Gents,

Time to relax and because I do like making pictures.

"PLAYING WITH MY ONE EYE!"

Cees

WOW, that side view really shows the drastic difference between the sweep of the fin between the two models! It looks like they are even more different than in the "new crate" picture you created when I first mentioned that. Are you going to revise the plane to be more like the original, or leave it?

Andy

Cees...you didn't respond when I asked earler, but did the extreme rake of the fin come from the crate photo? How was it measured?

Duane

Gents,

A picture with the cygnet-modification (picture animation) to prevent the horizontal stabilizer with fin and rudder, starts his own business.

See post 1200 page 48, Ed Kazmirski’sTaurus.

Hope you don't mind I did copy your post cygnet!?

For more information see page 11 post 267 and 269 of this thread.

CEES

know problem Cees the mod will work or you have to be careful

Simple is that, amen!

Gents,

Some information about the Contest Taurus and the Top Flite Taurus.

Picture 1 Wester Contest Taurus, copy of the Oldest Taurus on Earth, now with a one inch longer tail cone by photoshopping.
First modification after Ed did came back from Africa, I did tell it before.
Of course still with the adjustable side thrust with the engine mounting plate and adjusted for about two degrees for a better inverted flight.
See The Champ Chats, picture 2

Picture 3 the Standard Top Flite Taurus with fixed side thrust, nearly 4 degrees. See the pictures of VRCS!
The plane for the man in the street!
See the commercial desciption in the MAN Magazine, January 1963, picture 4.

Ed did tell us he did fly his “Taurus” with 50 % of a normal side thrust but, if that was this Top Flite Taurus, the VRCS Taurus see picture 5, the plane would normally have 7 a 8 degrees, the thick blue line?
Where can I see that in the drawings?

We have to think this over but here is something interesting going on!

”Taurus”, not one plane but two!

Pictures so you learn to recognize a Contest Taurus (picture 1) when you are a judge in the future!

Cees

Again very interesting, Cees, but also rather confusing. I read just these snippets from the articles only a few days ago because I needed to set up / adjust the virtual Taurus models. It turned out that the RCM&E plan specifies engine right/down thrust as 4.5/2.5, whereas the MAN plan specifies 2.25/2.5 degrees (there are no figures in the articles, only in the plans). So what Ed says could be consistent, just as well as his statement that his model has a 1" longer tail cone. The really annoying thing is that the MAN plan shows a 1" longer tail cone than the RCM&E plan, while Ed's real contest model at the time is even another 1" longer. So the VRCS Taurus is not standard Top Flite in tail cone length, but all else is standard. Can you explain that?

No sorry UStik, not to you, not when you are believing in building an Taurus by using sketches on crude brown paper. I have a limitation in my phantasy.
For me it is no question, "Top Flite Preproduction Taurus", read my posts on page 5,6 Ed Kazmirski's Taurus.

BTW: Do not react with, I forget the audio tapes! Nonsense!

Cees

Gents, to read after post 432


I did calculate ther VRCS Taurus side thrust and it is between 3,5 and 4 degrees.

Can somebody measure that on the plane?

When we read "the Champ Chats" Ed tells us, The "Taurus" I am flying!!!!
Ed did tell us the sidethrust of his plane was reduced to about half of what is shown on the plans and this more or less has to be arranged to taste.
Of course you cannot do this with the VRCS Taurus and I already did reduce the adjustment range of the engine mounting plate to 0 - 2 degrees.
In this case Ed did speak about his own original Contest Taurus, the Oldest Taurus on Earth with adjustable side thrust.

I did make a picture: left VRCS Top Flite Taurus with fixed 3,5 a 4 degrees sidethrust, right my own old Top Flite Taurus with also fixed 1,5 degrees sidethrust.

Cees

(Yes, yes, the "Taurus" I am flying!!!!)

Cees,

Can you explain that please? I'm a little confused.

Do you mean that you do not believe people can build from "sketches on crude brown paper?" Or that somebody building a Taurus that way is not building a "real" Taurus?

Thanks!

Andy

Andy,

Read post 468, page 19 of the thread Ed Kazmirkis's Taurus.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_76...19/key_/tm.htm

Let me know when you are finished with that and understand.
After that I will answer your question

Cees.

I know, that's a big problem, as well as your manners. You always feel offended and fantasize questions that are not asked. Thanks anyway, and a good maiden flight for your Easter Taurus!

