kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Like I said earlier, I didn't do the measurement yet, but now that you mention it, I just did a rough measurement of the stab and measuring out the wingspan, and the wingspan comes out to be 102".....well there goes THAT theory. How did you come up with 96" before?

Well, I guess we're back where we started...it's either one or the other. This may be harder than it looks.

Duane

RFJ

Excellent My admiration for Ed is increasing by the day. So my theory that a wrong stick configuration choice was perhaps one reason Ed didn't get along with proportional control is obviously wrong. Perhaps it was just because the rest of the fliers had by then caught up with him. Every dog has his day I guess.

Ray

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Every dog has his day...hmmmm, (I always wondered about where that came from) Yes I think you are exactly right, and in spite of everything Ed said about getting out because of his business concerns, (which I'm sure was a factor), I think there was an element of being passed by as the new generation of equipment and younger, (Ed was in his mid 40s), proportional pilots came along. Tom Brett did the same thing at about the same time.

I don't think Ed would admit his time had come and gone as being a factor, but he was highly competitive, and had enjoyed tremendous accliam as a world and National champ. Being a "former" champ may have been difficult to take. At the same time, the time demand had to have been tremendous for him to attempt to stay on top, and his latest venture into large size models had not been extremely successful; others were not following his lead toward large models. In light of the circumstances, his expanding business concerns was the obvious choice for him to make. I do think part of it however was a realization that pattern was beginning to pass him by, and it might be best to get out "while on top", and channel his talents in a new direction......which he did.

He never lost his love of R/C, and fondly kept his Taurus models safe all those years. He later appeared at many events as a non-competitor. For example, I just came across a picture of him taken in 1991 at the first VR/CS event in Pennsylvania.

I agree I think he had a sense that it was time to move on.

Duane

UStik

Simple, I used the big ad picture which has a similar perspective, but I didn't remove the perspective distortion. Besides, the left wing tip is hidden and the fuse is not parallel to the picture plane, so 6" difference is not that much. Above all, I used the 1.75" aileron chord spec, but now that seems to be wrong (it's smaller, rather 1" ). It's hard, yes, I'm still not sure and for precision we need a utility (software), or it's too tedious. It's the same as with the MAN cover picture of the T1.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

So are you pretty sure it's 102" inches? If so the wing can't be sheeted with 48" single sheets anymore...nuts. Notice that the ad says Curt Dimberg's model was 105"...that would be more in line with the 102" value.

I wish the press could get these captions right...bet they never thought we'd be "hanging on every word they said" some 45 years later.

Duane

UStik

No, still not sure, just inclined. But the 48" sheets should suffice, the wingtips are 1.75" or 2" each and subtract the fuselage width (4" ) due to the plug-in wings.

The ailerons are very slender, aren't they? Wing aspect ratio is 8.2 (T2 6.8, T1 6.6) but still 1" or a bit more should be enough. 1.25" would be 10% of mean chord.

RFJ

UStik,

Yes, I was thinking more about the 45s with the 12X4. I have a 3D type model - large, light and draggy (just like the Taurus ) - which is 40 powered and uses an APC 12.25X3.75 prop and has the sort of constant speed characteristics I was alluding to. For the ST56 something bigger of course but were such large diameter props available back then. Can't remember.

Evan,

I also vaguely remember one set that had four seperate proportional sticks, two up and downers on the LHS and two left and righters on the RHS [] I didn't change from reeds ( F&M) to proportional ( Sprengbrook) until 1970 and used the same model ( Platt Kingpin) for the transition. I well remember having to consciencely force myself to move the sticks slowly and hold the deflection rather than furiously pulse them - happy days.

Duane,

I am told it is much harder to stay at the top than to actually get there. Never having done it I wouldn't know but I think Ed did and just had enough.

Ray

pimmnz

Heck RFJ, there are still heaps of model 'pilots' that think the throttle stick is a switch...!
Evan.

AndyKunz

I think maybe a new thread for Simla is in order now.

I took the picture from the previous page and traced it quickly in my CAD package. I then rotated it so the right wing TE was vertical. This gave me a drawing 6" tall. Next, I scaled it so that 6" translates to 102" (x 17). Then I started measuring things. THESE ARE BY NO MEANS EXACT but they should help validate Ed's love of Nice Round Numbers.

