Regarding the vertical tail discussion, Ben I think you have a valid point that people just changed several things, and did not really change only one thing at a time as good engineering doctrine would dictate. (measure, change one variable, measure again, etc)

That being said, a slanted rudder hinge absolutely does have a positive up elevator effect, whether in knife edge, or spin entry. The Perigee I finished this last fall shows that tendency dramatically as I fly it. Compared to standards of the late 70's to early 80's, the Perigee tail shows a definite lack of area, and should be increased by at least 50%.

Compared to today's standards, the tail should be at least 50% larger, but also the body side area increased by a significant amount, along with a rudder hinge line that is vertical or nearly so.

Different times, different rules, both dictate different designs. It is fascinating to look at the evolution.

Ben Lanterman,



I think it is better to discus your way of thinking about the Top Flite Taurus in the thread: Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus so I did copy your post in the other thread.. (Post 275 dat 1/25/2009)

The reason I did start this thread was because for many years I do fly my Taurus and Orion and by incidence I discovered last year there was an older Taurus, already in 1961.
The information about the period of before the Top Flite Taurus is enough for me to build this prototype again and that is I am doing..
Because a lot of people did give me the sign they do like this thread I did start this and it is good to continue the separation between the Top Flite Taurus and the Oldest Taurus on Earth.

There is no any reason to discuse anything about the Oldest Taurus on Earth, I did tell you before, also with the tank and the two holes in the firewall, but the same I can tell you about tailfeathers, dihedral and so on..

Everthing I do is duplicate the plane of the crate as good as possible and I can finish that job I know for sure now. I also do not use assistence because it all has more to do with mechanical engineering and scratch building.

I did copy you post and the post of WEDJ in the thread of Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus and did ask Duane to discuse about thise cases in that thread.

Cees.

Gents,

Study picture, just to give my mind a direction, not more then that, and it became too dark to make more pictures.

Reconstructing the dihedral of the wings I can better finish with the “crate”, it gives a better reference so a more accurate end result.

After some photo shopping tonight I decided to make an open structure of that “Crate of Africa”.
In this structure the position of the fuselages, wings are reproducible. Also the camera I can give a defined location.
Some adjustable supports I need also to give the parts “in” the crate a fixed position to make pictures.
So shop is closed for a while to make this crate. After that I will finish the dihedral and then silk and dope covering of the wings.

BTW, the dihedral is 7 degrees now and can be more!
Did somebody talk about the “Dutch Roll”?(see: RC airplanes/aerodynamics)

I do read in the article “Mr. K goes to Africa” that Ed did use the “light Taurus” to fly in Africa also, so it wasn’t a back-up and maybe he did use the plane because of the high altitude of 5000 Ft (4921 Ft, 1,0581 kg/m3) on some places in Rhodesia.
Normally we have in the Netherlands 1,293 kg/m3.

More to come.

Cees

Gents,

Because I do find a dihedral of about 7 degrees, I did take a look in the drawings of the Orion.

3 1/8 inch under each wingtips, is 80 mm. see picture 1.

When I compare this with the dihedral of the Wester Taurus this will be nearly the same as the Orion.
Of course we could expect this from Ed. This was a value to start without risks.

The later Top Flite Taurus dihedral is 2 ¼ “, this is 56 mm under the wingtips.

Next [picture, picture 2 , the label/header of the drawing of December 1961, shown in the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus thread post 713 page 29.see picture 2
I have a question, can somebody look on this drawing and tell me what is the dihedral?
Of course it is possible that the dihedral already is reduced on this drawing, but I think it is interesting to know also for my time schedule and the second wing in the crate.

To show you how this looks like, 7 degrees dihedral, I did make a picture on a sunny moment(in the shadow) yesterday.

Picture 4, Hanna of course interested, see loves birds .

Cees

Gents,

Because there are several other messages posted in te other threads after my question I send a second request,
Who has or can see the drawing we already did see in the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus on page 29 post 713..

This drawing has two sheets and is made of the prototype of the contest Taurus of Ed Kazmirski after the first flight on Thanksgiving day and is drawn by Frank Myers, date 16 December 1961,
I am interested in the dihedral that is noted on this picture.
In the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus thread only the footer is shown, see the picture.