Just to give you a hint: Your assumption of 7 to 8 degrees side thrust is fantasy, of course not found in any plan or on the real plane. Your own picture in #432 shows the engine mount built for about 4.5 deg as specified in the RCM&E plan, while the imprints of the engine flanges show about half as much, about 2.25 deg as specified in the MAN plan. Ed himself told that he made use of the play between mounting holes and smaller bolts to adjust side thrust. If you don't go into that you raise questions.

I fail to see any connection between my questions and that post. Is there a riddle here? What am I missing? I understand what was said in that post. It's very clear.

OK, I'm ready for you to answer directly, without referring to another thread or writing a riddle or some obtuse ruse. The question is Do you mean that you do not believe people can build from "sketches on crude brown paper?" Or that somebody building a Taurus that way is not building a "real" Taurus?

The possible options are:

a) YES. YES.
b) YES. NO.
c) NO. YES.
d) NO. NO.

After selecting option (a) thru (d), a sentence or two of explanation/clarification is suitable.

It's really not as hard to answer as you're making it. You could have saved both of us a lot of time searching thru the threads by simply answering the question directly. It would have saved frustration and typing on both sides of the Atlantic, too.

Andy

PS - Did you decide if you're going to make the fin on the new plane more Taurus-like or are you going to leave it with the extra rake? I didn't find an answer earlier. Thanks!

UStik,

For my reaction I go back to the thread : Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus.

I recognize any Taurus so when I did see your pictures of your posts 1120 page 45 and post 1142 on page 46 of the thread of Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus I did see immediately you are manipulating the pictures.
Of course the reason I know and you know!

I speak about the picture with the both front sides of the fuselages above each other and the black surface in top side.

Result of that manipulation is, it looks like the height of the fuselage of the Taurus of Duane Wilson is 6 inch in front of the canopy , near the LE of the wing. (bottom position fuselage on the picture)

The last time we see the same picture again was 3/31/2009, but now without the dimensions in post 1155 page 47 and the text:



Because I did reconstruct my Oldest Taurus on Earth within a accuracy of mm’s, 2 % for the value we are talking about now, I know the height of the fuselage on that position and that isn’t 6 inch.

Of course you know that also but, did you know the height is mentioned in one of the posts of Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus thread?

The result of your picture deformation is 17 % on the location of that value, too much to give it a qualification of a fault, but enough to say: “For me you are out of the game!”

I did archive the posts and pictures for the future. I do not copy these pictures in this post!

Cees

Andy I prepare an answer for you, takes a day, a part of your answer is this post!

Oh well Cees, I know the reason why but you don't. Obviously you want to distract from your crazy engine right thrust assumptions. My pictures were posted even last year in August. Suddenly, you pull a rabbit out of a hat, the 2% accuracy I was asking for earlier. The 17% error you believe to see in my measurements mean exactly 1". Don't you think in this case the nose wheels would be that different as well? That's just plain "nonsense".

Spare you the one day labour for your answer to unasked questions, it's useless anyway. This is not a game and you don't make the rules. If it were, you were out. You're beneath yourself.

Just for the record, here's the picture with modified vertical dimensions. Sorry, I didn't think you'd take it that picky, my picture measurement isn't just that precise and I think it doesn't matter. Yes, there was a dimension specified in the other thread but I couldn't find it. Would have been nice if you had just repeated it here.

Cees, are you ignoring my questions? Do you really think people don't build models, especially prototypes, from sketches?

I spent this morning going through my collection (several large boxes of rolled plans) as I am having them scanned for posterity. In the process I found quite a few of my old designs and some from a friend which are little more than "napkin" sketches. One is even on brown paper, and was used as the basis for a published plan in Flying Models. I found another which, though on vellum, may not scan well because the pencil does not provide good contrast, yet there's a successfully-flown model built from those plans hanging in my garage.

I think that you do not give builders credit.

And I hope you fix the tail on your World's-Almost-Taurus so it looks more like a real Taurus.

Andy

Andy,

When you do not want to read the facts, I understand you are not interested in my answer.
This is a thread about building my Wester Taurus, and not if some one is able to build a plane by using sketches on brown paper.
And Andy, normally of course we can, also D. Hunt, but it is about that only one picture with that only one plane in that only one moment in Rhodesia!!