Stab span 34.225" - probably should be 34.25"
Stab root chord - 8.55" - probably should be 8.5"
Elev chord - 1.635" - probably should be 1.5" (I didn't allow for a gap when I traced)

Ail chord - 1.18" - probably 1" or 1.25"
Root chord (no aile) - 14.308" - add aile + wing = 15.488" - probably 15.5, you get to choose where to split the errors
Tip chord - 9.952" - probably 9.5"

Length (rear of spinner to elev hinge line) 60.652" - probably 60 to 61"
Wing TE to Stab LE - 23.778" - wanna bet is was 23.75?
Spinner to wing LE - 12.846" - could be 12 to 13.

Spinner dia - 2.623 - If I had to guess, I would say 2.5"

Judging from those numbers, I'd be more inclined to think the plane was 102" span vs. 96".

Here's a DXF for those so-inclined...

Andy

FLPilot

My Feedback: (23)

Is it possible to save the DXF as a JPG and repost it.

DR

AndyKunz

Not with any quality. It's less useful then Duane's picture this way.

Here's the JPG link.

BTW, the original link is to a DWG (R14) not a DXF.

Andy

UStik

I second that! All the more because the Taurus discussion is still not concluded yet.


And to the true span of the Simla, that just depends in what picture you are measuring. The figures given in the ads and in the article are not consistent, and the pictures aren't as well. Could all be due to different perspective, but still we don't know.

If you take the big ad picture and the 34" stab span for granted, wing span measures as 96". The wing looks smaller (span) but the ailerons look and measure bigger, more like 1.75" (depth). In the now new picture, again the 34" stab span taken for granted, the wing span measures as 102". The wing looks bigger but the ailerons look and measure smaller. The wing tips look different as well.

So there could have been two wing sets, even with different airfoils. In this case, the ad picture should show the wing set used in competition because it has the AMA number and the bigger ailerons. The slender ailerons look just too small and the aspect ratio just too big to my mind.

pimmnz

UStik, I think you may be on to something, it does appear that there are two sets of wings. With the 'plug in wing' deal it would be easy too...I think perhaps a small, new thread just to firm up what can be known about the thing would be a good idea.
Evan.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

OH NO...Looks like with Ed and his creations nothing is simple. If what you are saying is correct, then BOTH magazine are correct, and the plot thickens somewhat. Originally I thought the ailerons width may appear less on the new picture since on the ad picture the plane is tilted slightly toward the camera bringing the ailerons a bit closer, but I don't think that's the case now. The ailerons on the ad picture definitely look wider.

BOTH pictures should be good enough, (even though there is a small difference in perspective) to take accurate measurements on wingspan.

Looking more carefully at the "new" picture, Ed's AMA number is not there on the right wing panel. I don't know if it's safe to infer anything from that, (ie the "new" picture was taken earlier on). The distance between the wingtip and the stab, (or wingtip to canopy), should be different on each wing if they are really different spans.

I believe the World Engines ad appeared in the August 1965 issue of RCM, can someone confirm that? If that is the case, there is at least a one to two month lag between when a picture is submitted, and when it is published...that means May or June when the picture was taken. If there are two wings, then they both must have been built at the same time and were interchangable.

After the measurements we should be able to tell more. Another look at the ailerons is in the "Big Stuff" article.

I know it's premature to make a judgement, HOWEVER, (we all like to speculate some), my first impression is that if there really are two wingspans, it is likely the ad photo was taken later, and the wider aileron and shorter wingspan was eventually selected.

Duane

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

One more thought. We know that type of horn has not changed its dimensions over time. The width of the horn can be compared to the width of the entire aileron to determine aileron width.

Duane

RFJ

That's correct Duane. As suggested above, would you consider starting a new thread for the Simla before we get in too deep. It's getting real hard to find anything and check for repeat postings in this one. ( 52 pages, 1290 posts )

Ray

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

I'll send you an e-mail. In the meantime, almost all of the Simla-related data is right on pages 51 and 52.

Duane

RFJ

Came across this little shot in that same issue of RCM. I think we established that Mr Dimberg was in the same club as Ed so is this a Simla variant. Seems to have lots of dihedral.

