. As for the design changes reed vs propo, well, it seems that with the slow response and broad neutral of the early servos it was considered that the model had to 'resist' control input, but with the smooth servo response vs the reed servo, you could use shorter moments, which in theory gave you better/quicker responses, but without the reed jerkiness. All necessary with gear then available. Didn't take long for the theories to change, as the gear improved, and the flyers became more experienced with the radios. You can see the development changes even with the T2, started off shorter with more dihedral, then ended up longer and with the symmetric wing.
Evan.

AndyKunz

It looks to me like what Ed gave us in that photo was a very good top view of the wing, centered about mid span on the right wing. (Judging from the shadows of the fuse and the boys shoe.)

Also, you can see a clean outline of the fin on the right stab, thanks to the position of the sun.

While that may not be especially helpful for a total plan, it should help to make sure that measurements on a HALF side are as good as possible. Somebody could make a convincingly realistic Simla given time and all the photos.

How useful is the cylinder head diameter for comparison to other known dimensions?

Andy

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Andy;

Thanks for your ideas. It's a little like being a "CSI" detective. I hadn't noticed the outline of the fin. There are not many "givens", but there are probably enough to get a good approximation. The cylinder head part of the engine sticking up, (which can be determined), the width of the aileron is the best "given" at 1-3/4" from the World Engine ad, and from that same ad, the stab width given as "about 34inches". You might be able to compare the spinner width to the aileron to see if it is 3".

Someone has suggested the dimensions of the transmitter in the earlier post, (again part of the ad), but that may not be as accurate. There would definitely be some educated guesses involved.

UStik

But then the 12" props are too small even for the ST 60! Now that I have one of those 12/6 Power Props and the performance diagram of the ST 56 Ray posted, I estimated the static thrust as 5.6 lb @ 9800 rpm. A 4" pitch would need 13" or even 14" diameter. A modern 1.20 four-stroke would be a stump puller with such a low-pitch prop and dictate the flight characteristics, regardless of the airplane that is hanging on it.

Did you look at #1265 again? The top view is un-distorted and if the stab span is assumed to be 34" the wing span is exactly 102" (8.5 ft). Root chord could be 15.5", tip chord 9.25", wing saddle rear to elevator hinge line 34". I'm still all but sure, but if this size is true the wing loading is only slightly bigger than that of Taurus 1 and smaller than that of T2. Anyway, Simla has a longer tail moment arm relative to the wing chord and a slender wing.

Ed had the Veco 45 on his T1 reduced to about 80% power. The same 12/6" prop gives 4.14 lb static thrust @ 8400 rpm, 80% is only 3.3 lb. That was enough for 5.5 lb overall weight. Comparing the two engines with the same prop, Simla was 0.5 to 1.0 lb "too heavy". The Veco 61 should have done it, though.