For the future,

Because there are some restrictions with the acceptance of my Oldest Taurus on Earth the name is still “Wester Taurus” as I did tell in my first post.
Because the plane is very important to make the pictures, it will not fly it in the future. I am thinking to make the Les Fruh Taurus first!

To make a second crate picture my Top Flite Taurus is in the workshop now.

Time for Overhauling

The plane is 5 years old now. Older than the Oldest Taurus on Earth, the first Contest Taurus from Ed, in Genk Belgium 1963.
Picture 1 when I did show the plane the first time on RCU, 13 April 2004.

The painting scheme will be changed in every little detail to be identical with the MAN magazine Taurus.
Color black, position of striping etc.
The canopy is removed to make place for a Top Flite looking canopy and pilot.
The label I also will make like the original.

So here we go for the second crate picture.

Cees

Cees,

I _DID_ read the posting you suggested, and was totally unable to make a connection from that thread to my questions. That is why I asked for a straightforward yes/no reply.

Thank you for it.

Andy

Andy,
I explain the message by a story that we can better understand the "Brown paper", but first the whole massage because I was the first one on the “to” list:




Let us think! Role Play.

Andy, you are for a while a member of a society that loves paintings and you do like to be “well known”!
On one moment, there is auctioned a painting on Paintbay that maybe is made by “Rembrandt” our Dutch famous painter.

You of course are Rembrandt minded and do advise your society:”Buy that painting because it is a “Rembrandt Night Watch” painting! ”

Later on the RCPaintiverse you become important member in a thread about that painting; “Rembrandt’s Night Watch”

After some posts you do think:

”It would be great when I can prove that the “Rembrandt Night Watch” is really made by himself Rembrandt and not a pupil as sometimes is discovered with old paintings!”
“It would also be great when I can prove it, is also the first “Night Watch” Rembrandt ever painted.. Then I too will be very famous!”

How can I arrange that?

On one moment (I hope you folks are sitting down) you see a picture in a earier post of that painting on RCPaintiverse, the “Rembrandt Night Watch” in a very, very first moment during an exhibition in Rhodesia.
On that picture you also see a “well known person” WKP exposing with that painting.
Because you did tell us always you know every important person of the Painting Scene you have this person after some time “Off the telephone ” and?

“That is not the painting Rembrandt did make! That is a painting I did make myself, I worked directly WITH Rembrandt when he was painting the Night Watch!!!!! ”, does tell your WKP
“So that they have an exact duplicate there waiting in Rhodesia for the situation Rembrandt could not finish his own Night Watch in time.”
(Because it cost too much money to send the Night Watch to Rhodesia , reason did change)


End of the story.




At least you can try to sell these nonsense on RCPaintiverse
When people believe your “fairy tale”, then it is proved the painting that is owned by your society is made by Rembrandt, and not by a pupil of him!
When people believe the “Fairy tale” the painting is also as old as the exhibition in Rhodesia(but not As old as the way to Rome) and maybe that is the first traceable moment in the future!
And that Night Watch WKP did make? Sorry there is only one picture of it and that Night Watch is gone!!!!!!!!!
(BTW I do NOT say that the WKP did not make a painting, but he was not able to make a Night Watch.)

So, read the story again but now with the other persons:

You are Duane Wilson
The society that loves paitings is VR/CS
Rembrandt is Ed Kazmirski
Pupil of Rembrandt is Top Flite Chicago
WKP (Well Known Person) is D. Hunt
The Night Watch is the Top Flite Taurus of VRCS
Rembrandt's Night Watch (thread) is Ed kazmirski's Taurus (thread)


My opinion?
Read the post ten times and you see nothing fits,

The whole story is nonsense but did destroy the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus thread, because this EYE WITHNESS account is used many times.
The post is a combination of two stories that not fit together, and even in this period they are manipulating pictures of planes. In the second part (older) the crate picture was known it was made in Genk Belgium 1963.
When you want to defend the story you have to eliminate any Taurus trace in 1961 so the Detroit Invitationals and the Lufthansa awarded Throphy Concours(e) d’Elegance and they did!
When someone wants to let other people believe this story he never understands what Ed Kazmirski did realize for us in the past and did try to learn us.