Ray

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

That's a lot more than I would like. It doesn't look much like the Curt Dimberg plane in this post, but I guess it is. Amazing just how different two views can look.

Duane

UStik

As to the photos:

I suspect Ed had a [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolleiflex]Rolleiflex[/link] (if not even a Hasselblad) and used [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film]120 film[/link] in the square 6x6 cm (56x56 mm) format. What we know are contact copies, small (just that format) but very sharp. Seems Ed had just one lens, seems normal or even wide-angle.

"Documentary" shots are not unusual for Ed, look at the carrier photos and the T2 side view photo. All similar perspective, all much surroundings. The viewer of the camera is on top and swung open to look on the focusing screen from top, therefore a low point of view.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

I know there has been some interest expressed in starting a Simla thread. As I responded to Ray in a PM, I don't know if there will be enough to talk about in a week or two to justify creating a new thread.

Right now we have about a dozen posts concerning just the Simla that probably should be re-created in a proposed new thread. I'm not sure how to do that, but if someone wants to start a new DEDICATED SIMLA thread, and copy those posts over, we can see if that idea works out...it's up to you and how much you want a new thread. New information on Ed and his Taurus is still out there, but truly NEW stuff will most likely come from new readers who have some personal knowledge, (like a fellow club member in Chicago) who built with Ed, and can weigh-in on some of the remaining questions. Discussing the Simla on this thread and thinking of it as Ed's final Taurus is a way to expand this thread, so whatever you folks want is OK with me.

For now, has anyone measured the World Engines picture for the distance from the rear of the wing to the tip of the stab, or the distance in both models from the wingtip, (probably bottom one) to the canopy?? These measurements would confirm that we really are dealing with two separate wings. Looking at UStik's post above of the two "vertical" pictures, it DOES look, (at least to me) like the "nephew" picture has a longer wing, and a narrower aileron, however when I just hold a ruler to to the pictures, (withut expanding each), the figure is the same. (I know this is about as crude a measurement as you can get).

For the fuselages, when you measure the two fuselages in this way, the one of Ed holding the plane has a shorter fuselage due to the angle Ed twists the nose of the plane away from the camera angle. There is about 1/4" difference in fuse length.

I actually thought the difference would be great enough that these rough measurements would confirm the difference, (even though the images are slightly different sizes), but I really can't learn anything that way.

People, someone with the proper software, please correct these crude measurements. Need some REAL MEASUREMENTS. [8D]

Duane

Michaelj2k

Could this design have been influenced by Simla?
http://www.rcmmagazine.com/issues/re...121968-1-1.pdf

UStik

Duane, in the ad picture you can't compare horizontal and vertical distances due to the tilt against the picture plane. In the "nephew" picture you even can. Anyway, measure the wing root chord length and the aileron width parallel to the fuse. In the ad picture, aileron is 11.5% of root chord, in the other picture it's 6.25% (at least that's what I measure). That's pretty clear.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

This is only my opinion, but I don't see much outside resemblence, (but hold on and see below). There was a 25 year span between development of the two planes, and I doubt the author even heard of the Simla. Few people ever saw the plane fly. It was never written up in the magazines, nor were plans drawn. All the known pictures of it are in this thread. The Simla was like a stone being thrown in the water....it hit, made a big splash right then, (in 1965, very briefly raised some eyebrows, interest and questions), made some ripples then disappeared.

IMO, Ed's Simla was way ahead of its time; the time was not right for a plane that size, (almost 20 inches in wingspan MORE than a modern 2-meter plane). Although Ed was a trend setter earlier, this trend didn't catch on....for about 25 years. That is where there is a similarity to me. Larger planes like the Omen finally started coming on the scene, and the small pattern plane was eventually replaced.

The Simla while had many new features like a mid-placed plug-in wing, it still retained a lot of the features characteristic of early pattern planes. It didn't have a vertical hinge line, or a lot of side area for flying the later maneuvers like Knife Edge flight. Still it was a fore-runner of things to come.

Thanks for the article reference.

Duane

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Still you managed to measure the wingspan of that plane as 96", which seems to be correct. How did you do that, and are there any other ways to measure wingspan? You can do it...I have faith in you.

Duane