Of course it is possible that the dihedral already is reduced on this drawing and is not the +/- 3 1/8“ under each wingtip I find now, but I think it is very interesting to know also for my time schedule and the measurement of the second wing in the crate.

BTW I did make an extra study this weekend of the movie of Belgium, Gent 1963, to try to calculate also the dihedral of the African Taurus used by Cliff Culverwell.

Cees

[quoteto try to calculate also the dihedral of the African Taurus used by Cliff Culverwell.
][/quote]

Cees,

Don't know if it will help, but this is Cliff Culverwell's Taurus at Genk.

Ray

Ray,

Nice picture of the Taurus of Jim Connacher of South Africa.
You see Jim on the left side with the transmitter doing a fuctionaltest.
Cliff Culverwell is looking near the Taurus.
Can I have a copy of the article in acrobat reader from you?

Cees

Let me re-phrase that... "this is Jim Connacher's Taurus at Genk"

Article scan on way.

Ray

Ray,

I did see on the picture it is the Taurus of Jim Connacher of South Africa, but I did not know the article.
Now I see in the article (Thanks!) they were not busy with checking the functions but Cliff releases the Taurus for Jim after starting the engine to make a contest flight.

BTW somebody already did see the drawings of 6 December 1961? See post 280.


Cees

Cees, try the 1962 RCM&E drawing for the dihedral, the only place the dimensions could have come from is that blueprint.
Evan.

I only can use basic design data.

Cees

Gents,

While preparing the crate for making more pictures I did receive an article of Airplane News, November 1963, title: Third Radio Control World Championships (1963), reporter Steward Uwins. See the picture

I did not see this article before and show you a most important part of the text (page 335) for this thread.

Because I could not show the acrobat reader text better than as on the picture, I do add all the additional data in the picture and also the 1 : 1 text. There is written:

The finish on most of the models was outstanding. Lufthansa awarded a trophy for concours d’elegance and this was won by master finisher himself, Ed Kasmirski with his original Taurus, now some 2 ½ years old and still shining like new.

Of course on my own computer I can read the article without problems so, to check, read the original article and see what is written down by the reporter.

Conclusion:
As I did try to explain many times before, the Taurus of Auction 2, now own by Duane Wilson (Kingaltair), really is the first Taurus Ed did ever make, started probably in March, April 1961.

What to do?

For many months I was busy for the members of the USA to try to reconstruct this most original Taurus there ever was, now we not only see I was right, it was also the later winner of the Lufthansa awarded trophy of the concourse elegance of the World Championships in 1963.

The biggest problem for me was ever, making my story believed, because whatever I brought they never did, all was turned around 180 degrees.
For the owner of the Taurus of auction 2 of e-bay (Kingaltair) all other messages were better than my messages. I was the only one!

This all started long time ago already in the thread :Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus.

More times I did ask for cooperation with the people of SPA and/or VR/CS, (Kingaltair but also pimmnz) because I did found it so important for the history of Ed Kazmirski. You’ll understand, I never received an answer. For trying to prove I was right I spend a lot of time and for long time it seems to be all for nothing,
As counter part of the process, my reward was, there were messages infiltrated in my thread to let also other people think it could not be true what I brought, see post 146 on page 6 of my thread: Redesign and Reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth and in many others posts, also in the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus.

I show an example: post 146, page 6


What I read now in the article of Airplane news, November 1963, title: Third Radio Control World Championships (1963) did make it all clear to me; I was right from the beginning, right also on every moment in the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus thread with nearly every fact.
The Taurus of auction 2 was really the, more times changed, original of around April 1961 and not only did I tell you this more times in the past, also Ed Kazmirski did tell this personally to Duane Wilson (Kingaltair)!

Because I now strongly believe the people of SPA and VR/CS already know this themselves I stop with proving and will not finish my action to make a duplicate of the picture of the crate. Even if I do an outstanding job, of course nobody will believe it in the future again, just like anything in the past and more Mac Giver stories will be the result.