With the painting story maybe you, but I hope also other people, understand there was only one possibility to save the real history, make the plane on the crate picture again and after that the picture of the crate with using a Top Flite Taurus.
And(Y) let me tell you, it did cost a lot of time to "Scratch build" that plane!

Oh BTW, I never did read magazines before I started these Taurus activities so I have a clear vision.

After my explanation is officially believed by VRCS, the name “Wester Taurus” will disappear, and the Ed Kazmirski first Contest Taurus can be the name.
Until that moment the ”Wester Taurus” will not fly, so maybe never.



Cees

Andy,

About that fin and rudder, I do read your question!

When we look at the planes of the champions of 1962, Tom Brett ”Perigee” (L) and Harry Brooks, “Reb”(R) , than from both is told they have influences of the Orion of Ed Kazmirski! See picture 1.
Tom did try to let the Perigee “not, to look like” the Orion.
But what about that “sweptback banked fin and rudder”?
It does not look like the Orion fin and rudder! No, but what about the Taurus, Oldest Taurus on Earth?

1961
It could be the situation, Ed did research to step over from tail dragger to tricycle,
I did say in the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus thread, you could not step over from (old)tail dragger to tricycle plane, but have to redesign a new fuselage with other angles of wing and stab and tail cone!
The result of this first step could for this reason be a “FLOP”, and that costs Ed a lot of points the first part of 1961.


Perigee

If someone can show me a picture of the Nimbus of Tom Brett and can tell the design period of the Perigee, maybe we can conclude the swept back fin and rudder of the Perigee is a first Taurus “look like” situation!
We know Tom and Ed did fly on same airfields sometimes (Detroit Invitationals!)

BTW, the TE of the rudder is a detail we never know of the fuselage of the Taurus in the crate, Ed’s first contest Taurus, because it is not visible on the crate picture.
I will make a photo animation of an possible rudder TE if Tom Brett could have seen the Taurus in the past before he did design the Perigee.
When this story fits? Hmmmmmm!
Maybe in that situation Harry Brooks have had met Ed Kazmirski during the Internats of 1962 in Great Britain, who knows?.


So changing fin and Rudder Andy?
No this is Classic Pattern Flying and we do not change fins and rudders of the originals, only try to duplicate as best as we can!

So they look like and that is what wé want!

Cees

Nimbus, 3rd place Philidelphia Nats, 1961. Plan published June 1962, American Modeler. Perigee/Apogee first flown March 1962, published Jan/Feb 1963 American Modeler. Both pre-date first flight of Contest Taurus, November 1962. Scan of Nimbus plan to follow. Ed not at 1962 Kenley W/Champs. Reb published March/April 1963 American Modeler. All three models were Orion inspired.
Evan.

I only commented because the two photos you showed, 1 of the original crate photo, the other where you attempted to portray a similar view, appeared to have a very different angle even when viewed from a similar point of view. I pointed this out to you, and as I recall you agreed (I'm not digging thru the past 10 pages to find the posts).

When you later showed the two more fuse pictures side-by-side, this discrepancy was confirmed, and appeared even worse at this point of view than it did from the original photo pair.

We also have a photo of which was captions as a "Taurus" somewhere which showed a non-swept tail (actually, it looked almost like something off a Kaos with rounded corners). So we know that there was at least one very early Taurus with no angle on the rudder.

I guess I'm confused, because there are at least 2 different angles on the Taurus - the early one with the about-90-degree hinge line, and the kit and plans ones with the angle, and then yours with even more angle.

Andy

I was not going to post in this thread again, but I have no real choice other than to defend myself against the serious , yet ridiculous charges made against me and my honesty by Cees Wester. What do you say about a person who accuses someone of lying, veiled in a story about "paintings"? He thinks he can get away with this because he carefully avoids using the word "liar", or "lied". Cees, your English is far better than my Dutch, but you do not have a good enough command of the language to write in metaphors. Something like this should be beneath you ....to sink to these kinds of charges for the whole world to see. I might question Cee's theory, but not his honesty. Did it ever occur to you Cees, for even a moment that I might be telling the truth, and that maybe you should adjust your theory to fit the facts?

Now it's time to cut through the BS, and respond in clear English. Nobody accuses me of lying without me responding.