Some of you maybe ask, why? What could be the reason? I tell you, ask. Ask it the people of SPA and or VC/RS, I already did get a message with an explanation.

I’ll finish the Wester Taurus, the plane of the crate, the copy of the Really Oldest Taurus on Earth.
I will use of course, without any problem, all the additional information I can put from the existing pictures of the Taurus of auction 2, from now on, to make it easy for me.
I will fly the Taurus this summer and maybe will have the same experience Ed did have on the moment he did fly the plane the first time in 1961. If there are people interested in the next part of the program let me know and I will continue! Maybe you again WEDJ?

I want let Duane Wilson (Kingaltair) know; Ed Kazmirski was a real Master Finisher Himself and not only a designer and pilot, I did tell you in the past. You’ll never will see any detail of the modifications because what I understand from you, you never did design a model yourself.

The next point is, if the plane crashes in the future, it is all over, because nobody will ever get him back on earth again, simple impossible, even Ed did know. That was the reason you find it in the crate, 48 years old. That is the reason I think this Taurus deserves a better place, in the AMA museum, because it was the only winner of the Lufthansa awarded trophy for concours d’elegance ever!


Cees, Taurus Flyer

Cees

Nothing subtle in post 287 is there

The quote that you make so much of in this post really doesn't prove anything except the plane Ed competed with at the 1963 worlds, (and he didn't compete with the Taurus-2 which had the thick wing and flew on proportional), was 2 1/2 years old, which wouldn't have surprised me. It proves that Ed was still flying his "original Taurus" in 1963...whichever Taurus that was. It doesn't prove the age of either of the planes put up for auction. Why couldn't the plane they are discussing and the one that won the award be the VR/CS Taurus? You certainly have proven this theory of yours to yourself, but I can't follow your logic, and I don't think many others have either.

Both of Ed's planes were beautifully finished, (see attachment).... not just the one I have. Yes, Ed was a "master finisher"...no doubt about that. For example, you should look at the workmanship of the "unfinished fuselage" up close...the wood fit, finish, and the perfect silk/dope work. The fillets he made for the stab...everything.

If what you are saying is true, then the plane that won the award for finish was Ed's BACK UP PLANE. There is absolute proof that the plane I have was Ed's back up in 1963...he didn't even compete with it. As I said in the quote you put in your last post, it certainly appears the top block is the original. The inside has never been cut or tampered with; therefore if my Taurus-2 is indeed the oldest Taurus, Ed would have had to remove and replace the stab, the fin, the pilot, the canopy, the ENTIRE TOP BLOCK...and then repaint the "oldest" or original Taurus, so there wouldn't be much of the "oldest Taurus" left...the fuselage sides, firewall, and some formers.

Now for what I should or should not do with my Taurus-2. If you had read what I said in the other thread, (Ed Kazmirski's Taurus, p 35 #859), THERE IS NO MARKET in the AMA museum or anywhere else for the Taurus-2. The plane as it exists now, is Ed's attempt to improve upon the standard Taurus. It has a more modern tapered wing, (originally thick), thicker sheeted stab etc. Even if I wanted the AMA museum to accept the Taurus 2, there would not be a place for it. The plane the rest of the world thinks is Ed's most famous Taurus is going to be donated to the AMA museum later this year, and they will not accept a plane that clearly looks more modern than the familiar and famous standard Taurus, a variation of it at least was the basis for the kit. The VR/CS Taurus is the one everyone wants to see. So what would you have me do with the other one...just hang it up in my basement shop and look at it?

I am in no hurry to fly the plane, and will never use it as my "regular" everyday plane. It will be displayed and possibly flown at special occasions only. Trust me, I have AT LEAST as much reverance for this particular plane as anyone else. I saw it fly "live" at a very early age, some 40+ years ago. My object is to restore it to look just like it did when Ed flew it.

Enough of these accusations. Find me a quote that says "...Ed tore his very first, original Taurus apart and totally rebuilt it with a new fin, stab, top block and wing..." and you've proven your point.

Here is what I said in post #859 of the other thread regarding the flying of the Taurus-2:

I have divided feelings about it myself as I'd like to just display and enjoy it for a while, but my partner in purchasing the plane, (who lives in Florida) would like to see it fly, (at least ocasionally), and so would I. The plane in spite of its age is very flight-worthy.

More importantly, this is not THE FAMOUS Taurus of the kit; this is Ed's attempt at improving the original, (the Taurus 2) with a straight trailing edge on the wing resulting in a tapered leading edge. As you can see from the pictures, the planes are similar but definitely different. The most famous Taurus, (which I had a part in purchasing as well as part of VR/CS), will be donated to the AMA museum in Muncie in September. We were lobbying for a floor-level display, but it looks like they want to hang it from the rafters in spite of our efforts.

The point about Ed's second Taurus, (and 3rd since I have the "unfinished" fuselage), is that there is no market for them in a "museum" environment.....they are not the planes that everyone wants to see. In spite of Cee's theory that my plane is part of the "Oldest Taurus on Earth", they are not the original as most people would understand it. The Taurus 2 is a bit of a "stepchild" compared to the original

Our intention in flying the Taurus-2 is that at least ONE of Ed's planes live on, (being fully restored to flying condition), and fly occasionally. It is my intention to fly only under good weather conditions. Most of my aircraft losses have been due to "pushing" the airplane to fly when it shouldn't, and "push the envelope". I will have to discipline myself NOT to do that with this plane. We will take the utmost care of it, and in a worst case scenario, my partner is a really skilled builder and makes excellent repairs.

************************************************** ************************************

This thread is about YOUR PLANE, not about the other thread. Unlike you, I am still open to new information, (the jury is still out as we say here), and what I believe about the Taurus history can still be changed, but it will take something more than the small quote in post #287.

I DO have a question I'd like answered. If my Taurus fuselage is part of the oldest Taurus, and you are trying to faithfully re-create it exactly as it was, why is the shape of your fuselage nose different where the wing's leading edge meets the fuse? As the pictures show, the fuselage extends down about an inch below the leading edge; it almost looks like it could use a fairing or "belly pan" so the wing will meet the fuselage smoothly. The 1963 B&W picture shows the THICK wing, and you can see about 1/2-3/4" to the fuse bottom, but the distance from the leading edge to the bottom of fuse is more noticable when the thinner "regular" airfoil wing in the recent color picture is used. Your fuselage nose extends just slightly below the wing...it looks good, but it isn't the same shape as mine...it is more rounded, and has a more traditional Taurus look? The nose of the fuselage on the Taurus2 is a little more "pointed" and sleeker than the VR/CS fuselage.

My original airfoil tapered wing LOOKS like it is higher up in the fuselage. Did Ed raise the wing saddle higher up in this fuselage? I doubt he would add additional wood on the nose bottom to give that effect; the fuse nose is still sleeker and "less high", (as your colored boxes point out), than the VR/CS fuselage.

Conclusion:
As I did try to explain many times before, the Taurus of Auction 2, now own by Duane Wilson (Kingaltair), really is the first Taurus Ed did ever make, started probably in March, April 1961

The biggest problem for me was ever, making my story believed, because whatever I brought they never did, all was turned around 180 degrees.
For the owner of the Taurus of auction 2 of e-bay (Kingaltair) all other messages were better than my messages. I was the only one!

What I read now in the article of Airplane news, November 1963, title: Third Radio Control World Championships (1963) did make it all clear to me; I was right from the beginning, right also on every moment in the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus thread with nearly every fact.
The Taurus of auction 2 was really the, more times changed, original of around April 1961 and not only did I tell you this more times in the past, also Ed Kazmirski did tell this personally to Duane Wilson (Kingaltair)!

Because I now strongly believe the people of SPA and VR/CS already know this themselves I stop with proving and will not finish my action to make a duplicate of the picture of the crate. Even if I do an outstanding job, of course nobody will believe it in the future again, just like anything in the past and more Mac Giver stories will be the result.

I’ll finish the Wester Taurus, the plane of the crate, the copy of the Really Oldest Taurus on Earth.
I will use of course, without any problem, all the additional information I can put from the existing pictures of the Taurus of auction 2, from now on, to make it easy for me.