First, this is a thread about model planes; in fact a plane that we both love. Your life is so wrapped up and twisted in your little version of the Taurus history, that if anyone doubts anything you say, you take it as a personal plot against you . Personally I have more important things going on in my world than this post...and as I said earlier when this came up, my integrity means something to me. Why would I lie about anything in a model airplane post for goodness sake...all I ever wanted to determine was the truth about what really happened back then, whatever that might turn out to be. You can't make unsupported claims of "prototype kit models" and explain away ideas of others without giving reasons backed by facts. Even though you have deveived yourself, I don't want you deceiving people like Andy Kunz; he deserves a clear answer in clear English.

On page 19 post 468 of the Ed Kazmirski Taurus thread I reported that Dennis Hunt, (organizer of the Africa trip in 1962, and currently involved in the SPA) told me he built a Taurus described to be as close as possible to Ed's. There were no plans or drawings available in late 1961. Dennis told me Ed corresponded with him during the late fall of the year by means of tapes and letters, and that sketches "on brown paper" were included, so Dennis could build his own Taurus. ( BTW-The Kaz in Africa article also says Ed corresponded this way). Dennis said he was posing with his own Taurus in the picture in the article. He later told me he was building the plane in case there was no corporate sponsorship, and Ed was unable to ship his own planes down to Africa . Remember the trip was scheduled for early 1962.....think of the cost of staging such a trip. He wasn't sure of sponsorship etc to cover the costs. Dennis eventually DID get sponsorship, therefore the crate was built, and the planes shipped.

Cees began to pick my post apart starting in his post #470 on the same page. At first he was relatively reserved, only saying that he had posted an earlier thread saying a pre-production kit was built. What evidence Cees has for this is never given; we were simply supposed to accept what he said no questions asked. So here we have two planes in the crate, and Dennis said he built one as well. I only reported what Dennis told me in the two phone conversations we had...nothing more. If Dennis had said something else, I would have reported that. I have reported facts that contradict my ideas several times as they became known, and I've changed my way of thinking as the facts became more clear. Just look at page 50, and the top of p 51 in the other thread and you will see this demonstrated.

OK then, Cees is saying one of three things. I has to be one of these:

1) I DON'T know Dennis Hunt at all, and that I am using his name without his knowledge, making the "story" up, ( translated lying) and saying Dennis is responsible for it.

2) I DO know Dennis Hunt, and that I either never spoke with him and made this all up, (translated lying), again using his name without his knowledge, or that I didn't understand what he said, and misreported it. There were two phone calls, and I misunderstood him both times.

If either of the above cases is true, then I REALLY AM a despicable character, by lying in another person's name. I am also pretty stupid, since all someone has to do is contact Dennis Hunt to verify my story.

3) Dennis Hunt is lying about the incident in order to make himself look more important.

Well, as for the last point, I've known Dennis for 4 years now, and I believe what he says. If he is spreading falsehoods that I'm passing on then I'm not aware of it, but I will believe Dennis over Cee's ideas any day of the week.

As I said before, I feel sorry for you Cees that you really think I would stoop to lying, or making up fantasies. You are basically an intelligent guy, but sometimes intelligent people fall into the trap of becoming condescending and superior to everyone else. You are smart, but you lack common sense. You have too much invested in this "Wester Taurus" of yours to be objective. You have become full of hate and bitter towards me because I had the nerve to report what Dennis told me, and I stick by what he said. You have no choice but to try to discredit me...in reality you are really deceiving yourself.

You have built a great-looking model, and I wish you the best with it, but don't you DARE accuse me of lying to cover up the flaws in your theory. We should be friends with different opinions but you are certainly making it hard to like and get along with you . Let people decide by looking at the evidence, and making up their own minds, not by demonizing me.

I tell you what Cees, I will prove I know Dennis Hunt, and will give you and everyone else his business e-mail address, and phone number so anyone may contact him. I doubt he will ever personally respond to either RCU thread because he has no interest in the debate, but he should respond to an honest inquiry. Will Cees call that number to confirm what I said? Will he apologize to me when he learns that I am not lying? No he won't, because HE EITHER KNOWS, OR HE IS AFRAID THAT I AM RIGHT in the account I have given. It is easier for you to slander me from across the Atlantic. I feel sorry for you that you have to resort to bitterness, sarcasm, and slander.

This thread deserves to be ignored, but it probably won't be because controversy creates interest.

The "Wester Taurus" remains the "Wester Taurus"

Duane Wilson

Scans, as promised.
Evan.