I want let Duane Wilson (Kingaltair) know; Ed Kazmirski was a real Master Finisher Himself and not only a designer and pilot, I did tell you in the past. You’ll never will see any detail of the modifications because what I understand from you, you never did design a model yourself.

Cees, Taurus Flyer

************************************************** *****************************************

There is nothing personal in my comments here, but with the less than complementary comments made about me above I feel I need to reply in some way. Just because I don't accept (along with others) everything Cees states as absolute fact doesn't mean we don't agree in many areas, or that I disagree with everything he says. There is room for a difference of opinion in areas where there isn't absolute proof.

MacGiver stories?? I believe at least one of the planes in the crate is the plane he first flew in November of 1961, (remember the Africa trip was in April of 1962...only a few months after the documented first flight Thanksgiving eve 1961). I believe he used that same plane, (although there are some wing changes discussed in the other thread), to compete in the 1962 Nats. I believe the Taurus 2 was built a few months later, and flew with the thick wing before the summer of 1963. This was the Taurus Ed flew exclusively after the '62 Nats, and was later the back-up plane for the worlds. At first he briefly flew it with the thick "Carrier" wing, (you can also tell this because the thick wing's paint and FAI sticker is in much better condition than the stripe painted traditional airfoil taper wing, (that doesn't have a sticker because it wasn't there at the worlds). This is the wing that fits the fuselage now, (in the color picture above), and is seen in most of the pictures of the Taurus 2 from 1964 on).

About the comment of using pictures of the auction of the Taurus 2, if Cees is using it as a model to pattern his plane on, I'd be happy to take additional pictures of the plane from any angle if it would be helpful to Cees. Just let me know.

About Ed being a "master finisher" I have no doubt as I said above. Cees implies that since he is such a master finisher, there would be no trace of modifications made to the original "oldest" fuselage. However, in truth, there is ample evidence where modifications have been made to the fuse as described in post 868 of the Ed Kazmirski's Taurus thread:

....My object was to try to restore it to the condition you see in the attached photo...at the time Ed was actually flying it. The effort was helped by the fact the airplane was in remarkably good condition for a plane of its age, (46 years). There was no evidence of crash damage, but some evidence of the plane being modified, (ie from the thick "Carrier Wing" to the traditional wing, and a minor change on the leading edge of the wing)....

Ed did NOT believe in making pristine mods to the plane. Where the wing saddle had been changed from thick to a standard airfoil, you can easily see every individual strip of balsa Ed used to build up the wing saddle. There have been changes/repair(?) to the wing where you can easily see the outlines of the changes. Ed did not believe in filler to make perfect repairs...he took no pains to cover up the changes he made. That's why I believe the fuse top is the original, along with the rest of the plane.

I find it interesting that Cees is quoting Ed from a personal phone conversation I had with him a few months before he passed away. Ed never told me the Taurus 2 was his original Taurus. Believe me, if I knew then what I know now, I would have asked more Taurus questions. Most of our talk was about the Simla. All Ed said to me was that he built three Taurus models, (if I understood him correctly). When he says "Taurus" I'm not sure if that included the Simla, (referring to it as a "larger Taurus"). My best guess is that he meant THREE TAURUS(S).

I will not contradict anything Cees says from now on unless he continues to bring my name up in his thread, and distorts the meaning of what I said.

Cees, again, I have no personal problem with you, and respect your intellect. We both love theTaurus. I will help you by taking measurements or pictures...just let me know.

Duane

Duane: Post 288

I have not to prove a point and I will explain.

I know Ed did not design and build his planes the way the “Blue Angel” is of which the fourth was the success plane I thought.

Ed Kazmirski did build the first type, has a development program for about 5 months before he could use the ship and did keep updating this later many times so he could use it on the highest levels of contest. Read what Ed did write about the development program of the Orion! See, the picture.

Ed Kazmirski himself did tell you, there were only three Taurusses and one of them was the Simla. Rest two, the two we see on the picture in the crate of Africa and later in the auctions.

See thread: Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus, Page 3, post 70,

This is the reason you have the only real contest fuselage there was! This is also the fact I believe because this fits in any schedule and message.

BTW, I did tell in the thread Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus, page 4 and 5, the fuselage of the Taurus of Auction 2 is “As old as the way to Rome” when I saw the pictures the first time!
The article in Model Aircraft, November 1963, is also correct, and fits also in my time schedule, I did say “Old as the Way to Rome” and they say 2 ½ year so:
Start design and building the First Contest Taurus was about March 1961 so the age is 2 ½ years in August 1963 during the World Championships.
As we read in a lot of articles this is the only original first contest Taurus and personal ship of Ed Kazmirski and I have more signs of that!

The fuselage of the MAN Taurus (which Ed call the Original because this is the common known), has all the characteristics of TOP Flite Taurus and was much younger. Less than 1 ½ years old in Belgium. Ed did use the MAN fuse with the old contest wings we see in the crate of Africa I did show you.

The “brown paper and audiotape stories” I call Mac Giver stories until these are proved. This only could be true when Dennis also did have a (preproduction)Top Flite kit, so ask him!!!!


About the wingsadle post 289:

Because Ed did change the fuselage of his contest Taurus many times you cannot compare the wingsadle of my Wester Taurus (copy of the Oldest Taurus on Earth, Contest, date 1961), with the end result of 1964. I did show you this also already in the post 835 page 34 of the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus.

This Is my explanation and the only way the facts fit. Not only the facts in this message, all the facts, more I did show in both threads.

Cees

Oh dear, Cees. The August 1962 article in RCM&E describing his Nats winning, modified, soon to be kitted Taurus was, and I quote from the introduction to the article, 'transcribed from a tape by Ed.' The tape was left with a copy of the original plan with the publishers by Ed as he passed through London on his way home from Rhodesia. The 'brown paper' story is from Dennis Hunt himself, and you can check the veracity of the statement by asking Dennis yourself, I'm sure he will talk to you and one of the other guys, Duane? will be able to give you his contact details, he's still producing kits of SPA models under the 'Zimpro' name. These are not 'McGyver' stories, this is published fact. Perhaps you are too concerned with trying to prove your own theory to accept inconvenient truth.
Evan, WB #12.

Evan



Evan,

Ed travelled back from Rhodesia via London to Boston Chicago on 8 / 9 May 1962, BEFORE the Nationals of 1962 in the USA were held!

The first Nats with a Taurus being a winner (M. Hester) were held on 2 and 3 June 1962, the last, with a Taurus being a winner (R. Van Beek), were held on 15 – 16 September 1962.
How could Ed Kazmirski handover a tape already in May 1962, about an article being the champion in 1962 after the last nationals in September?

There even could not be an article in august, as you wrote!

I think the article you are talking about is “The Champ Chats”, I show the first page in the picture. October 1962 after the 1962 Nats were finished.

I did ask it many times before, why are you doing this, why not making a time schedule for yourself, why do you not read these article first? I know you are an newsletter editor for our hobby in New Zealand (M.A.N.Z.) so prepare a post before writing in my thread cannot be a problem for you?
Cees

Cees

I read the Africa article last night in which he describes the organization of the Africa tour. He says in that article that there was "...an exchange of numerous letters and tapes..." sent back and forth prior to his Africa trip. The timing he says began in November 1961...before any plans had been drawn or published. The plans were dated 12-6-1961, but no doubt were not available to anyone for some time after that. This is consistant with what Dennis told me. The brown paper drawings, (to bring everyone up to speed), Dennis says were sent with the tapes showing Ed's specifications as his model was taking shape. That was how Dennis was able to construct his own Taurus...identical to Ed's in as many ways as possible. I have absolutely no reason to doubt what Dennis told me. It does not conflict with anything in the Africa article.

As Evan suggested, I'd be happy to provide you with Dennis's contact information in the U.S. I would think that anybody as interested in the early development of the Taurus as we are, (Evan and Ray as well as Cees), would want to talk to him personally to have questions answered or just to talk about the three week tour and the experience.

When I first got the Taurus 2 after the auction, Dennis was the first person I showed it to. After all those years, his recollection was not perfect, but he didn't recognize ANYTHING familiar when looking at the plane first hand. This would be expected even if it were the same fuselage that had been in the crate, since it has been changed so drastically as Cees says.

It is possible that Ed extensively modified one of the original Taurus(s) in the crate. Having said that however, even if that is the case, the end result....the Taurus 2 we have today is radically different from the original crate Taurus. As I said, only the firewall, fuse sides and formers would remain since everything else would have been modified or replaced including the top block, stab, fin, pilot and canopy.

One more thing to consider that should shine a light on exactly how Ed's "contest Taurus" looked. Consider that both the crate
Taurus(s), and Dennis's Taurus were constructed long before the kit was developed. Most telling to me would be Dennis's Taurus, which we have a very good close-up of, (remember, Dennis's Taurus was patterened exactly after Ed's original prototype, based solely on Ed's tapes and brown paper drawings). When you look carefully at Dennis's plane, it looks a lot more like the commonly known MAN Taurus than the thinner, sleeker Taurus 2. As a reminder, look at the differences in the fuselages; the Taurus 2 is thinner, sleeker, and more pointed.



Duane

Important announcement for anyone interested in the original Dec 1961 plans.

Anyone who wants the TAURUS plans send me an e-mail to
[email protected] and I'll forward a PDF file of the plan
that you can take to Kinko's or STAPLES or ??? and have printed
out full size - I'll wait for a few days and then send the plan
to everyone who has replied by Sunday, Feb 8

R.F.

I am taking some liberties by posting this link without his permission as it was intended for the VR/CS mailgroup, so please be very nice when contacting him, (and say your a VR/CS member) . I intend this link for Taurus history buffs who have been following this link closely, and would REALLY WANT, (and use) the plans. Remember, Sunday Feb 8th is the official deadline he gave. Don't know after that.

Duane

Duane, your original message, only did make Italic and bold some words!



You cannot ask this, bolted part of you post, to other people!!!!!!

You may try other people do believe whatever you want, I only work with logical facts and truth. There is no reason for me to use another way, it only disturbs the process !!!!



Please stop posting! Put it all in the thread : Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus!
The plans you are talking about (Italic) have not anything to do with my project either, maybe only the dihedral to compare and I will soon know!!!!


Cees

Yes Cees, sorry, I shouldn't write stuff from memory, as you quite rightly point out the tape was done after his Nats win. Which only makes it even more interesting, since even then, after the U.S Nats, he is still describing how to modify the existing plan to make a copy of his Taurus version. One wonders, given that Tauri was being prepared for kitting as well as Taurus, whether Ed had much time left over to produce the drawings or whether there was some other impediment to publishing 'his' Taurus drawings. Perhaps it is possible that even then MAN and Top Flite had come to an agreement not to publish any plans until the kit was ready and stocks manufactured. We know that the MAN plan is virtually the kit plan with added wing and fuselage sections, so maybe commercial decisions had been made as Top Flite wouldn't have wanted proper construction drawings in the market before the kit was ready, as that might compromise kit sales. Makes Dennis's recollection of brown paper plans even more likely if that was indeed the case. Anyway the RCM&E drawing shows 2.25" dihedral under each bottom spar at the tip, 4.5" total. Let's see how that matches up with the 1961 blueprint.
Evan.

pimmnz,

It is all interesting for the Ed Kazmirski's Taurus, so stop posting here.
I do not need your input anymore, thanks!

Cees

Cees,

You were a great loss to the Diplomatic Service. I know, I know ..... "stop posting here"

Ray

Ray,

I think I have to.
Synchronize and preselect the info stream. I am my own “moderator”.

I am busy with details. The sequence and history is known and will never change.

Important are “snap shots” I did tell before and I will show.

You did show us the picture with the Taurus from Jim Connacher in post 261, see picture 1.
I thought “functional test”.
But we didn’t see the whole picture from the article, see picture 2!
“Contest flight!!!!”
Because I know the movie.

BTW Ray, what could be the reason the acrobat article is divided in 3 coloms each page? And not synchronized with anything?
I cannot take out a picture, but must repair it in "paint" also dimension vertical and horizontal?

Cees